• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

GTR Prosecution advice please.

Status
Not open for further replies.

sauron2010

On Moderation
Joined
20 Jan 2017
Messages
27
Location
Blighty
Hello

I traveled from Huntingdon to Peterborough on a southern service on the 23 November 2016.

i did not purchase a ticket before travel as there was no one in ticket office and so i intended to buy a ticket on board, however there was a revenue inspector rather than a normal ticket inspector on board and he told me i would have to pay a £20 fine plus standard fare (£6.10 i think), i agreed and handed over my debit card for payment however the card was not being read by his payment machine after multiple attempts and i had no cash at that time.

Before long we had reached Peterborough and we both alighted there, he took my details and told me to expect a letter in the post, he didn't give me a fixed penalty notice form to pay the fine within a certain period and i queried him on this but again he just said wait for the letter.

6 weeks later letter arrives, Notice of Intention to prosecute, asking me for my version of events
offence: failing to hand over ticket for inspection

I wrote back explaining the events and added a apology with offer to pay a fine or and or settlement fee. I however received a reply today stating they wish to continue to prosecute and will receive a court summons in due course.

I would like to ask for advice regarding this and or what action i should take(if any).

thank you all.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Clip

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,822
With Huntingdon having ticket machines they really do have you by the short and curlies here.

Can you confirm that you offered them an out of court settlement in your correspondence with them?

It may still be possible to keep this out of court and pay a large chunk of cash to do this - what did they say in their letter to you about going forward for prosecution? This will help others formulate a letter back to them to try and keep this away from court.
 

sauron2010

On Moderation
Joined
20 Jan 2017
Messages
27
Location
Blighty
I didn't see any machines and to be honest I didn't even look, the train was on the platform and I rushed to get on, so no good reason I guess.
 

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
A rather shabby show that a PF has turned into a prosecution because the railway still uses antiquated kit that refuses to accept certain cards. Had the guy had a £20 in his pocket and some loose change he'd not have heard another word about it. Ho hum :(

The OP; what sort of card did you have? Did it decline, or was there a different issue? Are you able to provide evidence that you had sufficient funds available to cover the attempted transaction?

To shed a little light for you; the ticket machines used on board ('Avantix') are very old and process all card transcations "offline", meaning that the process only goes through to the bank when the thing is docked at the end of the shift. They have no live communication facility. This means that a transaction could exceed an available balance where an account is not permitted to do so (i.e. take somebody into an unauthorised overdraft), and the bank cannot refuse the transaction in the normal way because they aren't authorising it at the time it actually happens; the ticket has already been sold before they're actually asked for the money. Hence, certain banks place restrictions whereby the card will simply not be accepted. This is a common (and farcical) occurrence, and is hardly the fault of the cardholder. Sadly, it isn't unusual for this sort of situation to crop up, leading to a 'pot luck' approach as to whether somebody is stung for a quick twenty quid or ends up with a day in court.

In the absence of a great big sign saying *Please ensure your debit card is cleared for offline transactions*, it's difficult to appreciate how the railway feels it can adapt the law to suit the inadequacies of its chosen form of revenue equipment, deeming that an unadvertised inability to process a certain type of card equals a person being guilty of a premeditated intention to avoid payment - but there we are. I would want to know how the revenue inspector recorded the details of the incident, and whether he detailed 'card tendered but declined' or simply reported that no payment was offered. In my humble, untrained opinion, this is long overdue some proper legal scrutiny, but that's unlikely to make any difference here, sadly.
 
Last edited:

Clip

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,822
A rather shabby show that a PF has turned into a prosecution because the railway still uses antiquated kit that refuses to accept certain cards. Had the guy had a £20 in his pocket and some loose change he'd not have heard another word about it. Ho hum :(

maybe the OP shouldve bought his ticket from the TVM like they were supposed to do??
 

sauron2010

On Moderation
Joined
20 Jan 2017
Messages
27
Location
Blighty
The card was a Barclays visa debit,the handheld payment machine was just showing card error(I believe it wasn't reading card chip very well) it didn't decline or even get to stage of asking for a pin. I use the card daily, plenty of balance.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
To our legal eagles; a case of the OP being prosecuted for intent to avoid, but actually offered valid payment?
They aren't being prosecuted for intent to avoid payment (it's in the post), and the question still needs answering as to why the OP didn't use the ticket machines.
 

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
They aren't being prosecuted for intent to avoid payment (it's in the post), and the question still needs answering as to why the OP didn't use the ticket machines.

It is - I missed that! Alas, I still feel the point is valid. A simple PF was offered, correctly, and that has now turned into a prosecution because the OPs card would not process. I fail to see how that could be viewed as a fair and transparent system?

He didn't use the machines, and of course he should have. But then the penalty for that transgression is the PF that he was prepared to pay.

If a passenger refuses a PF of their own doing, then of course it is appropriate that the matter be forwarded for prosecution. I can't say I agree the same should apply in cases where the railway simply choses not to accept their legal tender.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
If a passenger refuses a PF of their own doing, then of course it is appropriate that the matter be forwarded for prosecution. I can't say I agree the same should apply in cases where the railway simply choses not to accept their legal tender.
Please don't use that term in this context as it has no relevance and normally starts a long side thread (and a debit card isn't legal tender in circumstances where the term does have relevance).

I'm on the fence with this one. Yes it is true that the OP offered his card to pay the Penalty Fare, and yes it is possible that it was a failing of the inspector's equipment which meant payment wasn't accepted, but the OP had breached to rules so it's a 'fair cop' as far as a prosecution is concerned and there is no right to receive a Penalty Fare.
 
Last edited:

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
Please don't use that term in this context as it has no relevance and normally starts a long side thread (and a debit card isn't legal tender in circumstances where the term does have relevance).

I'm on the fence with this one. Yes it is true that the OP offered his card to pay the Penalty Fare, and yes it is possible that it was a failing of the inspector's equipment which meant payment wasn't accepted, but the OP had breached to rules so it's a 'fair cop' as far as a prosecution is concerned and there is no right to receive a Penalty Fare.

I find it difficult to agree with a policy of juggling something as relatively trivial as a Penalty Fare or as very serious as a court appearance, seemingly at random. If a PF area is in force, then PFs should be the preferred means of dealing with it. To decide, mid-transaction, that actually you're gonna come down quite literally ten times harder with someone you've already begun dealing with and pack them off to court, for no reason other than the TOCs equipment isn't up to the job, stinks. If you queued up five ticketless, gave four of them a PF for twenty quid and sent the last one to court because your machine didn't like his debit card, that is surely completely unreasonable?

I note also that the OP has attempted an out of court settlement, which has been refused. So a conviction it is. A long way from the £20 he was told he owed and was happy to pay. I bet he'll be telling all his friends that train travel is wonderful.
 
Last edited:

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
I find it difficult to agree with a policy of juggling something as relatively trivial as a Penalty Fare or as very serious as a court appearance, seemingly at random.
I point out again, there is no right to receive a Penalty Fare. The OP was unable to pay the Penalty Fare using a means that was acceptable to the Railway (possibly due a fault/shortcoming of the RPI's equipment), hence the move to a potential prosecution.

If a PF area is in force, then PFs should be the preferred means of dealing with it.
And it was the preferred method, however the OP was (possibly) unable to provide a payment method that the railway was able to accept.

I stress possibly above because we (well you) are taking it on faith that the OP had sufficient funds in his account to pay the penalty fare, and that if he did that the failure was on the railway's part and not his financial institution.
I note also that the OP has attempted an out of court settlement, which has been refused. So a conviction it is. A long way from the £20 he was told he owed and was happy to pay.
It is possible to reach a non-judicial settlement right up until the magistrate renders his/her verdict. We have seen several cases on the forum where a settlement offer was offered and accepted in the courtroom.
 
Last edited:

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
Cases like this are a good demonstration of why I think changes in the law are needed to protect passengers from disproportionate penalties, and to stop dodgy companies like GTR from bringing the whole industry into disrepute.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
Cases like this are a good demonstration of why I think changes in the law are needed to protect passengers from disproportionate penalties...
If it goes to Court then it will be a magistrate and not GTR deciding the proportionality of the penalty.
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
8,857
Location
Central Belt
Surely this will be difficult to take to court as the original poster wasn't cautioned.

The original poster could claim for example, that they attempted to purchase the ticket a Huntingdon via the credit card but it wouldn't read it. As they were not under caution and haven't signed a statement it is down to word against each other.

Intent to avoid the fare - unlikely considering Peterborough is barriered so they would have needed to purchase the fare there anyway.

It could be the case that the OP only had £10, I don't put cash in a TVM ever now since I once had the note swallowed but no ticket issued. They therefore didn't have enough cash to pay the penalty fare but may have had enough for the fare.

A lot of my post is speculation - but just saying unless we are not told everything the TOC seems to have a very weak case.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
2,909
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
If it goes to Court then it will be a magistrate and not GTR deciding the proportionality of the penalty.

The OP should have bought the ticket at the TVM if the booking office was closed. He/she should have had means of payment which was acceptable to the rail company - he/she did not. If one intends to pay by card, it is always advisable to have at least 2 bank/credit cards on one's person in case one doesn't work. Therefore, the rail company is within its rights to prosecute and deserves to win the case if it comes to court.
 
Last edited:

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
8,857
Location
Central Belt
The OP should have bought the ticket at the TVM if the booking office was closed. He/she should have had means of payment which was acceptable to the rail company - he did not. Therefore, the rail company is within its rights to prosecute and deserves to win the case if it comes to court.

Very black and white in general terms - would you trust a TVM with cash? Once it has taken it you can't prove that you ever used it in the first place. I would never use cash in a TVM - bitten once the TOC involved took the view "thats life". If I have cash I will only use the ticket office.

I normally only use cards, but we recently had a situation that WGC could accept credit cards for a considerable period of time. In your view I should have either not travelled or got hit by a court appearance. Luckily the RPI that stopped me didnt have that view and let me pay on the train (as they knew WGC wasn't accepting credit cards) - what if I was the first person that reported the fault?
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
While it's a good idea to have more than one card or cash to be able to pay a fare in case of problems in using the preferred method, I don't think that not doing so should be cause for prosecution.

Having said that, perhaps there is more to this than we know? And it's true that the OP should have used the TVM.
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
8,857
Location
Central Belt
While it's a good idea to have more than one card or cash to be able to pay a fare in case of problems in using the preferred method, I don't think that not doing so should be cause for prosecution.

Having said that, perhaps there is more to this than we know? And it's true that the OP should have used the TVM.

I agree.
The most bizarre one I had to do myself was knebworth ticket office was closed. TVM wouldn't read my card. I bought ticket online. Couldn't print it of course as the machine wasn't reading cards.

Who knows how a RPI would have treated me. Not producing a valid ticket for the journey I was making guilty as charged.

But for a court to convict I took the view I had taken every reasonable step I could to pay the fare in the circumstances.

Reality. I could have travelled for free as the gates we open at my destination- I am too honest.
 

sauron2010

On Moderation
Joined
20 Jan 2017
Messages
27
Location
Blighty
I have today spoken to the prosecution teak at GTR explaining the situation and offered settlement, the lady gave me a E-maill address and advised to put offer in writing which may or may not be acceptable, I enquired what is a acceptable amount and she explained it must reflect the court costs and fare+fine, I asked of £200 was ok? She said that would be a reasonable offer.

I would like to ask this helpful forum as to how i should word the email to make it as acceptable as I can. Thank you.
 

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
8
I point out again, there is no right to receive a Penalty Fare. The OP was unable to pay the Penalty Fare using a means that was acceptable to the Railway (possibly due a fault/shortcoming of the RPI's equipment), hence the move to a potential prosecution.

And it was the preferred method, however the OP was (possibly) unable to provide a payment method that the railway was able to accept.

I stress possibly above because we (well you) are taking it on faith that the OP had sufficient funds in his account to pay the penalty fare, and that if he did that the failure was on the railway's part and not his financial institution.
It is possible to reach a non-judicial settlement right up until the magistrate renders his/her verdict. We have seen several cases on the forum where a settlement offer was offered and accepted in the courtroom.

The OP wasn't 'unable to pay', though. The railway was unable to accept the payment. This is the crux, there is a difference there between where the liability lies. If I board a train with a fifty pound note and the staff tell me they don't want to accept it, is that my fault or theirs? If I offer a debit card, in good working order and with appropriate balance, and the staff cannot accept it because their equipment isn't up to standard, again whose fault is that? In neither case do I feel it is acceptable to automatically escalate matters from a Penalty Fare to a prosecution! And for the TOC to then refuse an out of court settlement to boot! One minute your error is going to cost you twenty quid, the next you're being convicted!

I argue so staunchly because it doesn't matter about the truths of this one particular incident; it is a frequent occurrence and it shouldn't be allowed to happen.
 
Last edited:

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
Intent to avoid the fare...

A lot of my post is speculation - but just saying unless we are not told everything the TOC seems to have a very weak case.
Indeed, they would have a weak case for intent to avoid payment. However, the intended prosecution is for failing to present their ticket for inspection.

The TOC has an iron-clad case.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The OP wasn't 'unable to pay', though. The railway was unable to accept the payment.
We have only the OP's word for that, there are reasons that a debit card payment may not go through which are outside the railway's control. And, as we have discussed on numerous occasions, the railway isn't responsible for the payment card industry's decision to start marketing Maestro and Electron cards as Mastercard and Visa - if that is actually the reason for the card payment not being possible.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I would like to ask this helpful forum as to how i should word the email to make it as acceptable as I can. Thank you.
Letters which have been accepted tend to contain four elements:
  1. An admission of culpability.
  2. Demonstration of understanding why revenue protection is necessary.
  3. An offer to make restitution.
  4. A pledge to learn from the experience and not repeat it.
If you post what you intend to send, I am sure we will be able to advise if it is likely to be accepted.
 
Last edited:

DaleCooper

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2015
Messages
3,507
Location
Mulholland Drive
The OP actually said "however the card was not being read by his payment machine after multiple attempts" not that it was declined. Could there have been a fault with the card?

however the card was not being read by his payment machine after multiple attempts.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
The OP actually said "however the card was not being read by his payment machine after multiple attempts" not that it was declined. Could there have been a fault with the card?
It could be a fault with the machine, the card, the financial institution or the data network (if the RPI had one of the new machines).
 

sauron2010

On Moderation
Joined
20 Jan 2017
Messages
27
Location
Blighty
Thank you everyone, although I totally disagree with the way it has been handled by the company I just don't have the time/energy to be dragged through court, I will write a letter with my settlement offer and post it here in due course.

It's ridiculous the one company's behave but what can we do, so many people around who just do as they are told and come back to you with you deserve it or you the train company is correct etc, due to this blind loyal following the train company's will continue like this until attitude's change. Treating everyone as a hardened criminal seems to be the first point of call these days
 

DaleCooper

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2015
Messages
3,507
Location
Mulholland Drive
I didn't see any machines and to be honest I didn't even look, the train was on the platform and I rushed to get on, so no good reason I guess.

There is a TVM right next to the entrance and another next to the ticket counter which I would have thought you would have seen if you were able to see there was no one in the ticket office.
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
8,857
Location
Central Belt
Thank you everyone, although I totally disagree with the way it has been handled by the company I just don't have the time/energy to be dragged through court, I will write a letter with my settlement offer and post it here in due course.

It's ridiculous the one company's behave but what can we do, so many people around who just do as they are told and come back to you with you deserve it or you the train company is correct etc, due to this blind loyal following the train company's will continue like this until attitude's change. Treating everyone as a hardened criminal seems to be the first point of call these days

It is sad you were made to make this choice. The railway industry is very guilty until proven innocent I am afraid.

But I can imagine a court battle costs time and money - even if you win GTR will never become customer focused.
 

DaleCooper

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2015
Messages
3,507
Location
Mulholland Drive
so many people around who just do as they are told and come back to you with you deserve it or you the train company is correct etc, due to this blind loyal following the train company's will continue like this until attitude's change. Treating everyone as a hardened criminal seems to be the first point of call these days

If people did as they are told they would always buy a ticket before boarding as required by law. You committed an offence.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
I didn't see any machines and to be honest I didn't even look, the train was on the platform and I rushed to get on, so no good reason I guess.
That statement makes the claim that there was nobody in the ticket office much less relevant. A prosecutor or magistrate will ask themselves: if you were in too much of a hurry to see the ticket machines, would you have gone to the ticket office even if it were staffed?
The card was a Barclays visa debit,the handheld payment machine was just showing card error(I believe it wasn't reading card chip very well) it didn't decline or even get to stage of asking for a pin. I use the card daily, plenty of balance.
That points to it being either a problem with the card or with the machine, rather than with the type of card.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top