Ticket activation

[nuts & bolts]

Unfortunately for the OP when using E or M tickets there is secure and encrypted audit trail from purchase to download and subsequent activation, this will tally with encoded geo-location software embedded to the ticket purchasing platforms.

In other words the timed departure of boarded train service to subsequent ticket checked by Revenue Staff will be in seconds and minutes, hence why prosecution is probable in this case.

 

[Luke Regan]

Unfortunately for the OP when using E or M tickets there is secure and encrypted audit trail from purchase to download and subsequent activation, this will tally with encoded geo-location software embedded to the ticket purchasing platforms.

In other words the timed departure of boarded train service to subsequent ticket checked by Revenue Staff will be in seconds and minutes, hence why prosecution is probable in this case.

Sorry I don’t quite follow here. So you’re saying that they can essentially check via technology where one was when they purchased a ticket on the Trainline app?

 

[nuts & bolts]

Sorry I don’t quite follow here. So you’re saying that they can essentially check via technology where one was when they purchased a ticket on the Trainline app?

That's the essence of Back Office technology for the rail companies to be reconciled for ticket purchases, delay repay and fraud, it's not your personal information that's being exploited.

 

[Luke Regan]

That's the essence of Back Office technology for the rail companies to be reconciled for ticket purchases, delay repay and fraud, it's not your personal information that's being exploited.

Right well that’s fair enough, but I still don’t see why that would lead to prosecution under RoRa in this instance as the ticket was purchased at the correct time at the correct place etc but wasn’t activated at the time eventual activation. Whilst the ticket was invalid due to not being activated, the fare itself was paid.

 

[Luke Regan]

This is standard TIL bark (which has no bite, to steal another poster's turn of phrase).

You paid your fare so RoRA simply doesn't come into it. There is no way an offence under that is made out. They send this kind of stock response to many people - have a browse through recent D&P threads involving TIL.

It's worth reiterating what you initially responded to them. Despite what they say, it is still perfectly possible to avoid Court, as we have seen in many peoples' cases. It's by no means guaranteed but in a situation such as this I see no reason why they would not consider a settlement.

Do you have any suggestions on wording / how to write my response back?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Do you have any suggestions on wording / how to write my response back?

You might like to write something like this (NB this is just a proposal):

Dear Ms Ashby,

Thank you for your letter of [insert date]; I note its contents.

It is clear that no offence under Section 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 can be in question here. I paid my fare when I bought my ticket before boarding, and therefore even the first provision of that Section ("without previously having paid his fare") is not met. The second provision is also not met ("with intent to avoid payment thereof") - as I merely failed to activate the m-ticket because I did not realise that this was necessary, rather than any malicious intent. No part of the offence is made out in any way.

Nevertheless, I recognise that a prosecution for a lesser offence under the Railway Byelaws may still be considered. In view of this, I hereby repeat my offer to settle such a prosecution out of Court by payment of your administrative costs in investigating the matter (the fare already having been paid). I would be grateful if you could let me know what these costs are so that I can arrange for payment as soon as possible.

I await your response confirming your position.

Thank you in advance.

Yours sincerely,

Luke Regan

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I would be happy to hear of proposed changes to the letter I suggested.

 

[ainsworth74]

The interesting but technical discussion of the meaning of paying the fare due in RoRA S5 terms can now be found here.

 

[some bloke]

I would be happy to hear of proposed changes to the letter I suggested.

I propose that the letter include more about what led to this problem, and omits the part about the fare being paid, unless somehow Luke can become fairly expert on the issues and is persuaded.

The letter needs to mention forgetting rather than not realising.

I think you would be better off thinking about circumstances of your situation that may help your case.

Not that it's likely, but it might be a useful exercise to ask yourself, "why should they drop the case?" as well as "why should they prosecute?".

It isn't yet clear how you forgot.

You could think of questions they might have:

Why didn't you take enough notice of parts of the screen that said it needed activation?
(Did the screen look like the first picture here, with "ready to activate" and "activate ticket"?)
https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/tickets/mobile-app

How did you come to forget?
(eg in a hurry, haven't used them before)

"I did not realise that this was necessary" doesn't seem accurate if you've told them accurately that you forgot.

You could also support your contention that you didn't intend to abuse the ticket.

Before activation, was the ticket's potential validity limited to that day?

If so, perhaps include a photo of the races, or of a race ticket - something to show that it's highly unlikely you abused, or were intending to abuse, the m-ticket.

 

[Luke Regan]

I’ve just thought - Wolverhampton wasn’t my initial station used that day. I went from Telford to Wolverhampton first (with a paper return ticket that I had paid cash for the previous day) this is because of the fact that Cheltenham was expected to be cancelled on the day that we were going so I was actually anticipating getting to wolverhampton and then coming straight back. This wasn’t included in my original letter mainly because this wasn’t questioned at all / I didn’t see the relevance. Should I mention it in my forthcoming letter?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I’ve just thought - Wolverhampton wasn’t my initial station used that day. I went from Telford to Wolverhampton first (with a paper return ticket that I had paid cash for the previous day) this is because of the fact that Cheltenham was expected to be cancelled on the day that we were going so I was actually anticipating getting to wolverhampton and then coming straight back. This wasn’t included in my original letter mainly because this wasn’t questioned at all / I didn’t see the relevance. Should I mention it in my forthcoming letter?

To be honest, I don't see that it necessarily has any particular relevance to the matter at hand. Still, it provides somewhat of a background to what you did, so if the question of whether you intended to avoid payment of the fare arises then you may wish to bring it up. I don't suppose you still have the paper ticket you bought from Telford to Wolverhampton, or a receipt for it?

 

[Luke Regan]

To be honest, I don't see that it necessarily has any particular relevance to the matter at hand. Still, it provides somewhat of a background to what you did, so if the question of whether you intended to avoid payment of the fare arises then you may wish to bring it up. I don't suppose you still have the paper ticket you bought from Telford to Wolverhampton, or a receipt for it?

Thanks for the response.

Regrettably, no I don’t still have the paper ticket - nor do I have a receipt - don’t think you usually get receipts when paying cash unless you ask.

So would you bother mentioning in this letter now? Or would you just stick to what has been said before and then if ever challenged / questioned on it, mention it then?

I also note that the Telford to Wolverhampton part of the journey isn’t Cross Country anyway- not sure if that’s of any relevance?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Thanks for the response.

Regrettably, no I don’t still have the paper ticket - nor do I have a receipt - don’t think you usually get receipts when paying cash unless you ask.

So would you bother mentioning in this letter now? Or would you just stick to what has been said before and then if ever challenged / questioned on it, mention it then?

I also note that the Telford to Wolverhampton part of the journey isn’t Cross Country anyway- not sure if that’s of any relevance?

Given those circumstances, I'd leave it out of the letter.

My proposed letter as previously suggested stands. Feel free to send that or whatever else you consider appropriate.

 

[scrapy]

Right well that’s fair enough, but I still don’t see why that would lead to prosecution under RoRa in this instance as the ticket was purchased at the correct time at the correct place etc but wasn’t activated at the time eventual activation. Whilst the ticket was invalid due to not being activated, the fare itself was paid.

It could only possibly lead to prosecution under RORA if the op has a history of claiming refunds for unactivated M tickets after travel should have taken place AND the prosecution could convince a court beyond reasonable doubt this is what they intended to do on this occasion. This would still be almost impossible for the prosecution especially if the OP was on an Advance ticket.

I do know that TOCs are starting to use the data to pick up suspicious activity and targeting revenue operations to look into this, however this certainly doesn't seem to be the case in this instance. I do know that in one month, before they started etickets Northern gave out more penalty fares for non activated mtickets than for those simply without tickets. Had Crosscountry been a penalty fares operator then the OP would probably have simply received a penalty fare and that would have been the end of the matter.

 

[some bloke]

I’m ultimately going to be telling them that they are wrong to be referencing RoRA.

The draft would also mean not offering to pay the fare even if they intend to prosecute without RoRA - under the byelaw.

If you think it's wise to make these fundamental challenges, I suggest that as a next step you take time to read the discussion thread carefully - perhaps starting with the more recent posts if you haven't seen them.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-due-in-regulation-of-railways-act-s5.182353/

As I understand it you have quite a few days before you need to send a response.

My proposed letter as previously suggested stands.

As indicated above, it says he didn't realise activation was needed.
But in the draft first response Luke said he forgot, which means he did realise.

 

[Luke Regan]

Looking through some old cases on here I have come across https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/transport-investigations-ltd-first-letter-crosscountry.166165/

This is a very similar case to that of mine (if anything the poster on that would surely be in a worse position having not bought a ticket at all) and it relates to a Cross Country service.

Would it be of value to reference this case to Transport Investigations / Cross Country in correspondence?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Looking through some old cases on here I have come across https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/transport-investigations-ltd-first-letter-crosscountry.166165/

This is a very similar case to that of mine (if anything the poster on that would surely be in a worse position having not bought a ticket at all) and it relates to a Cross Country service.

Would it be of value to reference this case to Transport Investigations / Cross Country in correspondence?

It's useful for your information but I don't see the value in referencing it. Only they know how they want to deal with the matter - and what exactly are you going to say? "You can't prosecute me because you offered that other guy a settlement"?

I suppose, if anything, it's simply an indication of one of the possible outcomes for your situation - that you are offered a settlement and have the choice between accepting and rejecting this.

 

[najaB]

Would it be of value to reference this case to Transport Investigations / Cross Country in correspondence?

Not really, each case is dealt with on its own merits and what applies in one case doesn't necessarily apply in another.

 

[Luke Regan]

Update: received and will be accepting a settlement offer of £118.75 - chuffed.

Must say I find TILs procedures / tactics somewhat suspect taking into account my case and various others I have read about on here, but oh well.

Big thank you to everyone who has advised, particularly ForTheLoveOf.

 

[Fare-Cop]

I think that some respondents on here would be well advised to read some of the detail in past legal precedents involving RoRA before 'advising' that a prosecution under that particular legislation simply would not be possible 'because 'a' fare had been paid'.

The case of Browning (1946) obviously comes to mind. Depending on the particular circumstances, including ticket type, it certainly could proceed, but no matter, the OP seems to have resolved things.

 

[furlong]

I think that some respondents on here would be well advised to read some of the detail in past legal precedents involving RoRA before 'advising' that a prosecution under that particular legislation simply would not be possible 'because 'a' fare had been paid'.

Indeed, I wouldn't think anybody could be sure either way without more case law, but the factors involved in determining "his" versus "a" and the "intent to avoid" might overlap and lead to different decisions e.g. between the two extremes of an Advance and a Carnet.