RoRA technicality re: 'fare is paid'

[ForTheLoveOf]

In relation to this ongoing thread, I want to explore a pedantic, probably wrong point.

RoRA requires the passenger to 'deliver up a ticket showing that his fare is paid' (or buy one or provide name and address). If the fare from Wolverhampton is the same as the one from Birmingham, then surely his fare has been paid (as the amount is the same), and if anything, XC would get less of the share of a Wolverhampton to Portsmouth fare, as more of that journey can be travelled via non-XC TOCs?

I appreciate it's almost certainly still a Byelaw offence, but could it be arguable that RoRA is therefore not fulfilled (notwithstanding other elements of the offence)?

 

[najaB]

If the fare from Wolverhampton is the same as the one from Birmingham, then surely his fare has been paid (as the amount is the same),

This comes up from time to time. Strictly speaking, in the scenario you outline a fare has been paid, which happens to numerically be the same as another fare. But that doesn't make them the same fare.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Well, the legislation is unfortunately rather vague, saying only 'has paid his fare', with no further explanation or definition. Has any precedent or previous case ever cleared up this matter?

 

[Bletchleyite]

This comes up from time to time. Strictly speaking, in the scenario you outline a fare has been paid, which happens to numerically be the same as another fare. But that doesn't make them the same fare.

Has that been to a precedent-setting Court, or is it just a common interpretation? Because I think prosecution for overtravelling where the fare is the same (or even PFing in that case) is rather silly and counter to any kind of common sense - noting that we have the equivalent with routes (tickets valid via cheaper geographic routes) which is allowed.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

It would seem to fail the ''public interest" test at least, in my eyes. That's a prerequisite to any prosecution, isn't it?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would seem to fail the ''public interest" test, in my eyes.

I would agree.

 

[EM2]

Well, the legislation is unfortunately rather vague, saying only 'has paid his fare', with no further explanation or definition. Has any precedent or previous case ever cleared up this matter?

But his fare has not been paid. His fare is due from Wolverhampton, the fact that that would also be his fare if he had travelled from Birmingham is immaterial.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But his fare has not been paid. His fare is due from Wolverhampton, the fact that that would also be his fare if he had travelled from Birmingham is immaterial.

That depends on the definition of fare.

Personally I see the concept is you have a ticket for a journey which costs a sum of money; that sum of money is the fare.

Therefore, if Wolves is the same price, the fare has been paid, but a valid ticket is not held.

But I would be interested in whether there is binding legal precedent on this.

 

[6Gman]

I seem to recall this being discussed before, where I raised the following question.

"If somebody buys a "short" ticket they are presumably unaware that there is no financial benefit or why would they do that? Surely this shows intent to gain a financial advantage, else why would they do it? Is the intent an offence?"

Anybody know any fine legal minds?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I seem to recall this being discussed before, where I raised the following question.

"If somebody buys a "short" ticket they are presumably unaware that there is no financial benefit or why would they do that?

Commonly because they decide after having bought their ticket that they wish to make a slightly longer journey which costs the same, a situation in which the railway makes it an almighty faff to get an excess (zero) fare, and the semi-official view, like with routes, used to be "don't worry about it, the fare is the same".

This would be solved by going back to issuing such tickets zonally, such as "any station in the West Midlands Zones to London Euston", the sort of thing that used to happen in the days of pre printed tickets.

 

[Haywain]

Sorry, I disagree. The requirement is to show that fare has has been paid for travel between two specified points ("deliver up a ticket showing that his fare is paid"). In the case in question it shows that a fare for travel between Birmingham and Portsmouth has been paid, and not a fare for travel between Wolverhampton and Portsmouth. The fact that the same amount of money is required in both cases does not show that the latter fare has been paid.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sorry, I disagree. The requirement is to show that fare has has been paid for travel between two specified points ("deliver up a ticket showing that his fare is paid"). In the case in question it shows that a fare for travel between Birmingham and Portsmouth has been paid, and not a fare for travel between Wolverhampton and Portsmouth. The fact that the same amount of money is required in both cases does not show that the latter fare has been paid.

But is there legal precedent? Otherwise we're just down to your opinion vs. mine.

 

[Starmill]

That's a prerequisite to any prosecution, isn't it?

Any prosecution? I think only in the case of a public prosecutor?

 

[EM2]

That depends on the definition of fare.

Personally I see the concept is you have a ticket for a journey which costs a sum of money; that sum of money is the fare.

Therefore, if Wolves is the same price, the fare has been paid, but a valid ticket is not held.

But I would be interested in whether there is binding legal precedent on this.

The ticket is the evidence of the fare paid. That is why the RoRA states (as in the OP):
'Every passenger by a railway shall, on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, either produce, and if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid'
If the passenger cannot produce a ticket showing that the fare has been paid from Wolverhampton, then his fare is not paid.

 

[AndrewE]

The fare (an appropriate amount of money) has been paid, but I think this is a situation where (when I dealt with fares) travel was legal, but a free excess ticket would have been issued if it had been detected en route. That's how you could use a day return from Bristol to Glasgow and return from Edinburgh at no extra cost.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The fare is not paid between Wolverhampton and Birmingham, even if the fare to the ultimate destination would have been of equal value. The fare is based on origin and destination.

Even if the fare A-B is the same as Y-Z, one cannot claim that Y-Z has been paid for.

 

[AndrewE]

The fare is not paid between Wolverhampton and Birmingham, even if the fare to the ultimate destination would have been of equal value. The fare is based on origin and destination.

Even if the fare A-B is the same as Y-Z, one cannot claim that Y-Z has been paid for.

Not the point. What about B to Z instead of A to Z when the fare is the same?

 

[MikeWh]

At risk of going round in circles with a discussion which doesn't help the OP, perhaps I can summarise. It appears as though the railway considers B-P insufficient to make a W-B-P journey even though they cost the same. If that is true then obviously an offence has been committed. However, to the general public it does not seem fair and I agree that the railway ought to allow travel. Perhaps the ticket should say Birmingham (or any cluster XXX station) to Portsmouth (or any cluster YYY station) with a web address similar to the restriction code facility to look up the lists.

 

[cuccir]

Of course, if there is evidence that someone thought they were evading paying more - which is more or less the case in the other thread - then arguably their culpability is the same as in a case where they had in fact underpaid. Incompetent law-breaking is still law-breaking!

This is where the other evidence collected (mainly the interview with the traveller and the RPI's statement) should be important in deciding if a prosecution is valid. If someone says 'I knew the fare was the same so I thought it didn't matter' it is very different from 'I said Birmingham because I didn't want to pay the full fare from Wolverhampton'

 

[matt_world2004]

Dont an RoRa posecution require intent. If someone has paid the same financial price it doesnt demonstrate intent.

 

[farleigh]

Is this fare evasion?
If so, what fare has been evaded?

fare: the money paid for a journey on public transport

 

[bb21]

Dont an RoRa posecution require intent. If someone has paid the same financial price it doesnt demonstrate intent.

Yes, it does require intent.

The same financial price means nothing. Glasgow to Linlithgow single is £10.70. Manchester - Accrington single (Via Todmoeden) is also £10.70. Would you argue that holding the latter means one can travel on the former legitimately, and vice versa?

In the given example, where it is a simple overdistance and no clear intent to avoid any financial obligations, it does indeed seem a bit daft to me but that does not mean "it is the same price" is a sound argument.

 

[matt_world2004]

Yes, it does require intent.

The same financial price means nothing. Glasgow to Linlithgow single is £10.70. Manchester - Accrington single (Via Todmoeden) is also £10.70. Would you argue that holding the latter means one can travel on the former legitimately, and vice versa?

In the given example, where it is a simple overdistance and no clear intent to avoid any financial obligations, it does indeed seem a bit daft to me but that does not mean "it is the same price" is a sound argument.

But what gain would a passenger have to avoid paying a fare by paying the same fare.

 

[bb21]

The more relevant question would be "what has the railway lost"?

This can then be argued a number of ways with no clear consensus of what is correct on the forum.

 

[MikeWh]

If the two fares in question are for completely different journeys then they are unquestionably not interchangeable. If the journeys share a common end then they could be interchangeable but would probably have to be restricted to one TOC. If one is a common subset of the other then they should be interchangeable. In all scenarios the fares are assumed to be the same.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm assuming there is in fact no binding precedent, because nobody has quoted any?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Sounds like it to me. I'm not sure how adventurous TIL and/or XC are, but if they tried on RoRA this would seem a possible angle of defence. Byelaws, being worded the way they are, unequivocally create an offence, but RoRA is less clear cut.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Am I missing some routeing guide subtlety here because a Wolverhampton - Portsmouth route: not via London off peak return doesn't cost the same as a Birmingham - Portsmouth route: not via London ticket.

 

[furlong]

Am I missing some routeing guide subtlety here because a Wolverhampton - Portsmouth route: not via London off peak return doesn't cost the same as a Birmingham - Portsmouth route: not via London ticket.

Exactly - that's why we asked for the ticket details on the other thread, because in the unlikely event that it had been Chiltern the response would have been different and a prosecution more of a challenge if well defended, but it wasn't.

 

[cuccir]

But what gain would a passenger have to avoid paying a fare by paying the same fare.

In the case that prompted this thread, they believed that they would pay more; the passenger did not know that the fare from their destination was the same as the one that they demanded.

For me, in those circumstances only, I think a prosecution is reasonable. The passenger tried to evade an imagined fare; the crime of which they are accused is not 'fare evasion' but 'intending to evade a fare' and there is evidence thereof.