Unfair Penalty fare Prosecution HELP!!

[Nick W]

How do you prove verbal permission?

You don't need to prove it, it needs to be disproved beyond reasonable doubt.

What if they gateline staff are asked and they deny giving permission?

The member of staff better have a good reason for opening the barrier.

I don't think it's helpful to hypothesise. The OP initially had a good defence, but then acted foolishly and therefore would indeed be advised to pay up.

 

[fowler9]

How do you prove verbal permission? What if they gateline staff are asked and they deny giving permission? I can't see how verbal permission can be accepted or trusted and would personally want something in writing.

I think that is a good point. I travelled to Leeds recently and my father dropped me off at the station. As he likes the railways he asked at the barrier at South Parkway if he could see me to the train. They said yes. From then onwards there was nothing to stop him jumping on the TPE train and getting off at Warrington Central for example and saying he had permission to travel. CCTV would prove he was let through the gate. He of course didn't and would never do this. Without something in writing how does anyone prove what was said.

 

[A-driver]

You don't need to prove it, it needs to be disproved beyond reasonable doubt.


The member of staff better have a good reason for opening the barrier.

I don't think it's helpful to hypothesise. The OP initially had a good defence, but then acted foolishly and therefore would indeed be advised to pay up.

Easy to disprove as the gateline staff just need to deny saying it. They don't need a 'reason' to open the gates...is it beyond doubt to suggest that the OP asked to try his card in the gateline machine. The gates were opened to allow this. The card didn't work and the staff member told them they couldn't travel. The OP walked off towards the train anyway. The gateline staff cannot physically restrain someone so what could he have done to prevent the OP disobeying him?

I think it very foolish in any area if life to rely on verbal permission unless recorded such as a phone call. I don't like comparing this kind of thing to other industries and I appreciate that it isn't a strong comparison but in simple terms where would I stand if a tesco employee told me that I could pick a bottle if wine up and take it for free? I then leave the shop and get stopped by security who accuse me of theft and the employee denies giving me permission to take it despite is being seen talking on CCTV.

And in any case, the gateline staff in question do not have authority to verbally allow someone to travel without a ticket.

 

[fowler9]

Easy to disprove as the gateline staff just need to deny saying it. They don't need a 'reason' to open the gates...is it beyond doubt to suggest that the OP asked to try his card in the gateline machine. The gates were opened to allow this. The card didn't work and the staff member told them they couldn't travel. The OP walked off towards the train anyway. The gateline staff cannot physically restrain someone so what could he have done to prevent the OP disobeying him?

I think it very foolish in any area if life to rely on verbal permission unless recorded such as a phone call. I don't like comparing this kind of thing to other industries and I appreciate that it isn't a strong comparison but in simple terms where would I stand if a tesco employee told me that I could pick a bottle if wine up and take it for free? I then leave the shop and get stopped by security who accuse me of theft and the employee denies giving me permission to take it despite is being seen talking on CCTV.

And in any case, the gateline staff in question do not have authority to verbally allow someone to travel without a ticket.

That answers my question about if my dad had bunked on to Warrington. Ha ha. Who does have authority to give verbal permission to travel without a ticket?

 

[A-driver]

That answers my question about if my dad had bunked on to Warrington. Ha ha. Who does have authority to give verbal permission to travel without a ticket?

As far as I'm aware verbal permission can not be given or accepted. As I say, I think it would be slightly foolish to accept it anyway (no disrespect intended to the OP). It is just too difficult to prove and it would likely come down to your word against theirs, and combined with appearing to run away from ticket inspectors a court would be forgiven for believing the staff.

As far as I know, no one can authorise travel without a ticket anyway, verbally or otherwise.

 

[Nick W]

Easy to disprove as the gateline staff just need to deny saying it. They don't need a 'reason' to open the gates...is it beyond doubt to suggest that the OP asked to try his card in the gateline machine. The gates were opened to allow this. The card didn't work and the staff member told them they couldn't travel. The OP walked off towards the train anyway. The gateline staff cannot physically restrain someone so what could he have done to prevent the OP disobeying him?

Sounds to me like a fabrication. The CCTV would confirm or deny this in any case.

I think it very foolish in any area if life to rely on verbal permission unless recorded such as a phone call. I don't like comparing this kind of thing to other industries and I appreciate that it isn't a strong comparison but in simple terms where would I stand if a tesco employee told me that I could pick a bottle if wine up and take it for free? I then leave the shop and get stopped by security who accuse me of theft and the employee denies giving me permission to take it despite is being seen talking on CCTV.

As a matter of fact, I was purchasing some items earlier in a supermarket, and one of the items was not charged for, as it was apparently about to be thrown away anyway. It was placed in the bag, and would not feature in the receipt.

And in any case, the gateline staff in question do not have authority to verbally allow someone to travel without a ticket.

That would be a manner between the TOC and staff member.

 

[Llanigraham]

Sounds to me like a fabrication. The CCTV would confirm or deny this in any case.

All CCTV shows in a visible picture, it does not record the conversation that took place. Therefore all it will show will be a person being allowed to cross the gateline and not the reason that he was allowed to do so.

 

[A-driver]

Sounds to me like a fabrication. The CCTV would confirm or deny this in any case.





As a matter of fact, I was purchasing some items earlier in a supermarket, and one of the items was not charged for, as it was apparently about to be thrown away anyway. It was placed in the bag, and would not feature in the receipt.





That would be a manner between the TOC and staff member.

How on earth would the CCTV prove that? CCTV is visual, not audible so you are quite wrong-CCTV would not prove what was actually said. The staff member would not be denying ever talking to the OP.

Even getting a lip reader in is not a garunteed help as it depends on image quality and the angle of the camera. CCTV footage is completely irrelevant in this case as we are relying in what exactly was said, not on what was seen.

As for your supermarket story-you are still in dodgy ground without anything in writing. Generally if you get something for free in a shop it is listed on the receipt as £0.00 or charged then refunded below. Should they attempt to prosecute you for shoplifting and the staff member deny giving it away for free then you would struggle with a defense. Of course the major difference is that CCTV may show the item being handled by the cashier and put in the bag clearing you. But in the OPs situation we are relying on the exact wording used, not what can be seen.

 

[fowler9]

I think the whole issue needs tidying up in my humble opinion. Although I think in general it works pretty well it occasionally provides very stressful issues for some.

 

[richw]

As far as I know, no one can authorise travel without a ticket anyway, verbally or otherwise.

Railway byelaw 17 states

17. Compulsory Ticket Areas
(1) No person shall enter a compulsory ticket area on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket.
(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.
(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 17(1) or 17(2) if:
(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey; or
(ii) there was a notice at the station where he began his journey permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket; or
(iii) an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.

Who is the authorised person mentioned in the byelaw?

I've previously gained authority from I assume an authorised person to effectively travel without a ticket, I did have an advance ticket for a train in the evening, but around lunchtime I became aware of a family death. I spoke to the station manager who took me to see the Train Manager. The train manager wrote on the front of my ticket that he'd authorised me to travel on a train my ticket was invalid for travel and wrote his name down

 

[najaB]

You don't need to prove it (permission to travel), it needs to be disproved beyond reasonable doubt.

Actually, this from the OP: "Being honest now i did walk up to the end of the train when i saw ticket inspectors as i wished to just avoid explaining myself and the conflict..." makes me think that even he was doubtful as whether permission had been granted or not. Why expect conflict if he was confident he was in the right?

 

[Nick W]

How on earth would the CCTV prove that? CCTV is visual, not audible so you are quite wrong-CCTV would not prove what was actually said. The staff member would not be denying ever talking to the OP.

The CCTV means the alternative explanation must be consistent with the video footage. The member of staff would have a difficult time denying giving permission yet still coming up with a consistent explanation.

As for your supermarket story-you are still in dodgy ground without anything in writing. Generally if you get something for free in a shop it is listed on the receipt as £0.00 or charged then refunded below. Should they attempt to prosecute you for shoplifting and the staff member deny giving it away for free then you would struggle with a defense.

I suspect the court would would not be too pleased at a person who spends on average £10 a day in a shop being prosecuted for a good worth about 50p.

Actually, this from the OP: "Being honest now i did walk up to the end of the train when i saw ticket inspectors as i wished to just avoid explaining myself and the conflict..." makes me think that even he was doubtful as whether permission had been granted or not. Why expect conflict if he was confident he was in the right?

A reasonable explanation has been provided, however the OP would be advised to settle up unless willing to spend lots of money on legal assistance as the explanation does indeed sound dubious.

 

[Darandio]

Actually, this from the OP: "Being honest now i did walk up to the end of the train when i saw ticket inspectors as i wished to just avoid explaining myself and the conflict..." makes me think that even he was doubtful as whether permission had been granted or not. Why expect conflict if he was confident he was in the right?

I was hoping someone else would highlight that point.

* The 'man' gave permission to travel, I wonder if it's the same 'man' in all stories on here?

* The OP then made an attempt to avoid the ticket inspection on the train, but was 'unfortunately' caught with seconds to spare, therefore intended to just get off the train and leave the station?

* The OP was apparently 'probably' planning on the train to get their mum to meet them at the other end, bit obviously didn't do so as they were trying to avoid the inspection?

* They were caught, have to face the consequences and now find it completely unfair, as they always do?

Does that just about sum it up?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A reasonable explanation has been provided

Where? The 'Contact Mum' bit? Or have I missed something else?

 

[A-driver]

The CCTV means the alternative explanation must be consistent with the video footage. The member of staff would have a difficult time denying giving permission yet still coming up with a consistent explanation.





I suspect the court would would not be too pleased at a person who spends on average £10 a day in a shop being prosecuted for a good worth about 50p.





A reasonable explanation has been provided, however the OP would be advised to settle up unless willing to spend lots of money on legal assistance as the explanation does indeed sound dubious.

I already provided a reasonable explanation from the gateline staff that agrees with CCTV. You are incorrect with your argument here, it is up to the OP to prove permission was given as that is his allegation, not the railways. Opening the gate to let him through to check his bank card certainly does not appear on CCTV to indicate permission being given to travel.

 

[furlong]

But in the OPs situation we are relying on the exact wording used

Hence the suggestion statements should first be taken from the staff present. Then there's the potential need for witnesses to be granted time away from their jobs to attend court for cross-examination. Then there's other possible evidence like CCTV and logs from the ticket machines that might support or refute what is being said - or perhaps not assist at all. All of which might make this an expensive case, in relative terms, to prosecute. Then even with a conviction, consider what view a court might take if the fare had already been settled and the reason the case was brought was a dispute over the appropriate level of administration charge. On the other hand, the RPIs or the letters sent might already have good evidence pointing to guilt. So many uncertainties that I'm not sure this thread has anywhere useful to go.

 

[34D]

And in any case, the gateline staff in question do not have authority to verbally allow someone to travel without a ticket.

This is irrelevant. A member of staff who gives permission or an instruction is not to be questioned (see the debate previously over whether other company staff such as G4S count as someone who can give an instruction).

However, in a quick skim of the NRCOC, it refers in clause 2 to "Before you travel you must have a ticket or other authority to travel which is valid for the train(s) you intend to use and for the journey you intend to make"

I emphasise "you must have authority" - no suggestion of this being written authority (besides which, we would surely be debating the veracity of a handwritten note) nor a qualifier of whom may issue it

 

[A-driver]

This is irrelevant. A member of staff who gives permission or an instruction is not to be questioned (see the debate previously over whether other company staff such as G4S count as someone who can give an instruction).



However, in a quick skim of the NRCOC, it refers in clause 2 to "Before you travel you must have a ticket or other authority to travel which is valid for the train(s) you intend to use and for the journey you intend to make"



I emphasise "you must have authority" - no suggestion of this being written authority (besides which, we would surely be debating the veracity of a handwritten note) nor a qualifier of whom may issue it

So can you prove that the staff member gave authority? As that is what this rests on. Taking verbal permission is very foolish. If always require something in writing.

 

[fowler9]

So can you prove that the staff member gave authority? As that is what this rests on. Taking verbal permission is very foolish. If always require something in writing.

To be fair at the same time giving verbal permission is foolish if it is against the rules. If there was CCTV evidence that someone was allowed through the gate it is one persons word against anothers about what was said.

 

[A-driver]

To be fair at the same time giving verbal permission is foolish if it is against the rules. If there was CCTV evidence that someone was allowed through the gate it is one persons word against anothers about what was said.

But did he give permission? We only have the OPs claim for that so don't know exactly what was said. It could have been misinterpreted if nothing else.

But yes, it could come down to one word against another- exactly why I say it silly to rely on verbal authority alone.

 

[fowler9]

But did he give permission? We only have the OPs claim for that so don't know exactly what was said. It could have been misinterpreted if nothing else.

But yes, it could come down to one word against another- exactly why I say it silly to rely on verbal authority alone.

Totally agree mate. But if it came down to say a court case, if the only evidence was CCTV showing someone being allowed through the gate what would happen? I would guess as it was one persons word against anothers it would go nowhere and the person on the gate might get a telling off, hopefully nothing more.

It brings to mind many occasions on a daily basis in my job where I have to deal with the public and have to say no because everything I do is recorded. I feel terrible sometimes telling people I can't do something I would love to and if it was down to me would do. But at the end of the day it is all recorded and I would loose my job or they could end up paying a huge bill.

 

[Clip]

To be fair at the same time giving verbal permission is foolish if it is against the rules. If there was CCTV evidence that someone was allowed through the gate it is one persons word against anothers about what was said.

Its not against any rules for someone to give permission to travel without a ticket , providing they have the authority to do so and Im sorry but this sounds like a crock of **** as there is no way a gateline assistant would have that authority. And there is no way one at Tottenham Hale would do so and even if it was an RPI then no they wouldnt either.

And walking down the train from subsequent RPIs makes the whole issue about being let through even more unlikely.

 

[fowler9]

Its not against any rules for someone to give permission to travel without a ticket , providing they have the authority to do so and Im sorry but this sounds like a crock of **** as there is no way a gateline assistant would have that authority. And there is no way one at Tottenham Hale would do so and even if it was an RPI then no they wouldnt either.

And walking down the train from subsequent RPIs makes the whole issue about being let through even more unlikely.

Sorry mate, I was being hypothetical to an extent and thus off topic. I don't think most members of the public know that gateline staff don't have the authority to let you through without a ticket. I didn't until today and would have told my dad to get back to the car if he had no platform ticket to see me off.

 

[island]

This is going all around the houses with little to no help to the OP I'm afraid. If he is unable to prove that he was given permission to travel by an authorised person, then he is likely on a hiding to nothing.

 

[Clip]

Sorry mate, I was being hypothetical to an extent and thus off topic. I don't think most members of the public know that gateline staff don't have the authority to let you through without a ticket. I didn't until today and would have told my dad to get back to the car if he had no platform ticket to see me off.

They can let you on to a platform to see someone off but not let you travel without a ticket as they dont have the authority to allow that.

 

[6Gman]

They can let you on to a platform to see someone off but not let you travel without a ticket as they dont have the authority to allow that.

So who is an "authorised person" in the context of the relevant regulation?

 

[cjmillsnun]

All that's required is enough evidence to yield reasonable doubt.

Not for a bylaw offence.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How do you prove verbal permission? What if they gateline staff are asked and they deny giving permission? I can't see how verbal permission can be accepted or trusted and would personally want something in writing.

Agreed. Complete with a signature and a printed name of the employee, so that the TOC could confirm its validity.

 

[CyrusWuff]

So who is an "authorised person" in the context of the relevant regulation?

In the context of the Railway Byelaws, an "authorised person" is defined as:

(i) a person acting in the course of his duties who:
(a) is an employee or agent of an Operator, or
(b) any other person authorised by an Operator, or
(ii) any constable, acting in the execution of his duties upon or in
connection with the railway;

So, whilst it may not be GA's company policy, a gateline assistant is an authorised person for the purposes of Byelaw 18(3)(iii). However, were such permission given, I'd expect them to inform the relevant people so that Revenue Protection were aware.

 

[Clip]

In the context of the Railway Byelaws, an "authorised person" is defined as:



So, whilst it may not be GA's company policy, a gateline assistant is an authorised person for the purposes of Byelaw 18(3)(iii). However, were such permission given, I'd expect them to inform the relevant people so that Revenue Protection were aware.

Indeed but what must also be rememebered is that there are also varying degrees of what certain 'authorised' persons of the railway can carry out - guards not being able to issue PFs say and also those RPIs not being PACE trained so cant do a full investigation and so on and so forth. It boils down to what the TOC lets them do and allowing a person to travel beforehand without a ticket is not something I have ever come across as being within a gateline assistants 'authority'. And I would doubt that GA would have this in force or at least without written permission on a headed bit of paper/card. Its just not possible.

Any chance the gates were probably open? I would think so.

 

[fowler9]

When the people in the know can't agree on who can permit travel it makes it very complicated for the passenger to know if they really are allowed to travel or not.

 

[A-driver]

When the people in the know can't agree on who can permit travel it makes it very complicated for the passenger to know if they really are allowed to travel or not.

Same in all industries/scenarios. It's why you don't rely in word of mouth for anything and ask for it to be recorded by some means.