Son didn't have railcard with him.

[Jonfun]

Just to be clear for future reference from Monday the Conductor or whoever should say if the person can produce evidence of holding valid railcard they can claim back the difference paid as £. However they can only do it once certainly with my TOC.

The OP should just offer to pay rather than fight it and I'm sure it will "go away" in this case.

We've certainly been told nothing to that effect. As far as I know it always has been vouchers since they introduced the policy ages ago and that hasn't changed and isn't intended to. But I'll keep an eye on the notices as these things sometimes don't get communicated too quickly.

 

[Gareth Marston]

We've certainly been told nothing to that effect. As far as I know it always has been vouchers since they introduced the policy ages ago and that hasn't changed and isn't intended to. But I'll keep an eye on the notices as these things sometimes don't get communicated too quickly.

· The Department for Transport (DfT) has issued an action plan to the rail industry regarding information relating to fares and rail retailing. One of these actions relates to ‘Railcards left at home’ and states: Where a customer holding a valid Railcard forgets it at the time of travel, they will on the first occasion be able to claim back any additional expense, including the cost of any extra fare and any penalty fare issued.

· Therefore, from 28th February 2017, customers who forget to have their railcard will be able to apply for a refund. The process will be similar to that of the season ticket left at home (STLAH) although the booking offices cannot pay the refund./QUOTE]

 

[najaB]

Therefore, from 28th February 2017, customers who forget to have their railcard will be able to apply for a refund. The process will be similar to that of the season ticket left at home (STLAH) although the booking offices cannot pay the refund.

There is nothing in that which says that the refund will be paid in cash.

 

[221129]

And they have to purchase a new ticket, which wasn't done in this case so it's irrelevant.

 

[mosaicwarts]

My son came to see me today and we had a good chat.

I just wanted to clear up an inaccuracy in my first post.

The inspector on the outward journey asked my son for his name and address only, and told him that he would receive a letter asking for proof of purchase of a railcard.

On the return journey, the inspector spoke to my son, and told him he had to buy a new ticket in the sum of £300 or similar. My son said he was a student and didn't have the money. He told the inspector that I had purchased the tickets for them. The inspector said he could see that they were students, then left them saying he would be back.

He didn't return, or take any details from him.

My son eventually received the letter requesting proof of railcard purchase and rang them to let them know it had been lost/stolen and gave the crime number - the railcard people said he would receive a replacement.

The TIL letter arrived on 24 January.

 

[Gareth Marston]

There is nothing in that which says that the refund will be paid in cash.

Ive looked at the full guidance and there is no mention of cash or vouchers for that matter.

 

[Gareth Marston]

And they have to purchase a new ticket, which wasn't done in this case so it's irrelevant.

Point of posting it was to flag up that there has been new guidance since this incident that might have a bearing on advice given in the event of future similar incidences.

As a by product its also flagged up that some TOC's have been quicker than others to notify staff. Given that our brief states from 28th February a similar incident could occur today though the Conductor from another TOC would not be able to follow current guidelines and thereby inadvertently "misinform" the individual concerned.

No help to OP though.

 

[mosaicwarts]

I've been worrying about this all morning - should I now suggest my son use our solicitor to reply to this letter?

 

[najaB]

I've been worrying about this all morning - should I now suggest my son use our solicitor to reply to this letter?

Personally, I wouldn't instruct a solicitor until it is clear that the matter is heading to Court (and maybe not even then).

 

[cuccir]

In the event that there is an attempted prosecution under the Regulation of the Railways Act, I'd suggest instructing a solicitor, as long as it is not prohibitively expensive.

In the event of an attempt to prosecute under the Bylaws, then a solicitor is not worth the money - the fine is lower than the cost of a solicitor, and a conviction is not entered into the Police National Computer, so no criminal record is created.

As the others have said, I'd get back in touch, writing to both Cross Country and TIL with the crime number and an apology. It may be worth offering to pay any administrative fees so far - although I do make this latter suggestion hesitantly due to a belief that TIL/Cross Country are being quite harsh on continuing to progress with this investigation (despite acknowledging that it is their right to do so), due to the facts of the case, that is, the theft and the evolving polices on missing railcards!

 

[mosaicwarts]

Thank you for the advice.

The letter does state in the reference 'Travel on a train without a valid ticket' contrary to S.5.3 a Regulation of Railways Act (1889).

It mentions 'The company is entitled to consider whether a charge of 'intent to avoid a fare' could be alleged'.

I don't know why they are saying that. I'd bought the tickets, he had bought a railcard. There was no intent, he just lost his railcard.

I am happy to pay for a solicitor to reply to the letter if you think the reference above warrants it. I am so worried and don't know what to do for the best.

If a 'summons' is issued, do people have to attend court?

 

[najaB]

I don't know why they are saying that. I'd bought the tickets, he had bought a railcard. There was no intent, he just lost his railcard.

Since it's impossible to look into someone's mind and figure out what they were thinking, intent is determined by what they did. In this case your son declined a request to pay the fare that was due - remember, without the railcard a discounted ticket is invalid. That will be what they are basing the case on.

I am happy to pay for a solicitor to reply to the letter if you think the reference above warrants it. I am so worried and don't know what to do for the best.

I wouldn't get the solicitor involved just yet. I think it's important to make it clear that your son spoke to two different railway employees and was told different things by each and that he wasn't refusing to pay the fare when asked by the second person but rather thought that the matter had been resolved when he spoke to the first person.

If a 'summons' is issued, do people have to attend court?

If they intend to plead not guilty then they will need to attend. If they are pleading guilty then it can be done by post on receipt of the summons.

 

[island]

Why did he not sort out the Railcard situation before his return journey, being fully aware that he did not have it and therefore was travelling without a valid ticket?

 

[mosaicwarts]

I do not know for certain as I haven't asked him this question, but believe he assumed that as he had given his details on the outgoing trip, and having been told he would receive a letter asking for proof of ownership when he got home, he did not think he needed to buy a new card.

He does not normally take the train, but it is an 800 mile round trip and I was worried about him driving down in his old car so I paid for the train tickets. He hadn't acquainted himself with the rules and had no idea at all of the seriousness of this.

 

[cuccir]

Thank you for the advice.

The letter does state in the reference 'Travel on a train without a valid ticket' contrary to S.5.3 a Regulation of Railways Act (1889).

It mentions 'The company is entitled to consider whether a charge of 'intent to avoid a fare' could be alleged'.

I don't know why they are saying that. I'd bought the tickets, he had bought a railcard. There was no intent, he just lost his railcard.

I am happy to pay for a solicitor to reply to the letter if you think the reference above warrants it. I am so worried and don't know what to do for the best.

It may well be that the reference to intent is part of a generic letter - of course they can consider it, but whether they have the evidence is much less clear. This post outlines what's understood by 'intent' and some of the case law associated with it.

With regards to a solicitor - it's up to you. Read through this forum - many people get out of court settlements when they're much more culpable than your son without using a solicitor. Solicitors will charge you for writing a letter and that charge may be higher than a successful Bylaw prosecution. As above, I'd generally only advise engaging a solicitor at the point at which it's clear that it's a Regulation of Railways Act (RoRA) prosecution. Equally, using a solicitor may bring you peace of mind that you've done this professionally and that may be worth something too.

A wider point about worry and concern - no-one's going to pretend that a RoRA prosecution is a good thing. And we're well away from that point at the moment. However, it is useful to outline worst-case scenarios. Any successful prosecution of this type is 'spent' after 1 year - so your son would not have to declare it when applying for any jobs after that point. It would appear on DBS (formerly CRB) searches for a further 11 years, but even then that would not automatically bar someone from various professional jobs/careers - it would just highlight its existence. In the event of needing a DBS, a well-worded email or letter in advance outlining the circumstances is likely to suffice for this sort of conviction: you'd be surprised at how many professionals do have some form of criminal record.

As I say, we're a long way off all that yet but it is useful I think to put it in perspective: while the worst case scenario is not actively pleasant and involves some financial costs, it is also not life ruining.

 

[theironroad]

I do not know for certain as I haven't asked him this question, but believe he assumed that as he had given his details on the outgoing trip, and having been told he would receive a letter asking for proof of ownership when he got home, he did not think he needed to buy a new card.

He does not normally take the train, but it is an 800 mile round trip and I was worried about him driving down in his old car so I paid for the train tickets. He hadn't acquainted himself with the rules and had no idea at all of the seriousness of this.

Can't really add much help, but if everything you've told us of you and your son's actions and the circumstances are true then I'd be pretty annoyed if the case was pursued.

Hopefully some discretion will be applied by the TOC and suitable advice for future travel is given.

In terms of attracting new passengers, it sounds like this case would be a publicity nightmare for the TOC.

 

[mosaicwarts]

Thank you for all your help and advice, I have just had news this morning. My solicitor very kindly agreed to represent my son and has just copied me with this reply from the Deputy Prosecutions Manager.

"Having reviewed the comments in your letter we find no reason why this matter should not be referred for prosecution.

It is the traveller's responsibility to ensure that, if they attempt to travel with a railcard discount that they are eligible for that discount on the day of travel and for the journey they intend to make. Your client was not eligible for that discount during this particular journey because he did not have the railcard that was necessary to validate his ticket while travelling.

The report of the on board inspector's interview with your client makes no mention of having misplaced it or having been stolen but states it was left at home. We acknowledge that in his later correspondence with us he states that he reported the bag to Northumbria police as stolen, but this does not absolve him from travelling without a valid railcard when he claims to be eligible for a railcard discount.

Furthermore he mentions in his correspondence with us that he was aware that the railcard was missing before he travelled, in which case he should have purchased a new ticket or not travelled at all.

Please find enclosed some documents that may aid you in your decision making."

 

[AlterEgo]

Which documents did they enclose?

Did your solicitor offer an out of court settlement?

 

[mosaicwarts]

No, my solicitor didn't offer an out of court settlement.

When my son wrote he did offer to pay all costs involved.

The documents attached to the TIL letter were the Railcard Terms and Conditions and Passenger Detected travelling without a valid rail ticket.

I have to go to work now, so again, thanks for all your help.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It might be worth instructing him to offer something fairly substantial, as that way Court would be avoided even if the cost financially will be the same.

As RoRA is involved, which carries a criminal record, it might even be worth offering more than the likely fine/costs. If it was just the Byelaws it wouldn't really matter (as they carry no criminal record, just the on-the-day penalty) and the day in Court might be an interesting experience.

 

[gray1404]

I cannot understand why Transport Investigations are in essence "throwing the book" at this case. I am sure surprised that they are not asking for the rail fare plus an administration fee.

I think your lawyer needs to get in touch with TIL and attempt to negotiate an out of court settlement with them if at all possible. I am not entirely convinced a RoRA prosecution would succeed on the basis of the information given if it was well defended.

 

[najaB]

I am not entirely convinced a RoRA prosecution would succeed on the basis of the information given if it was well defended.

What's your reasoning for saying that?

 

[gray1404]

I am not 100% convinced that it would be possible to prove the mens rea of the alleged offence to the required standard.

 

[221129]

I am not 100% convinced that it would be possible to prove the mens rea of the alleged offence to the required standard.

He knew he didn't have his railcard when he travelled. Case closed.

 

[najaB]

I am not 100% convinced that it would be possible to prove the mens rea of the alleged offence to the required standard.

When the OP's son obtained his railcard he signed/ticked the box to say that he understood the terms and conditions of using railcard-discounted tickets. As 221129 says, he also knew that he didn't have his railcard when he boarded the train.

That is enough to prove mens rea as far as traveling without a valid ticket is concerned.

 

[EssexGonzo]

As a parent with a son who recently realised he didn't have his railcard with him before he got in the train with an online booked ticket, we saw no other option but to buy a replacement ticket at the station.

Yes, an expensive lesson for my son, but much hassle was avoided. It was a Norwich express so his ticket would definitely have been checked.

No-brainer. Not sure how it helps the OP but I can't see how some sort of penalty isn't relevant here.

 

[LAX54]

He knew he didn't have his railcard when he travelled. Case closed.

Wasn't it over a month before he reported it 'missing' too ?

 

[gray1404]

As a parent with a son who recently realised he didn't have his railcard with him before he got in the train with an online booked ticket, we saw no other option but to buy a replacement ticket at the station.

Yes, an expensive lesson for my son, but much hassle was avoided. It was a Norwich express so his ticket would definitely have been checked.

No-brainer. Not sure how it helps the OP but I can't see how some sort of penalty isn't relevant here.

In such a case though it is worth asking the booking office, or indeed the guard before boarding, if they will charge the excess from the fare already paid to the non discounted fare. If that fails then buy a new ticket. Thankfully, TOCs are now starting to introduce a policy to deal with railcards left at home. In this case it was lost/stolen and the railcard terms and conditions make a provision to replace it for a fee of £10 or free if it has been stolen and a Police crime number is provided.

 

[najaB]

Thankfully, TOCs are now starting to introduce a policy to deal with railcards left at home.

Doesn't said policy basically amount to a fee-free refund of the new ticket on presentation of the railcard?

So you'd still be out of pocket on the day for a new ticket.

 

[falcon]

When the OP's son obtained his railcard he signed/ticked the box to say that he understood the terms and conditions of using railcard-discounted tickets. As 221129 says, he also knew that he didn't have his railcard when he boarded the train.

That is enough to prove mens rea as far as traveling without a valid ticket is concerned.

That's wrong. There is no evidence of guilty mind just by not having your railcard with you. It only means as stated in the t&c of the railcard you become liable for the full single fare.So just not having the railcard is not as simple as "case closed" at all. It has to be proved for a Sec 5 offence that the fare was not paid and that there was no intention to pay. Also he gave his name and address so there can be no offence under sec 5. There has to be three fails.
1. no valid ticket

2. refusal to pay

3. rail to give name and address.