-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Travel irregularity
- Thread starter josha169
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
That isn't in doubt.
However the fare evaded is significantly less from Newcastle to Alnmouth than it is from London Terminals to Alnmouth!
Oh, I get that. But I thought we were at the "don't prosecute me" stage, rather than the "let's negotiate an amount" stage.
Just got an update letter. when they say you were found to have traveled without a valid rail ticket, are they saying I tried to show the inspector a ticket for that journey?
Travel on a train without a valid ticket
Thank you for your communication. Your comments have been forwarded to our prosecutors office and the following may assist your further understanding as to why we have written to you.
The issue of s summons has been authorized in this case.
You were reported by a Revenue Protection Inspector, when you were found to have traveled without a valid rail ticket. The report of this incident alleges that you did not hold a valid ticket when travelling and you had not paid the correct rail fare before being asked to show a ticket during a special spot-check by inspectors.
National Railways Byelaw 18.1 (2005) makes clear the strict liability requirement for all travelers to pay the correct fare due and to obtain a valid ticket for their intended journey before boarding any train where facilities are provided for that purpose.
Nation Railway Byelaw 18.2 make it strict liability requirement that the traveler must show a rail ticket when asked.
Railways Byelaws makes provision for those occasions when a traveler has genuinely been unable to obtain a ticket before boarding because of infrastructure failure however, this does not apply in this case.
We believe it is important to understand the reason for this report and in referring to the National Rail Conditions of Carriage, information form direct.gov.uk gives the following guidance regarding rail travel:
'When you buy a train ticket, you enter into an agreement with any train company whose services you use. This gives you the right to travel on the route allowed by your ticket. Along with your rights, you have a certin responsibilities when you travel by rail. Have a valid ticket. Make sure you have enough time to buy your ticket. Don't get on a train without a ticket even if there is a long queue at the ticket office.'
Train operating companies have sometimes been criticized for a perceived lack of activity in dealing with fare evasion and ticket less travel and some media attention has highlighted this. A traveler's failure to comply with the legislation in force can sometimes result in prosecution of an allegation of a summary offence.
This may mean the issue of a summons alleging a breach of National Railways Byelaw 18 (2005) or in some cases, a charge of intent to avoid a fare contrary to section 5 of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889) may be appropriate. it has been ruled that any traveler who boards a train at a station where booking facilities were available, but without having purchased a ticket entitling them to travel, and only intending to pay when asked may be considered to be intending to avoid the fare due. (appeal Court Judgment, Corbyn (1978)
Our assessment of this case file, including tasking account of your comments, has concluded that the company see no reason why this matter should not proceed and this letter provides a further opportunity for you to respond allegation in writing withing 21 days if you wish to do so before any finial decision is taken.
We have encloses some further information concerning the report process, which you may find useful.
Travel on a train without a valid ticket
Thank you for your communication. Your comments have been forwarded to our prosecutors office and the following may assist your further understanding as to why we have written to you.
The issue of s summons has been authorized in this case.
You were reported by a Revenue Protection Inspector, when you were found to have traveled without a valid rail ticket. The report of this incident alleges that you did not hold a valid ticket when travelling and you had not paid the correct rail fare before being asked to show a ticket during a special spot-check by inspectors.
National Railways Byelaw 18.1 (2005) makes clear the strict liability requirement for all travelers to pay the correct fare due and to obtain a valid ticket for their intended journey before boarding any train where facilities are provided for that purpose.
Nation Railway Byelaw 18.2 make it strict liability requirement that the traveler must show a rail ticket when asked.
Railways Byelaws makes provision for those occasions when a traveler has genuinely been unable to obtain a ticket before boarding because of infrastructure failure however, this does not apply in this case.
We believe it is important to understand the reason for this report and in referring to the National Rail Conditions of Carriage, information form direct.gov.uk gives the following guidance regarding rail travel:
'When you buy a train ticket, you enter into an agreement with any train company whose services you use. This gives you the right to travel on the route allowed by your ticket. Along with your rights, you have a certin responsibilities when you travel by rail. Have a valid ticket. Make sure you have enough time to buy your ticket. Don't get on a train without a ticket even if there is a long queue at the ticket office.'
Train operating companies have sometimes been criticized for a perceived lack of activity in dealing with fare evasion and ticket less travel and some media attention has highlighted this. A traveler's failure to comply with the legislation in force can sometimes result in prosecution of an allegation of a summary offence.
This may mean the issue of a summons alleging a breach of National Railways Byelaw 18 (2005) or in some cases, a charge of intent to avoid a fare contrary to section 5 of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889) may be appropriate. it has been ruled that any traveler who boards a train at a station where booking facilities were available, but without having purchased a ticket entitling them to travel, and only intending to pay when asked may be considered to be intending to avoid the fare due. (appeal Court Judgment, Corbyn (1978)
Our assessment of this case file, including tasking account of your comments, has concluded that the company see no reason why this matter should not proceed and this letter provides a further opportunity for you to respond allegation in writing withing 21 days if you wish to do so before any finial decision is taken.
We have encloses some further information concerning the report process, which you may find useful.
Nope, there is no 'technicality' there either.
You travelled without a valid ticket, i.e no ticket.
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
No. It is simply stating what you have already written on here - that you travelled on from Newcastle to Alnmouth and didn't have a ticket to show when it was requested, a ticket which would have been valid for your journey to Alnmouth.
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
You can attempt an out of court (OOC) settlement, and you can expect a reasonable prospect of success [despite the fact that one or more law firms who claim to specialise in private prosecutions will state otherwise].
Surely your greater concern right now is HOW to achieve that settlement?
Go for it, but my advice is to be pragmatic, and not adversarial.
Surely your greater concern right now is HOW to achieve that settlement?
Go for it, but my advice is to be pragmatic, and not adversarial.
Like I said am not sure how this works.
What is my next step, do I wait for another letter?
Llanigraham
On Moderation
Definately not!
The last 2 paragraphs of the letter you have copied tell you what to do:
Our assessment of this case file, including tasking account of your comments, has concluded that the company see no reason why this matter should not proceed and this letter provides a further opportunity for you to respond allegation in writing withing 21 days if you wish to do so before any finial decision is taken.
We have encloses some further information concerning the report process, which you may find useful.
I have highlighted the relevant words.
I suggest you write as has been suggested above and state that you are willing to make an out-of-Court settlement, of a sum they may state.
How would I construct this letter , what do I include and not include
If you search through previous threads you'll see examples of letters which have been received favourably. Basically, you want to include: an admission that you were wrong, an acknowledgement that they have had to waste time and money dealing with your case, a promise to never do it again and an offer to recompense them for the costs they've incurred.
What not to include: waffle, blame throwing, tales of woe.
But I did this in the previous letter I send to them, If you read my draft on page 1
Yes, I know. But you haven't brought any new facts to the table so there's nothing new you can add to your letter. But it doesn't mean the same person is going to be reading it, and that you'll get the same response.
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
At this stage, the points being proposed for you to make in your response are all that you have to give.
Contrary to the advice given to you by 6Gman, I suggest that you do not attempt to correct any errors in the file that Cross Country is using in their claim against you. Two of the distinguishing features of Prosecutions brought against passengers by Cross Country are 1) that they tend to go for prosecutions in preference to agreeing an Out-of-Court (OOC) settlement more than the average across UK rail Companies, and 2) that they tend to be sloppy in their evidence gathering and in their instructions to their prosecuting solicitors.
One upshot of this is, that if your attempt at an OOC settlement fails, then the Company is quite likely to proceed with a factually incorrect prosecution - such as a claim that you did not have a valid ticket to cover the journey from Paddington station. In that eventuality, you (with or without legal representation) should have little difficulty in having the Prosecution rejected as unproven.
It's unfortunate for those people you are pursued by sloppy prosecution, that they like to point out the errors in the prosecution as soon as they see them, giving the prosecution ample time to correct them.
Another upshot is that the Prosecutor ( that is, the person on their feet in Court representing their client - Cross Country Trains) may be more willing to accept a settlement there and then, assuring their client of a benefit, rather than rejecting it and putting their client's fate in the hands of the Magistrates and their Clerk and how they might assess the evidence presented to them. So even if your attempt at an OOC fails again, there will still be another opportunity. We will be able to advise you on how best to manage that opportunity if you don't have legal representation.
If your atempt at a settlement fails, just let them proceed with an incorrect prosecution.
Contrary to the advice given to you by 6Gman, I suggest that you do not attempt to correct any errors in the file that Cross Country is using in their claim against you. Two of the distinguishing features of Prosecutions brought against passengers by Cross Country are 1) that they tend to go for prosecutions in preference to agreeing an Out-of-Court (OOC) settlement more than the average across UK rail Companies, and 2) that they tend to be sloppy in their evidence gathering and in their instructions to their prosecuting solicitors.
One upshot of this is, that if your attempt at an OOC settlement fails, then the Company is quite likely to proceed with a factually incorrect prosecution - such as a claim that you did not have a valid ticket to cover the journey from Paddington station. In that eventuality, you (with or without legal representation) should have little difficulty in having the Prosecution rejected as unproven.
It's unfortunate for those people you are pursued by sloppy prosecution, that they like to point out the errors in the prosecution as soon as they see them, giving the prosecution ample time to correct them.
Another upshot is that the Prosecutor ( that is, the person on their feet in Court representing their client - Cross Country Trains) may be more willing to accept a settlement there and then, assuring their client of a benefit, rather than rejecting it and putting their client's fate in the hands of the Magistrates and their Clerk and how they might assess the evidence presented to them. So even if your attempt at an OOC fails again, there will still be another opportunity. We will be able to advise you on how best to manage that opportunity if you don't have legal representation.
If your atempt at a settlement fails, just let them proceed with an incorrect prosecution.
Last edited:
I did say in my letter I sent before I received the latest one, I boarded a train at Newcastle to Alnmouth with out a ticket but I never mention Paddington. so does this still make your points valid?
Last edited:
So what is my next step? , Received this letter today
Thank you for your further letter in respect of this case, we have noted your additional comments in response to our letter and the report of failing to show a valid rail ticket.
It is always the travelers responsibility to pay the correct fare due and to obtain a valid ticket before boarding any train where pre- purchase facilities are available to do so and it is the travelers responsibility to show a valid rail ticket when asked. Where pre- purchase facilities are not available and any person boards a train without a valid ticket, it is always the responsibility of that passenger to declare the journey to on train staff and pay the fare due immediately on boarding any train.
We have fully evaluated your further comments and following re-assessment, we can find no reason to change the view expressed in our earlier letter. We see no reason why this matter should not proceed as we have previously advised.
An application for the issue of a summons may now be made and we will advise once any hearing date has been confirmed.
Thank you for your further letter in respect of this case, we have noted your additional comments in response to our letter and the report of failing to show a valid rail ticket.
It is always the travelers responsibility to pay the correct fare due and to obtain a valid ticket before boarding any train where pre- purchase facilities are available to do so and it is the travelers responsibility to show a valid rail ticket when asked. Where pre- purchase facilities are not available and any person boards a train without a valid ticket, it is always the responsibility of that passenger to declare the journey to on train staff and pay the fare due immediately on boarding any train.
We have fully evaluated your further comments and following re-assessment, we can find no reason to change the view expressed in our earlier letter. We see no reason why this matter should not proceed as we have previously advised.
An application for the issue of a summons may now be made and we will advise once any hearing date has been confirmed.
cf111
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2012
- Messages
- 1,392
They are probably going to prosecute you, you'll receive a summons from the court in due course.
gray1404
Established Member
I am really really really surprised here that the TOC is just not being open at all to offering the OP an out of court settlement. Does anyone know why this might be the case?
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
This is what we expected - as I mentioned above, Cross Country as a matter of practice is in the bottom league of those who might consider accepting an OOC settlement. That outcome is in no way related to the facts of your incident - if they would prefer to have the arguments heard and decided impartially by a Court, then that shouldn't offend any sense of justice we might have.
There's a number of regular posters on here who find it quite perverse that a prosecutor of a crimnal offence can simply drop the matter on receipt of an offeer of payment, and we should respect that view, as do Cross Country.
The negative prospect for you is that it is most likely that your incident will be summonsed to be heard in the Magistrates Court.
The positive prospects are, firstly, (again, as I mentioned above) that Cross Country are generally 'sloppy' in preparing their files for their prosecutors, and are quite likely to proceed on the basis of some factual error which would be enough to have the claim abandoned at the first hurdle; and, secondly, that as a matter of pragmatics, their prosecutor in Court is quite likely to accept that OOC settlement if it is offered sincerely and in good faith and even moreso if it is apparent that there is a defence (probably those errors of fact) which are likely to produce a judgement against them.
An out of court settlement is still on the cards. They have to establish that they have a case that's worth taking to court before they can discuss settlement.
Because
A) They dont have to
B) They want to get a few prosecutions up and running which they think will hopefully make it into the local rags around the area and encourage more people to purchase tickets before they board - especially if theyre busy services
C) They dont want to
D) They want to keep their legal team fit for purpose and are letting some have a jolly down the local mags to keep them sharp
tannedfrog
Member
- Joined
- 26 Jun 2010
- Messages
- 537
It is to be hoped that they won't read this thread!
I have recived another letter
A Summons
Statement of Facts
Witness statement
Report of irregular travelling
Notice of prosecution
Proof by witness statement
Acknowledgement and notice of plea
Plea of guilty in absence
Financial statement
Here is what the summons letter says
You are hereby summoned to appear on ............ , to answer the following information laid today
That you on 11/07/16, between London Paddington station and Alnmouth (Via Newcastle) did travel upon a cross country railway service having paid the fare from london paddington to newcastle did proceed by train beyond newcastle to alnmouth without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance and with the intent to avoid payment thereof
Contrary to S.5 (3) (b) of the regulation of railway act 1889 as amended by section 84 (2) of the transport act 1962 and section 18 of the British railway act 1970
Cost application
If you are convicted , the court will be asked to order you to pay costs.
If you plead guilty the application will be shown below, If you disagree with the application you should explain why when you write to the court
Fare compensation is the sum of £139 and prosecution costs in the sum of £130 (including VAT) are applied for
Signed by the prosecutor
So am I able to get this dismissed or is my best option to Plea Guilty, if you need information about the other letter just ask
A Summons
Statement of Facts
Witness statement
Report of irregular travelling
Notice of prosecution
Proof by witness statement
Acknowledgement and notice of plea
Plea of guilty in absence
Financial statement
Here is what the summons letter says
You are hereby summoned to appear on ............ , to answer the following information laid today
That you on 11/07/16, between London Paddington station and Alnmouth (Via Newcastle) did travel upon a cross country railway service having paid the fare from london paddington to newcastle did proceed by train beyond newcastle to alnmouth without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance and with the intent to avoid payment thereof
Contrary to S.5 (3) (b) of the regulation of railway act 1889 as amended by section 84 (2) of the transport act 1962 and section 18 of the British railway act 1970
Cost application
If you are convicted , the court will be asked to order you to pay costs.
If you plead guilty the application will be shown below, If you disagree with the application you should explain why when you write to the court
Fare compensation is the sum of £139 and prosecution costs in the sum of £130 (including VAT) are applied for
Signed by the prosecutor
So am I able to get this dismissed or is my best option to Plea Guilty, if you need information about the other letter just ask
Last edited:
I don't see any grounds for it to be dismissed, but they may settle if you agree to pay the £270 directly to them to avoid having to trouble the courts. You might even get them to agree to £140.30 (costs plus a Newcastle Alnmouth single).
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
I agree with najaB, it all seems quite straightforward : the Company considers that you took the decision to travel without paying and is satisfied that there is adequate evidence to support a conviction.
To add some more incentive to your attempt to reach an out of Court settlement, if it did proceed to Court, the total cost you will be required to pay will rise from the £269 by the amount of the fine which is likely to be around another £200 (the precise amount varies according to your means) plus Victim Surcharge. And if you were to plead Not Guilty (which would lead to a trial at a later date) the costs would presumably rise again.
Now, it's not impossible to plea Not Guilty and have a legal representative to undermine the Prosecution's evidence on some small detail which renders a conviction unlikely, but it's not apparent to me that such a defect exists in the evidence - you could call in to a local law firm which specialises in general Criminal Defence work and take some advice on the prospects of defending the claim, but none of this will be as helpful as reaching an Out of Court settlement.
To add some more incentive to your attempt to reach an out of Court settlement, if it did proceed to Court, the total cost you will be required to pay will rise from the £269 by the amount of the fine which is likely to be around another £200 (the precise amount varies according to your means) plus Victim Surcharge. And if you were to plead Not Guilty (which would lead to a trial at a later date) the costs would presumably rise again.
Now, it's not impossible to plea Not Guilty and have a legal representative to undermine the Prosecution's evidence on some small detail which renders a conviction unlikely, but it's not apparent to me that such a defect exists in the evidence - you could call in to a local law firm which specialises in general Criminal Defence work and take some advice on the prospects of defending the claim, but none of this will be as helpful as reaching an Out of Court settlement.
"travel upon a cross country railway service having paid the fare from london paddington to newcastle did proceed by train beyond newcastle to alnmouth without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance"
How do you portray this sentence . are they saying I got off at Newcastle and boarded another train to Alnmouth or are they saying I over traveled on the train from Paddington Station to Alnmouth
A note as well I never boarded a train at Paddington station , I boarded a train at London King cross to Newcastle and then boarded a different train at Newcastle to Alnmouth
How do you portray this sentence . are they saying I got off at Newcastle and boarded another train to Alnmouth or are they saying I over traveled on the train from Paddington Station to Alnmouth
A note as well I never boarded a train at Paddington station , I boarded a train at London King cross to Newcastle and then boarded a different train at Newcastle to Alnmouth
Last edited:
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
I think you've raised these questions once or twice already on here. And they don't get us anywhere useful.
The only point that matters is the fact which can be found in the phrase "did proceed by train beyond newcastle to alnmouth without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance" where it is silent on whether you alighted and got on another train (which you did) or whether you remained on the same train (which you didn't). The offence is travel without a contract to be carried.
The references to Paddington are immaterial to the alleged offence.
The only point that matters is the fact which can be found in the phrase "did proceed by train beyond newcastle to alnmouth without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance" where it is silent on whether you alighted and got on another train (which you did) or whether you remained on the same train (which you didn't). The offence is travel without a contract to be carried.
The references to Paddington are immaterial to the alleged offence.
Why not? They never said it was non-stop.
- Status