Professor slapped with £155 railway fine for getting OFF the train one stop early.

bnm · 3 Oct 2010

SunMoon.

Quotes from other threads are not 'facts'.

Unless you were there, or a have a complete recorded transcript of the conversation between the professor and the gateline staff I suugest you edit your post as it is very close to libelous.

RailUK Forums

SunMoon · 3 Oct 2010

I've reworded the last post and will keep re wording until you are happy to accept it.

I submit, though, that Prof. Evans' reporting of the story to all and sundry was incorrect and defamatory itself with regards to the members of staff involved. I cannot quote my sources, but the factual parts of my text are completely correct.

bnm · 3 Oct 2010

If you can't quote your sources then don't post 'facts' at all. No better than the press quoting 'un-named sources' or 'an insider said'.

SunMoon · 3 Oct 2010

I'm very happy to keep changing it. There has been so much negative press about this I just wanted to bring to everyone's attention that there may just be another side to this story.

yorkie · 3 Oct 2010

If Prof Evans was to pursue a defamatory case, who would he be making the case against? If you are happy for your name to be given then I am minded to let the post stand. If you are not, then I am minded to remove the alleged 'facts' due to lack of evidence other than the word of an anonymous person.

MidnightFlyer · 3 Oct 2010

I too would liek to see your sources. Yes, he did break the rules of a 'contrct', but it is worrying when intelligent individuals such as himself don't bother to read T&Cs and just assumes he can do anything, but on the other hand many see this as a stupid rule. TBH, you can have all the 'evidence' in the world, it won't change people's opinions.

yorkie · 3 Oct 2010

MattE2010 said:
but it is worrying when intelligent individuals such as himself don't bother to read T&Cs

Why is it worrying? How can every passenger be expected to read the entire NRCoC and read every detail of every restriction code? Are you serious?

Can I quiz you on the NCRCoC some time? Of course you don't have to worry about validity codes as you have unlimited SORs from anywhere to anywhere with unlimited break of journey for £2 apiece.

Imagine if every passenger was forced to read all the T&Cs before travelling. They'd have to set 2 hours aside before they got on the train!

bnm · 3 Oct 2010

And not forgetting, the prof had his tickets purchased for him. Even less opportunity to appraise himself of the T&Cs.

MidnightFlyer · 3 Oct 2010

yorkie said:
Why is it worrying? How can every passenger be expected to read the entire NRCoC and read every detail of every restriction code? Are you serious?

Can I quiz you on the NCRCoC some time? Of course you don't have to worry about validity codes as you have unlimited SORs from anywhere to anywhere with unlimited break of journey for £2 apiece.

Imagine if every passenger was forced to read all the T&Cs before travelling. They'd have to set 2 hours aside before they got on the train!

That's not what I was saying at all. It is obvious to most people that Anytime tickets can be used anytime, Off-Peaks can be used Off-Peak and weekends only, but to think 'Oh, I'm meant to be on to Durham, but I'll get off here anyway' and think nothing will happen is questionable. He is one of the most intelligent men in his field in this country and he is doing thta. that is worrying. And sactually yes I do read T&Cs on most things such as tickets etc I buy, because I know ABC.

About the £2 thing - it's great isn't it?

yorkie · 3 Oct 2010

MattE2010 said:
but to think 'Oh, I'm meant to be on to Durham, but I'll get off here anyway' and think nothing will happen is questionable.

I disagree. The general public cannot understand why there is anything wrong with consuming less of something. Why is it questionable? It's normally perfectly allowed anyway.

MattE2010 said:
He is one of the most intelligent men in his field in this country and he is doing thta. that is worrying.

Why does it worry you if someone gets off a train early?

MattE2010 said:
About the £2 thing - it's great isn't it?

Not for taxpayers who have to subsidise it, no.

MidnightFlyer · 3 Oct 2010

yorkie said:
I disagree. The general public cannot understand why there is anything wrong with consuming less of something. Why is it questionable? It's normally perfectly allowed anyway.

Why does it worry you if someone gets off a train early?

Not for taxpayers who have to subsidise it, no.

Well on this occasion he got caught.

Because its against the rules of his ticket, he could have at least asked the guard if he was OK to do so.

Better than the MDs etc who get everything free, ever wonder where all your tax goes. Not on subsidies, to Brussels

Mojo · 3 Oct 2010

MattE2010 said:
That's not what I was saying at all. It is obvious to most people that Anytime tickets can be used anytime,

Except when they can't.

MattE2010 said:
Off-Peaks can be used Off-Peak and weekends only

Except when they can be used at any time.

MattE2010 said:
but to think 'Oh, I'm meant to be on to Durham, but I'll get off here anyway' and think nothing will happen is questionable.

It is a perfectly logical and reasonable conclusion to come to, especially when you consider that for most other tickets it is perfectly acceptable, that many staff will refuse to enforce it on account of its stupidity and that there is no financial loss (and it could even be argued, a financial benefit) to the service supplier in doing so.

MidnightFlyer · 3 Oct 2010

I'm gonna sum up what I feel:

He broke the rules, the gateline enforced what they should do, those are the rules, like it or not, the correct verdict by law was reached

SunMoon · 3 Oct 2010

Yorkie - I have removed what I hope you find unreasonable. Please revisit my post and let me know if you now find it acceptable.

The reason for my post has nothing to do with the T&C's of Advance purchase tickets. Prof. Evans was always free to leave the station, just like everyone else in a similar situation.

What I was trying to do was redress the balance.

It was interesting what was just said, along the lines of - Do not quote unless you have a transcript. Prof. Evans did not have a transcript, yet he had a national public forum to express his version of the account.

The individuals on the platform do not have the luxury of the same.

All I will say is that the people who pay the wages at Darlinigton station would quickly dismiss anyone found publicly expressing even an opinion about Prof. Evans never mind quoting what he said.

And I, like everyone else, would prefer to be in employment right now...

yorkie · 3 Oct 2010

MattE2010 said:
I'm gonna sum up what I feel:

He broke the rules, the gateline enforced what they should do, those are the rules, like it or not, the correct verdict by law was reached

What verdict was that? I am unaware of any 'verdict' unless you call EC scrapping the charge as a 'verdict', in which case I agree!

MidnightFlyer · 3 Oct 2010

yorkie said:
What verdict was that? I am unaware of any 'verdict' unless you call EC scrapping the charge as a 'verdict', in which case I agree!

The verdict I meantb was him being charged £155. Can I ask you something yorkie: officially, was he breaking the rules of his ticket. Yes or No?

yorkie · 3 Oct 2010

MattE2010 said:
The verdict I meantb was him being charged £155. Can I ask you something yorkie: officially, was he breaking the rules of his ticket. Yes or No?

How is that a 'verdict'? Seriously, can you think before you post? Also, are you posting from a PC or a mobile device right now? If the former, any chance of using FireFox and the British English Dictionary add-on please?

And yes he was breaking a term, that I - and many others - would consider unreasonable, questionably lawful (this has not been tested), unenforceable, and experience has shown us is not enforced and, in 2007, under GNER I already gave several examples where it was enforced by staff but then retracted by the company. This is nothing new, it's just more high profile this time. This is just going round in circles.

87015 · 3 Oct 2010

MattE2010 said:
The verdict I meantb was him being charged £155. Can I ask you something yorkie: officially, was he breaking the rules of his ticket. Yes or No?

So as you go along with offical rules on everything, is it right than some staff (and spouses, children etc) get travel boxes whilst others get nothing if they joined a week too late? And any of the later who 'flash the pass and ask for a ride' rather than buying a priv ticket should be chung up and disciplined?

MidnightFlyer · 3 Oct 2010

yorkie said:
How is that a 'verdict'? Seriously, can you think before you post? Also, are you posting from a PC or a mobile device right now? If the former, any chance of using FireFox and the British English Dictionary add-on please?

Oh, I always think before I post yorkie, don't worry. I'm on neither, this is a laptop. No, I stick to IE, I'm not the person to use to use Firefox, its awful compared to IE or Safari. Right, I'll be off now - sick and tired of being victimised on here.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

87015 said:
So as you go along with offical rules on everything, is it right than some staff (and spouses, children etc) get travel boxes whilst others get nothing if they joined a week too late? And any of the later who 'flash the pass and ask for a ride' rather than buying a priv ticket should be chung up and disciplined?

First part - what?
Second comment - everyone I know on Priv always buys a ticket and doesn't try to take advantage of a generous system

yorkie · 3 Oct 2010

Matt - I don't want you to leave. I'll PM you later.

MattE2010 said:
First part - what?
Second comment - everyone I know on Priv always buys a ticket and doesn't try to take advantage of a generous system

Blimey, I thought you travelled more than that!

I know exactly what Mr 87015 refers to. It's well known that many staff show their staff pass and ask something like 'Am I alright to <place> please, mate?' (or similar), the guard will usually say 'Of course, that's fine' (or similar) sometimes followed by 'Go sit down in First'.

It's considered cheeky if a dependent of staff asks that, though.

I'll PM you a link if I can dig it out...

BTW, you say it is a 'generous system' which kind of suggests to me that you didn't quite understand what 87015 was saying. I'd expect for safeguarded staff /dependants to think it is a 'generous system' but someone who joined after 1994 may not have quite the same view....

MidnightFlyer · 3 Oct 2010

yorkie said:
Blimey, I thought you travelled more than that! I know exactly what Mr 87015 refers to. It's well known that many staff show their staff pass and ask something like 'Am I alright to <place> please, mate?' (or similar), the guard will usually say 'Of course, that's fine' (or similar) sometimes followed by 'Go sit down in First'.

It's considered cheeky if a dependent of staff asks that, though.

I'll PM you a link if I can dig it out...

Oh, I do travel more than you think. And believe me, I want to pay fares, but honestly some see the Priv pass, and say 'you're alright' or don't even want to take your money.

yorkie · 3 Oct 2010

MattE2010 said:
Oh, I do travel more than you think. And believe me, I want to pay fares, but honestly some see the Priv pass, and say 'you're alright' or don't even want to take your money.

Ah yes that's not quite the same thing. But yeah, imagine if an RPI got on and then tried to blame you? You'd (rightly!) feel aggrieved. Which is why I believe in having good, high quality, well-trained, friendly guards/conductors on trains who can make sensible decisions about ticketing on their train, as opposed to removing guards, introducing (unfair) Penalty Fares and (ineffective) barriers and ending up with a free-for-all railway like on FCC where posters here say checks are rare, yet when they are made genuine people are then harassed (e.g. the member of staff who posted about FCC RPI harassing him recently) by RPIs who apply rules ridiculously rigidly and assume/look for guilt even when there is none.

Rules cannot always be enforced rigidly. For an example of that see my recent post regarding the restriction of having to sit in your booked seat on an Advance ticket, and Ferret's reply. Common sense has to prevail - as it did in that case.

andylloyd · 3 Oct 2010

Yet another similar incident has occurred recently.
Was featured in today's Sunday sun in the N.E.
2 teenagers were caught up in disruption in KGX, asked/consulted staff for advice and were advised to jump onto the next available train to NCL.
The guard wasnt aware of this and excessed/penalty fare'd the an extra £133.....
It seems there was a breakdown in communication!
Come on EC is owned and run by the Government, I would have thought the traincrew/station staff would have communicated to one another?

yorkie · 3 Oct 2010

andylloyd said:
Yet another similar incident has occurred recently.
Was featured in today's Sunday sun in the N.E.
2 teenagers were caught up in disruption in KGX, asked/consulted staff for advice and were advised to jump onto the next available train to NCL.
The guard wasnt aware of this and excessed/penalty fare'd the an extra £133.....
It seems there was a breakdown in communication!
Come on EC is owned and run by the Government, I would have thought the traincrew/station staff would have communicated to one another?

I can't find this on the Sun's website. Any chance of scanning in the article as I'd be interested to know about it.

BTW, if it was an Advance ticket, it would likely be a new ticket, as Advance can't be excessed. PFs do not apply on East Coast services.

DaveNewcastle · 3 Oct 2010

andylloyd said:
Yet another similar incident has occurred recently.
. . .

Do we know on which day and which train this "incident" occured? Have we any statements from the passengers or rail staff which can add any more detail? Thanks.

Presumably, its this story, which wasn't deemed to be newsworthy at the time, but in view of the elevated coverage of the more recent "stopping short" incident in Durham, then some hack has looked back through their notebook for anything that might fill their alloted (and otherwise empty) newspaper space.

“My children travelled on a train journey from Colchester to Newcastle via Kings Cross.

“On arrival at Kings Cross they discovered that their train had been delayed and subject to possible cancellation.

. . .

“During the journey, their valid tickets, which cost a total of £185, were inspected by the train porter.

“He told them they were invalid for that train regardless of any delays and issued them with penalty fare notices for £133 each.

“Joseph and Jessica have since appealed against this, but because they didn’t send the penalty fare with the appeal they have now got to pay more.

. . . .

“We will of course withdraw the unpaid fare penalty notices and refund the excess fare already paid, plus administration costs.

“We apologise to Joseph and Jessica for any distress caused.”

No indication of when this occurred.

A0wen · 3 Oct 2010

I think the issue here is more one of the "fine" than the fact he breached the conditions of his ticket - and that's something the rail operators need to tackle.

For example, if he'd been told - "Sorry, you've stopped early, when you shouldn't - you need to buy a ticket from to cover you back to this stop (which could have been from the destination of his advanced ticket, back to where he was getting off)" and the cost was £10 - he'd probably have paid up.

The fact is that £155 was not a proportionate penalty. In the same way less reputable car park operators try to charge £ 100 for over-running your ticket - even by a small amount of time.

The question is what revenue the train operator was losing - and the penalty should have covered that - they didn't "lose" £ 155 as a result of this guy getting off one stop early.

The principle is fairly well laid out in case law. The rail operators need to be a bit more intelligent about this and issue appropriate penalties, rather than excessive penalties, which result in lurid headlines in the media (as it happens I heard about this case as the guy was interviewed on R4, so the cheap shots made by other posters about the Daily Mail are a bit misguided on this occasion).

eos · 3 Oct 2010

Try this for the Sun article..

http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/news/mr-...03/missed-carriage-of-justice-79310-27382868/

andylloyd · 3 Oct 2010

eos said:
Try this for the Sun article..

http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/news/mr-...03/missed-carriage-of-justice-79310-27382868/

That is the article in question.
Apologies for not posting the link

Deerfold · 4 Oct 2010

eos said:
Try this for the Sun article..

http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/news/mr-...03/missed-carriage-of-justice-79310-27382868/

Tickets inspected by the train porter...that's a new one on me

ralphchadkirk · 4 Oct 2010

Deerfold said:
Tickets inspected by the train porter...that's a new one on me

I have never seen so many inaccuracies in an article before.

Professor slapped with £155 railway fine for getting OFF the train one stop early.

Established Member

RailUK Forums

New Member

Established Member

New Member

Forum Staff

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Veteran Member

New Member

Forum Staff

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

On Moderation

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member