Summons by Northern Rail..Advice Needed Please

[lesleypallmall]

Hi,
I received a court summons today which says that "I did travel without having paid and with intent to avoid payment" Contrary to S.5(3)(a) Railways Act 1889.
I live in Manchester city centre and 3 months ago I went to Piccadilly Station at about 11am and asked for a day return to Bolton at the ticket desk. I paid the money asked, got my tickets and went to Bolton.
I met up with my Son, went shopping and at around 6pm went back to Bolton Station. I think that there were 3 rail staff stood at the entrance / exit checking tickets of passengers entering and leaving, although it wasn't busy.
I showed my return ticket to one of them, got thanked and went down to the platform. I got on the first train to Manchester that came in which happened to be going to Victoria.
At Victoria I saw that ticket exit barriers had been put in and I went and put my ticket in to open the barrier. It didn't work. I thought I must have put the "out" journey ticket in as I hadn't put my reading glasses on, so I tried the other ticket. I was then approached by a rail employee who asked to see my ticket.
He said that my ticket was "off peak" and there was still about 15 mins of Peak Time to go.
I said well why hadn't they told me that at Bolton? I wasn't in any rush to get home and would have been quite happy to spend 10 / 15 minutes longer with my son in Bolton.
He agreed with me that the Bolton ticket man should have pointed it out to me but nonetheless took my name and address as if I was a criminal. I was expecting him to say I had to pay some extra money but he didn't. If he had have done I would have argued that I shouldn't have to pay any extra as I was only on the peak train because the Bolton staff hadn't done their job; I showed them my ticket and they had let me carry on to the train.
I then got a letter from the "Prosecutions Unit " asking for payment of the
difference between peak and off peak fare, followed by a "Fixed Penalty Notice" I did not pay as I did not agree that I owed them anything.
My intention now is to go to Court and plead Not Guilty. I also want to call the Bolton Station Manager as a Witness. I haven't done anything yet and would very much appreciate some help and advice.

 

[bb21]

The correct course of action should have been to ask you to pay an excess fare for the difference.

Were you ever asked that?

 

[crehld]

I then got a letter from the "Prosecutions Unit " asking for payment of the
difference between peak and off peak fare, followed by a "Fixed Penalty Notice" I did not pay as I did not agree that I owed them anything.

Did you reply to this letter at all to explain the situation, even if you didn't agree to pay the amount demanded?

 

[DaleCooper]

I also want to call the Bolton Station Manager as a Witness.

I can't see how the station manager could be a helpful witness even if they were present when the OP presented their ticket, which is not stated, they are unlikely to remember a minor event that happened 3 months ago.

 

[najaB]

If he had have done I would have argued that I shouldn't have to pay any extra as I was only on the peak train because the Bolton staff hadn't done their job; I showed them my ticket and they had let me carry on to the train.

Just to point out - you would still have been due to pay an excess. Unless you specifically asked the Bolton staff if you could board the next train they were under no obligation to point out peak time restrictions. You could well have been intending to wait on the platform until the first train that would have allowed a non-peak arrival at Piccadilly.

 

[lesleypallmall]

As I said I wasn't asked to pay any extra at the time, but was asked by letter about 6 weeks later.
I don't see how paying more would have been right thing. I gave the staff at Bolton my ticket to check, they effectively told me it was fine to make this journey at that time. I had no reason to think that they were wrong. If they had told me that I had to pay more to get on the next train I would have had the choice of paying or waiting a short while and not paying any extra.
Surely it shouldn't be right that they can say "yes your ticket is fine, get on the next train" then at the other end ask for more money?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
No, I didn't

 

[najaB]

Surely it shouldn't be right that they can say "yes your ticket is fine, get on the next train" then at the other end ask for more money?

Did they actually say this?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

He agreed with me that the Bolton ticket man should have pointed it out to me . . . .

. . . . I also want to call the Bolton Station Manager as a Witness.

That's an interesting proposal. I guess your proposed line of questioning would be to recive his confirmation that the Inspectors on the day were negligent in permitting you access to the platforms 15 mins before the ticket became valid.

Unfortunately, I doubt that you will receive that confirmation, no matter how well the questions are framed.
Explanations might include the fact that their primary duty is to detect and prevent ticketless travel; or that there was no fault in allowing you access to the platforms shortly before your ticket became valid as it is only the actual travel by train outside the 'peak' that would not be covered; or other statistics on ticket use which do not show your use of the off-peak ticket that day as a significant factor in fare evasion.

Its a point worth making (if you DO choose to contest the Conviction) but I can't see that this Witness will work in your favour.

. . . . I had no reason to think that they were wrong.

Perhaps, but then we can't expect to be arguing about the precise words that were used in an unrecorded, unwritten conversation 3 months later, and come out of it with an agreement that your recollection is precisely the correct one. Sorry.

As I mentioned above, this too is a point worth making if you DO decide to let this go to a trial and you choose to plea not guilty, but you can't expect the judgement to turn on it. If pressed as Witnesses, the Inspectors might counter that they had no reason to believe that you didn't know that the 'peak' was finishing in 15 minutes. (yes, I know that's not what you report them having said, but it is a possible response).

As I'm sure you realise, the risks and costs of pleading 'not guilty' are that is can be more expensive if you are unsuccessful than if you had pled 'guilty' at the outset. But having warned you of that risk, I'd suggest that if you did want to contest it, then I'd stick to the facts that you presented here, that your ticket was valid for that journey that day, but only after the 'peak' expired 15 minutes later, which was a comparatively minor condition and that you were adamant that you had just been authorised to travel minutes before departure.

But I would suggest that, despite your earlier refusal of a Fixed Penalty to dispose of the matter, it might be less risky and less stressful to attempt an out-of-court settlement again, and hope that you can resolve the dispute amicably without involving the Court.

 

[bb21]

Yes, I can see where you are coming from, but you are getting into a very grey area.

The difference between the peak and off-peak fares is minimal (£2.30), and in reality, you will have a great deal of struggle to convince the court that you do not owe them the difference in fare, since the facts are clear that you travelled on a service restricted to the type of ticket you held, so if you still haven't paid that, I would suggest that you do so immediately. Post them a cheque sent "signed for", so if needed, you have evidence that you did so.

Apart from that, I don't think you owe them anything. Once you have paid the difference in fares, my understanding is that the Section 5 charge will almost certainly fail.

It is all very well arguing on the basis of "principles", but sometimes it is simply not worth the time and effort in an attempt to "uphold one's principles", if you like.

 

[Rail Ranger]

Also the ticket clerk at Piccadilly should have asked the OP what time they were planning to come back from Bolton and then sold them the appropriate ticket (or told the OP they couldn't use the Off-Peak ticket between 1600 and 1830). It boils down to an issue we see time and time again. The rail industry assumes that passengers are regular users who know all the rules but many in the North of England, where the car is the dominant form of transport, are only occasional users.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Given that it is the case that a Penalty Fare (in such areas where those apply, so not Northern) cannot be issued for travelling on a ticket that is only invalid by virtue of time, this seems excessively heavy handed. I like the idea of sending the fare due (as it is indeed due) and seeing if they will settle on that, but be aware you may end up stuck paying the £80 Penalty Fake (I assume it is that they have asked for?) in order to avoid court.

Assuming it is a Byelaw offence they are charging you with, unfortunately you are guilty because it is strict liability, i.e. being unaware of the issue is not a defence. I personally find this highly unfair, but it is nonetheless a fact. So pleading not guilty would not be advisable in my view.

 

[bb21]

She is not being charged under the Byelaws. She is being charged under Section 5.

 

[najaB]

Also the ticket clerk at Piccadilly should have asked the OP what time they were planning to come back from Bolton and then sold them the appropriate ticket (or told the OP they couldn't use the Off-Peak ticket between 1600 and 1830).

That's a valid point, but it still doesn't excuse the OP from paying the excess fare. Nor would it be a strong defence against prosecution having not replied to previous correspondence.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Assuming it is a Byelaw offence they are charging you with, unfortunately you are guilty because it is strict liability, i.e. being unaware of the issue is not a defence.

The OP states that it is a RoRA prosecution.

 

[Bletchleyite]

She is not being charged under the Byelaws. She is being charged under Section 5.

What, RoRA? I can't see how the OP is guilty of that.

Can they charge under both regardless of what the letter says? By that I mean if RoRA fails, move to the Byelaws?

 

[lesleypallmall]

If it were possible I would have the actual ticket man who checked my ticket and allowed me to continue as a witness!
My thinking is that the station manager will have a record that shows that staff were manning the gate at that time and that it is their job to effectively say " yes your ticket is fine, continue or No your ticket isn't valid at this time". Would they any ctv that I could ask to be shown?
I think that anyone should reasonably expect that, if they are allowed onto a platform by a ticket inspector who has looked at their ticket, then they can legally board the next available train.
It is unreasonable imo to expect a customer to think any differently.

 

[najaB]

What, RoRA? I can't see how the OP is guilty of that.

I think that they are taking non-response to their correspondence to be evidence that there was intent. I'm reading the OP as saying they initially wrote asking for the difference in fares, then again with an £80 fixed penalty notice. Prosecution was the third and final step.

 

[bb21]

What, RoRA? I can't see how the OP is guilty of that.

Can they charge under both regardless of what the letter says? By that I mean if RoRA fails, move to the Byelaws?

I suppose they could, but should that be the case, they will need to be reported to the DfT for abusing the Byelaws, and potentially can be sued for breach of contract, contrary to Condition 12 of the NRCoC. If they want to issue one of their fixed penalty notices, they should be told where to shove it imo.

12. Restrictions on when you can travel

Restrictions apply to the use of some tickets (including those bought with a Railcard) in addition to/other than those in Condition 10 above such as the dates, days, and times when you can use them, and the trains in which they can be used. These restrictions will be made clear to you by the seller when you buy your ticket. If a restriction applies and the ticket you are using is not valid for the train you are travelling in, then:

(a) you will be liable to pay an excess fare (the difference between the price paid for the ticket you hold and the price of the lowest priced ticket available for immediate travel that would have entitled you to travel in that train for the journey shown on the ticket); or
(b) in the case of some types of discounted tickets (as indicated in the notices and publications) Condition 2 or 4 will apply.

If you purchase an Advance ticket, you must use that ticket in the train specified when you book your ticket. However, if you miss this service because a previous connecting train service was delayed you will be able to travel on the next service provided by the Train Company with whom you were booked to travel without penalty.

If you have an Off-Peak or Super Off-Peak ticket and board a train on which your ticket is not valid, you will only be charged the difference between the fare you have paid and the cheapest valid Anytime or Off-Peak fare for the service concerned. The same principle will apply if you wish to transfer to first class accommodation. This rule does not apply in designated Penalty Fares areas, where you may be required to pay a Penalty Fare.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I think that they are taking non-response to their correspondence to be evidence that there was intent. I'm reading the OP as saying they initially wrote asking for the difference in fares, then again with an £80 fixed penalty notice. Prosecution was the third and final step.

This, unfortunately, is how a small matter can escalate by taking no action - the small matter becomes a more expensive matter, - then it becomes a hearing in Court, - and then (if a 'not guilty' plea is entered), can become two days in Court.
I'll repeat my suggestion to try and draw a line under this now by attempting to resolve with an apology and payment.

Some matters of principle are well worth arguing and where possible changing something for the greater benefit of other in the future.
This isn't one of them.

 

[DaleCooper]

I think that anyone should reasonably expect that, if they are allowed onto a platform by a ticket inspector who has looked at their ticket, then they can legally board the next available train.
It is unreasonable imo to expect a customer to think any differently.

How does the ticket inspector know which train you're going to catch, I regularly arrive 30 minutes or more before my train is due (I know but that's just how I am) and just wait on the platform. Perhaps they thought you were going to wait for 15 minutes.

 

[najaB]

I think that anyone should reasonably expect that, if they are allowed onto a platform by a ticket inspector who has looked at their ticket, then they can legally board the next available train.
It is unreasonable imo to expect a customer to think any differently.

Only if you specifically asked "Can I board the next train?" For all they know you could just like trains and want to watch them for a while before boarding the train you intend to catch.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think that they are taking non-response to their correspondence to be evidence that there was intent. I'm reading the OP as saying they initially wrote asking for the difference in fares, then again with an £80 fixed penalty notice. Prosecution was the third and final step.

Oh, I see.

If that is the case, the OP has been following the "parking penalty" line. Unfortunately for him, unlike civil parking charge notices, a rail fare issue is a criminal, not civil, matter.

If that is the case, the OP would be advised to attempt an out of court settlement if at all possible, noting that this is likely to cost a three figure sum in return for their inattention.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Some matters of principle are well worth arguing and where possible changing something for the greater benefit of other in the future.
This isn't one of them.

Agreed.

 

[MichaelAMW]

I think that they are taking non-response to their correspondence to be evidence that there was intent. I'm reading the OP as saying they initially wrote asking for the difference in fares, then again with an £80 fixed penalty notice. Prosecution was the third and final step.

Perhaps the OP could confirm this for sure, i.e. that the order of events was:

-- Request for the excess fare, and nothing else, as per the conditions of carriage and byelaws

-- Subsequently, a request for one of Northern's home-made penalties of £80

-- Subsequently, after no response by the OP to either of these, a court summons

And, just to be clear, when you showed your ticket at the end of the journey the absolute first thing that was requested was your name and address, and that there was no suggestion that you could pay the excess at that time.

 

[lesleypallmall]

I have just telephoned the expensive 0870 number to see if there is way to bring this matter to a reasonable conclusion.
I talked to a very young sounding lady who told me that my options are to pay £102.40 settlement to them or go to court and plead not guilty.
My only wrong doing here was not responding, I just thought that it was totally ungrounded to accuse me of " intent to avoid fare " and payment would mean that I was accepting it to be true.
I don't think it's reasonable to pay £102.40, is it worth writing to them with a payment of £2.40 and explanation? Should I go to Court

 

[lesleypallmall]

Yes this was the order of events.
And Yes, absolutely, to the second question

 

[MichaelAMW]

Yes this was the order of events.
And Yes, absolutely, to the second question

So, why did you ignore the initial request for a few quid? I don't ask that to be judgemental but I think you need to be clear about your motivation to ignore that tiny - and, to be factual, appropriate - request for an excess fare.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think it's reasonable to pay £102.40, is it worth writing to them with a payment of £2.40 and explanation?

I think ignoring them is likely to give them good evidence for the charges to stick against you (as you failed to pay the fare due when written to asking for it). I would therefore pay £102.40 as a lesson that ignoring things does not necessarily make them go away.

Always pay your debts promptly, or they will come back to bite. An important life lesson there I think

You do not want to go to Court.

 

[lesleypallmall]

I was away at my daughters when the first letter was posted and so actually received letters 1 and 2 at the same time.
I was always, and still am of the opinion that I don't owe them anything. I never had any intention of avoiding paying the correct fare. Ticket barrier men just aren't worth having..a machine could do a better job.
I do agree that some matters of principle aren't worth it, but it's hard to give them up.
I DO want to go to court but it's probably going to be a luxury that I can't afford.

 

[John Palmer]

@lesleypallmall

Is it possible for you to post an image of the ticket that gave rise to this issue, please? No posters have yet sought to establish details either of the ticket concerned or of the train that you used, and it would be as well to check whether the ticket in question was, in fact, restricted to off-peak services.

Can you also please give some details of the first letter you received from the 'Prosecutions Unit'? What was the prosecution unit concerned? Did it identify the train company on behalf of which it was writing – if so, which company? In what terms did it explain its demand for the difference between the peak and off-peak fare – e.g. did it refer to a right under National Rail Condition of Carriage 12 to seek payment of the difference between these two fares?

You haven't detailed the conversation with the ticket seller that took place when you purchased the ticket. If you merely asked for a day return I would have expected the seller to ask you what time of day you planned to return, as s/he would have need to know that in order to ascertain whether sale of an off-peak ticket was appropriate. As Rail Ranger pointed out, the restriction upon trains that could be used if you were sold an off-peak ticket should have been made clear to you at the time of purchase – was it?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was away at my daughters when the first letter was posted and so actually received letters 1 and 2 at the same time.

Did you contact them immediately following the receipt of letter 2 to explain this? They might have been willing to accept the fare due to the circumstances.

I was always, and still am of the opinion that I don't owe them anything.

You do, because you had not paid the correct fare.

I never had any intention of avoiding paying the correct fare.

But you did, inadvertently, and were given the chance to pay it, and didn't do so.

I DO want to go to court but it's probably going to be a luxury that I can't afford.

I suspect you will not be successful if you do, and will not only end up with a larger bill but also a criminal record.

 

[najaB]

Is it possible for you to post an image of the ticket that gave rise to this issue, please? No posters have yet sought to establish details either of the ticket concerned or of the train that you used, and it would be as well to check whether the ticket in question was, in fact, restricted to off-peak services....

You raise some interesting questions but this is the only one whose answer could materially affect the situation the OP is in.

Regardless of if he was advised of restrictions it doesn't change the fact that he appears to have travelled with an invalid ticket, and also effectively failed to pay the excess when it was requested.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I DO want to go to court but it's probably going to be a luxury that I can't afford.

Please don't.