Ticket on train confusion - penalty fare

[John R]

Is it worth setting out your version of the conversation (in the way you have done, but more formally), and then ask for clarification on the points you dispute.

 

[Belperpete]

How does that work? If you buy a ticket without an itinerary, it's not valid? Where's that written down?


Authority to travel is not needed where a passenger holds a valid ticket. That is what they have if they buy one from the guard - whether they have boarded after passing an opportunity to pay, or not. It's not an invalid ticket that then becomes an authority to travel, it is valid, end of. Even for trains that guard is not working. Bylaw 18 criminalises boarding a train without a valid ticket - this is an offence committed the moment a person steps on a train. It is complete at that moment and it cannot be retrospectively authorised.

It is not a sustainable argument to say that a ticket bought after departure, for the correct journey, is magically fine when sold by a guard, or even a TVM or booking clerk at a connecting station, yet not fine when done so on the train company's app or site.



Some things the Conditions definitely do not say:
- That a ticket is invalid if purchased after departure
- That a guard, if they sell a ticket, is, at the same time, giving a retrospective authority to travel whether or not they know if you have committed any Bylaw offences

They could say that, if they chose to, but they do not.

Indeed, the Penalty Fares regulations could say that, if they chose to, but they do not.

We can go back and forth on this, but the facts seem quite clear. The OP committed a Bylaw 18 offence and did indeed do something wrong. They boarded without a valid ticket and then bought one on board. The act of purchasing the ticket later does not provide a defence against a Bylaw 18 charge. But this cannot be disposed of by way of a Penalty Fare; indeed, this has been the subject of successful PF appeals already on this forum, for this exact reasoning.

Just because I say that if a ticket is sold with an itinerary it must inherently be valid for that itinerary does NOT mean that I believe that a ticket cannot be valid without an itinerary. You seem to be the kind of person who when told that all balls are round that therefore means everything that is round must be a ball.

You also seem to be putting rather a lot of words into my mouth, to prove me wrong. The trouble is, that I am not saying those things. Rather than write whole paragraphs about what the Conditions don't say, I would prefer to concentrate on what they do actually say, that the ticket must be valid for
the day and time of the journey that person is making, has made or intends to make;

And it is the bits in bold that are critical in this case. In other words, the ticket had to be valid for the portion of the journey already made, at the time it was made. As the ticket didn't exist for a large part of the journey, it inherently couldn't have been valid then.

Exile has rather neatly summed up the issue about the guard being an authorised official in post #140: if an authorised official knowingly sells you a ticket on the train for a particular purpose, then they have inherently authorised its use for that purpose, i.e. it becomes a valid ticket. The same applies when a guard or other official authorises you to travel on a train with a ticket which is normally not valid on that train. An app cannot knowingly do that. In this particular case, the app had no way of knowing the train the OP was using, so inherently couldn't authorise him to use that ticket on that train. So the validity rests solely on the Conditions, as specified above.

 

[KirkstallOne]

I’ve emailed the details of this to a couple of journalists I have contact with due to my involvement in the Northern case. Honestly, I doubt they will pick it up as it is quite a technical dispute but it is worth a go in case one of them is beavering away on a more general expose.

 

[Belperpete]

Is it worth setting out your version of the conversation (in the way you have done, but more formally), and then ask for clarification on the points you dispute.

That would be the better tactic, as the GTR rep probably kept a record.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Aug 2024 ==

I am trying to wrap my head around this. I have come to the conclusion there are one of three possibilities:

• This is just bluster to get me to pay
• They truly have no idea what immunity Regulation 11 provides
• They think that the PF itself is now the fare I am evading and is therefore somehow not 'the same failure to produce... a valid travel ticket'. (from Reg 11). That is, they are prosecuting me for evading the PF itself as a fare. (How else could they argue I am not immune from what they intend to prosecute me for?) - but wouldn't this contravene Regulation 12?

I suppose I should follow up in writing because as pointed out, phone calls are not ideal.

A PF certainly isn't a fine, because only a court can issue them. That leaves the question, if it isn't a fine, what is it?

I suspect that they may well be treating it as exactly what it is called, a fare.

 

[allypally]

I suspect that they may well be treating it as exactly what it is called, a fare.

Yes, but as per Reg 12 it is a civil debt!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Aug 2024 ==


_____

Below is a draft email to GTR prosecutions. Please scrutinise and offer improvements. I really can't afford to make a hash of this one. Hopefully I can be much clearer and to the point than my appeals!

"Dear GTR prosecutions team,

I would like to thank you in advance for considering my email. I am writing in respect of Penalty Fare [PF ref]. My name is [name], and my address is [address].

I would be extremely grateful if you could provide some clarification further to the letters I have received dated [date 1] and [date 2] from the GTR prosecutions team and a brief conversation with one of your personnel earlier today. I hope you will receive my queries in the good faith and honest spirit with which they are made.

As far as I know, GTR is not accepting payment for me to settle the penalty fare as such, as the penalty fare payment portal for the above-reference penalty fare is now disabled. Instead, further to our call earlier, my understanding is that if I do not pay £150 to settle out of court before [settlement date], you will prosecute me for fare evasion under the railway byelaws confirmed in 2005 and made under Section 219 of the Transport Act 2000.

I note that the reason why the penalty fare was unpaid is because the decisions received by the penalty service assessors do not appear to be lawful, not out of any attempt to simply think the matter will 'go away' if I do not pay. To be explicit, I am not trying to 'evade' the penalty fare itself (notwithstanding that fact it is a civil debt). My understanding is that further to Regulation 12 of The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018, the penalty fare amount due is solely a civil debt to be recovered: "Where a person charged a penalty fare under regulation 5(1) has not paid the penalty fare in full, the operator on whose behalf the penalty fare was charged may recover the amount outstanding as a civil debt in any of the following circumstances - " (the regulation then goes on to when the PF may be recovered as a civil debt in view of the appeals procedure).

• But if GTR will prosecute me if I do not settle, how does this avoid the conflation of a civil matter of debt recovery with a criminal matter of alleged fare evasion? Do GTR take the view that the Penalty Fare itself is a fare?

As I have been through the appeals process (notably a first appeal decision has been determined), I am immune from prosecution for fare evasion under the above-referenced byelaws inter alia under Regulation 11. Of course, GTR must take a different view of what immunity this provision provides (otherwise you would not be considering prosecuting me!). In our call earlier, a member of your team said that this immunity was 'not what you think it is'.

• Please could you let me know what GTR's position is on this matter of immunity? For example, is it that the immunity is limited to a time frame of the appeals and that once the first appeal has been decided the immunity ceases? Or could it be that the penalty fare is considered by GTR to be a fare in itself (that I am allegedly evading) and thus failure to pay the PF is not part of 'the same failure to produce... a valid travel ticket' (from Reg 11 (3))?

In your letter dated [date], you state that '...failure to pay the outstanding amount could be considered as evidence of an intention to avoid paying the fare due, which is a criminal offence'. The wording of this suggests that prosecution would not be under the byelaws, but rather under RoRA 5(3), because the byelaws are a matter of strict liability and thus intent does not matter, whereas RoRA 5(3) concerns more serious offences where there is intentionality to avoid a fare.

• Please can you disambiguate this letter and the comments of your team member? If I do not settle out of court, will I be prosecuted under Section 219 byelaws or under RoRA 5(3)?

Thank you again for considering my queries. I would like to emphasise that I have no desire to frustrate GTR as an operator or the GTR PF or prosecutions teams. I am a long term rail user and fully support the recovery of all due fares! I just believe in my case the appeals assessors got it wrong (badly so!), and further that the matter should be handled going forward as a civil one not a criminal one.

I am eager for an open exchange so that the matter can first be clarified and then settled satisfactorily.

Kind regards,"

 

[Belperpete]

Also, in my case, I am convinced my ticket was valid. How could I have been of a mind to fare evade if I thought my ticket was valid in the first place?

Just because you think your ticket is valid, doesn't make it valid. You were issued a PF for travelling without a valid ticket, not for fare evasion, which is irrelevant.

 

[allypally]

Just because you think your ticket is valid, doesn't make it valid. You were issued a PF for travelling without a valid ticket, not for fare evasion, which is irrelevant.

It's not relevant for prosecutions under the byelaws as they concern strict liability. But surely it concerns prosecution under RoRA where intentional to evade must be proven?

 

[KirkstallOne]

Yes, but as per Reg 12 it is a civil debt!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Aug 2024 ==


_____

Below is a draft email to GTR prosecutions. Please scrutinise and offer improvements. I really can't afford to make a hash of this one. Hopefully I can be much clearer and to the point than my appeals!

"Dear GTR prosecutions team,

I would like to thank you in advance for considering my email. I am writing in respect of Penalty Fare [PF ref]. My name is [name], and my address is [address].

I would be extremely grateful if you could provide some clarification further to the letters I have received dated [date 1] and [date 2] from the GTR prosecutions team and a brief conversation with one of your personnel earlier today. I hope you will receive my queries in the good faith and honest spirit with which they are made.

As far as I know, GTR is not accepting payment for me to settle the penalty fare as such, as the penalty fare payment portal for the above-reference penalty fare is now disabled. Instead, my understanding is that if I do not pay £150 to settle out of court before [settlement date], you will prosecute me for fare evasion under the railway byelaws confirmed in 2005 and made under Section 219 of the Transport Act 2000.

I note that the reason why the penalty fare was unpaid is because the decisions received by the penalty service assessors do not appear to be lawful, not out of any attempt to simply think the matter will 'go away' if I do not pay. To be explicit, I am not trying to 'evade' the penalty fare itself (notwithstanding that fact it is a civil debt). My understanding is that further to Regulation 12 of The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018, the penalty fare amount due is solely a civil debt to be recovered.

• But if GTR will prosecute me if I do not settle, how does this avoid the conflation of a civil matter of debt recovery with a criminal matter of alleged fare evasion?

As I have been through the appeals process (notably a first appeal decision has been determined), I am immune from prosecution for fare evasion under the above-referenced byelaws inter alia under Regulation 11. Of course, GTR must take a different view of what immunity this provision provides (otherwise you would not be considering prosecuting me!) In our call earlier, a member of your team said that this immunity was 'not what you think it is'.

• Please could you let me know what GTR's position is on this matter of immunity? For example, is it that the immunity is limited to a time frame of the appeals and that once the first appeal has been decided the immunity ceases? Or could it be that the penalty fare is considered by GTR to be a fare in itself (that I am allegedly evading) and thus failure to pay the PF is not part of '...the same failure to produce... a valid travel ticket' (from Reg 11 (3))?

In your letter dated [date], you state that '...failure to pay the outstanding amount could be considered as evidence of an intention to avoid paying the fare due, which is a criminal offence'. The wording of this suggests that prosecution would not be under the byelaws, but rather under RoRA 5(3), because the byelaws are a matter of strict liability and thus intent does not matter, whereas RoRA 5(3) concerns more serious offences where there is intentionality to avoid a fare.

• Please can you disambiguate this letter and the comments of your team member? If I do not settle out of court, will I be prosecuted under Section 219 byelaws or under RoRA 5(3)?

Thank you again for considering my queries. I would like to emphasise that I have no desire to frustrate GTR as an operator or the GTR PF or prosecutions teams. I am a long term railuser and fully support the recovery of all due fares! I just believe in my case the appeal's assessors got it wrong, and further that the matter should be handled going forward as a civil one not a criminal one.

I am eager for an open exchange so that the matter can first be clarified and then be settled satisfactorily.

Kind regards,"

A fine letter to a reasonable person but I don’t think GTR are behaving reasonably given the letters they have sent and the summary of your conversation.

I think you need to decide if you are prepared to defend yourself in court if necessary? If you are I would write a letter that is much less polite. If not then I would pay under protest and pursue a complaint separately.

 

[AlterEgo]

Rather than write whole paragraphs about what the Conditions don't say, I would prefer to concentrate on what they do actually say, that the ticket must be valid for
the day and time of the journey that person is making, has made or intends to make;

This form of words is not in the NRCoT but rather in the Penalty Fares Regulations. And it's important, because the inclusion of "or" makes it very clear that those three things:

is making
has made
or intends to make

- are all separate things. Only one of them actually needs to apply.

"Is making" would refer to a passenger being inspected on a train, "has made" refers to a passenger inspected after completion of the journey, "intends to make" means a passenger inspected before the start of their journey (possibly in a CTA).

The OP presented, to the authorised collector, a valid ticket for the journey he was making.

Your logic that

In other words, the ticket had to be valid for the portion of the journey already made, at the time it was made.

- makes no sense. that is not what "day and time" mean in this context.

Exile has rather neatly summed up the issue about the guard being an authorised official in post #140: if an authorised official knowingly sells you a ticket on the train for a particular purpose, then they have inherently authorised its use for that purpose, i.e. it becomes a valid ticket.

No, they haven't. An authority to travel is actually given in lieu of having a valid ticket. If they give such authority, it is in fact an acknowledgement the ticket is not valid, and the authority is needed to enable the passenger to make their journey.

Guards selling tickets on board are doing nothing more than just that - selling (valid) tickets for the whole of the passenger's journey.

You are making a mental cartwheel to support the assertion that a ticket which is sold for a journey the passenger is making is somehow not actually valid for that journey - something nobody has ever said on this forum before, to my knowledge.

 

[furlong]

Do not send that letter. Far too long, complicated and confused.

 

[allypally]

Do not send that letter. Far too long, complicated and confused.

A redraft to be more direct and to suggest the matter be closed:

"Dear GTR prosecutions team,

I would like to thank you in advance for considering my email. I am writing in respect of penalty fare [PF ref]. My name is [name], and my address is [address]. I would be extremely grateful if you could provide some clarification further to the letters I have received dated [date 1] and [date 2] from the GTR prosecutions team and a brief conversation with one of your personnel earlier today. I hope you will receive my queries in the good faith and honest spirit with which they are made.

To begin, I note that the reason why the penalty fare is unpaid is because i) the decisions received by the penalty service assessors do not appear to be lawful, not out of any attempt to simply think the matter will 'go away' if I do not pay; and ii) I have queries regarding the letters that I have received since the independent appeal panel made their decision. To be explicit, I am not trying to 'evade' the penalty fare itself.

My understanding is that further to Regulation 12 of The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018, the penalty fare amount due is solely a civil debt to be recovered: "Where a person charged a penalty fare under regulation 5(1) has not paid the penalty fare in full, the operator on whose behalf the penalty fare was charged may recover the amount outstanding as a civil debt...".

Moreover, as I have been through the appeals process (notably, as a first appeal decision has been determined), my understanding is that that under Regulation 11, I am immune from prosecution for fare evasion under section 5(3)(a) or (b) of the RoRA and any byelaw made under S.219 of the Transport Act 2000, inter alia.

In the letter dated [date], GTR states that '...failure to pay the outstanding amount could be considered as evidence of an intention to avoid paying the fare due, which is a criminal offence' (emphasis mine). However, I note that during our earlier call, a team member stated that GTR 'do not prosecute under the RoRA' and instead 'GTR prosecute fare evasion under Section 219 of the Transport Act'.

As you will see in the appeals that I lodged before Penalty Services, the full fare was paid prior to inspection by the GTR collector. You will also see that the appeals assessors did not abide by their statutory duty to consider only the facts and evidence of the case presented to them and not to prescribe any intentions to either GTR staff or myself. The ticket I presented for inspection was valid; no fare was evaded or attempted to be evaded.

To summarise my position:

• all monies due to GTR have been paid for the journey in question
• the ticket presented was valid, and the appeals assessors acted unlawfully
• recovery of outstanding amounts due for a penalty fare is a matter of civil debt recovery
• I am immune from prosecution for fare evasion.

Thank you again for considering my email. I would like to emphasise that I have no desire to frustrate GTR as an operator or the GTR PF or prosecutions teams. I am a long term rail user and fully support the recovery of all due fares! I respectfully submit that if GTR consider the case fresh, you may come to the conclusion the appeals assessors got it wrong, and in any case, that this matter is a civil one not a criminal one.

I am eager for an open exchange so that the matter can first be clarified and then settled satisfactorily.

Kind regards,"

 

[Belperpete]

Do not send that letter. Far too long, complicated and confused.

Fully agree. Seems purpose designed to get their hackles up. Telling GTR what they must think!

To be explicit, I am not trying to 'evade' the penalty fare itself (notwithstanding that fact it is a civil debt).

You say that you aren't trying to get out of paying, while simultaneously giving the impression that is exactly what you are trying to do! Your statement begs the obvious question: if you aren't trying to get out of paying it, why didn't you pay it?

As far as they are concerned, it is now time for you to pay up or go to court. They are not obliged to explain the law to you, you are now relying on their goodwill to explain the situation to you, so keep it short and sweet. If it looks like all you are doing is stalling and obfuscating, they may just tell you to hire your own solicitor to explain the situation to you. So no waffle about honest spirits and suchlike, just two or three direct questions at most. To my mind, it could all be condensed to only one short and simple question:

I understand that if I do not pay £150 to settle out of court before [settlement date], you intend to prosecute me for fare evasion under the railway byelaws confirmed in 2005 and made under Section 219 of the Transport Act 2000. However, my understanding is that as I have been through the appeals process (notably a first appeal decision has been determined), I am immune from prosecution for fare evasion under the above-referenced byelaws inter alia under Regulation 11. Is this not the case?


You seem almost pleading with them to take you to civil court! Is that really what you want them to do? I really think you need to take a step back and consider what you are trying to get out of this. Are you determined to have your day in court? If so, beware of what you wish for. Are you just trying to avoid paying the PF? If so, I suggest that telling porkies is not going to help.

I was under the impression that you wanted to challenge the validity of the PF direct with GTR. If so, you seem to have totally lost sight of this. Explain clearly and succinctly the grounds on which you are challenging it, and that you don't think the appeals panels considered it properly, so that the GTR prosecution team can consider whether you have a case or not. As you are talking to lawyers, you need to explain it in terms that a lawyer will understand (not by mathematical logic!).

 

[allypally]

Fully agree. Seems purpose designed to get their hackles up. Telling GTR what they must think!


You say that you aren't trying to get out of paying, while simultaneously giving the impression that is exactly what you are trying to do! Your statement begs the obvious question: if you aren't trying to get out of paying it, why didn't you pay it?

I didn't pay it because the assessors acted unlawfully.

My issue is that a civil court loss is 'bye-bye' to max a few grand because its the PF plus their legal fees. Criminal court loss is 'bye-bye' my entire career.

I believe that my ticket was valid. But I am worried they will simply look at the fact that it was bought x minutes before inspection and after boarding and go 'no, this PF was issued within our policy, we think it's right, and don't care what the appeal assessors did' and then prosecute. So whilst the only way to make the matter go away completely to convince them the ticket was valid (and therefore PF is void), I think this is much riskier than trying to get them to accept it's a civil matter.

I am trying to balance the risks.

Also, not paying a PF that you truly believe should never have been issued and then being failed by the entire appeals process is not 'avoidance'. What am I to do? I am not dodging anything. I am simply sat here not paying something I should not owe. It's a matter of principle. But ultimately the matter can go completely off the rails if they try and criminalise me (even when I am immune).

Moreover, I am unsure how to explain fact that a ticket purchased via an app after boarding is not invalid, other than just stating that it is valid.

__

What about the second draft letter?

 

[LYradial]

This from reply 137


He said 'this isn't a Monty Python sketch. I can tell you have done some research online, but we will take you to court if you do not pay


i take this to mean they are following this thread and are one step ahead of you all the time

 

[allypally]

This from reply 137


He said 'this isn't a Monty Python sketch. I can tell you have done some research online, but we will take you to court if you do not pay


i take this to mean they are following this thread and are one step ahead of you all the time

the tone was more dismissive like 'oh god dont start quoting laws at me' rather than 'I know who you are'. But, of course they could be reading.

 

[KirkstallOne]

Criminal court loss is 'bye-bye' my entire career.

If this is true then pay it. They aren’t going to reconsider their policy they will likely either drop the matter or prosecute. Whilst I think you have an excellent case if they prosecuted there is no doubt a risk you would be convicted and much would depend on how you presented your case in court.

You can pursue a complaint separately or consider your own civil claim if you feel strongly about the matter.

 

[The exile]

No, they haven't. An authority to travel is actually given in lieu of having a valid ticket. If they give such authority, it is in fact an acknowledgement the ticket is not valid, and the authority is needed to enable the passenger to make their journey.

Guards selling tickets on board are doing nothing more than just that - selling (valid) tickets for the whole of the passenger's journey.

You are making a mental cartwheel to support the assertion that a ticket which is sold for a journey the passenger is making is somehow not actually valid for that journey - something nobody has ever said on this forum before, to my knowledge.

You're putting one tiny, but very important, word into my mouth there (quite possibly unintentionally). I referred to "authority to travel" not "an Authority to Travel" - ie a generalised permission as opposed to a specific document which on-train staff may or may not still carry around as a pad (I was last issued one about three years ago by a member of station staff to extend the validity of a weekly ticket after a day on which the railway had issued a "do not travel" notice). I agree that an Authority to Travel is issued in lieu of a valid ticket under fairly special circumstances. However, the simple authority (ie permission) to travel on a train is required by every passenger - the obtaining of that permission (by paying the fare) is conventionally proved by the possession of a ticket. In a penalty fares area that ticket must be obtained before boarding the train unless very specifically laid out circumstances apply. If those circumstances do not apply and a passenger buys a ticket once on board the train (or certainly after departure), then they did not hold a valid ticket for that journey (or at the very least the initial part of that journey) and thus did not have permission (or authority) to make that journey. An official of the railway can retrospectively grant that permission - an app can't.

 

[John R]

If this is true then pay it. They aren’t going to reconsider their policy they will likely either drop the matter or prosecute. Whilst I think you have an excellent case if they prosecuted there is no doubt a risk you would be convicted and much would depend on how you presented your case in court.

You can pursue a complaint separately or consider your own civil claim if you feel strongly about the matter.

I've had this thought for some time.

If I were to "have my day in court" on a particular issue, I'd want to have it knowing that I didn't commit a criminal offence. If we go back to the very start of this long thread, it's clear that the OP boarded a train without a ticket, and as such did commit an offence. And in those early posts, there was considerable questioning of the series of events that caused that, with one very respected poster here, who is very familiar with Stevenage, being particularly challenging of the description of how that came to be.

So if I knew I had committed an offence, would this be a hill I would choose to die on, if the outcome could jeopardise my career. Nope, definitely not.

 

[allypally]

If this is true then pay it. They aren’t going to reconsider their policy they will likely either drop the matter or prosecute. Whilst I think you have an excellent case if they prosecuted there is no doubt a risk you would be convicted and much would depend on how you presented your case in court.

You can pursue a complaint separately or consider your own civil claim if you feel strongly about the matter.

I've had this thought for some time.

If I were to "have my day in court" on a particular issue, I'd want to have it knowing that I didn't commit a criminal offence. If we go back to the very start of this long thread, it's clear that the OP boarded a train without a ticket, and as such did commit an offence. And in those early posts, there was considerable questioning of the series of events that caused that, with one very respected poster here, who is very familiar with Stevenage, being particularly challenging of the description of how that came to be.

So if I knew I had committed an offence, would this be a hill I would choose to die on, if the outcome could jeopardise my career. Nope, definitely not.

A fine letter to a reasonable person but I don’t think GTR are behaving reasonably given the letters they have sent and the summary of your conversation.

I think you need to decide if you are prepared to defend yourself in court if necessary? If you are I would write a letter that is much less polite. If not then I would pay under protest and pursue a complaint separately.

Whilst I would like to be able to send a letter like I originally drafted, it's too much of an attempt at an open conversation that they won't want to/are not capable of having. That then begs the question of what I can even achieve from contacting them.

It seems like discussing what I should say in a letter to GTR directly is just a theoretical conversation, then. It seems highly unlikely I will get them to decide it's a civil matter not a criminal one and even more so that the ticket was valid in the first place, and they don't care what the appeals assessors did.

I will sleep on it but I will most likely settle £150 and then take a breath and consider. I am not happy with this but I think I should get out from under the sword of Damocles that is prosecution first. If I was absolutely certain they considered it a civil debt as per Reg 12 and weren't going to prosecute, I would happily take this to County Court to establish some precedent on the underlying ticket validity matter of tickets purchased via apps after departure.

I truly never expected to be threatened with prosecution in view of Reg 11 and Reg 12 and now in further view of the SJP notice mess.

Having said this, I welcome any input on the second letter I drafted in reply 161. Whilst I am not sure what I can achieve by sending it, I don't think it can do any harm. If members would like to offer their thoughts on this letter as a last chance saloon to understand what GTR are thinking etc., then please offer me your comments/wisdom for a final draft. I will then send it, and if nothing comes just settle and go from there.

 

[KirkstallOne]

Whilst I would like to be able to send a letter like I originally drafted, it's too much of an attempt at an open conversation that they won't want to/are not capable of having. That then begs the question of what I can even achieve from contacting them.

It seems like discussing what I should say in a letter to GTR directly is just a theoretical conversation, then. I'm not going to get them to suddenly decide it's a civil matter not a criminal one or even that the ticket was valid in the first place, and they don't care what the appeals assessors did.

I will sleep on it but I will most likely settle £150 tomorrow and then take a breath and consider. I am not happy with this but I think I should get out from under the sword of Damocles that is prosecution first. If I was absolutely certain they considered it a civil debt as per Reg 12 and weren't going to prosecute, I would happily take this to County Court to establish some precedent on the underlying ticket validity matter of tickets purchased via apps after departure.

I truly never expected to be threatened with prosecution in view of Reg 11 and Reg 12 and now in further view of the SJP notice mess.

I think this is sensible, not everyone is in a good position to fight them tooth and nail on a point of principle. You can pursue this once you have settled, GTR have questions to answer given the submissions made by Northern and Greater Anglia to the Chief Magistrate.

 

[allypally]

I think this is sensible, not everyone is in a good position to fight them tooth and nail on a point of principle. You can pursue this once you have settled, GTR have questions to answer given the submissions made by Northern and Greater Anglia to the Chief Magistrate.

Decision on the 15th, the day of my settle deadline with GTR.

"The chief magistrate adjourned the hearing to August 15 at the same court, when he is expected to hand down a judgment." -

Rail companies agree alleged fare evasion prosecutions should be quashed

Northern Rail and Greater Anglia have admitted that a number of prosecutions which took place in private were not correctly carried out.

www.independent.co.uk

 

[KirkstallOne]

Decision on the 15th, the day of my settle deadline with GTR.

"The chief magistrate adjourned the hearing to August 15 at the same court, when he is expected to hand down a judgment." -

Rail companies agree alleged fare evasion prosecutions should be quashed

Northern Rail and Greater Anglia have admitted that a number of prosecutions which took place in private were not correctly carried out.

www.independent.co.uk

It's doubtful the CM will even rule on the Reg 11 debacle but there may well be further fallout, maybe some proper guidance issued by the government, ideally some sort of public review but who knows.

 

[jkdd77]

For what it is worth, the small claims track has a £50 cap on costs (plus the claim and hearing fees), unless the judge holds that a party has acted unreasonably, which is unlikely in this case- notwithstanding that GTR themselves have arguably acted unreasonably. Therefore, as to civil law, the realistic maximum the OP could be ordered to pay is probably c. £300, not several thousand.

If he does pay the £150 demanded, he is unlikely to see it again, as GTR are not going to change their minds, and he is in a much weaker position if he sues them than if he lets them sue him.

Personally, I think GTR are bluffing, (and also think a prosecution, if brought, could be easily defeated as plainly statute-barred) but I accept that it's not my money and not my career on the line.

 

[allypally]

If he does pay the £150 demanded, he is unlikely to see it again, as GTR are not going to change their minds, and he is in a much weaker position if he sues them than if he lets them sue him.

Oh yes, that 150 quid would be over the hills and far away. And it will be harder to manufacture a forum for me to actually get to make my case than if I was being taken to civil court, but I obviously need to keep things in proportion personally with the risks of criminal prosecution. There would still be options though even before a civil suit initiated by me: complaint to penalty services, complaint to GTR, my MP and the press.

I thank everyone for their input, not just over the last few days but over the last few months. As per my edit in bold to reply 169, I invite any comments on the draft letter in reply 161. For now, goodnight from me!

 

[AlterEgo]

I agree that an Authority to Travel is issued in lieu of a valid ticket under fairly special circumstances. However, the simple authority (ie permission) to travel on a train is required by every passenger - the obtaining of that permission (by paying the fare) is conventionally proved by the possession of a ticket.

That is not what "authority to travel" means. It has a specific meaning - you have either a valid ticket or authority to travel, not both. That is why having authority to travel from an authorised person is a defence to not having a valid ticket. They are separate things. You don't have both at the same time.

From NRCoT:

You must hold a valid Ticket or authority to travel before you board a train where there was the opportunity to buy one unless one of the following circumstances applies

And Bylaw 18 defence:

(iii) an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.

"Authority to travel" is not just a piece of paper, although this is the easiest and most secure way of proving a passenger has it.

A guard who allows a passenger to board a train and travel to their destination without a ticket, as it was lost, has given authority to travel. A booking clerk who says a passenger can board a train at a station because his card machine is slow has given authority to travel. Most authorities to travel are verbal, in practice.

Authority to travel cannot be given retrospectively. This is a piece of mental gymnastics never before seen on the forum, concocted to avoid the quite simple fact that the passenger purchased and presented a valid ticket for their journey. It's still a Bylaw 18 offence; the train company could still have used that, but they didn't.

Bylaw 18 offences are complete the moment they happen. The defence cannot be applied retrospectively.

 

[Hadders]

I've been following this case with interest, although I haven't commented recently.

The issue for me is that the current legal framework around fare evasion and ticketless travel doesn't really work and urgently needs reform.

Is a ticket purchased onboard after the train has departed a valid ticket? If it's sold by a guard, for example on Northern service where tickets are often sold onboard, then the asnwer is undisputably yes.

But is an e-ticket purchased onboard by a passenger using a smartphone after the train has departed a valid ticket? The train companies certainly don't want it to be valid but the Railway Byelays and Regulation of the Railways Act don't make any differentiation between a ticket sold onboard after departure by a guard or one purchased after depatyure by a passenger using a smartphone.

I don't think anyone can argue with the principle that you must possess a valid ticket for your journey before boarding the train, if ticket issuing opportunities exist at the station where you start your journey. @allypally certainly passed opportunities to pay when boarding at Stevenage. But when challenged @allypally also presented a valid ticket for their journey.

We see loads of cases on here where people are penalised for purchasing tickets after the train has departed - I suspect many of them are members of the 'pay when challenged' brigade. The only way to resolve this issue is to reform the Byelaws/RoRA/Penalty Fare Regulations around ticketless travel and fare evasion.

 

[furlong]

I don't think anyone can argue with the principle that you must possess a valid ticket for your journey before boarding the train, if ticket issuing opportunities exist at the station where you start your journey.

I do argue against that when (a) it is not abundantly clear to anyone travelling that this is the case; (b) when facilities are inadequate (not close to the entrance you used or you'd miss your train); (c) when a mobile ticket can be purchased without delay immediately after boarding.

@allypally certainly passed opportunities to pay when boarding at Stevenage. But when challenged @allypally also presented a valid ticket for their journey.

Prosecutorial discretion is an important part of our criminal justice system. Many instances of "crimes" are not expected to lead to prosecutions, and indeed laws are constructed under this assumption. In any given case, the CPS would normally make the judgement call independently of the investigating authority. Private prosecutors, not independent from the investigation and with commercial motives, abuse the system when they fail to apply similar tests.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Aug 2024 ==

But is an e-ticket purchased onboard by a passenger using a smartphone after the train has departed a valid ticket? The train companies certainly don't want it to be valid

If they didn't want it to be valid then why did they sell it? Surely they wouldn't rather the passenger, having boarded without a ticket, was denied an available opportunity to rectify the matter so travelled for nothing? Of course they are valid and they do want them to be valid because they want to be paid for such journeys!

One more problem here - paying the PF would involve paying the already-paid fare for the journey a second time. The regulations work on the premise that because no valid ticket was presented a fare remains owing. It would be perverse to have to pay it twice with a penalty added on top! There's no provision for imposing a £100 or £50 penalty on top of a zero fare!

 

[Belperpete]

If they didn't want it to be valid then why did they sell it? Surely they wouldn't rather the passenger, having boarded without a ticket, was denied an available opportunity to rectify the matter so travelled for nothing? Of course they are valid and they do want them to be valid because they want to be paid for such journeys!

Most apps are specifically designed so that they won't sell a ticket for a train in such circumstances. This is purposely intended to stop people from buying on board, to thwart those who try and buy when they see an RPI approaching.

AFAIAA, the OP has not clarified if he entered a later train time in order to get around this, or what app he used.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Aug 2024 ==

What about the second draft letter?

It is just as bad as the first draft. It just gives the impression that you are trying to delay and obfuscate. You have already got my suggestion as to how you can condense it to one para in #162.

If you don't think you can justify why your ticket was definitely valid in an email to GTR, how do you think you are going to go about convincing a court? Criminal or civil.

 

[jkdd77]

The question of validity is only relevant to a civil claim, and the OP has said he is willing to face such a claim, but not to seriously risk conviction.

If the OP is, his own words, willing to pay thousands, but nevertheless chiefly wishes to avoid a conviction, one option might be to sit tight and await developments; nothing he says to GTR will convince them to drop their aggressive demands for money. If GTR are indeed bluffing, he has saved £150, and, if not, hiring a solicitor to make a proper 'plea in bar' virtually guarantees that he will not be convicted, since the statute is so crystal clear in forbidding prosecution (and Northern's argument to the contrary is absurd). A local criminal defence solicitor would likely cost more than £150, but at least the OP would have the satisfaction of having defeated GTR.

 

[Hadders]

Most apps are specifically designed so that they won't sell a ticket for a train in such circumstances. This is purposely intended to stop people from buying on board, to thwart those who try and buy when they see an RPI approaching.

AFAIAA, the OP has not clarified if he entered a later train time in order to get around this, or what app he used.

The train selected when you purchase a 'walk-up' ticket is irrelevent. I purchased a ticket to travel between Stevenage and London last Sunday but travelled on a later train to the one I selected when I purchased it. That doesn't make the ticket invalid - if it did there would be all sorts of unintended consequences.

As I said upthread, the TOCs want a ticket purchased onboard via a smartphone after the train has departed to be invalid (and I understand why they want to do this and am supportive of that principle) but the current legislative position doesn't support this because it was written pre-smartphone era and doesn't consider this possibility.

The problem for the OP is that GTR are unlikely to just drop the case - if they did it would become a 'pay when challenged charter'. On the other hand if they fight the case in court they will probably win - eventually. But as we are seeing with the current Northern and Greater Anglia cases the wheels of justice move very slowly and its likely to be a bumpy road along the way.

As I said earlier the Byelaws, RoRA Act and Penalty Fares Regulations have rapidly become unfot for purpose in the era of purchasing tickets via smartphones. This urgently needs addressing.