XC threatening prosecution

[221129]

Was on an XC Voyager this evening and the guard (talking to a passenger nearby about some rowdy football fans who had recently left the train) said there was no CCTV in the carriages - and a cursory glance around appeared to back this up - as the company wouldn't fund it and DfT refused to assist with costs.

There is CCTV on a Voyager, but as you say it is extremely unlikely to be of any assistance and whether it is working is another story.

 

[KC2]

"Never been a problem before so assumed it wouldn't this time."

This was not a first offence so how many times has the OP tried to save £5.30?

And how do you know it wasn't a first offence? Do you know me or have knowledge of this? When someone is asking for help/ advice why do people feel the need to snipe? Is it because they are perfect and have never made a mistake? I am in the unfortunate position of not driving so use the railways on a regular basis and have always paid the correct fare. Not to mention the odd time I've overpaid for a ticket that I can never get any reimbursement from (or the time I wanted to travel back via a cheaper route and was told I couldn't downgrade). I paid £80 for my ticket, so why would I risk £5 by not getting one knowing it could lead to a large fine?

And to answer another point - the barriers were open (as they are most of the time). But how is this relevant?

XC have said they are going ahead with the prosecution but have given me a right of reply. I am going to mention that:
- Ticket was valid for most of the journey - got on one stop early on a journey I was making several times a month and always had paid the correct fare.
- Inspector told me they would be recommending no action be taken, why was this advice ignored?
- How is prosecuting in the public interest when an out of court settlement could easily be reached?

Also how is it "trying to get away with it" when all trains have guards/ conductors? I was told that "I would have got away with it if they hadn't been there". Well they WERE there and I offered to buy a ticket, so how does that show intent not to buy one?

On a side note why do railways have special status? e.g. megabus couldn't prosecute if someone overstayed there stop.
It is no wonder the railways in this country are so unpopular. It was interesting that XC just lost a franchise.

 

[JN114]

And to answer another point - the barriers were open (as they are most of the time). But how is this relevant?

Because the posters here were wondering how you got onto the train without a valid ticket.

Ticket was valid for most of the journey - got on one stop early on a journey I was making several times a month and always had paid the correct fare.

But not all of the journey. You were on the train, and your ticket wasn’t valid at the time.

Inspector told me they would be recommending no action be taken, why was this advice ignored?

Simply? Because Cross Country’s prosecutions department seemingly felt you wouldn’t learn your lesson with a settlement. Your statements on this forum would seem to back up that theory.

How is prosecuting in the public interest when an out of court settlement could easily be reached?

It’s a private prosecution - public interest doesn’t enter into it. Cross Country can prosecute you for breach of byelaws or fare evasion any time they deem they have sufficient evidence to get a conviction (within certain statue limitations, but they don’t apply here).

On a side note why do railways have special status? e.g. megabus couldn't prosecute if someone overstayed there stop.

The railways have byelaws governing passenger conduct on railway property. One of those is that you must present when requested a valid ticket for your journey. Some train operators allow you to buy on board; Cross Country do not.

It is no wonder the railways in this country are so unpopular. It was interesting that XC just lost a franchise.

Railways in this country are at their most popular - both in absolute passenger numbers and modal share - in history. Cross Country haven’t lost any franchise.

Be under no illusion. There is nothing in your postings that offers any mitigation as to why you didn’t have a valid ticket for ALL of your journey. The right of reply Cross Country has given you is them giving you one last chance to stop being a Smart Alec, RECOGNISE that you are wrong, admit your mistake and offer a settlement of the fare due and a sum to cover their costs pursuing the matter thus far. Given they’ve offered you that opportunity I’d say there’s a fair chance they’ll settle if you tick those boxes.

If not then they’ll prosecute. Which could be costly, and depending on which offence they’ve decided to prosecute under could result in a criminal record. Have they said in their letter(s) to you what legislation they’re intending to prosecute under?

 

[KC2]

With respect, I think I have said in this thread a fair few times that I don't feel I have a valid defence, other than the fact I was happy to pay when challenged. I've admitted the central point that I breached the T+Cs - I've not offered any mitigation because essentially I don't have one. The point about making the journey several times over is in reply to some others on here who seem to have decided I fare jump on a regular basis with nothing to back this up - I don't think this is on.

In regards to your last point, I've already replied stating it was wrong of me and I wouldn't do it again and would like to reach a settlement. They said they still would prosecute if I didn't add anything further within 14 days. The letter wasn't very helpful - do I just repeat my request? As far as I've gathered all prosecutions result in a conviction if guilty. I don't want this but if they do prosecute other than stating my intention to pay I can't really say anything else.

I thought XC had lost the Wales routes? Which says something about them?

Lastly I am grateful for the guidance I've been given, even if it doesn't go my way, but I wish people would stay silent rather than being judgemental.

 

[tiptoptaff]

I thought XC had lost the Wales routes? Which says something about them?

XC haven't lost anything - their parent company, Arriva, will end running the Wales and Border franchise tonight. They didn't lose anything, they chose not to contest it.

 

[EM2]

There is CCTV on a Voyager, but as you say it is extremely unlikely to be of any assistance and whether it is working is another story.

Even if it is, CCTV is not permitted to record sound under the Data Protection guidelines.

 

[Fare-Cop]

XC haven't lost anything - their parent company, Arriva, will end running the Wales and Border franchise tonight. They didn't lose anything, they chose not to contest it.

Absolutely correct and furthermore, DfT recently removed the competition to run the CrossCountry franchise so it seems that it will be around for quite a bit longer

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/dft-quietly-pulls-the-plug-on-crosscountry-franchise-competition?utm_source=Rail Technology Magazine&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=9863844_RTM Breaking News 20/09/18&dm_i=IJS,5VEZO,JG8Y7U,MYPWW,1

 

[JN114]

I don't feel I have a valid defence, other than the fact I was happy to pay when challenged.

Pay when challenged isn’t a defence though - it’s an admission of intent to evade the fare due.

The point about making the journey several times over is in reply to some others on here who seem to have decided I fare jump on a regular basis with nothing to back this up - I don't think this is on.

In your second post on this thread you said:

My point about the distance is I did have a ticket for most of the journey - they haven't acknowledged this. Yes I could have bought a ticket and didn't. Never been a problem before so assumed it wouldn't this time

That’s before anyone mentioned this being a possible repeat-offence. That in my book quite clearly suggests you’ve been in the same situation before and gotten away with it. I won’t cross the line and accuse you of anything; but read your own words and think how they’ll be interpreted.

In regards to your last point, I've already replied stating it was wrong of me and I wouldn't do it again and would like to reach a settlement. They said they still would prosecute if I didn't add anything further within 14 days. The letter wasn't very helpful - do I just repeat my request? As far as I've gathered all prosecutions result in a conviction if guilty. I don't want this but if they do prosecute other than stating my intention to pay I can't really say anything else.

Generally if they’re still planning to prosecute after you’ve apologised and offered to pay their costs etc either:
1) This isn’t your first offence on record with them.
or
2) They feel you’re a high risk for re-offending and intend to throw the book at you in the hope you’ll finally get it.

The fact they’ve offered you multiple opportunities to come forward and make a compelling; believable and contrite apology points more to number 2, but I don’t want to judge. You will know which of the two it’s more likely to be.

Lastly I am grateful for the guidance I've been given, even if it doesn't go my way, but I wish people would stay silent rather than being judgemental.

There’s a fine line here, and while I agree some members may have crossed it, on the whole their probing questions are just trying to ascertain more details so they can better help you. I think, with respect, your attitude has put a number of potential sources of help off contributing further.

I wish you all the best in your discussions with XC; but reading your posts I still don’t feel like you’ve truly accepted and understood you’re in the wrong here - only that you’ve played lip service to that suggestion. Accepting that will be the key to achieving a positive outcome.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Even if it is, CCTV is not permitted to record sound under the Data Protection guidelines.

Really? Source, please?

 

[Greenback]

I sense that the OP had originally intended to travel from Macclesfield, but due to circumstances changed their mind and got on at Stockport instead. That's fair enough in my book, but it's essential to have a ticket to cover the entire journey being made before boarding the train.

I don't see much relevance in speculating about barriers, previous offences and CCTV. The cux of the matter to me is that, regardless of the length of journey or the fact that a ticket was held for part of it, KC2 did not have a ticket for Stockport to Macclesfield.

Neimng willing to pay when challenged doesn't seem like much of a defenc ein the circumstances. The OP had the opportunity to buy a ticket at Stockport, and didn't do so. I agree that the best approach is to apologise profusely, offer to pay for the ticket and an amount that will cover their costs in delaing with the matter, and then hope for a positive reply.

 

[najaB]

On a side note why do railways have special status? e.g. megabus couldn't prosecute if someone overstayed there stop.

This claim gets made quite frequently, even though it's not true.

 

[najaB]

With respect, I think I have said in this thread a fair few times that I don't feel I have a valid defence, other than the fact I was happy to pay when challenged.

With respect, that is not a defence. It's not even close to being a defence.

 

[najaB]

Even if it is, CCTV is not permitted to record sound under the Data Protection guidelines.

'Not recommended' is probably closer to the spirit of the guidelines.

 

[baz962]

Even if it is, CCTV is not permitted to record sound under the Data Protection guidelines.

Is that a new thing , or does it apply to certain industries. Only asking as I used to be head of security at a casino , and our system definately had sound . So do the shuttle buses at Luton airport

 

[najaB]

Is that a new thing , or does it apply to certain industries.

It's a recommendation that sound not be recorded unless necessary. In part to guard against overhearing other conversations.

From the ICO's website:

Conversations between members of the public should not be recorded on CCTV. (There are some specific exceptions to this, such as a panic button in a taxi cab or the charging area of a police custody suite).

 

[Puffing Devil]

It's a recommendation that sound not be recorded unless necessary. In part to guard against overhearing other conversations.

To confirm: it's a guideline, not a legal prohibition.

 

[KC2]

On the point about paying when challenged - I'm sorry but I still don't get this - all trains have guards on them who check tickets - yes I've said I've boarded trains before without a ticket - the difference being I've paid for it on request and it's never been an issue. How does offering to pay when challenged equate to deliberately trying to avoid the fare?? If I hadn't had any money or had tried to hide, etc yes I can understand this - but offering to pay is taken as evidence of trying to avoid the fare due?? As I said earlier on a later train one XC guard even told me to pay on the train if late! It sounds like not all the guards are aware of their own rules.

I will just repeat what I've said and also point and take it from there.

 

[londonboi]

Stockport is a major station and has ticket office and ticket machin facilities that you ignored and boarded a train without a valid ticket for that part of your journey.

As others have said in your reply just be honest upfront and apologetic.

 

[najaB]

How does offering to pay when challenged equate to deliberately trying to avoid the fare?

You didn't purchase online in advance, you bypassed both ticket machine and ticket office at Stockport station, so why should anyone believe that you would have paid if the guard hadn't questioned you?

 

[The_Train]

On the point about paying when challenged - I'm sorry but I still don't get this - all trains have guards on them who check tickets - yes I've said I've boarded trains before without a ticket - the difference being I've paid for it on request and it's never been an issue. How does offering to pay when challenged equate to deliberately trying to avoid the fare??

Just out of interest, what do you do when you get on a train without a ticket and don't encounter anyone checking tickets?

 

[KC2]

ALL TRAINS HAVE GUARDS!! At least the ones I've travelled on have. At times, the guard has walked past me and I've called them back in order to pay - or in the case of a short journey when the train isn't busy I've searched them out.

Might be that I'm running late, or want to pay by cash or the fact that I know I can just buy on the train as many companies allow you to do this.

 

[najaB]

ALL TRAINS HAVE GUARDS!

No, they don't.

 

[tiptoptaff]

Might be that I'm running late, or want to pay by cash or the fact that I know I can just buy on the train as many companies allow you to do this.

Running late is not an excuse. Stockport has a ticket office, so even if the TVMs don't take cash, the ticket office will!! Neither are any excuse in this instance!!

 

[KC2]

You didn't purchase online in advance, you bypassed both ticket machine and ticket office at Stockport station, so why should anyone believe that you would have paid if the guard hadn't questioned you?

Why should anyone believe I wouldn't? - and for your information I DON'T go past the ticket office at Stockport and am often travelling at short notice so online doesn't work for me very well. If the guard is doing their job - they should be checking tickets and selling them - I offered to buy one quite openly - the fact is a guard was there. People here love to compare it to shoplifting/ theft - so let me ask this - if I tried to shoplift, the security guard wouldn't drag me to court and say "what if I hadn't been there? Would you have gone back into the store to pay for it?" No, they'd politely remind me I need to pay for it.

I wouldn't do it again now, obviously, but it's a perverse system when I'm refused to be allowed to buy a ticket so they can prosecute me instead. It should be a last resort - e.g. if I hadn't had any money on me, then refused to pay any subsequent fine. Even after being challenged I cooperated fully admitted my mistake so it seems heavy handed

 

[KC2]

No, they don't.

Do you feel clever quoting me out of context?

 

[KC2]

Not posting on here again - it was a genuine mistake, came asking for advice on how to respond - it was a first offence out of many hundreds of journeys - and I feel a genuine mistake - some of the logic here is very perverse - but I guess that's the case when the aim is to slash services and increase profit. Admitted I was wrong several times over, yet keep getting judgements from the members on here who want to feel morally superior. Thanks to the (very few) genuine people who did want to provide advice.

 

[najaB]

Do you feel clever quoting me out of context?

You made an incorrect statement (in all caps). I corrected it.

 

[tiptoptaff]

I don't feel that getting on a train one stop before your Advance ticket was valid, walking past clear opportunities to pay, and then spouting "it's not been a problem before" inferring this isn't the first time you've done it, was a "genuine mistake". I rather believe it was a "deliberate act"

 

[Darandio]

Some nasty people on here.

What has happened is you have been put right and don't like it. The advice as I see it has been correct, all of your excuses/explanation have been irrelevant. Apologies in advance if that upsets you.

 

[221129]

Not posting on here again - it was a genuine mistake, came asking for advice on how to respond - it was a first offence out of many hundreds of journeys - and I feel a genuine mistake - some of the logic here is very perverse - but I guess that's the case when the aim is to slash services and increase profit. Admitted I was wrong several times over, yet keep getting judgements from the members on here who want to feel morally superior. Thanks to the (very few) genuine people who did want to provide advice.

Have requested the thread to be deleted, as is my right under data protection/ GDPR - came back to it to answer questions but wish I hand't bothered now. Some nasty people on here.

Well please do enjoy your day in court.