Aaron Hayward
New Member
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 4
removed
Last edited:
You could have asked the guard on the Treforest to Cardiff train for a through ticket, split at Cardiff, and it would have been sold. I'm afraid it's a bit of a slam dunk. You had the opportunity to pay on the train without penalty and chose not to. You then chose not to pay at Cardiff Central.
In the eyes of the TOC that shows intent to avoid the fare.
Wait for the letter and see what they say, but be prepared to be offering a three figure sum as an out of court settlement.
thank you for the reply! I understand that and I don't mind paying the fine but does mean I have to go to court and get a conviction?
True. However it's not beyond reason that he expected to have time to purchase at Cardiff and/or thought that the conductor on the train wouldn't sell a split ticket.Given that the OP actually had an encounter with someone who sold him a ticket, I think it's really stretching things to suggest that he had no opportunity to pay!
I understand that, but expectation and thinking do not constitute the reality of the situation.True. However it's not beyond reason that he expected to have time to purchase at Cardiff and/or thought that the conductor on the train wouldn't sell a split ticket.
Ordinarly I would agree with you completely, but in this case the OP been sold a ticket onboard on the very same journey, apparently with no fuss or warning that they need to buy before travel. So I think the TOC would be on somewhat weak grounds if they attempted to prosecute.I understand that, but expectation and thinking do not constitute the reality of the situation.
For reference, here is a link to TfW's Revenue Protection Policy. I've also attached a copy.
In line with the National Conditions of Travel, our Conductors are instructed to only sell “the full undiscounted anytime single fare to a station directly served by the train that you are on.
I note that this states:
Having paid his fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeds by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance, and with intent to avoid payment thereof;
our Conductors are instructed to only sell the full undiscounted anytime single fare to a station directly served by the train that you are on.
I may be reading things wrongly, but I'm less than convinced that TfW have a case here, I'd appreciate if anyone can point out the flaw in my reasoning.
Normally you'd consider RORA 5(3)(b) rather than (a):
But, as already quoted, the company might have given itself an additional hurdle here due to its policy not to provide a normal opportunity to purchase the tickets for the complete journey on board:
(So this could get deep into legal technicalities - point in time of alleged offence vs point in time of alleged demonstration of intent etc.)
The OP did not ask for a ticket or combination of tickets to his actual destination though, just one to a point directly served by the first train. So this clause remains untested as it does not apply due to the OP only asking for a ticket to Cardiff.
Indeed, it wasn't a case of "I can't sell you a ticket to Swansea as it's not directly served" thus a defence under their policy, it was never asked for. And I know for a fact they'd have sold it.
I disagree that the OP needs to accept the penalty: it is for them to decide whether they want to come to a settlement (which is guaranteed to cost them, and the money will go solely to the TOC, but which is the least risky and stressful option), or whether they want to take it to Court and plead guilty (which, if a Byelaws prosecution is what is being proposed, would probably result in a higher amount being payable, but less would go to the TOC), or whether they want to take it to Court and plead not guilty (which could result in nothing being paid, if successful, but if unsuccessful it could lead to a much greater fine etc. being payable, and/or a criminal record if prosecuted under RoRA).Example-
"Single from X to London- £105.70 please".
"Crikey, how much !, so single from X to the next stop",
"Sorry you require a ticket or tickets for the ENTIRE journey you intend to make".
OP needs to accept the penalty.
Treforrest is a bit of a red-herring as they were sold a ticket to Cardiff on the train. Even the most ambitious prosecutor would struggle to make a Byelaw 18 prosecution stick.If we are to consider purely a potential Byelaws prosecution, it would be relevant to consider what time (and day of the week) the OP boarded at Trefforest (i.e. whether or not the ticket office was open), and depending on the answer to this, what method of payment he wanted to use (as, if the ticket office was closed, the ticket machine may not have accepted the OP's chosen method of payment).
Well, it is relevant insofar as Byelaw 18(3)(i) must still be interpreted with reference to the facilities available at Treforrest, even for the Cardiff-Swansea portion of the journey. If no facilities were available at the time of boarding, Byelaw 18 is out, leaving only RoRA. Whether or not an argument by the TOC that there was intent to avoid the fare will be accepted, will depend very much on the Judge(s) on the day!Treforrest is a bit of a red-herring as they were sold a ticket to Cardiff on the train. Even the most ambitious prosecutor would struggle to make a Byelaw 18 prosecution stick.
Any putative prosecution would necessarily focus on the Cardiff to Swansea portion of the journey.
But they had a ticket for the Treforrest to Cardiff portion of the journey, so it comes back to @furlong's question of if 'enter a train' means the first train or each train. If the former then a Byelaw 18 prosecution is impossible (since they were sold a ticket), if the latter then it's only Cardiff to Swansea that needs to be considered.Well, it is relevant insofar as Byelaw 18(3)(i) must still be interpreted with reference to the facilities available at Treforrest, even for the Cardiff-Swansea portion of the journey.
If we are to consider purely a potential Byelaws prosecution, it would be relevant to consider what time (and day of the week) the OP boarded at Trefforest (i.e. whether or not the ticket office was open), and depending on the answer to this, what method of payment he wanted to use (as, if the ticket office was closed, the ticket machine may not have accepted the OP's chosen method of payment).
Indeed, it wasn't a case of "I can't sell you a ticket to Swansea as it's not directly served" thus a defence under their policy, it was never asked for. And I know for a fact they'd have sold it.
The policy makes it clear that there is no expectation that a passenger wishing to purchase a ticket on board (where facilities were available at the point of origin) should ask for any ticket other than one to a destination served by the train they are on. (This might have an impact on any inference of intent.)
In that case the OP should not have boarded at Cardiff without purchasing their split ticket. They had ample opportunity to purchase a ticket for the full journey they intended to make, and did not do so.
when I got off at Cardiff I jumped straight on the next train