Will I get fined ?

[MotCO]

I would reply in a letter - not on the form - saying.

"Thank you for your recent letter, which I attach.

On the date I travelled, I was travelling with an Off Peak ticket (give full details of the journey) and your representative at Redhill noticed this was not valid at the time I was travelling. They then charged me the excess fare to correct the difference, the transaction for which I attach to this letter.

I trust that having paid the correct fare this closes the matter to everyone's satisfaction.

Yours faithfully"

I don't think this was the case. The OP realised it was the wrong ticket and actively sought out the inspector at Redhill. Further, the gateman at Coulsden South let the OP through the barrier effectively saying the ticket was ok.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't think this was the case. The OP realised it was the wrong ticket and actively sought out the inspector at Redhill. Further, the gateman at Coulsden South let the OP through the barrier effectively saying the ticket was ok.

Thanks for correcting. In which case, OP, you should state this explicitly in your letter.

 

[dastocks]

That is not my experience with the ticket machines generally in use across the south east of England. In fact, quite the opposite which reminds me that I need to start a new thread sometime about my observations about the ticket machines at my local station as I believe there is overcharging going on at weekends due to the layout of the screens.

Have you tried the specific use-case of purchasing an off-peak ticket/fare before 0930 Mon-Fri from a Southern TVM which, AIUI, is what we're discussing here? It's quite easy to purchase an off-peak ticket/fare *after* 0930 on weekdays and at weekends (although they still put up a warning before you pay to say the ticket has time restrictions) which means you could then get caught out by using that ticket at a time it's not valid. However, when I have tried to purchase off-peak during peak hours I have usually found it's easier to purchase the ticket on my 'phone and then immediately collect it from the TVM in order to avoid having a queue build up behind me: it really isn't something you could do accidentally.

I'm not saying that what the OP has described isn't possible, just that I am surprised that it is. Also the situation at Coulsdon South may be complicated by there being separate Southern and Thameslink TVMs next to each other; they sell the same tickets but do it differently. When the OP is replying to GTR it might help their case if they can produce some screenshots from the TVM they used showing how easy it was to make the mistake.

 

[Hadders]

Have you tried the specific use-case of purchasing an off-peak ticket/fare before 0930 Mon-Fri from a Southern TVM which, AIUI, is what we're discussing here? It's quite easy to purchase an off-peak ticket/fare *after* 0930 on weekdays and at weekends (although they still put up a warning before you pay to say the ticket has time restrictions) which means you could then get caught out by using that ticket at a time it's not valid. However, when I have tried to purchase off-peak during peak hours I have usually found it's easier to purchase the ticket on my 'phone and then immediately collect it from the TVM in order to avoid having a queue build up behind me: it really isn't something you could do accidentally.

I'm not saying that what the OP has described isn't possible, just that I am surprised that it is. Also the situation at Coulsdon South may be complicated by there being separate Southern and Thameslink TVMs next to each other; they sell the same tickets but do it differently. When the OP is replying to GTR it might help their case if they can produce some screenshots from the TVM they used showing how easy it was to make the mistake.

I suggest you start a new thread to discuss the user interface on TVMs as that's a whole subject in itself.

As far as the OP is concerned it's pretty straightforward as far as I'm concerned. Condition 9.5 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel state:

9.5. Where you are using a time-restricted Ticket (such as an ‘off-peak’ or ‘superoff-peak’ Ticket) that is correctly dated but:

9.5.1. invalid for the service on which you are travelling; or

9.5.2. you are using a route for which your Ticket is not valid; or

9.5.3. you break your journey when you are not permitted to do so, you will be charged the difference between the fare that you have paid and the lowest price Ticket that is valid for the train you are using.

This is exactly what happened to the OP. The situation was regularlised upon payment of the excess fare and so there is no case to answer.

 

[najaB]

When the OP is replying to GTR it might help their case if they can produce some screenshots from the TVM they used showing how easy it was to make the mistake.

I don't know that would really add anything useful to their case. They aren't disputing that they held the wrong ticket. They then paid the excess fare required. That should have been the end of the matter.

 

[185143]

Have you tried the specific use-case of purchasing an off-peak ticket/fare before 0930 Mon-Fri from a Southern TVM which, AIUI, is what we're discussing here? It's quite easy to purchase an off-peak ticket/fare *after* 0930 on weekdays and at weekends (although they still put up a warning before you pay to say the ticket has time restrictions) which means you could then get caught out by using that ticket at a time it's not valid. However, when I have tried to purchase off-peak during peak hours I have usually found it's easier to purchase the ticket on my 'phone and then immediately collect it from the TVM in order to avoid having a queue build up behind me: it really isn't something you could do accidentally.

I'm not saying that what the OP has described isn't possible, just that I am surprised that it is. Also the situation at Coulsdon South may be complicated by there being separate Southern and Thameslink TVMs next to each other; they sell the same tickets but do it differently. When the OP is replying to GTR it might help their case if they can produce some screenshots from the TVM they used showing how easy it was to make the mistake.

I nearly purchased on off peak ticket in error once at Fratton. Went to the TVM and put my destination, Merstham, into it. It offered me on off peak ticket as the time was around 04:27. I was travelling on the 04:34. Fortunately I knew I needed the Anytime, but plenty of people wouldn't, especially not for travel that early.

It would seem rather unfair to say the least for someone to be prosecuted in that particular case for simply going to the machine, buying a ticket in good faith and accepting the cheapest thing it offered. I think it actually popped up saying "a cheaper ticket is available" when you clicked the Anytime too.

 

[najaB]

I nearly purchased on off peak ticket in error once at Fratton. Went to the TVM and put my destination, Merstham, into it. It offered me on off peak ticket as the time was around 04:27. I was travelling on the 04:34. Fortunately I knew I needed the Anytime, but plenty of people wouldn't, especially not for travel that early.

It would seem rather unfair to say the least for someone to be prosecuted in that particular case for simply going to the machine, buying a ticket in good faith and accepting the cheapest thing it offered. I think it actually popped up saying "a cheaper ticket is available" when you clicked the Anytime too.

Discussion of the intricacies of purchasing tickets from TVMs is interesting but I'm not sure that it adds anything useful to the OP. Let's not lose sight of the most important thing: regardless of how the OP came to hold the wrong ticket, the Railway has accepted payment for the difference between the fare paid and the fare due. That puts an end to the matter.

To the OP, I suggest that you contact your bank/card issuer and explain that there's a dispute around the two transactions you showed in the earlier screen grab. They should be able to give you more information about them such as the exact transaction times and the payment terminal used. I wouldn't provide this to the TOC yet but hold on to it in case they ignore the details you provide in response.

For the payment made at the TVM the bank should be able to narrow that down to a specific location, and in the case of the second payment they should be able to provide a terminal ID number. If the TOC insists on continuing with a prosecution then provide it to the TOC and ask them to cross-reference their records and determine who took the payment.

 

[dastocks]

I nearly purchased on off peak ticket in error once at Fratton. Went to the TVM and put my destination, Merstham, into it. It offered me on off peak ticket as the time was around 04:27. I was travelling on the 04:34. Fortunately I knew I needed the Anytime, but plenty of people wouldn't, especially not for travel that early.

It would seem rather unfair to say the least for someone to be prosecuted in that particular case for simply going to the machine, buying a ticket in good faith and accepting the cheapest thing it offered. I think it actually popped up saying "a cheaper ticket is available" when you clicked the Anytime too.

Presumably you could have done at least part of your journey from Fratton on an off-peak ticket by splitting tickets somewhere (Barnham?) although it's unlikely you would save much, if anything.

I have an open mind on this:
- I'm prepared to accept that the OP made a genuine one-off mistake, in which case GTR going to court for a one-off loss of around a fiver that they recovered at the time does seem a little strange.
- I can also see a scenario where GTR, as part of a routine analysis of irregular transactions from their TVMs, notice that someone is regularly purchasing tickets for a particular journey at a time when they are clearly not valid. I do this sort of analysis (not rail related) for a living and it really isn't rocket science; they'll find a series of transactions at the same time of day for the same journey using the same payment card, and it's possible they'll find a number of similar irregularities in a particular area. All they have to do is send one or two of their revenue protection folks to manually check tickets at a strategic place and time in the area and when the offenders turn up they've got everything they need for a series of productive prosecutions.

 

[Hadders]

Presumably you could have done at least part of your journey from Fratton on an off-peak ticket by splitting tickets somewhere (Barnham?) although it's unlikely you would save much, if anything.

I have an open mind on this:
- I'm prepared to accept that the OP made a genuine one-off mistake, in which case GTR going to court for a one-off loss of around a fiver that they recovered at the time does seem a little strange.
- I can also see a scenario where GTR, as part of a routine analysis of irregular transactions from their TVMs, notice that someone is regularly purchasing tickets for a particular journey at a time when they are clearly not valid. I do this sort of analysis (not rail related) for a living and it really isn't rocket science; they'll find a series of transactions at the same time of day for the same journey using the same payment card, and it's possible they'll find a number of similar irregularities in a particular area. All they have to do is send one or two of their revenue protection folks to manually check tickets at a strategic place and time in the area and when the offenders turn up they've got everything they need for a series of productive prosecutions.

Are you familiar with condition 9.5 of the National Rail Conditions of Carriage?

 

[najaB]

I'm prepared to accept that the OP made a genuine one-off mistake, in which case GTR going to court for a one-off loss of around a fiver that they recovered at the time does seem a little strange.

It's not "a little strange" it's completely incompatible with the law.

 

[Haywain]

It's not "a little strange" it's completely incompatible with the law.

And most likely a cock up.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Nov 2021 ==

in the case of the second payment they should be able to provide a terminal ID number.

The TOC should be able to trace the transaction fairly easily without assistance from the OP's bank.

 

[dastocks]

Are you familiar with condition 9.5 of the National Rail Conditions of Carriage?

It's not "a little strange" it's completely incompatible with the law.

Agreed. If GTR went to court for a single journey as described by the OP they would get nowhere because they have already recovered their loss.

However, if they have clear evidence of a long history of similar transactions I think that would be a different matter, especially if that is backed up by some CCTV showing the defendant making some of the journeys. This may explain why they took a photo of the OP, noting that they would only use that photo in order to find the relevant bits of CCTV; it wouldn't need to be produced in court.

 

[najaB]

The TOC should be able to trace the transaction fairly easily without assistance from the OP's bank.

Oh, I know that they can. The point in asking the bank for the data is to be able to produce it and ask the TOC to do the look-up if they insist on continuing with a prosecution.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed. If GTR went to court for a single journey as described by the OP they would get nowhere because they have already recovered their loss.

However, if they have clear evidence of a long history of similar transactions I think that would be a different matter, especially if that is backed up by some CCTV showing the defendant making some of the journeys. This may explain why they took a photo of the OP, noting that they would only use that photo in order to find the relevant bits of CCTV; it wouldn't need to be produced in court.

I don't think that is actually true. As the NRCoT specifically allows you to purchase an excess in this situation, I don't see how there is any legal scope to prosecute even if the OP is doing it every single day (and we have no evidence they are).

 

[Fluffyducky95]

Agreed. If GTR went to court for a single journey as described by the OP they would get nowhere because they have already recovered their loss.

However, if they have clear evidence of a long history of similar transactions I think that would be a different matter, especially if that is backed up by some CCTV showing the defendant making some of the journeys. This may explain why they took a photo of the OP, noting that they would only use that photo in order to find the relevant bits of CCTV; it wouldn't need to be produced in court.

Hi
This is my first ticket related incident as I usually drive to work. The only reason I took the train that morning was because my car had broken down that morning. I haven’t gotten the train on that route for nearly 5 years. When I go to London I either use contactless or have seasonal tickets when I went to university which was about 1 and half years ago.

 

[dastocks]

I don't think that is actually true. As the NRCoT specifically allows you to purchase an excess in this situation, I don't see how there is any legal scope to prosecute even if the OP is doing it every single day (and we have no evidence they are).

All we know is what the OP has told us, which includes a letter from GTR stating they know who they are and intend to prosecute for some undefined offence or offences, which may or may not have occurred on the day of their encounter with a ticket inspector.

The bottom line is that when the OP puts together their reply they need to make sure it is fully consistent with any evidence GTR have that may be held against them. I'm just pointing out that this could extend to historical transaction records and CCTV.

 

[najaB]

All we know is what the OP has told us, which includes a letter from GTR stating they know who they are and intend to prosecute for some undefined offence or offences, which may or may not have occurred on the day of his encounter with a ticket inspector.

And now they've stated that they haven't taken a train on that route for going on five years.

 

[Snow1964]

So to summarise :
Op goes to station (Coulsdon) buys ticket to correct destination (Reigate) TVM issues off-peak ticket (hasn’t travelled for a while so not familiar with machine), ticket rejected at entry barrier, staff at barrier accept ticket and allow travel, gets on next train, but next train is not classed as off-peak (even though vending point selling off-peak), realises and seeks a ticket person who issues excess for difference (at Redhill, the first change point), correct (full) fare now paid
…… then GTR intend to prosecute.

This is madness in my view, what am I missing

 

[najaB]

This is madness in my view, what am I missing

I'm about 99.8% sure that the letter was sent in error (as in they never intended to send it), 0.1% that it's been sent through incompetence (someone just doesn't know about the Conditions of Travel), and only 0.1% convinced that someone knows about the NRCoT and genuinely believes that there's a case to be answered.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm about 99.8% sure that the letter was sent in error (as in they never intended to send it), 0.1% that it's been sent through incompetence (someone just doesn't know about the Conditions of Travel), and only 0.1% convinced that someone knows about the NRCoT and genuinely believes that there's a case to be answered.

My inclination is the middle one (incompetence, i.e. someone incorrectly believes there is a case to answer, as there would be for other irregularities but not this one).

Add to it RPI incompetence, as if they were being written up for prosecution they should not have been sold anything on the spot.

 

[AlterEgo]

My inclination is the middle one (incompetence, i.e. someone incorrectly believes there is a case to answer, as there would be for other irregularities but not this one).

Add to it RPI incompetence, as if they were being written up for prosecution they should not have been sold anything on the spot.

Tend to agree, hence my advice to simply reply with their own letter stating the fare was paid and "trust the matter is closed".

Still very concerning that the letter was sent.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Still very concerning that the letter was sent.

Concerning but also unsurprising, we've had similar before on here.

 

[najaB]

Add to it RPI incompetence, as if they were being written up for prosecution they should not have been sold anything on the spot.

I don't think they were "written up for prosecution". From what the OP posted the RPI started making their notes before deciding to regularise the situation by taking a payment. The notes were likely kept on file (a) to explain what the excess was for; and (b) in case the OP came to their attention again in future.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think they were "written up for prosecution". From what the OP posted the RPI started making their notes before deciding to regularise the situation by taking a payment. The notes were likely kept on file (a) to explain what the excess was for; and (b) in case the OP came to their attention again in future.

Ah, that does make some sense, as in they changed their mind after starting to write a report, and instead of binning it submitted it as an explanation, and it then ended up in the wrong pile.

 

[dastocks]

I don't think they were "written up for prosecution". From what the OP posted the RPI started making their notes before deciding to regularise the situation by taking a payment. The notes were likely kept on file (a) to explain what the excess was for; and (b) in case the OP came to their attention again in future.

It looks to me like a fairly standard letter that doesn't mention any specific offence that they probably send regardless of the facts. In terms of value to GTR:
1. The OP is doing most of the work: all GTR will do is look for anything in the OP's response that doesn't line up with their records.
2. It may help deter a similar incident in the future by reinforcing the message that the OP didn't 'get away with it'.
3. It costs them almost nothing to produce and send the letter.

Assuming the OP's account here, and their response, lines up with whatever evidence GTR have I would imagine the outcome will be another fairly standard letter saying that, having reviewed the case, they've decided not to proceed any further and advising the OP not to make the same mistake again.

 

[Hadders]

There was no need for any details to be taken, and rather concerning the OP reports that their photo was taken as well. The letter should not have been sent either as no offence has been committed.

Train companies should not be sending letters to deter similar incidents. As for it costing almost nothing to send these letters it's funny that they suddenly cost hundreds of pounds to send when they're seeking costs following a genuine ticketing issue.

 

[najaB]

There was no need for any details to be taken, and rather concerning the OP reports that their photo was taken as well.

As per the OP (my bold):

I walk up to the ticket inspector at the station and explained what happened. The ticket inspector then took my details down, took my picture and asked me questions. Afterwards they let me pay the difference between the tickets and I continued my journey. She said I wasn’t going to be fined or have any criminal charges but I would receive a letter from them.

The RPI took the photo and recorded the details of the conversation in real-time, then after they had determined that no offence had been committed they took payment for the outstanding fare.

The letter should not have been sent either as no offence has been committed.

Agreeded that the letter should not have been sent.

 

[philthetube]

Agreed. If GTR went to court for a single journey as described by the OP they would get nowhere because they have already recovered their loss.

However, if they have clear evidence of a long history of similar transactions I think that would be a different matter, especially if that is backed up by some CCTV showing the defendant making some of the journeys. This may explain why they took a photo of the OP, noting that they would only use that photo in order to find the relevant bits of CCTV; it wouldn't need to be produced in court.

Bearing in mind that there are barriers at both ends of the journey, or at least staff, this would not be happening on a regular basis for this location.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Assuming the OP's account here, and their response, lines up with whatever evidence GTR have I would imagine the outcome will be another fairly standard letter saying that, having reviewed the case, they've decided not to proceed any further and advising the OP not to make the same mistake again.

Which is almost as bad as sending the initial letter. It implies leniency on their part and fault on the part of the OP. But it wouldn’t surprise me if that was what happened

 

[John Palmer]

Two questions:

1. Are the requirements of a Byelaw 18(1) offence established by entering a train when in possession only of a time-restricted ticket which, by reason of that restriction, is not valid for travel on that train?
   
2. If so, then to what extent does the obligatory charge of an excess in the circumstances contemplated by NRCoT Condition 9.5 constitute a defence to any resulting prosecution under Byelaw 18(1), and on what authority?