TIL Letter recieved

[narnz]

hey guys

First off I will explain what happened on the said date:

I arrived at the station and proceeded to go platform where the door way was marshalled by a revenue enforcer wearing and badged in a virgin trains uniform. I provided my ticket which was an open return bought the day before at the same station which was unstammed or marked as used, this was my mistake thinking that i purchased it for the day after as i do every day. Questioned by the inspector i admitted producing the wrong ticket and proceeded to the kiosk to purchase a new one, at this time i never board a train entered the platform. Upon returning to the inspector I produced my any permitted route ticked to my destination only to be refused travel on any trains that day and I would be able to get a refund on my ticket. The revenue enforcer took my details and accused me of trying travel with out a valid ticket, although she could not prove my ticket before was used also i bought a new ticket to travel.

I received a letter from Til and the inital mistake they have put on the refererence reason is Travel on a train without a valid ticket.
Bare in mind i never boarded a train or entered the platform to which this is totally incorrect,

Second mistake:

We are the agents of Virgin Trains who have passed a file to this office concerning the matter referred to above, which concerns a journey from (station a) to (station b) when at station b hours on (the said date) a traveller giving your name and address details was found to have travelled with out a valid rail ticket.

My arguments am I wrongfully acussed of travelling and also was the enforcer able to ban me from using any other train network other than virgin who uniform she was wearing and also the letter states they are acting on behalf of virgin.

Do i just reply and explain to them that i did not travel that day and they have got it wrong?

I do not want to be bullish because a mistake was made which i tried to rectify and purchased a new ticket.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

 

[najaB]

Thanks in advance for any advice.

Just for clarity's sake, could you confirm that the sequence of events is:

1. You went towards the platform entrance and showed your ticket to the ticket inspector.
2. They saw that the ticket was for the previous day and refused you entry to the platform.
3. You went back to the ticket machine, and bought a new ticket.
4. You showed the new ticket to the ticket inspector, but they again refused to let you enter the platform and took your details.
5. They also said that you wouldn't be allowed to travel on any train, and told would have to get a refund on the new ticket you bought.
6. You have since received a letter saying that you 'travelled without a valid ticket'.

Is there anything missed out of that?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I'm not understanding your post very clearly, but I think you are asking for assistance in pursuing 2 faults made by railway staff.

I suggest you should be more concerned about the mistakes made by you!

The phrase in the Act is "if any person travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof " and so it doesn't matter that you were stopped while trying to approach the platform and hadn't got as far as boarding a train. It also doesn't matter which Railway Company employed the Inspector - if they are an authorised Ticket Inspector on the Railways then they can inspect tickets on the railways. They check that passengers have valid tickets. You didn't have a valid ticket.

Why are you trying to blame other people when it is you that has made the mistake, and it is you who has apparently broken the law?

 

[mikeg]

Can you clarify what you mean by open return? Surely if its an anytime return which used to be called an open return and you hadn't used it you should have beenallowed travel as it has five days validity on the ooutward leg? If it was a day return or off peak return however it would have expired and the revenue protection staff were right.

 

[stuartl]

Looking at all the threads on here it would seem that due to the large amount of fare evasion that goes on there is no such thing anymore as an 'honest mistake' recognised by the train companies. Everyone seems to be assumed guilty unless they can prove otherwise. The only way to be safe is to give yourself plenty of time to get a ticket and double check it's the correct one.

Even though I know my tickets are correct I always feel aprehensive when the time comes for my ticket to be checked , especially if it's on a journey I've never made before.

I'm afraid that's the way the world is now.

 

[MikeWh]

Can you also clarify what happened about the journey you were intending to make. Did you really not make it at all? Did you get a refund on the ticket you bought?

Whilst I completely agree with DaveNewcastle that you committed an offence by attempting to travel without a valid ticket, I am a little concerned that having subsequently bought a valid ticket you were then denied travel. I assume that you live in London, but what would have been the situation had your journey been essential to get home.

However, I must re-iterate that the offence includes "attempting to travel" and by walking up to the barrier with an invalid ticket you did exactly that.

 

[narnz]

Ok to clear your questions up:

The ticket I had was an open any time return for 7 days outbound and 30 day return as I wasnt sure if I was getting a lift home from work after a meeting so having it open means i can use it if i do not return on another trip.

I got a receipt for the new ticket and a refund receipt for the refund given.

So am I too just hold my hands up and just apologise?

Do I just just accept that they have made mistakes on the letter by stating I was stopped at the destination station and I actually had travelled? So been accused of something that never took place?

Can a virgin rail enforcer ban me from the whole network and under what grounds?

I was late for work and an important meeting as i had to drive work.

 

[najaB]

The ticket I had was an open any time return for 7 days outbound and 30 day return as I wasnt sure if I was getting a lift home from work after a meeting so having it open means i can use it if i do not return on another trip.

If it was an Anytime Return, then (as far as I know) they are valid for five days on the outbound portion. But anyway, what date did this occur on, and what dates was the ticket valid from and until? Had you used the ticket to travel previously?

 

[narnz]

The ticket was bought the previous day but was not stamped or checked by any inspector, it was not used in any barriers either but that was my mistake producing this.

Thats not really my arguement, its the ban and also the wording of the letter, i openly admit producing the ticket but after buying a new one being refused travel.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Do I just just accept that they have made mistakes on the letter by stating I was stopped at the destination station and I actually had travelled? So been accused of something that never took place?

Can a virgin rail enforcer ban me from the whole network and under what grounds?

I was late for work and an important meeting as i had to drive work.

I'm sorry if my earlier reply was not clear.
The offence is "to travel or attempt to travel" so it really makes no difference whether you had boarded the train or were attempting to enter the platform before boarding. No difference at all. The point which you should be concerned with is whether you have commited the offence or not. I still don't understand why you are so concerned with finding fault with "the letter".

Yes, an authorised railway inspector can ask a person to leave railway premises. They are private property. They would support that action by having reason to believe that an offence had been committed or was likely to be committed. Again, I urge you to focus your attention on that alledged offence, and not waste your efforts on trying to find fault with other people.

I hope my advice is clearer this time.

 

[Robson689]

I'm sorry if my earlier reply was not clear.
The offence is "to travel or attempt to travel" so it really makes no difference whether you had boarded the train or were attempting to enter the platform before boarding. No difference at all. The point which you should be concerned with is whether you have commited the offence or not. I still don't understand why you are so concerned with finding fault with "the letter".

Yes, an authorised railway inspector can ask a person to leave railway premises. They are private property. They would support that action by having reason to believe that an offence had been committed or was likely to be committed. Again, I urge you to focus your attention on that alledged offence, and not waste your efforts on trying to find fault with other people.

I hope my advice is clearer this time.

If the reason on the letter is travelling on a train without a valid ticket, then surely that is the alleged offence?

 

[reb0118]

For clarification the outward portion of an anytime open return is valid for five (5) days. However it is only valid if you hold the unused return portion of the same ticket.

Many passengers fall foul of this rule by attempting to use an unmarked outward portion on the second or subsequent days of its validity but crucially are unable to produce an unmarked return bearing the same number - this means that you do not hold a valid ticket and may be reported for further action.

Just a thought.

 

[narnz]

If the reason on the letter is travelling on a train without a valid ticket, then surely that is the alleged offence?

This is the point i am getting at, it does not mention attempted travel what so ever and to state they stopped me at the destination having traveled contradicts the actual events that took place. Hence the point I am trying to prove.

Do I have grounds to write a letter and reject the event they are accusing me of never actually happened therefore they have no case based on the assumptions alone.

If the letter stated attempted to travel and had correct info on it then yes I hold my hands up, but still the harshness of me buying a replacement ticket only to be refused travel and ordered to get a refund is bad enough.

 

[bb21]

I am very confused by exactly what had happened, partly because your account of things is quite difficult to understand (sorry).

If you genuinely held an unused ticket of type Anytime Return bought only the day before (and not Off-Peak Return or anything like that), I find the turn of the events very strange. What conversation took place between you and the inspector exactly? At which station did this take place? (If you don't wish to reveal the station in public, once you have made 5 posts, you should get the facility to send PMs after a short delay.)

Was this Anytime Return you bought the previous day already used?

I also find it bizarre that you were refused travel on any later service that day despite clearly holding a valid ticket by then. Were there possibly other factors that might have influenced that decision? Being under the influence of alcohol or aggression, for example?

Did you manage to get a full refund for the newly purchased ticket or were you charged £10 for that?

How did you get on at the end?

 

[ian959]

This is the point i am getting at, it does not mention attempted travel what so ever and to state they stopped me at the destination having traveled contradicts the actual events that took place. Hence the point I am trying to prove.

Do I have grounds to write a letter and reject the event they are accusing me of never actually happened therefore they have no case based on the assumptions alone.

If the letter stated attempted to travel and had correct info on it then yes I hold my hands up, but still the harshness of me buying a replacement ticket only to be refused travel and ordered to get a refund is bad enough.

The letter you have received is a standard wording which whilst not the best does not really give you an attempt to "reject the event" as the event did in fact happen. "Travel on a train without a valid ticket" would be generally accepted as the usual way of describing the Bye-law offence of which you are rightfully being accused - travelling or attempting to travel without a valid ticket.

However the only way you would be able to get a definitive answer on the matter would be to have your day in court. Even then, I would suspect that the magistrate or whoever would simply accept that the wording in the letter you have received is a reasonable description of the offence you have committed and that any other errors are merely administrative errors that do not change the basic nature of the understanding of when and where the offence was committed.

You also need to understand that no one has attempted nor is attempting to ban you from the rail network. I can only speculate as to why you were denied travel after buying and producing a valid ticket, but I would hazard a guess that you have probably failed an "attitude test". However, that is a separate matter to the offence you did commit.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

If the reason on the letter is travelling on a train without a valid ticket, then surely that is the alleged offence?

No.

This is the point i am getting at, it does not mention attempted travel what so ever and to state they stopped me at the destination having traveled contradicts the actual events that took place.

As I've already explained twice, the Offence is "travel or attempt to travel" so either of these two actions will trigger the Offence. You're becoming too focussed on finding fault with that letter, and missing the point of your actual actions on the day.

Hence the point I am trying to prove.

Do I have grounds to write a letter and reject the event they are accusing me of never actually happened . . . . .

Well of course you may try, but please remember what I am trying to explain, the 'events' that matter are not what is in the letter, it is the evidence of your actual actions, in which either "travel or attempt to travel" combined with your actual ticket will secure a conviction.

I suggest that you pay and let the matter go.

 

[Greenback]

The revenue enforcer took my details and accused me of trying travel with out a valid ticket, although she could not prove my ticket before was used also i bought a new ticket to travel.

Your careful wording about the ticket not having been checked, stamped, or put through barriers, and the revenue officer not being able to prove the ticket had been used, leads me to question whether it had, in fact, been used previously without any of the above actions taking place?

I have to be blunt and ask if this is why you buy such a ticket, as you are hoping it won't be checked and you can use it again and again over 7 (sic) days?

This is exactly what the train company and it's staff will suspect in these sort of circumstances.

 

[Flamingo]

Your careful wording about the ticket not having been checked, stamped, or put through barriers, and the revenue officer not being able to prove the ticket had been used, leads me to question whether it had, in fact, been used previously without any of the above actions taking place?

I have to be blunt and ask if this is why you buy such a ticket, as you are hoping it won't be checked and you can use it again and again over 7 (sic) days?

This is exactly what the train company and it's staff will suspect in these sort of circumstances.

Agreed, the OP needs to clarify if they had TRAVELLED the previous day ( never mind what the ticket had done to it).

 

[island]

The ticket was bought the previous day but was not stamped or checked by any inspector, it was not used in any barriers either but that was my mistake producing this.

That's as it may be, but if the ticket was used to travel the previous day (and I suspect it may have been) then it was not valid to travel again, irrespective of whether it may or may not have suffered any of the above-mentioned treatments.

 

[narnz]

I know i am jumping on the mistakes In the letter but thats the grounds on what i would be charged on if it did go to court but unfortunately that event did not take place. Why would on any grounds would I admit to being at a station I never arrived at in the first place. Standard letter or not its incorrect.

Can someone point me in the direction of where this wording associates to attempted travel? The letter should be clearer.

Also failing an attitude should not be a valid reason to be banned, If I judged people how they speak to me on a regular basis at work, I would lose customers for sure, also if i was under the influence at 9:00 in a morning going to work I am sure i would be out of a job.

May I thank you all for trying to help and I apologise for keep ranting on about the same thing. This standard letter represents the company issuing it and to be fair if it was me issuing a letter with major mistakes on I would be embarresed.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Can someone point me in the direction of where this wording associates to attempted travel?

Yes. The Regulation of Railways Act Section 5.3

If any person—
(a) Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, either to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or in the discretion of the court to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.

See this section of the forum for more information : Railway Specific Legislation

I know i am jumping on the mistakes In the letter but thats the grounds on what i would be charged on if it did go to court but unfortunately that event did not take place. Why would on any grounds would I admit to being at a station I never arrived at in the first place. Standard letter or not its incorrect.

I'm not going to respond any further to your repeated challenges to the letter you've received. My opinion is unchanged. But I will repeat for the third time my advice to concentrate on the details of the actual alledged offence which may be brought against you and which hopefully you should be able to defend yourself against.
It is only the details of that actual Offence that will be prosecuted, and only your Defence against that actual Offence which will avoid a prosecution.

Any time wasted on the administrative shorthand or errors in the letter is unproductive. You know what you did wrong, and so does the Investigating Officer. Please focus your thoughts on that.

 

[snail]

I know i am jumping on the mistakes In the letter but thats the grounds on what i would be charged on if it did go to court.

I note that you haven't answered Flamingo's question from two posts before yours. Did you use the ticket to travel the previous day?

The outward portion of anytime tickets clearly show the start date and length of validity. If the one you presented was within that period why did you go and buy another one?

 

[Flamingo]

I wonder if the inspector had recognised the OP from the previous day...

 

[Greenback]

I note that you haven't answered Flamingo's question from two posts before yours. Did you use the ticket to travel the previous day?

The outward portion of anytime tickets clearly show the start date and length of validity. If the one you presented was within that period why did you go and buy another one?

That was one of the things that crossed my mind. Th evasion of the question and the careful wording of the posts made by the OP certainly brings up the possibility that Narnz is focusing on technicalities so as to avoid admitting that they had used the ticket previously, and was hoping that they would get away with using it again.

I don't know if this is the case, it may have been a genuine mistake, but it undoubtedly a possibility that has also crossed the minds of the TOC and its representatives. The insistence by Narnz that the only relevant issue is the incorrect wording of the letter, merely adds to the suspicion.

My instinct is that Narnz would be expressing a lot more outrage had they merely made an innocent mistake, instead of trying to convince themselves that the wording of the letter gets them off the hook.

 

[DelayRepay]

I wonder if the inspector had recognised the OP from the previous day...

I wonder if this happens regularly and the Inspectors had been briefed to look out for the OP?

I know someone who believes that if a ticket isn't stamped or marked, it's ok to use it again.

 

[Greenback]

I wonder if the inspector had recognised the OP from the previous day...

Indeed, the TOC may have more evidence than the unstamped ticket...

 

[narnz]

I am not been funny but I came here for advise not to be accused of being serial ticket dodger, it was a mistake as i clearly noted in my first post.

I have read the correct laws now and will reply with the actual events that happened.

To the ones who actually gave me advise thank you. I have learnt alot from just reading and to the admin and moderaters of the site may I also thank you.

 

[DelayRepay]

I am not been funny but I came here for advise not to be accused of being serial ticket dodger, it was a mistake as i clearly noted in my first post.

And I am not being funny but this is what the Prosecutor at Virgin Trains will be wondering. It sounds to me like your original ticket would have been valid for travel, yet you happily went to buy a new one. And having bought two tickets, you still weren't allowed to travel. If that is the case did you make a complaint to Virgin and ask for refunds of the two tickets?

 

[Flamingo]

I am not been funny but I came here for advise not to be accused of being serial ticket dodger, it was a mistake as i clearly noted in my first post.

I have read the correct laws now and will reply with the actual events that happened.

To the ones who actually gave me advise thank you. I have learnt alot from just reading and to the admin and moderaters of the site may I also thank you.

i rest my case...

 

[narnz]

i rest my case...

Thank you.