NRCoC 5.2 defence

[DavidGrain]

It is all very well quoting 5.2 but you have to take into account section 5 itself which states that a ticket is not transferable. That means that only your colleague who used the outward half of the ticket can use the return half. Years ago when we had the old Edmundson pasteboard tickets, a company that I worked for used to buy tickets in bulk from a local travel agent but that was in the days when tickets were valid for three months, Any one in the office who needed to travel to our head office would then take a ticket from stock. This was perfectly valid. It would not have been valid for me to use the ticket to go to head office and, if for some reason I was not going to use the return half, to give it someone else.

My advice. Pay the fine and pay for your education. Otherwise your next trip will be to the magistrates court to collect a criminal record for fraud.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I'm sorry that you must have missed it :-
'ill-informed' ; 'rhetoric' ; 'uninformed' ; 'lacking credibility' ; 'inflamatory' ; 'poorly understood'.
Hope that helps.

It has indeed helped. At least now I know exactly what you think of my views. That has not, however, changed them.

 

[falcon]

If the tickets are non-transferable, and that restriction is deemed enforceable by virtue of the passenger having been given sufficient notice of it, then TallDave's scenario is exactly the same as the one from the OP's situation, is it not? Two return tickets are less flexible than four single tickets for the same journey; only two people may make return journeys for the first option, whereas for the second option any four people may make any of the four journeys.

Note for mods: if this is deemed off-topic then please move to another thread.

What Talldave says is along the lines of two people buy return tickets and then mix up the return portions at the time or later. ie they buy them travel together and stay overnight at a hotel. The next morning the persons use the return portions of each others tickets 'so they would land up in court'!(he (Talldave) is showing the sillyness that can be construed from the "not transferable" rule). You say "that it is the fact that the correct fare has to be paid that counts" but say that in that case 4 single tickets would have been the correct fare. But the correct fare has been paid by both people so your own conclusion is contradicted! I could never imagin 'that' being classed as tranferring a ticket. Precisely because the correct fare has been paid as you said!

 

[DaveHarries]

OP - do you travel in uniform?

Yes I do. Shirt and tie: shirt has company name on it. I had a company shirt on at the time and my coat undone: I showed the logo on the shirt to the RPI. I have no shirts for work purposes that don't have the company name on.

Dave

 

[sheff1]

Pay the fine and pay for your education. Otherwise your next trip will be to the magistrates court to collect a criminal record for fraud.

What ?

There is no fine to pay as the case has not gone to court. DaveNewcastle has posted details of a similar case where no criminal record resulted and, as far as I can tell, there was no suggestion of "fraud" in that case either.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes I do. Shirt and tie: shirt has company name on it. I had a company shirt on at the time and my coat undone: I showed the logo on the shirt to the RPI. I have no shirts for work purposes that don't have the company name on.

So could it be that the company was being watched as there was a suspicion of this?

 

[sheff1]

I'm also surprised the railway hasn't moved to putting names on tickets, as it would solve all of this from the railway's point of view.

I am not surprised at all. If names are to be put on tickets the number of staff required in booking offices and the number of TVMs would both need to be increased considerably as every transaction would take a a lot longer. Then, even if the name was on the ticket, as there is no requirement to carry any form of ID in the UK what purpose would it serve ?

 

[maniacmartin]

This post should not be taken as legal advice.
I think the way the NRCoT is written is quite ambiguous here, and I can see legitimate arguments for both sides.

Which part of transferring a non-transferable ticket is an "easy-to-make mistake"?

The bit where the NRCoT talks about tickets that are bought 'on behalf' of a company. This could be read to mean that the ticket may be issued to the company, not a specific individual. Thus if another employee, travelling for the same company were to later use it, then it would not be 'transferred' to any new entity. As posted upthread, I think it hangs off what is meant by 'any person'. Is that any singular person, or any person as long as only one is using it at any specific point in time?

 

[najaB]

I think the way the NRCoT is written is quite ambiguous here, and I can see legitimate arguments for both sides.

It really isn't. A ticket can be used by any one employee of the company but not by two.

 

[sheff1]

It really isn't. A ticket can be used by any one employee of the company but not by two.

Para 5.2 of NRCoT is ambiguous. Your interpretation is one way of reading it. The other way of reading it is just as valid if the NRCoT is read in isolation.

However, the NRCoT makes it clear that a passenger is also subject to the Railway Byelaws and Byelaw21(2) (as quoted in #11) is pretty unambiguous.

 

[Llanigraham]

I believe they have not properly applied the law. Alas, I was not the claimant/defendant in any of the cases so I couldn't appeal. (If I were in their shoes, and I soon expect to be with proceedings for whose hearing I am presently preparing, then I would appeal, on taking legal advice).

But as you admit, you don't know, and yet are still willing to make inflamatory and potentially incorrect and inaccurate answers, AND argue with the Forums legal expert.

 

[najaB]

Para 5.2 of NRCoT is ambiguous. Your interpretation is one way of reading it. The other way of reading it is just as valid if the NRCoT is read in isolation.

But it's a ticket (singular). The NRoT says "...it [singular] may be used by any person [singular]...". Where does the plural enter into it?

 

[DavidGrain]

I think some of the arguments on this thread are circular arguments. I repeat my advice to the OP to pay up and admit what he did was wrong.

I would ask the OP the following questions.
1. Why did the inspector question him? Did the ticket appear to have been cancelled previously say by having a pinhole in it when it was pinned to the board?
2. Why did his colleague only use the outward half of a return ticket? Was it with the deliberate intention to defraud the TOC of revenue so that someone else could get a cheap journey by using the return half?
3. Did the OP not intend to return home? If not why did he not acquire a return ticket? How did he get home any way?

Oh and by the way, from the information we have, his employer was complicit in this and should also be fined.

 

[Gareth Marston]

So could it be that the company was being watched as there was a suspicion of this?

Colleagues of the OP have probably been observed - you don't need to be Einstrein to work it out. Company logo, quick google search of who they are what they do where their locations are and theirs a pattern apparent.

It could have been any one in the company.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes I do. Shirt and tie: shirt has company name on it. I had a company shirt on at the time and my coat undone: I showed the logo on the shirt to the RPI. I have no shirts for work purposes that don't have the company name on.

Dave

I am inclined to agree with @Bletchleyite - I am amazed that this was picked up on. It’s basically impossible with a paper ticket to suspect misuse without some sort of specific intelligence.

My guess is the TOC has got wind of the habitual ticket misuse your employer is promoting and has briefed staff. In fact I am convinced of this. Unfortunately as an identifiable employee of that company I expect you were an easy target. I have sympathy with your predicament as you were no doubt undertaking the journey in good faith as part of your employment.

I cannot add much more that other, helpful posters haven’t already added, but given that I believe you (or the company) appear to be the target of specific intelligence for which they are likely to have evidence beyond simply talking to you, this is unlikely to go away easily.

Do keep us posted on any further developments, and make sure you take the advice of reasonable posters here - and tell your employer and if applicable your union.

 

[talldave]

I think some of the arguments on this thread are circular arguments. I repeat my advice to the OP to pay up and admit what he did was wrong.

I would ask the OP the following questions.
1. Why did the inspector question him? Did the ticket appear to have been cancelled previously say by having a pinhole in it when it was pinned to the board?
2. Why did his colleague only use the outward half of a return ticket? Was it with the deliberate intention to defraud the TOC of revenue so that someone else could get a cheap journey by using the return half?
3. Did the OP not intend to return home? If not why did he not acquire a return ticket? How did he get home any way?

Oh and by the way, from the information we have, his employer was complicit in this and should also be fined.

If you'd read the thread, you'd know the answers to questions 2 and 3.

Each half of the ticket has been used to transport a passenger between the named stations - the whole crux of this debate centres on the rail industry's rule that it has to be the same person. The phrase "deliberate intention to defraud the TOC of revenue" really doesn't match the alleged wrong doing does it?

 

[AlterEgo]

If you'd read the thread, you'd know the answers to questions 2 and 3.

Each half of the ticket has been used to transport a passenger between the named stations - the whole crux of this debate centres on the rail industry's rule that it has to be the same person. The phrase "deliberate intention to defraud the TOC of revenue" really doesn't match the alleged wrong doing does it?

It does, but not on the part of the OP, the passenger. I think there is a general consensus that while a ticket may be transferred between people it may not be *used* more than once by more than one person.

The OP’s company is depriving the TOC of revenue by engaging in this behaviour, because they’re avoiding having to pay for extra tickets. Unfortunately they have left their employee open to prosecution which is very, very bad of them.

 

[Gareth Marston]

A "one off" here and there between private individuals is all but impossible to detect but persistent organized by a company by their staff in uniform is another matter.

 

[talldave]

It does, but not on the part of the OP, the passenger. I think there is a general consensus that while a ticket may be transferred between people it may not be *used* more than once by more than one person.

The OP’s company is depriving the TOC of revenue by engaging in this behaviour, because they’re avoiding having to pay for extra tickets. Unfortunately they have left their employee open to prosecution which is very, very bad of them.

Who said the ticket was being used more than once? Unless I've misunderstood the OP, one OUT journey and one RTN journey have been undertaken using each of the coupons from the return ticket; totalling one return journey. What the rail industry has an issue with is that there wasn't a DNA match of the humans on both halves of the journey, despite both being employees of the company that paid for the ticket.

Personally, since the rail industry has been paid for the number of bums on seat transfers of a human between two points, I think their rules are unnecessarily pedantic and their time would be better spent chasing those who attempt to travel without paying.

 

[221129]

Who said the ticket was being used more than once? Unless I've misunderstood the OP, one OUT journey and one RTN journey have been undertaken using each of the coupons from the return ticket; totalling one return journey. What the rail industry has an issue with is that there wasn't a DNA match of the humans on both halves of the journey, despite both being employees of the company that paid for the ticket.

Personally, since the rail industry has been paid for the number of bums on seat transfers of a human between two points, I think their rules are unnecessarily pedantic and their time would be better spent chasing those who attempt to travel without paying.

You dont seem to grasp the issue. The correct tickets would be 2 singles. Not a cheaper return ticket. Tickets are non transferable. This is not new. The ticket is made up of 2 portions but is still one ticket. Thus it has been used by 2 different people.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Personally, since the rail industry has been paid for the number of bums on seat transfers of a human between two points, I think their rules are unnecessarily pedantic and their time would be better spent chasing those who attempt to travel without paying.

Single-fare pricing, at least of period returns, would solve this problem among many others.

 

[221129]

their time would be better spent chasing those who attempt to travel without paying.

Such as the OP. I agree.

 

[najaB]

Personally, since the rail industry has been paid for the number of bums on seat transfers of a human between two points, I think their rules are unnecessarily pedantic and their time would be better spent chasing those who attempt to travel without paying.

Cost of a Bristol Temple Meads to Swindon Off-Peak Return - £19.00. Cost of a Bristol Temple Meads to Swindon Off Peak Single plus the cost of a Swindon to Bristol Temple Meads Off-Peak Single: £37.00.

£19 is less than £37.

 

[talldave]

You dont seem to grasp the issue. The correct tickets would be 2 singles. Not a cheaper return ticket. Tickets are non transferable. This is not new. The ticket is made up of 2 portions but is still one ticket. Thus it has been used by 2 different people.

I grasp the issue. I was challenging AlterEgo's statement that the ticket had been used more than once - have I missed that point from the OP? AIUI, only one return journey has been made. Yes, I know it was with different people on the two halves of the journey, but the ticket hasn't been used more than once, has it?

 

[najaB]

Single-fare pricing, at least of period returns, would solve this problem among many others.

Agreed. But it also could introduce others.

 

[najaB]

I grasp the issue. I was challenging AlterEgo's statement that the ticket had been used more than once - have I missed that point from the OP? AIUI, only one return journey has been made. Yes, I know it was with different people on the two halves of the journey, but the ticket hasn't been used more than once, has it?

Person A made a journey from X to Y, Person B made a journey from Y to X. It has been used twice.

 

[talldave]

Cost of a Bristol Temple Meads to Swindon Off-Peak Return - £19.00. Cost of a Bristol Temple Meads to Swindon Off Peak Single plus the cost of a Swindon to Bristol Temple Meads Off-Peak Single: £37.00.

£19 is less than £37.

£31.80 surely, since day singles would suffice for the separate journeys?

 

[AlterEgo]

I grasp the issue. I was challenging AlterEgo's statement that the ticket had been used more than once - have I missed that point from the OP? AIUI, only one return journey has been made. Yes, I know it was with different people on the two halves of the journey, but the ticket hasn't been used more than once, has it?

It has been used by more than one person, to be clear. This is the issue.

 

[talldave]

It has been used by more than one person, to be clear. This is the issue.

Agreed and understood.

It does, but not on the part of the OP, the passenger. I think there is a general consensus that while a ticket may be transferred between people it may not be *used* more than once by more than one person.

The OP’s company is depriving the TOC of revenue by engaging in this behaviour, because they’re avoiding having to pay for extra tickets. Unfortunately they have left their employee open to prosecution which is very, very bad of them.

That's an assumption which may not necessarily be true and may therefore be unfairly critical of the OP's employer. If it's a frequent drop-off/pick-up location, then each employee may easily be able to use the return halves of their own purchased tickets within their validity period without the total number of tickets purchased increasing. We just don't know that.

On a related issue - I just tried to find out on the GWR website how long an Off Peak Return is valid for. I drew a blank. Where's it stated?

 

[falcon]

Person A made a journey from X to Y, Person B made a journey from Y to X. It has been used twice.

No it's not been used twice at all. It could be and is being(on this forum) argued it has been transfered but it has not been used twice that is an entierly different situation to what has happened here in the OP case.

The ticket was used by two people.

If a person bought a ticket from London to Leeds and person A travelled to Doncaster and alighted then handed the ticket to person B who used it to Leeds the offence is one of transfere. Which is the issue here.