Fell asleep on train, woken up past the station i was meant depart at, woken up by ticket inspector now facing court summons

[Mitrosonfire]

first post in this thread, was on a train a few weeks ago from st neots to Huntington, where i planned to depart from the train and wait for the next train, which my girlfriend would be on ( i had this return ticket and the inspector dismissed it)

so i was asleep on this train, stayed up all night night before to surprise my girlfriend and was obviously tired, got on the train and managed to fall asleep, anyways was woken up by the ticket inspector whom asked to see my ticket ( i unaware we had gone past Huntingdon) showed him my ticket, he then proceeded to inform me that we had gone past the station, and that i had induced a £20 penalty fare, i had no cash on me at the time but had informed him that i could verify my apple pay and do it that way or buy the ticket from Huntingdon to peterborough on the app, he refused and told me i had to give him my details, i did it and gave him my correct details and he told me that i’d be getting a £20 fine, a few weeks later, after 0 letters about an outstanding £20 fine i received a court summons. i was never given a receipt or anything like that on the train, i offered to pay and he declined.

what should i do? what are my options?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Welcome to the forum.

Please can you tell us exactly what the letter you have received says? If you can hide your personal details on it, a picture of the letter would be a good way of letting us see what you have been sent.

 

[Mitrosonfire]

Welcome to the forum.

Please can you tell us exactly what the letter you have received says? If you can hide your personal details on it, a picture of the letter would be a good way of letting us see what you have been sent.

it’s telling me to plead guilty or not guilty, would send a photo but phones back screen is shattered

 

[30907]

Let's assume it's a standard letter. Post #7 in this thread offers some guidance as to how you might respond if you hope the company will offer an "administrative settlement"
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ons-team-and-dont-know-how-to-respond.222625/

If you want to challenge the letter itself, you will need to tell us more - eg what ticket you had, what time of day were you challenged, what you said to the Inspector about getting back to Huntingdon and so on.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

it’s telling me to plead guilty or not guilty, would send a photo but phones back screen is shattered

Thanks.

What are you charged with?

What date is given for the incident?

I'm asking these questions because it's very unusual for a case to move immediately to the courts. At this point, I am not sure if something very unusual has happened, or whether for some reason there's other correspondence that you never got to see.

 

[furlong]

Falling asleep on a train and missing your stop can be a bit of a grey area - it doesn't necessarily make you a criminal. (In my personal opinion I'd go further and say it doesn't normally make you a criminal.) If given a Penalty Fare you would have been handed paperwork on the spot telling you how to pay it - you would not wait for a letter and your ability to pay it on the spot is irrelevant. For a successful prosecution, the company would normally need to prove to the criminal standard that you intended not to pay - but if you were asleep (e.g. CCTV doesn't show you were pretending) and then offered to pay at the first opportunity using the app, that might not be straightforward for them. Also some train companies have a tendency towards a 'one size fits all' style of prosecution which can work in your favour if what they choose happens not to be a very good fit to the actual circumstances.

So this is a situation where the precise details really do matter - what charges, what evidence and then whether to respond immediately yourself or to seek professional legal advice first.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely a Byelaw prosecution does not need intent, just the simple fact of having overtravelled?

 

[221129]

Surely a Byelaw prosecution does not need intent, just the simple fact of having overtravelled?

Which bylaw do you think has been breached?

 

[Mitrosonfire]

Falling asleep on a train and missing your stop can be a bit of a grey area - it doesn't necessarily make you a criminal. (In my personal opinion I'd go further and say it doesn't normally make you a criminal.) If given a Penalty Fare you would have been handed paperwork on the spot telling you how to pay it - you would not wait for a letter and your ability to pay it on the spot is irrelevant. For a successful prosecution, the company would normally need to prove to the criminal standard that you intended not to pay - but if you were asleep (e.g. CCTV doesn't show you were pretending) and then offered to pay at the first opportunity using the app, that might not be straightforward for them. Also some train companies have a tendency towards a 'one size fits all' style of prosecution which can work in your favour if what they choose happens not to be a very good fit to the actual circumstances.

So this is a situation where the precise details really do matter - what charges, what evidence and then whether to respond immediately yourself or to seek professional legal advice first.

Thanks.

What are you charged with?

What date is given for the incident?

I'm asking these questions because it's very unusual for a case to move immediately to the courts. At this point, I am not sure if something very unusual has happened, or whether for some reason there's other correspondence that you never got to see.

the date for the incident was 06 august 2021

and the letter says that i failed to hand over a ticket for inspection and verification of validity? whatever that means

 

[Hadders]

Welcome to the forum.

In order to be able to advise properly we need to know exactly what the letter says. I suspect what you have is a letter saying that they have received a report, are considering prosecuting you but asking for your version of events before deciding whether to prosecute or not. I doubt that you actually have a court summons at this stage.

Can you post a copy of the letter with personal details redacted or type out exactly what it says.

 

[furlong]

But you said you did show your ticket? That one's a bit of a gamble over legal technicalities, interpretation, case law etc.

It seems to have been designed to make it easy to catch people who claim to have a ticket that's valid but either won't let the inspector see it or won't let them touch it to mark it as inspected (to deter re-use) etc.

To determine that over-travelling is a breach seems to require making some inferences that could have been stated explicitly but weren't.

The term "valid ticket" is defined in the byelaws but it is not used explicitly in this one.
"ticket" is defined (broadly).
"Verification" is merely a purpose, supplementary to and not the action ("hand over") mandated.

Imagine "I handed over my ticket for verification of validity. Its validity was verified (for the initial part of my journey)."
To find a breach I'd think you need to infer that 'validity' necessarily refers to the definition of 'valid ticket' and that something that would fail to be verified on those terms cannot be handed over for verification by definition.

But independently of that, RORA already makes over-travelling an offence under specified conditions (wilful, intent) so it's really not clear how a mere byelaw is capable of tossing out those conditions by introducing a catch-all more general offence ("not showing a valid ticket anywhere when asked"). Interpreted this way, the byelaw is effectively a convoluted way of usurping the primary legislation and disregarding the checks and balances therein.

One for the lawyers.

So :

You might follow the normal formula suggested on threads like this by apologising and trying to settle out-of-court. From other threads we know that this is often successful - but at a price. You might even discover that you were sent some previous correspondence suggesting a way to settle that went astray. It is rare for the first correspondence to be a summons. Phone the train company to check you received all the correspondence they sent you.

If you're reluctant to settle on their terms (e.g. you don't believe parliament made unintentionally falling asleep like this a criminal offence), you might pay for professional legal advice to help you respond - I would not suggest trying to fight this one in court without a lawyer due to the legal technicalities that might be involved.

 

[Tallguy]

I have lost count of the number of times this has happened to me. The last time was on Scotrail from Glasgow to Busby. I woke up as the train arrived at East Kilbride. Spoke to the guard who asked me if I had a ticket to Busby (which I did and showed him it), luckily the train was going back into `Glasgow in service stopping at Busby and the guard made sure I got off OK. This was late at night after a few drinks in Glasgow….

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which bylaw do you think has been breached?

The one requiring a valid ticket to be produced for inspection.

 

[221129]

The one requiring a valid ticket to be produced for inspection.

I can't find any such wording.

Bylaw 18.1 states

In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter
any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a
valid ticket entitling him to travel.

Which doesn't apply as when the OP joined the train his ticket was apparently valid.

Bylaw 18.2 states

A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity
when asked to do so by an authorised person.

Which the OP claims he did. As @furlong has previously posted this could quite possibly be argued with legal support.

 

[Western Sunset]

Surely folks (genuinely) falling asleep and being over-carried happens very frequently. Is there a standard response from TOCs for such a situation? Or is it straight to court and a hefty fine?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely folks (genuinely) falling asleep and being over-carried happens very frequently. Is there a standard response from TOCs for such a situation? Or is it straight to court and a hefty fine?

Mostly you get taken back to your origin for nowt! As ever, it's because an RPI found them first.

 

[Haywain]

As ever, it's because an RPI found them first.

And, of course, the potential for an 'attitude test' to have been failed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And, of course, the potential for an 'attitude test' to have been failed.

Fairly likely for an "attitude test" to be failed when someone has been woken from an unexpected sleep not where they intended to be. Staff do need to take that into account when deciding the consequences. Certainly abuse can never be justified, but apparent anger as a result of fear is entirely likely and needs to be taken into account.

 

[Dai Corner]

When I was commuting between Newport and Bristol Temple Meads I was more than once woken up by the guard clearing the train after it had terminated at Cardiff Central

Invariably I was told to catch the same train back at no extra charge.


The microgricer in me regrets not asking if I could stay on board for the shunt from Down to Up platforms!

 

[Haywain]

Fairly likely for an "attitude test" to be failed when someone has been woken from an unexpected sleep not where they intended to be. Staff do need to take that into account when deciding the consequences. Certainly abuse can never be justified, but apparent anger as a result of fear is entirely likely and needs to be taken into account.

I think there would be an assessment of how the person reacts to being told they have overcarried. If the first reaction is to ask to pay the fare that may look worse than asking how to get back to the right place - the first might suggest being caught, the second an honest accidental error.

 

[AlterEgo]

I was once spectacularly overcarried. I boarded the 0940 at Euston (first stop Warrington) when I wanted the 0943 for Milton Keynes. I went and found the guard who laughed about it - it was entirely my error - and I got a handwritten note and three hours sucked out of my day.

A lot of the way you are treated does come down to attitude and body language, although it’s likely the OP was unfortunate enough to just come up against an RPI at first contact.

 

[furlong]

One more interpretation option I ought to mention. If you follow the logic and deem that the term "his ticket" in the byelaw necessarily excludes an invalid ticket, then no ticket exists and so the premise of the byelaw is false - it's impossible for anyone to be required to hand over something that doesn't exist, and anyway it's 18(1) that addresses that situation not 18(2). It seems to me to be an extraordinary stretch to be reading so much into 18(2) that it can plug so many gaps.

 

[Western Sunset]

Shouldn't it really be irrelevant which member of staff the OP initially met? Shouldn't they be treated in the same (courteous /helpful/nonjudgmental) way?

This lack of consistency across TOCs seems to be what causes a lot of problems.

 

[AlterEgo]

Shouldn't it really be irrelevant which member of staff the OP initially met? Shouldn't they be treated in the same (courteous /helpful/nonjudgmental) way?

This lack of consistency across TOCs seems to be what causes a lot of problems.

The problem with complaining of a lack of consistency or discretion is that if you were to eliminate consistency and discretion, you'd end up with a Judge Dredd maximum punishment system in place, because there's no way everyone without a valid ticket is going to be let off.

The OP was Penalty Fared, which was the correct outcome. None of us were there so we don't know why the RPI decided to do this rather than lend a sympathetic ear.

 

[furlong]

The OP was Penalty Fared, which was the correct outcome.

From what has posted by the OP, that appears unlikely.

 

[Haywain]

From what has posted by the OP, that appears unlikely.

The OP certainly states that the opportunity for a PF was available but was then withdrawn due to being unable to make any immediate payment.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The OP was Penalty Fared, which was the correct outcome.

It's a valid reason to issue a PF but a rather callous one. Though to be fair we don't know what was said, as you say.

The OP certainly states that the opportunity for a PF was available but was then withdrawn due to being unable to make any immediate payment.

Sounds that way. Which is rather silly, as people don't necessarily have the means to pay one on the spot, particularly not if only carrying cash. "It's expensive to be poor"?

 

[Haywain]

Which is rather silly, as people don't necessarily have the means to pay one on the spot, particularly not if only carrying cash. "It's expensive to be poor"?

I agree, it seems a bit odd that you must pay something on the spot for a PF. Although equally, it strikes me as a bit odd not to have some contingency money available for such emergencies.

 

[AlterEgo]

From what has posted by the OP, that appears unlikely.

The way I read it,

The OP:

- Has a ticket from St Neots (a barriered station) to Huntingdon
- Only wants to travel to Huntingdon, an 8 minute journey
- Falls asleep in the 8 minutes (!) it takes to travel between these two stations
- is caught on a train without a valid ticket somewhere between Huntingdon and Peterborough
- Is offered a Penalty Fare
- Says he will buy a ticket for the remainder of his journey and has the funds to do this but refuses to pay the Penalty Fare correctly offered (we are not told if this was out of principle or lack of funds)
- is reported instead by the inspector, for an offence which given the story told here may or may not hold any water
- We are not told how the OP gets back to Huntingdon, their destination

To be honest, the OP is only going one stop, a journey of 8 minutes - I can see how the inspector might be sceptical someone could fall asleep in this time and overtravel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be honest, the OP is only going one stop, a journey of 8 minutes - I can see how the inspector might be sceptical someone could fall asleep in this time and overtravel.

This does seem a little suspicious, yes, unless they had sleep apnoea (or 10 pints).