A byelaw prosecution which came about because the Avantix machine the guard uses has this particular function greyed out.....in other words a technical issue. For which I do not know the reason why that exists, but I would suspect that there is a likely one. Which is why I asked the question in this thread, how many other ticket types does this very minor issue affect?
Excessing in general is very easy from an operators point of view.
Do you even know what condition 3 states or what the byelaws are in relation to fare evasion
in the op's post even if the option was there to excess to a Rover on the advantix a strict liability offence would still have been committed by the OP had he not bought the ticket he did from the machine because he would have boarded at a station with facilities to buy a ticket with no ticket in his possession ,All the excess option being available to the guard would have done was avoided the hassle at the ticket office
You or I as the guards on that train might have been more than willing to sell him the rover despite him boarding at a station with a TVM with no ticket .
But what if our ticket machine would have been broken , the batteries dead or we just didn't have one cos of shortages ?
The OP would not know the temperament of the guard or if he has a working machine when he was waiting for the train-but the OP should and does know what the law says and it says he should buy a ticket of any kind to later exchange for the one he wanted to buy in the first place
Say our machine is broken ,then he faces the barrier staff at Piccadilly , they might not have looked upon him so favorably . Looking in the disputes and prosecutions forum there are a few stories about the STM barrier staff at Piccadilly .
He would then be offered the opportunity to pay £80 or be prosecuted . How many times do you think that the barrier staff and prosecutions have heard the phrase "I was going to buy a ticket at Piccadilly" . Even with what I would consider to be a reasonable excuse for not buying a ticket from the TVM the OP could face prosecution afterall the prosecutions department could view the situation entirely differently .
The offence that the OP would have committed by boarding at mauldeth road without a ticket is a strict liability one . That means reasonableness of his story or situation does not come into it . All the court want to know is that he boarded a train at a station with facilities to buy a ticket . And that he was not in possession of a ticket .
As for the situation at the booking office - Being rail staff involved in selling tickets I can understand their predicament , they would come across this situation so infrequently it would not feature in training .
That being said I cant see anything the first guy on the first evening did wrong . Without a laid out procedure to solve the problem he used his initiative and come up with something to solve the problem for the customer . It might not be the best solution but that is not the Virgin employees fault that is the fault of the company/industry he works for
The women on the second night sounded embarrassed that she didn't know the solution . I never get like this with customers , if I dont know something I will hold my hands up and admit it seek help or direct them in the right way to get a solution . She should have got her manager or supervisor if she was not clear of the solution to the problem . she certainly should not have TOC militant in front of a customer that just looks unprofessional .
Referring you to oxford road raises another potential problem , could the OP under condition 3 use his original Mauldeth road to Man Pic ticket to travel onwards to oxford road given that he is intending to get the correct ticket there ?
Last edited: