Unused return portion!

[lemonpie]

"The outward portion of an Anytime Return ticket is only valid for travel when accompanied by an unused return portion."

Hi everyone, is it only me to be ignorant? I had not been aware of the above condition until yesterday I was caught by the train collector. The fact was that I used to have a few tickets in my wallet as I travel between 2 cities twice a week and I got mixed up with my other return tickets. So I mistakenly used the "return" portion a day before and the "outward" portion yesterday. (to make it clear, the "outward" part was still within its valid period). Also believe it or not, I was genuinely ignorant about the condition. However, the ticket collector did not listen to me but immediately jumped into a conclusion that I was using an invalid ticket with intention. He jotted down all my details and said that they will take me to court.

They had never asked to see "an unused portion" return ticket before when conducting inspection. This condition is also not printed on the tickets. I feel really annoyed and depressed now. What should I do now? Please advise. Thanks

 

[yorkie]

They can't take you to court just for a ticket being invalid based on that flimsy and not well advertised condition that 'Anytime' return portions are only valid in conjunction with unused outward portions (unless they tried to charge you and you refused to pay - but that's a different matter), they obviously are trying to prove that you are committing fraud.

Hopefully they will not persue you, but if they do, you then need to get advice.

 

[Max]

Absolutely disgusting! It's jobsworths like this that, in my opinion, have no place in the railways. To be honest, I have never come across a guard who has asked for 'the other' portion of a return ticket, so you were very unlucky. I very much hope they do not take you to court, but if they do, the very best of luck!

 

[yorkie]

I have been asked. But I had it and it was unused. He was sooo disappointed, as he had assumed I would not be able to produce it. This was GNER and the guard was one of the legendary ones that gave them their Fawlty Towers-style reputation for rudeness, but I don't think he's around any more.

I've even had people try to enforce the "no break of journey" rule on a SVR before simplification. Not often though, once I had a big problem with it. And on another occasion I was waiting for a 31 to Weymouth and the barrier person tried to incorrectly apply the rule by checking to see if a Weymouth train was due and only when realising there was a long wait did he let me go through the barrier to use station facilities, the numpty! On both cases it was FGW

 

[clagmonster]

Sadly clause 17 of the conditions of carriage states:
"A return ticket (including a two-part return ticket) is only valid for the outward
journey shown on that ticket if the ticket is completely unused. You may not use
the outward part of a return ticket after you have used the return part." which you clearly did. You agree to the conditions of carriage when you buy the tickets. However, when the incident occured, you presumably had the following:
outward ticket from previous day - used
return ticket from prevous day - unused
outward ticket from that day - used
return ticket from that day - unused
If that is the case, it should be obvious in my opinion that on this occasion a mistake was made. I am also surprised at the decision to go straight for prosecution, I thought that in these cases the guard would always give the option to pay the full fare.
The reason that outward portions of standard opens have now got a shorter validity is that when the validity was a month, many commuters in order to evade the fare bought a standard open, and then used it until it had been clipped. I assume this is what the guard/TTI thought that you were doing, hence his decision.
As you are in the wrong, whether intentionally or not, my advice would be to pay up if you are given the opportunity, and if it does go to court, seek decent legal advice. Note however that I am not a professional in any of this, so I would not want to say which way a court would swing or anything like that, and some of the proffesional TTIs on here might have some better advice.
Also, just for referance, here are the conditions of carriage: http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/system/galleries/download/misc/NRCOC.pdf

 

[janb]

The reason that outward portions of standard opens have now got a shorter validity is that when the validity was a month, many commuters in order to evade the fare bought a standard open, and then used it until it had been clipped. I assume this is what the guard/TTI thought that you were doing, hence his decision.

Its regularly abused even now with the 5 day tickets. I presume guards have been told to be alert to the unused return portion condition. Of course if guards stamped/clipped out and return portions regularly in the first place, then we would have less abuse.

 

[350401]

The statement that it will be taken to court is clearly a threat and can't be enforced. Whilst it is true that you have broken the conditions of carriage, that is a breach of a civil contract. You will have to pay the excess or damages for the breach of this contract. To be convicted for fare evasion, it needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that you intended to avoid payment for the rail journey. You have tickets that show this is not the case. Get a decent lawyer, and he'll make mincemeat of them.

What many people forget on the railways is that for a conviction under the Reg. Railways Act, intent to avoid payment needs to be shown. For any rail related criminal offence, intent to avoid payment has to be shown as the crime is a variant of theft, a specific liability crime (i.e. have to have intent to be guilty).This is a hard thing to prove. Civil liability due to breaching the contract (conditions of carriage) however is much easier to prove, and so TOC's can claim damages. Penalty fares are actually a form of liquidated damages clause and are a form of civil liability - when you purchase the ticket, you agree to pay a penalty fare if found in breach of the contract (i.e. ticket in breach of CoC's)

It always surprises me when I hear stories like this. Pretty much every guard I encounter on Northern is helpful, and willing to bend the rules if you explain your circumstances. I quite often ask if I can use my 7-day season from Chelford to Mcr on the Mid-Cheshire Line (to/from Knutsford as I live in between the 2 stations), and as long as I ask the guard nicely, he always lets me. (its true that KNF-MCR is a lower fare and a generally lower priced line that CEL-MCR so that may be why!)

 

[devon_metro]

Woah - if my post regarding 'farcelatewestern' is going to be removed, at least edit Yorkies so it isn't spouting a lot of untruths.

 

[glynn80]

The statement that it will be taken to court is clearly a threat and can't be enforced. Whilst it is true that you have broken the conditions of carriage, that is a breach of a civil contract. You will have to pay the excess or damages for the breach of this contract. To be convicted for fare evasion, it needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that you intended to avoid payment for the rail journey. You have tickets that show this is not the case. Get a decent lawyer, and he'll make mincemeat of them.

What many people forget on the railways is that for a conviction under the Reg. Railways Act, intent to avoid payment needs to be shown. For any rail related criminal offence, intent to avoid payment has to be shown as the crime is a variant of theft, a specific liability crime (i.e. have to have intent to be guilty).This is a hard thing to prove. Civil liability due to breaching the contract (conditions of carriage) however is much easier to prove, and so TOC's can claim damages. Penalty fares are actually a form of liquidated damages clause and are a form of civil liability - when you purchase the ticket, you agree to pay a penalty fare if found in breach of the contract (i.e. ticket in breach of CoC's)

The advice given to guards in the FRPP on this issue is as follows

Customers travelling with the wrong portion of a Return ticket

The outward portion of a two piece return ticket is not valid for travel unless accompanied by a completely unused return portion. You should assume that any stamper or nipper marks on the return portion of a ticket are evidence of use or part use.

You should refuse to accept the outward portion of a customer's return ticket if:

· he/she claims the return portion has been lost or wrongly collected, or

· the return portion has been stamped or nipped

You should refuse to accept the return portion of a return ticket if the date and time shown on the ticket indicate that the outward journey could not have been physically and legitimately completed, or part completed, taking into account any applicable general or break of journey restrictions.

If you have refused to accept a return ticket on the grounds described above you should offer to sell the customer the appropriate unrestricted single or return fare for their journey unless you believe they are deliberately attempting to avoid payment. The customer should be advised to address any complaint or claim to your company's Customer Services Manager (as instructed locally).

If the customer refuses to pay or you believe they are deliberately attempting to avoid payment you should withdraw the ticket being presented, issue a free excess ticket for the correct journey details and submit a Report of Irregular Travelling.

So in this circumstance, if the guard in question was abiding by this advice, the guard believed the OP was deliberately attempting to avoid payment.

Obviously we have only heard one side of the argument and we do not know if there was something else in the OPs demeanor that lead to the guard's inference of intent to evade the fare.

However the Reg. of Railways Act 1889 isn't the only legislation in place to assist the prosecution of offenders. The Railway Byelaws (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/legislation/regs/railwaysbyelaws.pdf) also contain clauses useful in ticket examination.

18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas

(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.

(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 18(1) or 18(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.

Failure to comply with the Railway Byelaws is a criminal offence. Usually cases where contravening of a byelaw has occured, the offender is liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale (not exceeding £1000).

Convictions where a Railway Byelaw has been contravened are much easier for TOCs to gain results with. They do not have to prove intent to evade the fare, merely that the person boarded a particular train without a valid ticket (and one of the exceptions did not occur).

 

[lemonpie]

Thanks a lot for all your replies. I have been stressed out since the incident.

The guard neither asked me for explanation nor offered to sell me another ticket. As I had not been aware of the condition, I was even naive enough to ask him which rules/laws he was referring to. However, he was unable to tell that I was in breach of the conditions of carriage. He only kept saying that the ticket was invalid because the return portion had been used. I tried to explain to him but he said I will have a chance to tell when I receive a letter from their prosecution department. It was absolutely shocking to me.

May I also ask if the guard was legally permitted o request to see my personal identity? How much personal information was he allowed to get from me? I suspect he was abusing his power. I showed him my driving licence. However, apart from my full name and address, he also asked me how long I have been staying in my residential address, DOB, occupation, company address, etc. He made me feel like being questioned by a police.

 

[First class]

Whilst your on railway property- you can be questioned in such a way.

He did not abuse his power and has the legal right to ask you for your details. However, to me, this sounds like a Revenue Protection Inspector rather than a guard. You may well have been PACEd, in which the inspector places you under caution and then asks you questions. If not, then you have been asked to provide details so that you can be contacted. You have probably not lived at your address particularly long, or your not on the electrol roll or something, and he couldn't verify. So he asked for work address instead.

You agree to this when you buy your ticket.

Again like some other recent posts, you have technically broken the (bye)law(s) so you are liable for prosecution.

 

[clagmonster]

May I ask where you were travelling from? It would then help to identify whether or not the station at which you boarded was a compulsory ticket area or not.
I agree that proving intent of evading the fare would be very difficult for them if you were to submit the other set of tickets as evidence, including the return portion you accidently didn't use and if you were to get decent legal representation.

 

[yorkie]

they should not be entitled to such information.

are they really? and if so why?

 

[mumrar]

they should not be entitled to such information.

are they really? and if so why?

Yes they are entitled to it. And the reason is to be able to follow up fare evasion. How on Earth could they be expected to deal with any issues that arise once the passenger had got off the train? Everyone would have to be arrested to verify their details and/or have the paperwork started. Otherwise they person could just walk off and no-one knows who they are or can prosecute them.

 

[Max]

Yes they are entitled to it. And the reason is to be able to follow up fare evasion. How on Earth could they be expected to deal with any issues that arise once the passenger had got off the train? Everyone would have to be arrested to verify their details and/or have the paperwork started. Otherwise they person could just walk off and no-one knows who they are or can prosecute them.

Isn't it obvious in this case that it was a genuine error though, and not a deliberate attempt to faredodge? Personally I feel there should be a certain amount of discretion in these matters, and TOCs shouldn't just be out to prosecute every tom, dick and harry! :roll:

 

[Mojo]

In a lot of cases it is very hard to tell to what extent the person is telling the truth or just trying to play the system.

 

[lemonpie]

I bought standard return tickets at the station every week before the incident. Perhaps it's time to go by coach from now on

 

[glynn80]

they should not be entitled to such information.

are they really? and if so why?

I think it quite legitimate that Revenue Protection Inspectors should be allowed to ask for your details, so that the passenger can be contacted in future regarding the issue, whether that be a bill for the fare or a court summons.

May I also ask if the guard was legally permitted o request to see my personal identity? How much personal information was he allowed to get from me? I suspect he was abusing his power. I showed him my driving licence. However, apart from my full name and address, he also asked me how long I have been staying in my residential address, DOB, occupation, company address, etc. He made me feel like being questioned by a police.

The legislation enabling guards to take your name and address is located in Section 5 (1) of The Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

Sections 5(1)

Every passenger by a railway shall, on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, either produce, and if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid or pay his fare from the place whence he started, or give the officer or servant his name and address.

There are also clauses within the Railway Byelaws enabling the same.

23. Name and address

(1) Any person reasonably suspected by an authorised person of breaching or attempting to breach any of these Byelaws shall give his name and address when asked by an authorised person.

(2) The authorised person asking for details under Byelaw 23(1) shall state the nature of the breach of any of these Byelaws in general terms at the time of the request.

If the guard did not state which byelaw you were contravening, then it is likely the guard was taking your name and address under The Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

They usually ask the length of time you have lived in your current property because the method used to check, that the name and address you have supplied is correct, is the electoral roll. Because this is only updated annually, if you have not lived at the property for a long period of time, it may give a negative result as if you didn't live there. Your work address would have been a back-up in case the home address you were giving was false.

HTH

 

[clagmonster]

For the data collection, yes I agree it is neccesary if the company are to have any chance of successfully prosecuting.
In this case, assuming everything we have been told is accurate, I feel that prosecuting is wrong because to me it seems obvious that a genuine mistake was made due to the presence of the unused return portion for the same journey but from a different ticket. If this is not there, however, I would find it very difficult to question the guard's decision, although I would not like to guess the outcome of any court case.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
So just to clarify, you bought multiple tickets for use in the following week simultaneously? I assume that you don't travel enough for a weekly season to be worthwhile.
The incident, I am afraid has come from, I believe, a genuine mistake on your part. To prevent you doing the same thing again, may I suggest that you purchase your tickets each time you make the outward journey. This way, you will always have only the correct tickets for inspection. I must say that I sympathise with your situation, and I hope common sense will prevail.

 

[djw1981]

when i did this iften my solution was to staple each pair of tickets together. It means using the manned gate at the station but also means you dont lose either part.

 

[class377man]

when i did this iften my solution was to staple each pair of tickets together. It means using the manned gate at the station but also means you dont lose either part.

Would the staple not damage, and therefore in the eyes of some jobsworth guard, invalidate the ticket?

 

[90019]

Would the staple not damage, and therefore in the eyes of some jobsworth guard, invalidate the ticket?

Use a paperclip then :P

 

[clagmonster]

I've had booking clerks staple advance tickets to the mandatory reservations before, similarly excesses to the original ticket, so I wouldn't have thought a staple is classed as damage.

 

[djw1981]

not if you do it, on the top orange section??

The other trick is to get rid of old tickets oput your wallet, that way confusion is more easily avoided.

There is a related and well known scam using Glasgow - Edinburgh tickets. Especially if the ticket is not marked and you go through the manual gates at both ends (or travel via central)

 

[mumrar]

Isn't it obvious in this case that it was a genuine error though, and not a deliberate attempt to faredodge? Personally I feel there should be a certain amount of discretion in these matters, and TOCs shouldn't just be out to prosecute every tom, dick and harry! :roll:

What, maybe we should only prosecute people in hoodies or chavs and not nice people in jumpers? I think we should only prosecute speeding drivers who have tuned up fast cars too. And whilst we're there we should only arrest nasty drug dealers too.

I cannot say whether this is an error or a genuine attempt to fare dodge, because I was not there and we've only heard it from one source. They could potentially easily edit out parts to paint themselves in a better light, so I don't know how it should be dealt with. However, the OP has to realise that it CAN be dealt with in this manner, regardless of the perceived morality that may or may not run through this incident and this thread.