Ticket purchasing opportunities

[Signal Head]

I've been following a few threads in the Disputes section recently, regarding people who have passed a ticket machine, possibly unknowingly, boarded their train, and run into difficulties during their journey.

One of the local stations (in Northern-land) which I use occasionally has recently gained a new ticket machine. This is adjacent to the ticket office building, on the way to one of the two platforms, but not visible until you pass the ticket office (staffed during the morning peak only), and not obvious at all from the opposite platform or its access.

There is no signage indicating that a machine exists, only a permanent sign (not a poster) near the access to the platform without the office/machine advising which platform to use for which direction and prefixing that for the opposite platform with "Tickets and [trains to...]", nothing that indicates there is a 24 hour facility in addition to the booking office, and nothing on that side advising of dire penalties should one board without having purchased a ticket.

Approaching the station from the 'no facilities' side, to get to the ticket machine (or office for that matter), requires a detour involving either a flight of steep steps down to the platform level (from the top of these steps, the status of the booking office is visible, the machine is not), or a 300-400m further detour down the ramp of the adjacent road overbridge, then back along a residential street, then navigating a 'kissing gate', neither of these routes then are any good for someone with a pram, heavy baggage, or mobility problems.

So, what is the likely outcome for someone either not knowing of the ticket machine, or simply not being able to access it without inordinate (relatively speaking) effort, which they are unable to do, boarding a train and expecting to be able to buy on board?

Has Northern fulfilled its obligations (legal *and* moral) in respect of providing sufficient facilities to be able to prosecute anyone boarding without having gone to the effort of seeking out and accessing the machine?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I've been following a few threads in the Disputes section recently, regarding people who have passed a ticket machine, possibly unknowingly, boarded their train, and run into difficulties during their journey.

One of the local stations (in Northern-land) which I use occasionally has recently gained a new ticket machine. This is adjacent to the ticket office building, on the way to one of the two platforms, but not visible until you pass the ticket office (staffed during the morning peak only), and not obvious at all from the opposite platform or its access.

There is no signage indicating that a machine exists, only a permanent sign (not a poster) near the access to the platform without the office/machine advising which platform to use for which direction and prefixing that for the opposite platform with "Tickets and [trains to...]", nothing that indicates there is a 24 hour facility in addition to the booking office, and nothing on that side advising of dire penalties should one board without having purchased a ticket.

Approaching the station from the 'no facilities' side, to get to the ticket machine (or office for that matter), requires a detour involving either a flight of steep steps down to the platform level (from the top of these steps, the status of the booking office is visible, the machine is not), or a 300-400m further detour down the ramp of the adjacent road overbridge, then back along a residential street, then navigating a 'kissing gate', neither of these routes then are any good for someone with a pram, heavy baggage, or mobility problems.

So, what is the likely outcome for someone either not knowing of the ticket machine, or simply not being able to access it without inordinate (relatively speaking) effort, which they are unable to do, boarding a train and expecting to be able to buy on board?

Has Northern fulfilled its obligations (legal *and* moral) in respect of providing sufficient facilities to be able to prosecute anyone boarding without having gone to the effort of seeking out and accessing the machine?

I would suggest that in such cases, there can be no doubt that Northern has not fulfilled its moral duties to passengers. But unfortunately train companies are not in the business of having good morals - and where they do accede a case it will be purely for PR reasons.

If we talk about the legal side, I think there is definitely a limit to what can be considered an "opportunity to purchase". Take the example you have given - or that of any other station where the ticketing facilities are a long distance away from, or otherwise very inconveniently located for, certain platforms etc. It simply cannot be the case that merely because there are ticketing facilities at a station - hidden away perhaps, and almost always unsigned - this must count as an opportunity to purchase, when a walk and/or wait of many minutes may be involved.

By contrast, I doubt anyone could claim that, if, say Wigan North Western had facilities to purchase a ticket available but Wigan Wallgate didn't (imagining for example the ticket office at Wallgate being closed but that at North Western being open - as happens between 05:45 and 06:00 during the week, according to the NRE opening times), that Wallgate would be considered to have an "opportunity to purchase" since there is a rather nearby station which has an open ticket office and some TVMs (which Wallgate doesn't have).

So clearly there is a limit to what can be considered an "opportunity to purchase". But the question is - is this all even relevant? Penalty Fares may in theory apply if you don't buy a ticket where there is an opportunity to purchase one beforehand. But we know Northern definitely doesn't comply with the Penalty Fares Regulations, and since it's a "strict liability" requirement to do so, their Penalty Fares are not enforceable - not that they even ever enforce them at County Court (which would be the theoretical venue of enforcement).

Byelaw 18 is the next hurdle. But I have made my views on this quite clear - in case you are not aware, I consider it ultra vires (i.e. unlawful), since it is secondary legislation that attempts to modify primary legislation, in the form of RoRA S.5(3)(a), by removing the requirement for intent to be shown, and we know that secondary legislation cannot do so*. So therefore we are left with RoRA S.5(3)(a) itself. This requires "intent to avoid payment [of the fare]". I think it would be very difficult to prove such an intent if the traveller has no knowledge of the availability of ticketing facilities, or even if he has that knowledge, it is entirely impracticable to make use of them (for example by reason of his luggage - which the railway insists he may not leave unattended - or his disability, etc.).

The above-mentioned lack of knowledge, or impracticability, would be easily shown by taking photographs of the station layout and any signage seen (or not seen). It would take a brave TOC and/or strong evidence to the contrary to try and rebut it!

So ultimately though failing to use available but hidden facilities may result in a lot of stress from an attempted prosecution, in my view it is clear that Northern et al would be on a hiding to nothing and there are several strong avenues of defence. It is a world away from Scotland, where, despite private prosecutions being basically unheard-of, every station has prominent notices indicating whether or not there are ticketing faciliites, and if there are facilities, their location!

*There is plenty of case law to the effect that secondary legislation cannot modify primary legislation, and it is common sense really, as otherwise Ministers, agencies with delegated powers and so on could change the proof required for offences, or remove offences, etc. without Parliament's approval! There is also plenty of case law to the effect that historical Railway Byelaws which attempted to create an intentionless offence of ticketless travel were unlawful in view of them attempting to modify RoRA.

 

[Signal Head]

I would suggest that in such cases, there can be no doubt that Northern has not fulfilled its moral duties to passengers. But unfortunately train companies are not in the business of having good morals - and where they do accede a case it will be purely for PR reasons.

If we talk about the legal side, I think there is definitely a limit to what can be considered an "opportunity to purchase". Take the example you have given - or that of any other station where the ticketing facilities are a long distance away from, or otherwise very inconveniently located for, certain platforms etc. It simply cannot be the case that merely because there are ticketing facilities at a station - hidden away perhaps, and almost always unsigned - this must count as an opportunity to purchase, when a walk and/or wait of many minutes may be involved.

Thank you for your swift and well reasoned reply.
The station in question used to have a older style ticket machine on the access to the other platform, but it was rarely operational owing to vandalism, I think the 'stump' is still there. That of course presented a similar problem for the booking office side platform when the office was closed.

I am of the opinion that unless a single machine is obvious and easily accessible to all (I understand from a post in here that disabled passengers are permitted to purchase on-board without restriction, which is a partial acknowledgement of the problems I suppose), there ought to be a machine on each platform, or a relaxation on the rules for passengers boarding from the problematic platform.

If the single machine here had been positioned *on* its platform, that would at least make it visible from the other, but would do nothing to make it more accessible as the route between the platforms is via the adjacent road bridge.

I suspect part of the reason behind its position is that the platforms are of light wooden construction, possibly unable to take the weight, or maybe resist attempts by the local ferals to free the machine from its moorings and deposit it on the track. Even so, construction of a raised 'hard standing' at the rear of the platform looks feasible, but obviously more costly.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Thank you for your swift and well reasoned reply.
The station in question used to have a older style ticket machine on the access to the other platform, but it was rarely operational owing to vandalism, I think the 'stump' is still there. That of course presented a similar problem for the booking office side platform when the office was closed.

I am of the opinion that unless a single machine is obvious and easily accessible to all (I understand from a post in here that disabled passengers are permitted to purchase on-board without restriction, which is a partial acknowledgement of the problems I suppose), there ought to be a machine on each platform, or a relaxation on the rules for passengers boarding from the problematic platform.

If the single machine here had been positioned *on* its platform, that would at least make it visible from the other, but would do nothing to make it more accessible as the route between the platforms is via the adjacent road bridge.

I suspect part of the reason behind its position is that the platforms are of light wooden construction, possibly unable to take the weight, or maybe resist attempts by the local ferals to free the machine from its moorings and deposit it on the track. Even so, construction of a raised 'hard standing' at the rear of the platform looks feasible, but obviously more costly.

I agree - the geography and other features of a great many stations means it is difficult to locate a ticket machine in one convenient location - bearing in mind ticket machine installations are often only done as a franchise obligation, and so there is no particular incentive to install the machine in a location convenient to passengers, or to install more than one (especially taking into account that many machines cost far more to run than they will even sell in tickets, let alone what they will generate in commission).

In my view a sensible set of changes would be as follows:

1) Byelaw 18 to be repealed, in recognition of its unlawfulness;
2) Penalty Fares Regulations breaches by TOCs to become a criminal offence in and of themselves when a "faulty" Penalty Fare is issued;
3) All stations to have Scotland-style signage indicating whether or not ticketing facilities are available, and if so, where;
4) Penalty Fares not to be enforced against disabled/mobility-reduced passengers;
5) Penalty Fares to be suspended in a particular direction of travel from a given station if it is impracticable to access ticketing facilities when travelling in that direction (e.g. having to cross a level crossing, or walking more than 200m or so).