Bought ticket on the train

[island]

I don't think this is the reason that the law says that you must buy before you board, particularly given that the law has been around a lot longer than even magnetic stripe ticket barriers.

That's not correct. Automated ticket barriers arrived in the UK in 1964. The Railway Byelaws were made over 40 years later in 2005.

 

[AdamWW]

That's not correct. Automated ticket barriers arrived in the UK in 1964. The Railway Byelaws were made over 40 years later in 2005.

Well I was confusing entering a train...without a valid ticket in the bye laws with intentionally travelling without...having paid the fare from the Regulation of Railways Act.

Though does this bye law only date from 2005? I would have assumed it would have been in previous versions.

In any case, I still don't believe the reason for a law requiring a ticket before boarding is so that it can be scanned in a barrier.

(And in the 60's wouldn't any automated barriers have been on London Transport, not BR?)

 

[Hadders]

There is no requirement to scan a ticket before boarding a train, there is a requirement to possess a valid ticket before boarding a train. There are a few exceptions but they’re not relevant here.

If you encounter barriers at a station then you will usually have to scan your ticket to pass through them.

Can we stay on topic which is to assist the OP with their case. Discussion about ticket barriers is interesting but not particularly relevant.

 

[fandroid]

Can we clarify the pont about giving personal details. I thought the the requirement was to show a valid ticket, or pay the fare, or give name and address. It's a bit nit-picky, but the OP did show a valid ticket as @AlterEgo has explained. Is there a separate bylaw requirement to give details if the officer suspects an infringement of another bylaw (eg 18.1)?

There is surely no right to demand name and address of any random passenger.

 

[AlterEgo]

Is there a separate bylaw requirement to give details if the officer suspects an infringement of another bylaw (eg 18.1)?

Yes.

Enforcement and interpretation​

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.

 

[RPI]

The TOC can easily track a person through a guest account using the payment method, Chiltern do seem to be one of the more persistent operators so I suspect they will chase this up, by refusing details it creates more suspicion and will increase their desire to investigate it further.

 

[CyrusWuff]

I'm surprised you were let through the barriers at Marylebone without a ticket. This sounds like very unusual behaviour.

Entirely plausible if it was 0615. The Ticket Office doesn't open until 0630, but TVMs should have been working.

 

[furlong]

Though does this bye law only date from 2005? I would have assumed it would have been in previous versions.

If you breached older versions, there was no fine but they could still remove you from the railway. (Historically, some courts ruled that earlier versions that included a fine were invalid laws. This got debated ad nauseam on here several years ago - search for 'ultra vires' to find the threads.)

 

[sheff1]

You seem to be confusing what you think you did with what you actually did.

Did you board a train without a ticket: yes
Did you come from station A where you purchased the ticket from: Who knows?
Do the inspectors believe you came from there: doubt it.
Did you commit a further offence by refusing details: yes

The point behind buying before you board is to scan the ticket on the gate to confirm that you have indeed come from station A,

The OP boarded at Marylebone and bought a ticket from Marylebone so why would the inspector doubt that was where they had come from ?

As for the sentence I have highlighted, that 'point' has no basis in fact.

 

[roastyduck]

The OP boarded at Marylebone and bought a ticket from Marylebone so why would the inspector doubt that was where they had come from ?

As for the sentence I have highlighted, that 'point' has no basis in fact.

He purchased an e ticket from that Station, doesn't mean he boarded there? And that's exactly how it will be seen if it's not been scanned on a gate to confirm this.

 

[Haywain]

He purchased an e ticket from that Station, doesn't mean he boarded there? And that's exactly how it will be seen if it's not been scanned on a gate to confirm this.

The issue is when it was purchased, not whether it had been scanned or whether it covered the whole journey.

 

[roastyduck]

Theissue is when it was purchased, not whether it had been scanned or whether it covered the whole journey.

I agree of that, I was simply stating how it will look and why it may be an issue.

Purchase after departure is an issue, the issue op has is struggling to understand why the ticket inspectors don't believe ops story.

Purchase after departure means it cannot have been scanned on a gate which means there is no way for a ticket officer to determine that op has come from where he claims.

The point I'm getting at is op needs to accept that it wasn't scanned on a gate where he got on at a large gated station therefore the inspector has every reason to believe the ticket wasn't purchased correctly which could lead to suspicion of travelling from somewhere else

 

[Haywain]

The point I'm getting at is op needs to accept that it wasn't scanned on a gate where he got on at a large gated station therefore the inspector has every reason to believe the ticket wasn't purchased correctly which could lead to suspicion of travelling from somewhere else

The suspicion of travelling from somewhere else is something that you have introduced, and the OP has not mentioned. As the OP has clearly committed an offence by buying a ticket after the train had departed, and has agreed that they did so, anything else is not relevant or helpful to their case. The inspector would have been able to see the time the ticket had been purchased and will have known what time the train left Marylebone. Scanning and travelling from somewhere else have no impact on whether an offence was committed. So, let's concentrate on actually useful advice for the OP.

 

[CyrusWuff]

The point I'm getting at is op needs to accept that it wasn't scanned on a gate where he got on at a large gated station therefore the inspector has every reason to believe the ticket wasn't purchased correctly which could lead to suspicion of travelling from somewhere else

Indeed. From Chiltern's point of view it would look like a case of "pay when challenged" given that, even if the Ticket Office was closed, Marylebone has multiple ticket machines which accept both cash and card payments and can sell most tickets other than Boundary Zone extensions and those with a Priv discount.

 

[Wolfie]

He purchased an e ticket from that Station, doesn't mean he boarded there? And that's exactly how it will be seen if it's not been scanned on a gate to confirm this.

Given that Marylebone was the starting station for that train he could hardly have boarded earlier.... I do appreciate though that an unscanned e-ticket ticket could be refunded and wonder if that is the thought process....

The suspicion of travelling from somewhere else is something that you have introduced, and the OP has not mentioned. As the OP has clearly committed an offence by buying a ticket after the train had departed, and has agreed that they did so, anything else is not relevant or helpful to their case. The inspector would have been able to see the time the ticket had been purchased and will have known what time the train left Marylebone. Scanning and travelling from somewhere else have no impact on whether an offence was committed. So, let's concentrate on actually useful advice for the OP.

Good point. Sorry that l didn't see it before posting my last.

 

[island]

Historically, some courts ruled that earlier versions that included a fine were invalid laws.

No, they didn't. That's just a speculative argument that you and a few others have made.

 

[bakerstreet]

Yeah train left at 615 and I bought it at 6.23. Marleybone has no reception for a few mins due to the tunnels

Was this 615 in the morning or 1815 in the evening?

Asking because you may be able to find a point of defence if both the ticket office was shut (it doesn’t officially open until 0630 www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/london-marylebone/[/URL]) and the ticket machines were not working or accepting your payment.

In this instance, the OP would not have been obliged to buy an e ticket

However only the OP will know if this applies to them.

I am not saying that this occurrence happened to the OP. I’m not saying it’s a valid defence in the OPs particular case. It may be, it may not be.

I’m saying it is a possibility when travelling out of London Marylebone in the early morning for ticket purchasing / collection to be unreliable.

I say this as pre Covid I regularly caught the 0605 from Marylebone and sometimes the ticket machines were not available to collect my ToD. (Displayed out of service on the screen).

 

[Hadders]

Moderator Note:

Discussion about scanning of tickets at barrier lines and penalties imposed under the Byelaws is drifting off-topic and is not helpful to the OP.

Contributions in this thread need to remain on-topic to assist the OP.

Thanks.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Was this 615 in the morning or 1815 in the evening?

There's an Oxford bound departure during the week from Marylebone at 1815 but nothing at 0615 precisely. A 25 minute journey on that might be to somewhere like High Wycombe. Perhaps the OP can confirm.

 

[greyman42]

He walked off and said he’d see me in court in a few weeks.

Do revenue officers attend usually attend the court hearing?

 

[James H]

Given the OP said they "needed to get home before my daughter went to bed" I think we're talking 6.15pm not am here

 

[CyrusWuff]

Do revenue officers attend usually attend the court hearing?

If it's not dealt with under the Single Justice Procedure, yes.

Given the OP said they "needed to get home before my daughter went to bed" I think we're talking 6.15pm not am here

If that's the case, they've also walked past an open Ticket Office and I find it incredibly unlikely that they would have been let through the barriers without a ticket.

 

[greyman42]

If that's the case, they've also walked past an open Ticket Office and I find it incredibly unlikely that they would have been let through the barriers without a ticket.

Are the barriers ever open at that time?

 

[island]

Asking because you may be able to find a point of defence if both the ticket office was shut (it doesn’t officially open until 0630 www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/london-marylebone/[/URL]) and the ticket machines were not working or accepting your payment.

There are numerous ticket machines at Marylebone and it is most unlikely none of them were working. Even if they weren't, the burden of proof if this goes to court would be on the passenger to prove this.

 

[bakerstreet]

There are numerous ticket machines at Marylebone and it is most unlikely none of them were working. Even if they weren't, the burden of proof if this goes to court would be on the passenger to prove this.

I stated my experience of them being out of service in the early morning.

Your experience at Marylebone may have been different.

But this is moot as it’s been established that the OP was referring to 1815 rather that 0615

 

[WesternLancer]

If it's not dealt with under the Single Justice Procedure, yes.


If that's the case, they've also walked past an open Ticket Office and I find it incredibly unlikely that they would have been let through the barriers without a ticket.

The op said they were let through. I think we have to believe them.

 

[Haywain]

I think we have to believe them.

Even though it seems rather unlikely?

 

[Wolfie]

If that's the case, they've also walked past an open Ticket Office and I find it incredibly unlikely that they would have been let through the barriers without a ticket.

Pretty much unheard of from my personal experience of using Marylebone.

 

[Brissle Girl]

To be honest I was in a rush so didn’t catch the person who let me through. I go through twice a week and never really catch the person.

This comment struck me as odd. It reads as though it is a common occurrence for the OP to be let through (else why would there be any need for interaction with the barrier staff), and also how could you be let through without having a conversation to ask to do so?

 

[CyrusWuff]

This comment struck me as odd. It reads as though it is a common occurrence for the OP to be let through (else why would there be any need for interaction with the barrier staff), and also how could you be let through without having a conversation to ask to do so?

Not suggesting that the OP did, but the usual scenario involves tapping in with an Oyster or Contactless, or using a magstripe ticket to Wembley or Harrow. No conversation needed that way.