STD class ticket in First class carriage - barely sat down

[Bletchleyite]

Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 S.103 "“without having previously paid his fare”. ‘His fare’ in this section means the fare by the train and for the class of carriage in which the passenger travels." The leading authority used to secure a conviction is Gillingham v Walker (1881) 45 JP 470 ; 44 LT 715 ; 29 WR 896. Convicted.

That's not one I've heard of on here before - is it used often, out of interest?

 

[skyhigh]

I do think probability is an important concept to hold onto in this case, and I think worst case scenarios can be misleading and create proportionally more anxiety than necessary. But I suppose it does help to have a full picture of all options as provided by the forum.

Probability is important to take into account, but it's worth noting that I work in the industry and I've seen cases where a first-time offender has had their day in court after they sent a snotty response when the company asked for their input - so that's worth bearing in mind. Hopefully though, this can be sorted out of court.

 

[Darandio]

I do think probability is an important concept to hold onto in this case, and I think worst case scenarios can be misleading and create proportionally more anxiety than necessary. But I suppose it does help to have a full picture of all options as provided by the forum.

I do think it is more to do you dismissing their advice and calling it inaccurate when it wasn't, quite rudely too I must add. It's very important in these cases to have all bases covered, you'll find that some people do come for advice and then ignore the situation hoping it will go away. When giving the advice that was given, posters such as Yorkie have no idea that you weren't going to do just that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Probability is important to take into account, but it's worth noting that I work in the industry and I've seen cases where a first-time offender has had their day in court after they sent a snotty response when the company asked for their input - so that's worth bearing in mind. Hopefully though, this can be sorted out of court.

Yep, you have to remember that these letters are dealt with by people, who can be motivated to get awkward if the reply is not polite

 

[Sally]

I do think it is more to do you dismissing their advice and calling it inaccurate when it wasn't, quite rudely too I must add. It's very important in these cases to have all bases covered, you'll find that some people do come for advice and then ignore the situation hoping it will go away. When giving the advice that was given, posters such as Yorkie have no idea that you weren't going to do just that.

I did write in post number 12 that I would write back to them with an honest letter. I’m not a dishonest, avoidant person. I didn’t dismiss it, but I did call it inaccurate and I still think it is, based on a likelihood argument.

 

[bb21]

Sally, I would echo the advice not to underestimate the gravity of the matter and I trust you do. While it is far from being certain you will be taken to court, it is indeed a possibility as it is a criminal offence even under the relatively "lighter" railway byelaws to be unable to deliver up a valid ticket. That does not require any intent as it is a strict liability offence. Not all criminal offences will involve trial by a jury as many of them are of a relatively "minor" nature. A number of other laws can also be used if the company felt they had sufficient evidence.

Railway legislation works in a quite unusual manner in this country by usual standards (or even "perverse" some might say) which a lot of people are not aware of, and could very easily fall foul of unknowingly, which going by your account would be a pretty good summary of why things turned out the way they are for you on this occasion in my opinion. It doesn't necessarily mean those who fall foul are necessarily dishonest, as many aren't.

The technical aspects of relevant laws have more or less been explained correctly in this thread by most people, but you are right that the worst case scenario happens only in a small proportion of cases. Several people who contributed in this thread are highly experienced (yorkie, DaveNewcastle, etc) so even if you object to their language, please see beyond that and take the underlying advice into account. If you engage with the company, most case-handlers are reasonable people and would not want to take people to court unnecessarily, and you would stand a good chance avoiding the worst case scenario and end up with a comparatively small hole in your wallet, or if you are really lucky, none whatsoever.

 

[Sally]

Yep, you have to remember that these letters are dealt with by people, who can be motivated to get awkward if the reply is not polite

Absolutely, and I will be polite, honest and prompt. I hoped when I said would write back in post 12 , there would’ve been no reason to think otherwise.

 

[najaB]

I didn’t dismiss it, but I did call it inaccurate and I still think it is, based on a likelihood argument.

It is not. I'd say that there's about a 1/3 chance this will end up in court as a Byelaw 19 charge, based on previous cases.

 

[Sally]

Sally, I would echo the advice not to underestimate the gravity of the matter and I trust you do. While it is far from being certain you will be taken to court, it is indeed a possibility as it is a criminal offence even under the relatively "lighter" railway byelaws to be unable to deliver up a valid ticket. That does not require any intent as it is a strict liability offence. Not all criminal offences will involve trial by a jury as many of them are of a relatively "minor" nature. A number of other laws can also be used if the company felt they had sufficient evidence.

Railway legislation works in a quite unusual manner in this country by usual standards (or even "perverse" some might say) which a lot of people are not aware of, and could very easily fall foul of unknowingly, which going by your account would be a pretty good summary of why things turned out the way they are for you on this occasion in my opinion. It doesn't necessarily mean those who fall foul are necessarily dishonest, as many aren't.

The technical aspects of relevant laws have more or less been explained correctly in this thread by most people, but you are right that the worst case scenario happens only in a small proportion of cases. Several people who contributed in this thread are highly experienced (yorkie, DaveNewcastle, etc) so even if you object to their language, please see beyond that and take the underlying advice into account. If you engage with the company, most case-handlers are reasonable people and would not want to take people to court unnecessarily, and you would stand a good chance avoiding the worst case scenario and end up with a comparatively small hole in your wallet, or if you are really lucky, none whatsoever.

Thank you bb21.

Thanks to the help of the forum, I absolutely think I have unknowingly fallen foul of the law on this case, and due to the unintentionality and brievity of me being in the wrong, I think it is a shame for me to have been charged. And furthermore now, my lack of understanding of the appeals process/MG11 have complicated my case and likely to have increased what I need to pay. Again, unfortunate for me rather than deserved. But I am fully accepting of my role in this and my reply letter would reflect this.

I don’t mean to undermine anyone’s experience but I do think it’s worth raising a question mark over the advice to develop the rational for a response. And perhaps language over a computer can leave tones etc. up to interpretation which may have meant they, and I, came across in unintentional ways. I did value their comments and took their opinion on board.

 

[Sally]

It is not. I'd say that there's about a 1/3 chance this will end up in court as a Byelaw 19 charge, based on previous cases.

Which previous cases najaB? Have you got the details please? And even if it is a third, that still makes it statistically significantly less likely.

 

[najaB]

...due to the unintentionality and brievity of me being in the wrong, I think it is a shame for me to have been charged...

"I only broke the law a little bit."

I'm out, I hope you reach an amicable solution.

 

[Sally]

"I only broke the law a little bit."

I'm out, I hope you reach an amicable solution.

Yeah, I guess, something like that. But with unknowingly thrown in. Is that bad? It’s the truth.

Are you sure you can’t send me details of those cases you mentioned? I acknowledge you’ve already given a lot of your time to this but if you were able to, I’d really appreciate it.

Thanks for your kind wishes re me reaching an amicable solution.

 

[skyhigh]

Thank you bb21.

Thanks to the help of the forum, I absolutely think I have unknowingly fallen foul of the law on this case, and due to the unintentionality and brievity of me being in the wrong, I think it is a shame for me to have been charged. And furthermore now, my lack of understanding of the appeals process/MG11 have complicated my case and likely to have increased what I need to pay. Again, unfortunate for me rather than deserved. But I am fully accepting of my role in this and my reply letter would reflect this.

I don’t mean to undermine anyone’s experience but I do think it’s worth raising a question mark over the advice to develop the rational for a response. And perhaps language over a computer can leave tones etc. up to interpretation which may have meant they, and I, came across in unintentional ways. I did value their comments and took their opinion on board.

I'm not meaning to be rude, but comments like 'I think it is a shame for me to be charged' really won't help in any response to the company. I'm sure you don't mean for that to come across badly, as you don't with posts on here, but don't forget that any correspondence you send the company will also leave tones up to interpretation and might come across in unintentional ways.

There are people on here who would be willing to proof-read anything you are planning to send to the company - I'd advise you get someone else to check to make sure it comes across well (and that's general advice I'd give to anyone).

 

[Sally]

I'm not meaning to be rude, but comments like 'I think it is a shame for me to be charged' really won't help in any response to the company. I'm sure you don't mean for that to come across badly, as you don't with posts on here, but don't forget that any correspondence you send the company will also leave tones up to interpretation and might come across in unintentional ways.

There are people on here who would be willing to proof-read anything you are planning to send to the company - I'd advise you get someone else to check to make sure it comes across well (and that's general advice I'd give to anyone).

Thanks Sky high. I won’t put that in my letter. And yes, I really don’t mean to come across badly.

 

[sefton]

How clear was it that it was a first class coach?
...
Could you argue it was unclear? I did with GTR on the 387s. The have since improved the labelling. But from St Albans the same train heading to Sutton doesn’t have first. Is it easy for an infrequent traveller to tell if it does / doesn’t have first in use.

I think this is a reasonable question.

On the 700s the declassification of the rear carriage is poorly advertised and you may have to wait quite some time for the display to cycle around to the message.

Although regular commuters may believe a carriage is declassified on past experience, an infrequent traveller may need to remain in the carriage longer than simply passing through to confirm whether it is or isn't declassified.

Doesn't help the OP who was sat down, but for someone standing...

 

[Hadders]

1st class is well marked on class 700 trains.

Normally on Thameslink services the rear 1st class compartment is declassified which is indicated by a message on the passenger information screen in the compartment. On Sutton services both compartments are normally declassified but the OP wasn’t on a Sutton service.

I believe the OP was travelling in the front 1st class compartment.

 

[BestWestern]

Oh dear. You've been given well founded, knowledgeable advice, by a number of people who know exactly what they're talking about. You have admitted that you intentionally bought one Standard class and one First class ticket, hoping that one of you would get away with travelling in First without paying for it. Had you not been challenged, who would you have 'asked for permission'? In the eyes of the Prosecutions Department, very probably nobody. There are no grounds at all for assuming that anybody would have granted you permission to travel in First with a Standard ticket, and the idea that you fully intended to move and sit separately for the entire journey if not, or that you would happily waste the freshly bought First ticket by both sitting in Standard, is frankly rather odd.

I have to wonder if you displayed a similar attitude when caught by the revenue inspector as you have towards the contributors on here whose advice you didn't like? That won't have helped. Incidentally, have you apologised to them, particularly as they continue to assist you?

Many who are caught fare dodging fall into the trap of thinking it won't be a big deal. Most appreciate fairly swiftly that, actually, it can be, but a small minority plough on in denial. I would strongly suggest that you engage a solicitor, whose advice you might be more open to accepting and acting on accordingly.

 

[LowLevel]

Until you get your letter you won't know Sally but don't be surprised if it's content is along the lines of you have been reported for being in breach of whichever regulation, please provide your side of the story and we will decide whether to proceed with charging you with the criminal offence (on the railway it is indeed a criminal offence and the train operator not the Crown Prosecution Service will decide whether to take you to court). In your favour is that the courts keep fines and the train operator keeps settlements in advance so you might be offered an out of court settlement.

Just be aware that there's a whole of host of ways to end up in legal hot water on the railway that you wouldn't necessarily expect.

Do let us know how you get on.

 

[6Gman]

Thank you bb21.

Thanks to the help of the forum, I absolutely think I have unknowingly fallen foul of the law on this case, and due to the unintentionality and brievity of me being in the wrong, I think it is a shame for me to have been charged. And furthermore now, my lack of understanding of the appeals process/MG11 have complicated my case and likely to have increased what I need to pay. Again, unfortunate for me rather than deserved. But I am fully accepting of my role in this and my reply letter would reflect this.

lf I'm understanding your story your mother bought a First Class ticket while you bought a Standard Class ticket (at the same time?) before boarding the train.

This seems odd - if you wished to travel together why not buy similar tickets?

I can understand the prosecution department viewing this as odd. And how was your sitting in First Class "unintentional"?

 

[Sally]

Oh dear. You've been given well founded, knowledgeable advice, by a number of people who know exactly what they're talking about. You have admitted that you intentionally bought one Standard class and one First class ticket, hoping that one of you would get away with travelling in First without paying for it. Had you not been challenged, who would you have 'asked for permission'? In the eyes of the Prosecutions Department, very probably nobody. There are no grounds at all for assuming that anybody would have granted you permission to travel in First with a Standard ticket, and the idea that you fully intended to move and sit separately for the entire journey if not, or that you would happily waste the freshly bought First ticket by both sitting in Standard, is frankly rather odd.

I have to wonder if you displayed a similar attitude when caught by the revenue inspector as you have towards the contributors on here whose advice you didn't like? That won't have helped. Incidentally, have you apologised to them, particularly as they continue to assist you?

Many who are caught fare dodging fall into the trap of thinking it won't be a big deal. Most appreciate fairly swiftly that, actually, it can be, but a small minority plough on in denial. I would strongly suggest that you engage a solicitor, whose advice you might be more open to accepting and acting on accordingly.

My mum has worked for the railways for 36 years and so is permitted to travel first class on all train operators for free. So she didn’t buy a ticket, just me. When I was younger, this was always how she used to ask and we have never been refused. We would enter in first class and then speak to a train conductor. I understand it’s clearly not how it works nowadays but it’s never been a problem for us before.

I have also acknowledged my ignorance to knowing Thameslink don’t have conductors on trains; a reasonable thing for people who don’t travel on trains every day to get wrong.

We would’ve asked someone and not just sat there without permission. As explained, I’m not into fare evasion or travelling for free. We were waiting to ask the inspector on the train, that’s why my mum didn’t even sit down and yes, I did sit for a couple of seconds, but that was an honest and mindless error. It’s natural to board a train and take a seat in autopilot in my perspective. We didn’t just sit there and wait for the inspector to come. I appreciate it may be hard to prove my honest intentions but I can sleep at night knowing I didn’t do anything intentionally wrong and that means something to me. Even if I have to pay a large sum of money, my integrity won’t be compromised.

I have found many comments helpful which I have repeatedly said I appreciated and some scaremongering (and therefore personally unhelpful, but I still have acknowledged their value). If there’s anyone on here that has been offended by me, I’m sure they’d let me know and wouldn’t need someone/you to ask on their behalf. And the inspector was very polite with me as I was with him, there were no interpersonal issues.

I would’ve happily paid the penalty fare but didn’t fully understand the consequences of not doing so (& I do now, again thanks to this thread). It wasn’t a refusal to pay but more a ‘I’d like to put my case across first’ and the inspector did not explain that this could mean prosecution etc etc.

I hope this addresses your points.

 

[Sally]

lf I'm understanding your story your mother bought a First Class ticket while you bought a Standard Class ticket (at the same time?) before boarding the train.

This seems odd - if you wished to travel together why not buy similar tickets?

I can understand the prosecution department viewing this as odd. And how was your sitting in First Class "unintentional"?

Thank you 6Gman, I can understand your confusion. I hope my post above clarifies why we were both carrying tickets for different classes. We intentionally entered first class but did not intentionally expect to stay there without permission. If there was no guard onboard to ask, we absolutely would not have sat there. I would’ve been way too anxious and not enjoyed the trip if I was sat somewhere I wasn’t supposed to. I hate breaking rules and just didn’t realise how rigid they were on Thameslink.

 

[Sally]

Until you get your letter you won't know Sally but don't be surprised if it's content is along the lines of you have been reported for being in breach of whichever regulation, please provide your side of the story and we will decide whether to proceed with charging you with the criminal offence (on the railway it is indeed a criminal offence and the train operator not the Crown Prosecution Service will decide whether to take you to court). In your favour is that the courts keep fines and the train operator keeps settlements in advance so you might be offered an out of court settlement.

Just be aware that there's a whole of host of ways to end up in legal hot water on the railway that you wouldn't necessarily expect.

Do let us know how you get on.

Thanks lowlevel, that’s useful to know.

I’ll let you know how it goes.

 

[BestWestern]

Your definition of scaremongering is, sadly, what those who understand this field would call 'reality'. Perhaps you'll discover that for yourself when the relevant mail arrives, or perhaps you'll be unusually fortunate. A good few posters prominently displayed around the railway network also detail this 'scaremongering'; it's based on real outcomes in real cases. Have a look next time you're out and about. The law tends to operate regardless of people's opinions.

 

[6Gman]

My mum has worked for the railways for 36 years and so is permitted to travel first class on all train operators for free. So she didn’t buy a ticket, just me. When I was younger, this was always how she used to ask and we have never been refused. We would enter in first class and then speak to a train conductor. I understand it’s clearly not how it works nowadays but it’s never been a problem for us before.

I wouldn't mention any of the above in your dealings with the train operating companies as it could get your mother into trouble.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wouldn't mention any of the above in your dealings with the train operating companies as it could get your mother into trouble.

Indeed. That kind of thing is unofficial "staff looking out for staff", not endorsed by the companies, and it's quite possible that if they cottoned on that it had been happening all the time they could withdraw the pass for misuse.

 

[MikeWh]

Indeed. That kind of thing is unofficial "staff looking out for staff", not endorsed by the companies, and it's quite possible that if they cottoned on that it had been happening all the time they could withdraw the pass for misuse.

Except that the pass itself hasn't actually been misused, as far as I can see. It would be good to get a flavour of the ages involved here, certainly at the time that permission used to be given. If the child was indeed a child in those days then it might be a different situation.

 

[tsr]

That's not one I've heard of on here before - is it used often, out of interest?

I believe that much of the RCCA 1845 has been superseded by, or incorporated in, later laws (to use fairly non-technical language). However, I understand there are various parts of the Act that are still referred to in prosecutions. If I remember correctly (and not being a lawyer, as they say) it also tends to be the basis on which TOCs can prosecute people for travelling over the distance for which they have paid. Basically the opposite way round to people short-faring by asking to buy a ticket from a station which is nearer to their destination than where they boarded.

 

[6Gman]

Except that the pass itself hasn't actually been misused, as far as I can see. It would be good to get a flavour of the ages involved here, certainly at the time that permission used to be given. If the child was indeed a child in those days then it might be a different situation.

If the child was indeed a child in those days wouldn't they have qualified for the same class of travel? *

Not sure any of this is really relevant (and my apologies for wandering off-topic). Basically the OP sat in First without the appropriate ticket and is now facing the consequences. "Brevity", "inadvertency" and past family behaviour affects this not one jot.

* I've long experience of PT facilities, but never made it to First Class levels.

 

[MG11]

Sally, you could be prosecuted under the byelaws or RORA 1889 for this, as you did knowingly sit in First Class accommodation with a Standard Class ticket. Other users have suggested that you may have not been aware you were in First Class but you openly admit that you knew you were, and the Revenue Protection Officer likely knew you were as well. Only on certain TOCs' services are you allowed to upgrade onboard. If you wanted to sit in First Class, you would have been expected to upgrade at the station BEFORE beginning your journey. Unfortunately for you, your refusal to pay the Penalty Fare offered, only makes the matter worse.

The good news for you is that it could still be settled out of court if you reply to correspondance with honesty, remourse and adherence to the facts only. You should avoid mentioning your mother's employment by the railway, just apologise, admit guilt and assure them it will never happen again. The fact you had "barely" sat down is irrelevant, so keep that out. Finally, you should make it clear that you are happy to pay any costs associated with this case that Thameslink feels to be appropriate. Please keep us updated as the case progresses.

 

[MG11]

lf I'm understanding your story your mother bought a First Class ticket while you bought a Standard Class ticket (at the same time?) before boarding the train.

This seems odd - if you wished to travel together why not buy similar tickets?

I can understand the prosecution department viewing this as odd. And how was your sitting in First Class "unintentional"?

Agreed.