Quick Question On Penalty Fare/Court Summon

[RF994]

Can anyone please help me, I need a bit of advice, and I'm really worried.
So, I live in Essex, England and work in London. On Friday, we had our Christmas party in London, and got quite a fair bit drunk, I'd agreed to meet my friend all the way on the otherside of Essex, to go clubbing as I was in the mood after drinking all day. I left the Christmas party around 5, used my Oyster to get out of London, but didn't buy a ticket to the destination in Essex.
There was train security at the stop I got off, and one ticket inspector.
I lied and said I'd got on a few stops before and nobody was there and the machine was broken, he was quick to react to this, claiming there WERE people there and I was lying, and I'd have to pay the £20 penalty fare. Being the drunk klutz that I am, I kind of argued a bit, I argued a bit, ONLY for him to notice me and say he'd caught me bunking the train once before (this was literally like 3 years ago, god knows how he remembers) He asked for my details and again being drunk gave him a fake name and address, which he quickly confirmed wasn't true. And said he was going to phone the police. I quickly snapped out of things, apologised rationally and offered to pay the £20 penalty fare. He accepted, I paid and was on my way.

Now, here's where I'm worried. I can't remember everything that was said, due to being quite drunk, but will I receive a letter in the post, summoning me to court?
On the c2c they take fare evading, exceedingly seriously, and like to 'make example' of fare evaders. I paid the penalty fare, so will that be the end of it. can they summon you to court after paying the fare? I'm really worried about getting a criminal record over something so petty. I work in London, and pay full price for my fare's every single day, it was literally a drunken mistake.

 

[Darandio]

As you have paid, that should be the end of the matter.

Does not excuse your stupidity though, and regardless of whether you pay your fare every other day, being drunk is not a defence. I'd say you dodged a bullet here.

 

[thenorthern]

Being drunk is not a valid excuse for not having a ticket, it is your responsibility to have the correct ticket.

By the looks of it you have been let off quite easily in this case with a £20 penalty although you were committing a serious offence of fraud and you could have faced court and received a criminal record.

C2C may still decide to prosecute you for this incident and if they do its a pretty much open and shut case by the sounds of it I'm afraid, You will have to wait and see if you get a letter from them.

 

[RF994]

Being drunk is not a valid excuse for not having a ticket, it is your responsibility to have the correct ticket.

By the looks of it you have been let off quite easily in this case with a £20 penalty although you were committing a serious offence of fraud and you could have faced court and received a criminal record.

C2C may still decide to prosecute you for this incident and if they do its a pretty much open and shut case by the sounds of it I'm afraid, You will have to wait and see if you get a letter from them.

I understand, I'm not trying to justify myself by saying I was drunk, I'm simply explaining the situation.

Is it worth phoning them up and apologising? I wasn't aggressive or rude towards the ticket inspector.

Also, I found it very strange that when I went to pay for my penalty fare, the inspector claimed the card wasn't working, when I tried using my debit card. But sure enough I've had NO problems with my card at all, and definitely had the funds. He told me to go to a cash point and get £20 out, whilst leaving my wallet there. I did this, and that seemed to be the end of it. None of my details were taken down, he never read me any rights, etc.

I'm actually starting to think he put the £20 in his pocket and won't do much else about it

 

[RF994]

Being drunk is not a valid excuse for not having a ticket, it is your responsibility to have the correct ticket.

By the looks of it you have been let off quite easily in this case with a £20 penalty although you were committing a serious offence of fraud and you could have faced court and received a criminal record.

C2C may still decide to prosecute you for this incident and if they do its a pretty much open and shut case by the sounds of it I'm afraid, You will have to wait and see if you get a letter from them.

Also, in relation to your comment on prosecution, I've just spoken to a friend who's part of the Met police, and they won't summon me to court, due to the penalty fare being paid.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Darandio is correct - as a penalty fare was agreed and paid in cash, then the failure to pay for the travel is settled. Technically, this has nothing to do with the Police, as they do not become involved in prosecuting fare evasion. It would be a Railway Company which pursued a prosecution against a non-paying passenger and I should warn you that you appear to have committed 3 offences in that one incident, so you really should consider yourself to be very lucky.

 

[455driver]

You were bloody lucky to get away with this, people have been taken to Court for a lot less!

Still I am sure they will have dealings with you again so maybe next time, eh!

 

[yorkie]

C2C may still decide to prosecute you for this incident ....

This is incorrect.

RF994- As the Penalty Fare has been paid, that is the end of the matter. Do you have proof of payment and a receipt?

National Express, who run c2c and used to run the East Anglia route, have an FAQ, though it is not as comprehensive as the old NXEA FAQ here.

A Penalty fare is simply a charge that [the Train Company] is allowed to make under the Penalty Fare Regulations and Rules. It is not a fine and anyone who is charged one is not being accused of avoiding, or attempting to avoid, paying his or her fare. ‘Fare dodging’ is a completely different matter

It is a criminal offence and we treat it as such by prosecuting offenders under criminal law

So, as you can see, the inspector incorrectly treated you with great leniency, as you've not been reported for fare evasion and prosecuted, which would have been correct (as it would have been a straightforward prosecution, with high probability of a fine and criminal record, if a settlement was not reached).

You cannot be prosecuted for a PF you have paid but they can cancel it if you give them reason to. They could only prosecute you if you report the inspector for this incorrect action and if they cancel, and refund, the Penalty Fare.

 

[RF994]

This is incorrect.

RF994- As the Penalty Fare has been paid, that is the end of the matter. Do you have proof of payment and a receipt?

National Express, who run c2c and used to run the East Anglia route, have an FAQ, though it is not as comprehensive as the old NXEA FAQ here.

So, as you can see, the inspector incorrectly treated you with great leniency, as you've not been reported for fare evasion and prosecuted, which would have been correct (as it would have been a straightforward prosecution, with high probability of a fine and criminal record, if a settlement was not reached).

You cannot be prosecuted for a PF you have paid but they can cancel it if you give them reason to. They could only prosecute you if you report the inspector for this incorrect action and if they cancel, and refund, the Penalty Fare.

Nope, absolutely no proof of payment, or receipt, like I said. I tried to pay by card, but the machine wasn't working, so I went to a cashpoint outside, and withdrew £20, once I paid, I just left.

I could get CCTV footage of me physically handing the money over, sure I guess. But judging by what you've said, I'm happy to leave it as it stands, and just be more cautious in the future and remember the ticket, no matter how drunk I am!

 

[yorkie]

From what you've said, it sounds like the inspector may have pocketed the cash, or if he didn't, at the very least it sounds like he was was acting incorrectly for issuing a Penalty Fare (PF) in a situation that warrants a prosecution, not allowing an acceptable payment method for the PF, and issuing a PF without a receipt...

 

[RF994]

From what you've said, it sounds like the inspector may have pocketed the cash, or if he didn't, at the very least it sounds like he was was acting incorrectly for issuing a Penalty Fare (PF) in a situation that warrants a prosecution, not allowing an acceptable payment method for the PF, and issuing a PF without a receipt...

I suppose really, it was late on a Friday night, the guy must have been in a good mood, and not wanted to fill out the forms, and follow procedure, eh?

I'm going to assume that, now the PF is paid, all is over with.

If I do hear anything from the c2c I will make sure to fight my case with how things were treated at the station, not being issued a receipt, etc.

But I'm positive it won't come to that.

 

[reb0118]

...not allowing an acceptable payment method for the PF,...

It may be the case that the passenger's card declined due to it being an online only card?

 

[RF994]

It may be the case that the passenger's card declined due to it being an online only card?

What...? it's a debit card, it can be used anywhere and everywhere with no limit to how much...

 

[thenorthern]

It may be the case that the passenger's card declined due to it being an online only card?

I would think that's the same reason as well, so many people have the same problem on the trains and don't know its that they have an online only card.

 

[Class377]

Whilst a PF deals with the ticketless travel, could a bylaws summons for being intoxicated on the railway be issued?

 

[RF994]

Whilst a PF deals with the ticketless travel, could a bylaws summons for being intoxicated on the railway be issued?

There are no drinking laws for C2C, you can drink ON the train

 

[Merseysider]

There are no drinking laws for C2C, you can drink ON the train

Whilst c2c may allow alcohol on trains, all passengers are subject to the Railway Byelaws.

No person shall enter or remain on the railway where such person is unfit to enter or remain on the railway as a result of being in a state of intoxication.

Something to bear in mind perhaps.

 

[island]

There's some contradictory and incorrect information above.

It is possible for c2c to prosecute the ticketing offence the OP committed but it would first need to cancel and refund the Penalty Fare. This is not commonly known to happen but one way of increasing the chance of it happening would be to make an unjustified song and dance about staff behaviour.

 

[bb21]

What...? it's a debit card, it can be used anywhere and everywhere with no limit to how much...

Not all debit cards have offline limits and portable ticket machines cannot obtain online authorisation. If you have an offline card you cannot pay with your card at those machines.

Whilst a PF deals with the ticketless travel, could a bylaws summons for being intoxicated on the railway be issued?

Yes, but unlikely as retrospective action.

I agree with those people who say that this is likely the end of the matter but you must drill it into your head that you are walking on very thin ice and fast running out of chances, so make sure you stay the right side of the law. You could have very easily ended up with a criminal record and worse this time but luck shined. Next time you will not be so lucky.

 

[island]

What...? it's a debit card, it can be used anywhere and everywhere with no limit to how much...

Certain debit cards cannot be used in the portable ticket machines used in the railway industry because the machines lack the capability to contact the issuing bank to authorise the transactions, and certain banks set certain cards to refuse such transactions. These cards are called "online only" cards. It is an industry term and does not relate to use over the internet.

 

[Fare-Cop]

There's some contradictory and incorrect information above. It is possible for c2c to prosecute the ticketing offence the OP committed but it would first need to cancel and refund the Penalty Fare.

Spot on, though as you say, very rarely done. However, if further investigation revealed a serious enough issue, then the PF Rules specifically allow for this.

From what you've said, it sounds like the inspector may have pocketed the cash,

I don't think there is any evidence whatsoever for suggesting this. The OP admits to being drunk, the OP may well not have taken any notice written out and there is no evidence to suggest that the Inspector didn't write one. The OP says 'Once paid I just left'

he was was acting incorrectly for issuing a Penalty Fare (PF) in a situation that warrants a prosecution

Not so, the whole purpose of inspectors being allowed to exercise discretion is to deal with situations that might otherwise be dealt with differently.

The inspector may well have considered prosecution and may well have then assessed that the traveller may have acted stupidly simply because he didn't understand the seriousness of the situation through intoxication, but that a report might well have resulted in no action being taken and therefore a PF was a sensible alternative.

not allowing an acceptable payment method for the PF.

I read that the OP had tried to pay by card, but that had failed for whatever reason and the OP was allowed to go outside, draw cash and return to pay.

If I were the inspector in this situation, given that the OP had:

i) failed to pay when they could have,
ii) had used an Oyster to gain access to the train and knowingly over-travelled,
iii) had attempted to avoid a fare by making a short offer and had compounded that by
iv) giving false details,

I would have expected to see that paid in full before the traveller left too.

and issuing a PF without a receipt...

I wonder how many people have alleged 'he kept my cash and didn't give a receipt' when being dealt with whilst they themselves were very drunk?

In the vast majority of cases that I have had experience of, questioning staff has resulted in an inspector producing both copies of the paid PF in their pad, with the note 'Passenger walked-off without taking copy' written on the top one and their shift remittance has balanced.

In the 25 years since PF's first saw the light of day on the old NSE, I have only had personal experience of two inspectors who were actually 'on the take' and neither were employed for another day after being detected.

 

[reb0118]

What...? it's a debit card, it can be used anywhere and everywhere with no limit to how much...

Wrong. Whilst any transaction in theory may be authorised by the bank subject to any cleared funds and/or overdraft limits being applied this is not automatic. However I refer to something, although linked, quite different. When I refer to an off-line transaction I mean a transaction where the merchant does not have real time connection to the banking system. Where this happens the authorisation for the transaction is stored on the card so to speak and there are strict limits as to the value of the transaction that the card will approve. In certain cases some accounts have zero availability for these types of transactions and any debit cards issued are on-line only. In most cases the card holder is unaware of this as very few merchants are off-line these days - one notable exception being the railway for hand held devices. This has nothing to do with cleared funds.

For the avoidance of doubt I do not state that you have an on-line only card just that you may. That would be one explanation for the refusal to accept your card.