DaleCooper
Established Member
(b) highly likely outwith contract law.
If it's outwith (outside) contract law then presumably contract law doesn't apply.
(b) highly likely outwith contract law.
could very easily be read as "as your origin station doesn't have ticket collection facilities you can board there and pick up your tickets at xxxxx"
lejog said:This, its nothing to do with them is (a) frankly a pathetic excuse and (b) highly likely outwith contract law.
Collecting tickets at the station: For many bookings we allow you to collect tickets from a range of stations. You must allow sufficient time to collect your tickets before boarding the train. You must have your ticket collection reference, and (unless stated otherwise) the credit/debit card used to make the purchase as identification. You should note any special collection instructions given during the booking process, for example the station opening hours.
If you are unable to collect your tickets (for example due to the ticket machine(s) being out of service) then you should contact the station staff for further assistance. If there are no staff at the station, you should board your booked train, and make yourself known to the on-train staff at the earliest possible opportunity
Perhaps it could. I don't agree, but I can see the alternative viewpoint.
However, in this case, the OP was told by station staff at the station that this interpretation was incorrect, that he would need to buy a new ticket to Lime Street, and that if he didn't he would be liable for a Penalty Fare.
This wasn't the answer he wanted so he ignored it, and was then issued a Penalty Fare, which he did not pay.
The information is clear that a) you need a ticket before boarding a train and b) you cannot collect said ticket at that station. There are a lot of stations where you cannot collect tickets, Merseyrail is not alone in this.
Still waiting for evidence of "fabrication" btw.
Here are the Trainline T&Cs:
What is this "blatant fabrication of evidence "?
That "you were told on the app you needed to collect your ticket before travel"
Boils down to somebody making an assumption when they tapped something on a mobile phone app and not reading what they actually were purchasing.
lejog said:An email adding conditions after payment is a clear breach of consumer law.
That "you were told on the app you needed to collect your ticket before travel"
Having just brought up the screen NajaB shows from the Traveline app, I can confirm that the obscured options at the bottom are payment options, so there is nothing whatsoever on the app to tell you need to collect the ticket before travel.
Subject: Fare Evasion Welshpool
Slim male in grey trackie bottoms with bag. No money or ticket claiming he has a code that allows him travel. Trying to reach Aberystwyth. Removed from 1J25 1827 Shrewsbury - Aberystwyth.
I'm also a little puzzled as to how the OP ended up in this situation. If you attempt to use TheTrainline app to buy a ticket for which: (a) there is no eTicket option; and (b) starts at a station where you can't collect the ticket you get the warning in the attached screen capture.
That's not a completely unreasonable assumption. However, in this case the OP was told - in no uncertain terms - that he would need to pay for the ticket to Liverpool Lime Street. They can't claim that they continued to be unclear as to the correct course of action.To be fair if I didn't know the rules I'd read that as meaning that you could pick up the ticket at the first station en-route with a machine.
When you agree to purchase the ticket, you are agreeing to be bound by Trainline T&Cs and the National Rail Conditions of Travel.
If you choose not to read these documents, then that is your problem. The NRCoT defines what a ticket is. The NRCoT also states exactly what will happen if you are unable to present a ticket for inspection.
It is clear that a booking reference is NOT a ticket. It is also clear that you need a ticket to travel.
To get back to the point, I do not see what benefit this is to the OP. The rules are clear. The OP was told the rules at the origin station, and again at Liverpool Lime Street. All I can see is that the OP did not agree with the rules. As island says, the best advice here is for the OP to wind their neck in. If they had done that before it would have cost them a fiver. Now it will cost them more, £70 more as a minimum. Trying to argue that the OP did not need a ticket, or that the booking reference counted as a ticket, is only going to make the matter more expensive for them.
You were told on the app you needed to collect your ticket before travel, and that you cannot do this at a Merseyrail station. You ignored this.
I can see how you reached that conclusion, however it is wrong for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, a potential ticket is not a ticket. The OP had paid for a journey but had not yet obtained their authority to travel. Without authority - in the form of a ticket or permission from an authorised person - they are treated as having not paid. So it's necessary to limit our consideration to a ticketless passenger at [name of station] who wanted to travel to Liverpool Lime Street.
Secondly, intent is inferred from actions. The OP was told that they needed to pay for the journey to Liverpool Lime Street. With respect to that journey only, they refused to pay and boarded after having been specifically told not to. This meets the necessary criteria for a RoRA prosecution as they travelled without previously paying their fare and it's reasonable to assume that having refused to pay their fare once, that they had no intent to pay it at all.
Possibly I may be over-simplifying here. But the OP describes a prosecution for a specific offence. He does not describe a penalty fare, does not describe an option for out-of-court settlement etc. And he describes how he clearly has not actually committed that specific offence, and can prove it - doesn't he? I'm no legal expert, but from what I see here, if I were a magistrate/judge/etc., and someone were being prosecuted for "Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof;……" when the FARE had in fact been paid there is no case to answer. This does not make any reference to a requirement to carry a ticket; merely to have intent to avoid payment - and you can't have intent to avoid payment if you have paid - surely?! I'd dismiss it and award costs against the TOC for being bloody awkward!
4.1 Your Ticket is evidence of your entitlement to travel on the National Rail Network, as allowed by the type of Ticket you have purchased. It is your responsibility to keep it safe and it should be looked after with care.
6. You must have a valid Ticket to travel
Not being funny.
I buy a ticket online and select TOD. I get a booking reference. The station doesn't have TOD collection facilities... So far, that's the OP's story.
There is nothing to prove to Merseyrail that someone else hasn't collected the ticket and is using it. They therefore advise that a ticket must be purchased. Customer refuses and is PF'd... Customer refuses to pay PF and is now being summonsed for RoRA.
Now the app (however clear or not some might think it is, says
by booking the ticket you accept Trainline ts and cs and the NRCOT.
So we can look at NRCOT...
slam dunk
Wait a second... So if a contract is long I don't have to abide by its terms?! Why didn't someone tell me that???If you really wanted to push the point you'd be perfectly in your rights to point out the the NRCoTs are extremely long, and no reasonable consumer could have been expected to read them before travel.
If you really wanted to push the point you'd be perfectly in your rights to point out the the NRCoTs are extremely long, and no reasonable consumer could have been expected to read them before travel.
Nope. Link is presented before payment is taken (see screenshot).However he does have a case against the Trainline, if the T&Cs are only presented after payment then they are null, even if he did read them
Slam dunk is not one of the basic tenets of English law. If you really wanted to push the point you'd be perfectly in your rights to point out the the NRCoTs are extremely long, and no reasonable consumer could have been expected to read them before travel. Quoting out of them therefore doesn't automatically win you a case. It's not something I'd be inclined to pursue since it's high risk and very little benefit, but you could certainly base a defence on what you were on the face of it told on buying a ticket from an authorised agent.
It is if you're ordered the ticket but can't collect it at the station the journey starts from.So if something is "long" or "complicated" we don't have to read it, and if we don't read it we don't have to abide by it?
Caselaw is that particularly onerous terms should be highlighted. Having to have a ticket to get on a train is not a particularly onerous term.
It is if you're ordered the ticket but can't collect it at the station the journey starts from.
It's a weakness in the whole system. I've managed to evade the problem by ordering far enough in advance to get the tickets posted or by being able to collect tickets elsewhere on a previous journey. In the absence of these, you need a special trip, or as suggested on this thread, pay twice for part of the journey.