Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
But note that as long as they also comply with the deadlines in the SJPN, the OP's son has absolutely nothing to lose by trying for an out of court settlement. Although the process is now well advanced towards court, my understanding is that Merseyrail can withdraw the prosecution up to whatever the SJPN equivalent of the door of the court is - presumably the point at which the case is put in front of a magistrate for agreement of the punishment.
I absolutely agree that it is imperative to try for a settlement, I'm just setting expectations that there is a good chance the "attitude test" has been failed.
What the OP needs to understand is that the actions of their son are completely in line with those of someone intending to evade the fare then paying it when they saw an inspector*, and so that the TOC will assume that that is what was going on. And also take into account the possibility that their son may not be being entirely truthful with them, and actually might have been intending to evade the fare.
* The classic was to carry an unscratched Saveaway in your pocket and scratch it off if an inspector boarded. This was utterly rife on Merseyside for years and was the reason for them stopping issuing them in that form.
I can't help but think that constant push-back that it's unfair might have made them go "right, nuclear option", which might make getting a settlement very hard.
Merseyrail is a small TOC and likely one person is dealing with all of this, so there is a person at the other end of the letter/phone who could be getting annoyed, very much unlike the large operations like Transport Investigations Ltd etc.
Sorry, I need to correct an earlier statement I made. The one and only letter we received from Merseyrail was an 'Out of Court Settlement' letter. The letter opened...
'It has come to our attention that on the @July 2021 at @@ you were stopped as being in breach of Regulation of Railways Act 1889 Section 5(3a). It is an offence to travel or attempt to travel on the railway without having previously paid the fare and with intent to avoid payment thereof.
This notice offers you the opportunity of discharging any liability to conviction for that offence by payment of a fixed penalty of £125.00. Payment must be made within 14 days from the date of this letter.'
We responded immediately by email to complain about the approach of the inspector plus queried the time quoted as the precise time they quote, my son had already purchased his ticket. We could evidence this (because it was a pdf), so we sent it with our reply. They did not reply for 5 weeks (we actually thought the matter had gone). We then had a response where they ignored our email but just stated the penalty had to be paid. We exchanged a further 2 emails and then we just received the SJPN without any further response from them.
We probably have antagonized them with our questioning (and complaint, although we never progressed with this).
Sorry, I need to correct an earlier statement I made. The one and only letter we received from Merseyrail was an 'Out of Court Settlement' letter. The letter opened...
'It has come to our attention that on the @July 2021 at @@ you were stopped as being in breach of Regulation of Railways Act 1889 Section 5(3a). It is an offence to travel or attempt to travel on the railway without having previously paid the fare and with intent to avoid payment thereof.
This notice offers you the opportunity of discharging any liability to conviction for that offence by payment of a fixed penalty of £125.00. Payment must be made within 14 days from the date of this letter.'
We responded immediately by email to complain about the approach of the inspector plus queried the time quoted as the precise time they quote, my son had already purchased his ticket. We could evidence this (because it was a pdf), so we sent it with our reply. They did not reply for 5 weeks (we actually thought the matter had gone). We then had a response where they ignored our email but just stated the penalty had to be paid. We exchanged a further 2 emails and then we just received the SJPN without any further response from them.
We probably have antagonized them with our questioning (and complaint, although we never progressed with this).
If the settlement was not paid within the 14 days indicated above, it is highly unlikely it will be offered again, though you could very apologetically try.
In parallel with that it would be wise to seek paid, professional legal advice on the matter as, as the settlement was effectively declined, it is very likely they will proceed with prosecution.
Seek professional advice about how to proceed - that letter quoted 5(3)(a) but they switched to 5(1)? (There might be a defence to 5(3)(a) too and you might speculate that something in your correspondence gave grounds for reasonable doubt.) When dealing with all the details (the fare discrepancy is another - the online ticket named seems to cost only 5.50), don't necessarily get worn down and give in and lose sight of the bigger picture that it all "feels wrong" - but you need an experienced professional to assess the situation dispassionately and to help you navigate your way through.
i'm surprised no one has asked, when your son buys the ticket on line does he have to collect it or is it one with a QR code, as if he has to collect it he can't at most merseyrail stations so if not collected he will get a refund, so how many times has he had a refund and travelled for nothing
i'm surprised no one has asked, when your son buys the ticket on line does he have to collect it or is it one with a QR code, as if he has to collect it he can't at most merseyrail stations so if not collected he will get a refund, so how many times has he had a refund and travelled for nothing
anecdotally, most young people who have tickets bought on line / bought using phone seem to just show them on their phones these days (not print on departure method) - this is based on the number of 'type' (age etc) of person that I see showing tickets to guards on trains these days during ticket checks. So I think it would be reasonable to assume the OP's son used/uses that method.
i'm surprised no one has asked, when your son buys the ticket on line does he have to collect it or is it one with a QR code, as if he has to collect it he can't at most merseyrail stations so if not collected he will get a refund, so how many times has he had a refund and travelled for nothing
anecdotally, most young people who have tickets bought on line / bought using phone seem to just show them on their phones these days (not print on departure method) - this is based on the number of 'type' (age etc) of person that I see showing tickets to guards on trains these days during ticket checks. So I think it would be reasonable to assume the OP's son used/uses that method.
Seek professional advice about how to proceed - that letter quoted 5(3)(a) but they switched to 5(1)? (There might be a defence to 5(3)(a) too and you might speculate that something in your correspondence gave grounds for reasonable doubt.) When dealing with all the details (the fare discrepancy is another - the online ticket named seems to cost only 5.50), don't necessarily get worn down and give in and lose sight of the bigger picture that it all "feels wrong" - but you need an experienced professional to assess the situation dispassionately and to help you navigate your way through.
Hi, yes thank you. The 'Out of Court Settlement' letter clearly highlights (bold) Regulation of Railways Act 1889 Section 5(3a). stating 'it is an offence to travel or attempt to travel on the railway without having previously paid the fare and with the intent to avoid payment thereof'.
The SJPN states 'contrary to Section 5(1) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, as amended by the Transport Act 1962, section 84(2) and 93(1), Railways Act 1965 Section 35(5), Railways Act 1970 Section 18; Railways Act 1977 Sch 1, Criminal Justice Act 1982,ss 35 & 46, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and Sch 7 and SI 1994/857.
The only consistency between the out of court settlement and SJPN is the inaccuracies in terms of the incident. Neither documents are consistent - reporting different information and different times. Also, as illustrated above they state different regulations. I mentioned in a previous comment that this shoddy approach, particularly when there is a potential conviction involved, surely would be picked up by the courts? I know these aren't like parking fines/penalties but surely there has to be some modicum of fact and consistency in their account of matters?
Just by way of a quick update, we are meeting with our solicitors this week.
Mistakes are so commonplace nowadays that the courts frequently have little alternative but to tolerate them, accepting corrections when needed - which is why legal advice is important in this sort of situation as it needs experience to judge the most advantageous way to deal with them.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
As I was making use of an unbarriered Merseyrail station this week I thought I woul look to see what signage might be available to have helped the customer in this case understand the rules.
Apart from this conspicuous sign there was also a "Penalty Fare" sign (the reflection of which can just about be seen in this image!) Like others, I find it difficult to see a defence for the situation described where the customer boarded without a ticket, and opted to start an online purchase process while already on the train.
As I was making use of an unbarriered Merseyrail station this week I thought I woul look to see what signage might be available to have helped the customer in this case understand the rules. View attachment 104853
Apart from this conspicuous sign there was also a "Penalty Fare" sign (the reflection of which can just about be seen in this image!) Like others, I find it difficult to see a defence for the situation described where the customer boarded without a ticket, and opted to start an online purchase process while already on the train.
Yes, he would have bought a ticket as this is his daily commute to work and the station he travels too is heavily manned and has the turnstile type exit so you cannot exit without a ticket.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Sorry for the relative silence but have been dealing with this matter and did not want to compromise our position particularly as I have read that this forum can occasionally be frequented by officials of the said travel providers. I will have an update on matters today.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
So, update as promised but first a big thank you to all that have contributed. I think the comments and advice certainly helped my thinking in this matter.
We engaged our solicitors and lodged our response to court as 'not guilty', I then advised the solicitors that I was happy to settle out of court so approach the rail providers on our behalf. Contact was not easy even though we had a telephone number. My solicitors wrote to the rail provider advising that we were pleading not guilty and were emphatically denying the matter. The rail provider has since cancelled the action and there is no fine! So a good result although, it's not all free as we still need to pay our solicitors although costs are quite nominal.
If I am honest, I was prepared to go to court on this although I knew full well that the rail provider would throw all their legal might behind it as if we were to win, it would have a dramatic impact on them going forward - it would open the door for people boarding trains without tickets. So victory would be tough but there was a lot to consider for both side. I think common sense prevailed with the outcome.
Key points for me which our solicitors concurred was that the rail provider had handled this matter poorly. The Out of Court Settlement was littered with inaccuracies, they failed consistently to answer the questions we raised (by email) they were slow to respond each time (6 week interval with our first response!). They changed the legal grounds (to which they were prosecuting) so the Out of Court Settlement held different Acts to the SJPN. The SJPN was also inaccurate and different to the settlement offer!
I know some of you didn't think this would matter as the issue was boarding a train without a ticket but I respectively disagree. The rail provider still holds a duty of care/responsibility to have their own house in order, especially when directing a case/penalty to the courts and when the outcome could be a conviction. The procedural aspect of the process remains as important today as any time previous. Had they engaged with us, responded in a timely manner and there had been consistency (and accuracy) in their claim, then I would not have been as confident. The fact is they were not.
Thanks again for all contributions. I hope my experience may help others.
Yes, he would have bought a ticket as this is his daily commute to work and the station he travels too is heavily manned and has the turnstile type exit so you cannot exit without a ticket.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Sorry for the relative silence but have been dealing with this matter and did not want to compromise our position particularly as I have read that this forum can occasionally be frequented by officials of the said travel providers. I will have an update on matters today.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
So, update as promised but first a big thank you to all that have contributed. I think the comments and advice certainly helped my thinking in this matter.
We engaged our solicitors and lodged our response to court as 'not guilty', I then advised the solicitors that I was happy to settle out of court so approach the rail providers on our behalf. Contact was not easy even though we had a telephone number. My solicitors wrote to the rail provider advising that we were pleading not guilty and were emphatically denying the matter. The rail provider has since cancelled the action and there is no fine! So a good result although, it's not all free as we still need to pay our solicitors although costs are quite nominal.
If I am honest, I was prepared to go to court on this although I knew full well that the rail provider would throw all their legal might behind it as if we were to win, it would have a dramatic impact on them going forward - it would open the door for people boarding trains without tickets. So victory would be tough but there was a lot to consider for both side. I think common sense prevailed with the outcome.
Key points for me which our solicitors concurred was that the rail provider had handled this matter poorly. The Out of Court Settlement was littered with inaccuracies, they failed consistently to answer the questions we raised (by email) they were slow to respond each time (6 week interval with our first response!). They changed the legal grounds (to which they were prosecuting) so the Out of Court Settlement held different Acts to the SJPN. The SJPN was also inaccurate and different to the settlement offer!
I know some of you didn't think this would matter as the issue was boarding a train without a ticket but I respectively disagree. The rail provider still holds a duty of care/responsibility to have their own house in order, especially when directing a case/penalty to the courts and when the outcome could be a conviction. The procedural aspect of the process remains as important today as any time previous. Had they engaged with us, responded in a timely manner and there had been consistency (and accuracy) in their claim, then I would not have been as confident. The fact is they were not.
Thanks again for all contributions. I hope my experience may help others.
Looks like Merseyrail was trying to cover up their incompetence, conflicting facts for prosecution and hoped the threat of court would frighten anyone into paying up, they quite rightly wished to avoid creating a legal precedence as it would be referenced for the defence in future prosecutions.
As much as they are behind for cross ticketing, they are also behind on social media and internet forums, information is shared by peers and information is power.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
