Suggestion re prosecution cases: No Advice to be given without seeing paperwork/correspondence?

[AlterEgo]

I've been thinking this area of the forum works inefficiently for both people seeking advice and those who dispense it.

Frequently a poster will start a thread with a lengthy explanation of what happened. This is often contradicted, or vital context added, once the (redacted) paperwork and correspondence materialises in the thread.

This is not too difficult for those of us giving advice, but if, after a page or two of discussion and back and forth, the tenor or thrust of the advice given changes, it can be confusing for those on the receiving end. Very frequently, either the OP has witheld vital information or has been very misunderstood about their position. In some cases, OPs have been caught being deliberately dishonest in the thread which helps nobody, and conversely sometimes once paperwork comes to light we find the OP is in a much different position to the one they imagined.

It also tends to breed discussion which turns out to he unrelated to the original issue. This often includes tedious technical details of what a criminal record is or might be, telling people to contact their student union, professional registration, visa specialist, etc etc - none of which really assists with the thrust of the issue - what the TOC is accusing the OP of and the actual offence is and supporting evidence.

I've wondered if the following is a better policy:

1) Poster arrives with an explanation of an incident, but no paperwork yet - we advise simply, wait for the letter, and at best advise them to also contact their union/family/whoever else
2) Poster then posts correspondence - we can then give detailed advice which encompasses the full picture, both the long-form account of the incident the OP gives and the details of any and all allegations against them.

I don't know how other members feel about this but it's a thought I had.

 

[RPI]

I think that's a very sensible idea

 

[Ediswan]

It would risk the current response of "We can only really help you if ..." being replaced by "Forum rules require ...". Does the forum want to appear as another organisation with its own set of rules which must be complied with ?

 

[Darandio]

It would risk the current response of "We can only really help you if ..." being replaced by "Forum rules require ...". Does the forum want to appear as another organisation with its own set of rules which must be complied with ?

It already is. You agree to the forum rules before you sign up.

I think it's a good idea, anything that minimises the repetetive and cluttered discussion that often instantly appears in threads in this section can only be a good thing. People just need clear advice related to their specific situation.

 

[spag23]

I agree with AlterEgo. So many of the initial responses indeed boil down to "Come back when you get the Letter". And don't ignore it!
Given some OPs' desperation, perhaps we could add timely reassurance about prison and unemployability being highly unlikely outcomes.
And tell people to buy the right Railcard asap (if case appropriate).
And, given the possible 6 month delay, advise the OP to write up the incident for their own records.
And no, don't try phoning the TOC meantime.
I think the above covers most of the initial OP questions.

 

[AlterEgo]

It would risk the current response of "We can only really help you if ..." being replaced by "Forum rules require ...". Does the forum want to appear as another organisation with its own set of rules which must be complied with ?

If the rules are helpful, then I don't see why not. The problem is, help given can be incomplete and even disadvantage a poster if it is not given with the full context.

My main concern is getting people the advice they need without too much repetitive discussion and hypotheticals.

 

[ChewChewTrain]

I agree with the thrust of what’s been posted so far. While I don’t want to add to the workload of our wonderful volunteer admins, I wonder if some kind of wizard, to be completed before any advice will be given, would improve matters. Failing that, a numbered set of questions (again with a rigid requirement to answer each before receiving any advice) would achieve much the same aim.

As for those who deliberately mislead - presumably in the belief that magic “loopholes” exist which people will only tell them about if they downplay the seriousness of their offence(s) - I find it really rather distasteful, considering that they’re getting help here for free. Perhaps there’s no practical way of deterring it, which is a pity really.

 

[ianBR]

I think you might see a huge drop in the number of posts on the forum given how difficult it is for anyone who is less techy or new to the forum board to work out how to post images into a post.

 

[Darandio]

I think you might see a huge drop in the number of posts on the forum given how difficult it is for anyone who is less techy or new to the forum board to work out how to post images into a post.

Then they ask how to do it. 99% of those asked in previous threads normally have no issue managing it. And they are asked to do so in pretty much every thread in this section, it's a pretty critical bit of information when requiring advice moving forward.

 

[simonw]

I think you might see a huge drop in the number of posts on the forum given how difficult it is for anyone who is less techy or new to the forum board to work out how to post images into a post.

The big paper clip and the words Attach files is a large giveaway.

 

[Dai Corner]

See the pinned post at the top of this forum

Please read before posting in Disputes & Prosecutions

Guidance for those asking for advice: Please bear in mind the following, when asking for advice in this section: We need to know all relevant facts in order to assist you, including, for example: The stations* where you actually started & finished your journey The stations* where you changed...

www.railforums.co.uk

Guidance for those asking for advice:

Many members will try to assist you, but please bear in mind the following:
We need to know all relevant facts in order to assist you, including, for example:
The stations where you started & finished your journey;
The stations where you changed trains (if applicable);
If you presented a ticket(s), the information stated under "Ticket type", "From", "To", "Route", and any other relevant details;
What happened in any encounter with railway staff;
The details of any paperwork with which you were issued.
Be careful not to post anything incriminating or personally identifying
We need to know what outcome(s) you would consider satisfactory
If you are posting regarding a Penalty Fare, MG11, Unpaid Fares Notice, or similar you should also be aware that as part of trying to make sure you are given the most helpful advice possible our members may ask you questions on what you did and why which may be quite probing or robust and may feel as if they are trying to catch you out or don't believe you. Please do not be offended by this. By asking you these questions our members are trying to find any inconsitencies or other issues with what you have said which is exactly what the Train Company who is dealing with you will be doing and is an important part of ensuring that the advice given is the most accurate possible.

You may find our Disputes section of our RailUK Fares & Ticketing Guide helpful.

The forum cannot be held liable for any advice given by any forum member, and none of the advice given on this forum can be considered legal advice. If you are threatened with prosecution you may wish to seek the advice of a solicitor.

In addition, please avoid using three letter codes in thread titles or where you haven't mentioned the station before. Their use is acceptable for follow-ups where you use the correct CRS code (eg: BNS is Barnes, BHM is Birmingham New Street; LLS is neither Liverpool Lime Street [LIV], nor London Liverpool Street [LST], but Llanishen).

Please note: by posting on the forum you are bound by our Forum Rules and you agree that the posts you make cannot be removed except at our discretion.

Please remember that threads in this section are a useful resource for people seeking advice. If posts are removed without our consultation we will reinstate them in full and prevent them from being further edited.

Would it help if anyone posting for the first time in this forum was directed to it, and 'the details of any paperwork' changed to read 'images of any paperwork with all personal details, case reference numbers and similar hidden'?

If the forum software allows it, posters could be directed to a form to collect and post all the information in a standard format.

 

[Haywain]

Is it being suggested that we stop asking questions of posters to try to get the reality of what has caused them to be posting? If so, I think that's a very bad idea.

 

[zwk500]

Is it being suggested that we stop asking questions of posters to try to get the reality of what has caused them to be posting? If so, I think that's a very bad idea.

I think the suggestion is that we ask posters to skip straight to the part where somebody asks for the documentation. I think there's a good case for it, but I also note a large number of threads are simply people panicking and seeking reassurance/knowledge about the likely impacts of being caught out, and documentation is not needed to respond to those sort of posts. (The 'Will it ruin my life forever' posts).

 

[AlterEgo]

Is it being suggested that we stop asking questions of posters to try to get the reality of what has caused them to be posting? If so, I think that's a very bad idea.

Not at all, but half of those questions would be rendered irrelevant anyway by simply seeing the paperwork (and especially the witness statement if there is one). It's not really our business to satisfy ourselves whether an OP is a "good person" or not, the point is to ascertain whether there is significant difference between what they're accused of and what they think happened.

 

[Haywain]

Not at all, but half of those questions would be rendered irrelevant anyway by simply seeing the paperwork (and especially the witness statement if there is one). It's not really our business to satisfy ourselves whether an OP is a "good person" or not, the point is to ascertain whether there is significant difference between what they're accused of and what they think happened.

Well, I may have got the wrong end of the stick but I get the impression that you are suggesting a system that essentially limits posting on threads. As every case is different I really don't think this will be helpful.

 

[MotCO]

There seems to be two different views here. Can I suggest a compromise? When someone comes here for advice, The 'Hadders' standard response is given, maybe enhanced to include some of the comments/advice mentioned above, and only when the OP supplies the required information, do we continue to give advice. Maybe the thread is locked until the OP returns with the required info, but are there problems with new posters being able to get a thread re-opened?

 

[zwk500]

There seems to be two different views here. Can I suggest a compromise? When someone comes here for advice, The 'Hadders' standard response is given, maybe enhanced to include some of the comments/advice mentioned above, and only when the OP supplies the required information, do we continue to give advice. Maybe the thread is locked until the OP returns with the required info, but are there problems with new posters being able to get a thread re-opened?

The issue I can see with this is upon being given a 'stock' reply and the thread immediately locked, the OP will simply never come back. This is bad for 2 reasons - the OP potentially misses out on helpful advice, and the forum misses an opportunity to increase it's collective knowledge base.
I am all for a stock response of @Hadders's advice and a request to post any and all documentation to be available (even automatic) but feel that locking the thread would show a dismissive or hostile attitude that does not help.

 

[AlterEgo]

The issue I can see with this is upon being given a 'stock' reply and the thread immediately locked, the OP will simply never come back. This is bad for 2 reasons - the OP potentially misses out on helpful advice, and the forum misses an opportunity to increase it's collective knowledge base.
I am all for a stock response of @Hadders's advice and a request to post any and all documentation to be available (even automatic) but feel that locking the thread would show a dismissive or hostile attitude that does not help.

Yeah I wouldn't say locking the thread is helpful. I'm all for posting the stock response as suggested by @MotCO too.

 

[Master29]

I think it's a good idea. Putting standard friendly sounding advice like if you require advice please can you provide us with the letters you have been sent. It will help us give you the best advice we can offer or alternately if they don't have any correspondence inform them as we usually do to come back to us when they do, basically what Alterego says.

 

[30907]

This often includes tedious technical details of what a criminal record is or might be, telling people to contact their student union, professional registration, visa specialist, etc etc - none of which really assists with the thrust of the issue - what the TOC is accusing the OP of and the actual offence is and supporting evidence.

A fair number of posters on here are worried about precisely those issues, and I - like others - don't ignore them, even though they are strictly irrelevant.

I wonder if someone with specialist knowledge could compile a FAQs we could refer people to? DaveNCL was good at giving authoritative answers a few years back.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the rest of your post BTW.

 

[Haywain]

This often includes tedious technical details of what a criminal record is or might be, telling people to contact their student union, professional registration, visa specialist, etc etc - none of which really assists with the thrust of the issue

I agree that all this (plus the stuff about what constitutes a fine) is unnecessary.

 

[Hadders]

I've wondered if the following is a better policy:

1) Poster arrives with an explanation of an incident, but no paperwork yet - we advise simply, wait for the letter, and at best advise them to also contact their union/family/whoever else
2) Poster then posts correspondence - we can then give detailed advice which encompasses the full picture, both the long-form account of the incident the OP gives and the details of any and all allegations against them.

This would be great in an ideal world.

I wonder if some kind of wizard, to be completed before any advice will be given, would improve matters. Failing that, a numbered set of questions (again with a rigid requirement to answer each before receiving any advice) would achieve much the same aim.

The Pepipoo forum for motoring offences does this. It could be useful but in reality we'd still get posts from people who hadn't completed the wizard correctly or asked all of the questions properly. People sometimes seek our help because they don't fully understand the process, and part of what we do is to help them understand it. If we make it too difficult for people to ask for our helpo there is a risk that they won't get the correct help.

I think you might see a huge drop in the number of posts on the forum given how difficult it is for anyone who is less techy or new to the forum board to work out how to post images into a post.

That could well happen.

Can I suggest a compromise? When someone comes here for advice, The 'Hadders' standard response is given, maybe enhanced to include some of the comments/advice mentioned above, and only when the OP supplies the required information, do we continue to give advice. Maybe the thread is locked until the OP returns with the required info, but are there problems with new posters being able to get a thread re-opened?

Locking threads and then getting them reopened would just mean more admin for moderators. Ideally it would be best of discussion was linited until we have seen all of the documentation but in reality this would be very difficult to enforce unless there we were going to limit the number of people who could reply to posts in this thread, and I certainly would not want to see that happen.

 

[Puffing Devil]

The Pepipoo forum for motoring offences does this. It could be useful but in reality we'd still get posts from people who hadn't completed the wizard correctly or asked all of the questions properly. People sometimes seek our help because they don't fully understand the process, and part of what we do is to help them understand it. If we make it too difficult for people to ask for our helpo there is a risk that they won't get the correct help.

Agree - it works 80% of the time, which does seek to take the burden off members replying and in the case of "I've just been stopped, what next", it can allow a reasonable "Don't panic, Wait for the letter, you're not going to prison" holding post.

For the 20% of people that can't/won't/are unable to use it - so be it. We've saved work on the other 80% of posts.

 

[swt_passenger]

I agree that all this (plus the stuff about what constitutes a fine) is unnecessary.

And yet, how many posters write something along the lines of “I’m happy to pay any fines, but I don’t want to go to court.” That’s a sure indication they don’t understand the difference…

 

[Haywain]

And yet, how many posters write something along the lines of “I’m happy to pay any fines, but I don’t want to go to court.” That’s a sure indication they don’t understand the difference…

Because for most of them it's not important.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Because for most of them it's not important.

Indeed. It does seem to quite often be the case that newbies seeking help on the Disputes & Prosecutions sub-forum are seemingly willing to throw almost any amount of £££ in the direction of a TOC to make their problem go away and not end up with a court conviction.

They seem not to be too bothered whether what they end up having to pay is actually a penalty fare, or a TOC's investigation team's admin fee, or just payment of multiple amounts of underpaid / non paid fares calculated at the full undiscounted amount. It's all just a "fine" to them.

Essentially, what they want is to avoid the "stigma" of ending up with that court conviction.

 

[Titfield]

Indeed. It does seem to quite often be the case that newbies seeking help on the Disputes & Prosecutions sub-forum are seemingly willing to throw almost any amount of £££ in the direction of a TOC to make their problem go away and not end up with a court conviction.

They seem not to be too bothered whether what they end up having to pay is actually a penalty fare, or a TOC's investigation team's admin fee, or just payment of multiple amounts of underpaid / non paid fares calculated at the full undiscounted amount. It's all just a "fine" to them.

Essentially, what they want is to avoid the "stigma" of ending up with that court conviction.

Which does of course raise the question why not pay the correct fare in the first place.

I do if course appreciate that some pay the incorrect fare "by mistake" and some do not pay a fare prior to boarding because "they think they can pay on board / pay on arrival".

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Which does of course raise the question why not pay the correct fare in the first place.

Quite!

Especially those who seem to think that checking first whether they hold a valid, unexpired, railcard, before routinely claiming a relatively trivial discount, is optional.

Others clearly don't realise the possible consequences of being caught fare-dodging/short-faring/using someone else's pass, especially if done repeatedly, and their journey/ticket purchasing history is readily viewable online.

Penny wise, pound foolish.

 

[PeterY]

I've been thinking this area of the forum works inefficiently for both people seeking advice and those who dispense it.

Frequently a poster will start a thread with a lengthy explanation of what happened. This is often contradicted, or vital context added, once the (redacted) paperwork and correspondence materialises in the thread.

This is not too difficult for those of us giving advice, but if, after a page or two of discussion and back and forth, the tenor or thrust of the advice given changes, it can be confusing for those on the receiving end. Very frequently, either the OP has witheld vital information or has been very misunderstood about their position. In some cases, OPs have been caught being deliberately dishonest in the thread which helps nobody, and conversely sometimes once paperwork comes to light we find the OP is in a much different position to the one they imagined.

It also tends to breed discussion which turns out to he unrelated to the original issue. This often includes tedious technical details of what a criminal record is or might be, telling people to contact their student union, professional registration, visa specialist, etc etc - none of which really assists with the thrust of the issue - what the TOC is accusing the OP of and the actual offence is and supporting evidence.

I've wondered if the following is a better policy:

1) Poster arrives with an explanation of an incident, but no paperwork yet - we advise simply, wait for the letter, and at best advise them to also contact their union/family/whoever else
2) Poster then posts correspondence - we can then give detailed advice which encompasses the full picture, both the long-form account of the incident the OP gives and the details of any and all allegations against them.

I don't know how other members feel about this but it's a thought I had.

I love reading the disputes thread on this forum and I learn a lot from it. The experts do a wonderful things for free in helping others in sticky situations. I'm no expert. My opinion only, sometimes we get a bit side tracked and the thread goes on longer than it probably should. Thank you, to all the rail fare experts and all they do.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I think the suggestion is that we ask posters to skip straight to the part where somebody asks for the documentation. I think there's a good case for it, but I also note a large number of threads are simply people panicking and seeking reassurance/knowledge about the likely impacts of being caught out, and documentation is not needed to respond to those sort of posts. (The 'Will it ruin my life forever' posts).

There’s good reasons why we don’t have a like button and ‘me too!’ posts are discouraged, but this pretty well reflects my thoughts.

I’d add that even without a rule change, a lot of threads at the moment are rapidly moving towards someone saying ‘please load the paperwork’. So to a large extent we’ve already got what the OP is suggesting, just through us being self-regulating. When (as does happen from time to time) a thread comes up where all the information we need to give advice is in the original post even if there are no documents, then that’s when people provide advice without waiting for the papers.