Recovery and Prosecution Letter

[Tibbs]

Which was perpetuated by private TOCs and the police just abandoning the entire conecpt of revenue protection at one point. There are no easy answers, but I think private prosecutions help, so long as they are done responsibly. Alas, we haven't quite reached that particular point yet, as this thread demonstrates.

Which will never happen. Prosecutions by private companies are done for profit.

 

[Ferret]

When did I suggest taking the byelaws away?

Do you think the BTP/CPS are interested in prosecuting byelaw offences?

 

[michael769]

As long as they know someone else will do their job for them there is no incentive for them to be interested.

 

[Ferret]

As long as they know someone else will do their job for them there is no incentive for them to be interested.

In an age of austerity, they don't have the resources to be interested.

 

[Flamingo]

Reading back to the first post, the OP was on a train from a station with ticket facilities, without a ticket.

They were advised by a member of staff the TVM they were attempting to use was not working and they would need to purchase a ticket from the open ticket office, but they chose not do so.

It seems a pretty open and shut case. No ticket and declined an opportunity to buy. What's there to make seven pages of posts out of?

 

[silencio]

Read the other 7 pages.

The ticket machine was only not working after I used it. Northern Rail refused to take funds that I had authorised my bank to authorise them to take.

 

[dcsprior]

It seems a pretty open and shut case. No ticket and declined an opportunity to buy. What's there to make seven pages of posts out of?

Read the other 7 pages.

Or perhaps just the summary at the top of the 5th page:

So the way I see it is as follows

1. The OP requested a ticket to travel from a ticket machine.
2. The ticket machine request money to pay for the fares.
3. The OP happily provided an accepted method of payment (a card) to pay the fare.
4. On entering the correct pin, the OP's card established a connection to the bank and cryptographically signed the railway's request for payment, thus authorising it. The bank authorised and signed and certified the transaction.
5. The railway chose not to "cash in" the transaction but provided no written evidence of this.
6. The OP provided details to the railway company allowing them to invoice the OP and ask the OP to either pay or show evidence of the transaction (which they would not be able to track without the card details).

As far as I can see, the OP has provided means for the railway to accept payment, and the railway has rejected this. The OP has not said he would not pay if the authorised transaction was later rejected by the railway. I don't see how the prosecution could at all be valid!

To me, the 5th point above is key - the OP had no way of knowing that their original transaction would not also be settled and certainly no way of knowing that his bank would've removed the ringfencing on the authorised amount.

 

[silencio]

Doing a bit of digging as Im still intending to get some free legal advice on the matter and came across this:

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/engla...t_e/consumer_trains_e/train_penalty_fares.htm

What is a penalty fare?

A penalty fare is not a fine. The penalty fare will either be £20 or twice the full single fare from the station where you got on to the next station at which the train stops, whichever is the bigger amount.

When can you get a penalty fare?

If you travel by train you must try to buy a valid ticket for the whole of your journey before you get on the train.

It’s not a criminal offence to refuse to pay the penalty fare, but if you don't or if you only offer to pay the original fare and not the penalty fare, you can be taken to a civil court to pay the outstanding amount.

I wonder how much of that rings true and how much has been dumbed down. I shall get on to CAB though. See what they reckon.

 

[island]

The last bit is dangerous. If you don't pay on the spot at least the single fare for the journey made, you might be reported for the offence of travelling without paying your fare and with intent to avoid payment thereof.

 

[Ferret]

What relevance does Penalty Fares have to this situation? Northern's pseudo-fixed penalty notices are an entirely different kettle of fish!

 

[silencio]

Oops, my bad.

 

[snail]

Read the other 7 pages.

The ticket machine was only not working after I used it. Northern Rail refused to take funds that I had authorised my bank to authorise them to take.

But (at risk of repeating what has gone before) you still travelled without a physical ticket. That is, undeniably, a criminal offence. The better action would have been to buy another one and claim reimbursement of the undelivered ticket (which happened anyway, without your knowledge).

Shop analogies are never good but if you hand over your money at the shop counter to buy something and aren't handed the goods would you say the transaction was completed?

More concerning is the wording of the 'Notice' from Northern. As I have said previously they are trying the same tricks that parking companies employ but have the backing of legislation if the customer doesn't fall for it and refuses to pay.

 

[Flamingo]

Read the other 7 pages.

The ticket machine was only not working after I used it. Northern Rail refused to take funds that I had authorised my bank to authorise them to take.

You didn't have a ticket, and according to you were advised correctly by a member of staff that you would not have been charged for that ticket and not to travel without one. You did anyway, and got caught.

If you had found that you had been charged twice, you would have had grounds for claiming a refund, but that is an entirely different argument and issue.

You can bluster and argue all you want, but that is the nub of it. Good luck in court.

 

[silencio]

Surely it would have been harder to prove, had 2 successful transactions taken place, that i was travelling alone and the tickets were solely for me. Something i was happy to do IF Northern could have given me reassurances about, which they wouldn't/couldn't. Why should i pay 2 fares?

* i know at this point i havent paid even 1.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You didn't have a ticket, and according to you were advised correctly by a member of staff that you would not have been charged for that ticket and not to travel without one. You did anyway, and got caught.

Please quote me where I stated that a "member of staff" said that I "would not have been charged for the ticket"...

 

[Flamingo]

Ok, the member of staff told you that you would need to check your statement to see if you had been charged. You hadn't, which I am sure the member of staff suspected.

They were correct that you needed to buy a ticket, though. You didn't, which would make it a pretty easy Bylaw 18, I would imagine.

 

[silencio]

I take it you know very little about card transactions and banking then. If anything, checking that the authorisation happened at the time would have only strengthened my standing/opinion that the transaction was complete/authorised. You are aware that no card transaction is instantaneous and usually takes around 2 working days to appear on an account. With this being on a Saturday (and acting like the next working day - Monday), would you expect to stand at the train station and twiddle my thumbs until Wednesday before attempting to contest the transaction or buy another ticket?

But i did check my online banking anyway.

 

[island]

Yes or no answer please.

Were you, or were you not, told that you had not successfully purchased a ticket and would need to do so before joining the train?

 

[silencio]

No.

Seems my message was too short. I was never told that my transaction was incomplete/voided/not successfully purchased.i was only told id "have to buy another one."

 

[Flamingo]

So you were on the train, without a ticket, from a station where you had an opportunity to buy one?

Case closed.

Suck it up, dry your eyes, and move on.

 

[silencio]

...from a station where i believed to have bought one.

Thanks for your input but it's not even concstructive.

 

[Flamingo]

It is. It's pointing out that you did NOT have a ticket, and ignored the advice of staff to buy one, so you were travelling without a ticket (a bylaw offence). The only defence for this is that there were no facilities to buy one, but the booking office was open, and you were advised by staff to buy one before boarding.

You can complain and moan and talk about banks and credit card authorisation what you believed and methods of payment until the cows come home, but none of that alters the basic facts as set out above.

(As an aside, even if you HAD bought a ticket, the offence would have been committed by not being able to produce it when asked, but that is irrevelant as you didn't buy a ticket).

 

[silencio]

So do you work for Northern? If so, if you had interacted with me on that day would you have advised me that the ticket would have been voided? Would you have advised i would be looking at a possibility of an £80 fine and a criminal prosecution? Would you have offered any reassurance as to refunding a duplicate ticket had it come to having purchased 2?

 

[Flamingo]

I don't work for Northern, but if I was the guard on the train I would have either sold you a ticket or referred you on to Revenue at the next stop (depending on my mood and your attitude).

 

[dcsprior]

It is. It's pointing out that you did NOT have a ticket, and ignored the advice of staff to buy one, so you were travelling without a ticket (a bylaw offence). The only defence for this is that there were no facilities to buy one, but the booking office was open, and you were advised by staff to buy one before boarding.

This may be true, but penalising a customer who's made an attempt to pay and already been delayed by the company's faulty machine would be really poor customer service. Also, the letter the OP received talks about "with the intent of avoiding that fare" which was clearly not the case here.

I take it you know very little about card transactions and banking then. If anything, checking that the authorisation happened at the time would have only strengthened my standing/opinion that the transaction was complete/authorised. You are aware that no card transaction is instantaneous and usually takes around 2 working days to appear on an account. With this being on a Saturday (and acting like the next working day - Monday), would you expect to stand at the train station and twiddle my thumbs until Wednesday before attempting to contest the transaction or buy another ticket?

But i did check my online banking anyway.

I know a little about EFT (I work in the ePos team in the IT department of a large retailer, though I'm not the EFT expert in the team) and agree that its not simple for the customer to be sure of what has happened. Off the top of my head, I can think of 6 scenarios that the customer was in after the machine failed to print the tickets:

1. The original transaction had authorised offline; it will not be settled
2. The original transaction had authorised online; it will not be settled, the authorisation has been reversed and the issuing bank has immediately removed the ringfencing of the customer's funds
3. The original transaction had authorised online; it will not be settled, the authorisation has been reversed but the issuing bank has not immediately removed the ringfencing of the customer's funds
4. The original transaction had authorised online; it will not be settled, but the authorisation has not been reversed
5. The original transaction had authorised offline; it will be settled
6. The original transaction had authorised online; it will be settled

By looking at their online banking, the customer would be unable to distinguish between 1/2/5; or between 3/4/6. Even the issuing bank would've been unable to distinguish between 1/5 or between 4/6.

If the transaction is for a large amount, then scenario 3 or 4 is a particular challenge, as the customer has yet to actually "pay", but the money will be out of the customer's available balance (which could result in subsequent attempts for authorisation being declined - or if in a staffed ticked-office, prompting the assistant to call for auth)

 

[Nick W]

It is. It's pointing out that you did NOT have a ticket, and ignored the advice of staff to buy one, so you were travelling without a ticket (a bylaw offence). The only defence for this is that there were no facilities to buy one, but the booking office was open, and you were advised by staff to buy one before boarding.

I have to agree.

I don't think Northern can succeed with RoRA, but they probably succeed with a Byelaw offence as the OP paid his fare but was unable to show a valid ticket. He is guilty by technically, as would any passenger be if I stole their ticket on a train...

If the OP disputes the current offence, I presume Northern could issue a penalty under a Byelaw offence, or go straight to court under a Byelaw offence?

 

[Flamingo]

I would presume so.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Dcsprior, we are talking bylaw offences, not customer services. They are two entirely different things, but people do get them confused...

 

[michael769]

If the OP disputes the current offence, I presume Northern could issue a penalty under a Byelaw offence, or go straight to court under a Byelaw offence?

As they have issued a "fixed penalty" under the RoR they might find that a problematic. Refusing to prosecute the offence for which they issued their "penalty" only then prosecute for a different offence which they have not to date mentioned, well how do you think that would look?

It's by no means a get out of jail free card for the OP. But I for one would not want want to try to prosecute this mess.

 

[jb]

Ï wonder (doubt) if anyone within Northern who knows the difference (between RoRA and Byelaws) has looked at this yet.

 

[silencio]

Just spoke to those lovely people. They have said they didn't respond to my letter because they didn't receive it before sending their follow up. Considering they received my response within 4 working days of me receiving theirs, they didnt really wait very long. Seems my letter was knocking around somewhere in Northern Rail for about 10 days before being looked at.

Ive been advised to hold off on the letter Ive received and they will respond to my letter shortly. Having asked for a timeline this will be 2-3 weeks.

Stupidly I gave them my date of birth (as they asked me to confirm my name and D.O.B. at the start of the call).

 

[bb21]

Stupidly I gave them my date of birth (as they asked me to confirm my name and D.O.B. at the start of the call).

Surely this is not a problem unless you have plans to "reoffend" (I use the term loosely) and want to make it as difficult for them to match you with records?