Typical OTT media: Southeastern commuter told he could be jailed for missing stop

[Seaeagle]

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/maidstone/news/sleeping-train-commuter-threatened-with-128493/

A commuter was told he could be facing a £1,000 fine or even jail after falling asleep on a train and missing his stop.

Graphic designer Neil Armstrong had been travelling from Victoria to Barming after a day’s work in the capital with his £4,500-a-year season ticket.

The 46-year-old woke up seconds after leaving Barming for Maidstone East and was fined despite pleading with a ticket inspector to show some common sense.

He paid the sum – £19.10 – but lodged an appeal which he was told was unsuccessful and was ordered to pay another £21.80.

Could be jailed for missing stop, really? Hardly likely unless he has previous for trying to avoid paying.

With his name he'd be more at home commuting to the moon, give him more time to sleep as well!!!

 

[route:oxford]

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/maidstone/news/sleeping-train-commuter-threatened-with-128493/

Could be jailed for missing stop, really? Hardly likely unless he has previous for trying to avoid paying.

With his name he'd be more at home commuting to the moon, give him more time to sleep as well!!!

If he couldn't be jailed, then why was he threatened with it by Southern Rail and their agents of evil?

No individual or organisation should make a threat that they don't intend to carry out.

 

[PeterC]

The "threat" of jail seems to have been made up by the paper.

Most commuters have probably fallen asleep and missed their stops at some time in their lives. I do wonder if there was a little more to this than is reported.

 

[talldave]

It would appear to be Southeastern that are OTT in the way they treated a valuable customer. However, staff making up crap on the fly is by no means exclusive to Southeastern.

The "threat" of jail seems to hace been made up by the paper.

How do you know this?

 

[yorkie]

Could be jailed for missing stop, really?

Yes, but the claim is that the inspector said that.

Have you met ticket inspectors on Govia-owned services south of the Thames?

Some of them probably would say something like that! I'm aware of multiple cases of mistreatment of passengers by a small, but very vocal and significant, minority of individuals working for Southeastern and GTR. We don't know for certain that the commuter was told this, but I see absolutely no reason to disbelieve it.

Here's some thoughts on a couple of other quotes from the article:

Mr Armstrong, of Fordingbridge Close, Allington, said he’s been loyal to Southeastern for 25 years and has paid it £80,000.

I can assure Mr Armstrong that Southeastern is not at all interested in your loyalty; it counts for nothing. In their eyes, you committed a (non-recordable) criminal offence and therefore they are legally allowed to charge you a hefty penalty, regardless of how much you pay them. This is not like being a customer of any other business. They just don't care about your "loyalty" and any attempts to make them care are doomed to failure.

A spokesman for Southeastern said: “The appeal is being re-logged by IPFAS (Independent Penalty Fares) and a refund of £19.10 will be processed as soon as possible.

The facts are: https://www.penaltyfares.co.uk/static/penalty.aspx?from=1

RPSS and IPFAS are trading names of Southeastern

However our incredibly weak, and anti-passenger, Department for Transport, are happy for a company owned by Southeastern to purport to be "independent". This is a major embarrassment for Britain and demonstrates the mountain rail passengers are up against. It's not a level playing field.

The Byelaws make no regard for the customers "loyalty" or the fact it was a mistake. The Byelaws are stacked heavily in the favour of train companies. Most train companies show discretion and common sense when passengers are accidentally over-carried but they are permitted in law to threaten us with criminal legislation if we do not pay them disproportionately large sums of money and it's all within the law.

Southeastern are legally in the right to charge Mr Armstrong this sum and threaten him with prosecution. Therefore, the law needs to change.

 

[LA50041]

There was a much more interesting quote from the commuter further down the article -

“I thought I would just get off at Maidstone and get a train back to Barming. There are usually no barriers, but there were six or seven people checking tickets.”

This suggests that he has been to Maidstone on more that one occasion to know there are "usually" no barriers there.

 

[yorkie]

This suggests that he has been to Maidstone on more that one occasion to know there are "usually" no barriers there.

Surely this can be of no surprise that someone from Barming would regularly visit Maidstone?

In fact, I'd be surprised if someone didn't!

 

[goblinuser]

It is good that the press are covering the poor way the railway treats its customers. It's not over the top, and hopefully will eventually lead to changes.

 

[najaB]

Could be jailed [1] for missing stop, really? Hardly likely [2] unless he has previous for trying to avoid paying.

Don't confuse possibility (1) with probability (2).

Yes, he could face a fine of up to £1,000 and face three months in jail as that is what the law allows. In fact, the Inspector could easily have been quoting any of the thousands of posters which bear the same information. Is it likely to happen? Not at all.

 

[matt_world2004]

I thought there was a thread on jere a few months ago about people inadvertantly getting on the wrong train missing their stop and the concensous is they would be allowed to get off ar the first opportunity and go back the other direction.

 

[yorkie]

I thought there was a thread on jere a few months ago about people inadvertently getting on the wrong train missing their stop and the consensus is they would be allowed to get off ar the first opportunity and go back the other direction.

Yes, they generally would, for most journeys in Britain.

But it's far less likely they would be let off if they were caught by revenue protection officers employed by the likes of Southeastern (and others), whose aim appears to be to catch people out.

The other week I made a journey on Grand Central and it made me think just how different it is to travelling on Southeastern and GTR. Total, complete and utter polar opposites in terms of the passenger experience, the attitude of staff and the policies of the company.

Southeastern are entitled to penalise people for making a mistake because the legislation allows them to. As with other Govia-owned companies, they employ some staff who make full use of the legislation regardless of any mitigating circumstances.

There is nothing to compel the likes of Southeastern to show discretion, and legally they have done nothing wrong.

 

[Busaholic]

Don't give GWR ideas! They'll retaliate to Mariella Frostrop's comments by threatening prosecution for her and the other passengers carried on beyond Castle Cary to Taunton without paying.

 

[greatkingrat]

Nowhere in the article does it say the ticket inspector threatened him with prosecution. I suspect all that happened was the letter sent out about the penalty fare contains a standard paragraph saying something like "if this is not paid within 28 days, you may be prosecuted etc".

 

[yorkie]

It says "A commuter was told he could be facing a £1,000 fine or even jail"; it's very possible the revenue protection inspector said something like "you need to pay this penalty fare or you face the possibility of prosecution, leading to a fine or even jail if you refuse to pay the fine" (or perhaps something less professional than that; t's not unknown for revenue protection inspectors to use the term 'fine' to mean a penalty fare either)

We may never know exactly what was said.

 

[najaB]

We may never know exactly what was said.

Especially since we're working from a newspaper report.

Not to disparage journalists, but a big part of their job is to try and sell newspapers and 'Jobsworth ticket inspector threatens passenger' will get a lot more reads than 'Man informed of ticketing rules'.