I wonder if I can assist in clarifying two strands of this discussion, as much for the benefit of readers of this forum in the future, as for those currently debating them? They are only very loosely linked.
First, the powers and duties of
Transport Focus.
There is no impediment in law which restricts
Transport Focus or any other third party from bringing about a civil claim for any amount disputed, or a criminal prosecution for any alleged offence; but neither of those actions are within the organisations remit as summarised in its Constitution. The
Transport Focus Constitution can be read
here. Perhaps the most relevant clauses to this debate are the first few :
Transport Focus said:
PART A: DUTIES, POWERS AND DELEGATED AUTHORITY
1. Background
1.1. The duties and powers of the Passengers Council (hereinafter Transport Focus) are set out in the Railways Act 1993, the Transport Act 2000, the Railways Act 2005 (as amended by the Local Transport Act 2008), and the Passengers Council (Non-Railway Functions) Order 2010 (which amended the Transport Act 1985)
1.2. The duties of Transport Focus in respect of railway passenger services and station services in Great Britain may be summarised as follows:
a. To investigate any matter which relates to the provision of railway passenger services or to the provision of station services by a licensed operator;
b. To make representations, if it considers it appropriate to do so, to any service provider;
c. To make recommendations to the Secretary of State only where, on the basis of the information available, it considers any expenditure involved represents good value for money;
d. To keep under review matters affecting the interests of the public in relation to the railway passenger services and station services;
e. To refer matters to the Secretary of State where it believes that a franchisee is contravening, is likely to contravene, any term of the franchise agreement or that the holder of a passenger licence or a station licence is contravening, or likely to contravene, any condition of its licence;
f. To make representation to, and consult, such persons as it thinks appropriate about these matters;
I suggest that the most relevant power is "to make representations". NO more than that.
The second strand of this discussion that I want to comment on concerns the powers of redress in law which available to an aggreived passenger.
The Courts remain available as a forum to resolve disputes, but these should be reserved for the most intractible cases, where the parties themselves have genuinely tried but failed to resolve the matter between them. In fact, many claimants using the Courts will be asked at some point during the process to confirm that they really have exhausted all available means to resolve the matter with the other party before submitting their claims.
Where the matter concerns a disagreement about a ticket which has been deemed invalid, then (as has been suggested above), then the 'Small Claims Court' procedure is available to seek the recovery of the value of the fare. There will be little opportunity or appetite to discuss the intricacies of routing, ticketing or other regulations - it would be an opportunity to recover the value paid for a Contract which was not fulfilled. This option is available to claimants across the UK, and very often, the claimant does not seek any legal assistance (though one would expect a Company might instruct a legal representative to defend themselves).
Where the passenger seeks more than just the recovery of the amount paid for the ticket, or really thinks there is a merit in achieveing a judicial decision over the intricasies of the arcane railway documents, or complex interpretation of detailled regulations, then the 'Small Claims Court' will not be the appropriate procedure. In England and Wales, normally the prosecution of a Criminal Offence might begin in the Magistrates Court and a claim for a Civil action in the County Court. In Scotland, the Sherriff Court is the place for both (but as has been discussed, there are both procedural and evidential hurdles for Criminal prosecutors in Scotland where the investigating body has not been the Police). The aggreived passenger is quite entitled to bring an action, in Civil or Criminal matters with or without legal representation (if without, then they become a Litigant in Person - LIP), though the LIP who attempts a complex argument should have a very good understanding of the Criminal or Civil Procedure Rules, as well as the relevant Statues, Common Law and distinguished cases.
Alternative and more exotic strategies are available to the more adventurous agreived party, such as seeking an injunction to prevent an offence being committed.
In summary, the passenger refused travel on a ticket which they are confident is valid has recourse to reach a settlement with the train operating Company, to Transport Focus, who may "make representations", to use the "Small Claims Court" procedure to seek the recovery of their payment, or to the Courts to obtain a judicial decision on the specific particulars of their dispute.
These steps should be taken sequentially, and a full risk assessment of the exposure to all risks should be reconsidered afresh at each step.
Hope this helps.
