Merseyrail / Trainline disconnect

[MTDar82]

Get a good night's sleep and come back a fresh to this tomorrow.

We can help you prepare a letter to Merseyrail stating that you should only have been charged an excess of 50p.

We can also help you think about your defence and who will represent in court if it comes to that.

For future reference, if you are making this journey again the cheapest option is a Merseyrail day saver. £6.20 and this can only be purchased at the station or on the Merseyrail website. https://www.merseyrail.org/tickets-passes/daily-travel/day-saver/

Thanks I will. Safe to say I won't be using Merseyrail again after this. I'll be getting a taxi if necessary.

 

[Hadders]

Just to summarise where we are with this:

- You held a ticket from Chester to Liverpool Lime Street route 'via Runcorn'
- You were took the route via Birkenhead. You are allowed to do this on payment of an excess fare which to excess one direction is half the difference between the fares
- There is no penalty for purchasing the excess on board
- When your ticket was checked onboard you tried to regularise the situation by purchasing a new ticket via the Trainline app. As Merseyrail don't do etickets you were required to collect this ticket from a station ticket machine which you were unable to do
- You were issued with a Penalty Fare
- The Penalty Fare was not paid not was it appealed
- Merseyrail sent you a reminder that the Penalty Fare hadn't been paid
- Merseyrail offered you an out of court settlement
- As the matter hasn't been settled Merseyrail have now withdrawn the Penalty Fare and are prosecuting you in the Magistrates Court

Can you confirm that this summary is correct. It would also be helpful to know if you showed the ticket inspector your original ticket from Chester to Liverpool Lime Street.

As for the prosecution, Merseyrail should not be prosecuting you if you presented the Chester to Liverpool Lime Street via Runcorn ticket. What they should've done is sold you an excess fare. This is why it is important to know if you showed the inspector the ticket.

The other, and more important issue, is that it appears that you are being prosecuted under section 5.1 of the Regulation of the Railways Act 1889. There are two issues with this:
1. This offence cannot be prosecuted using the SJPN process - it can only be dealt with by a summons to appear in court
2. You cannot be guilty of a s5.1 offence, the wording suggests they are using s5.1 but we need to know this for certain

It is very important that we see full copies of all the paperwork (both front and back). As @furlong noted the actual offence should be on the paperwork but we cannot see it on the paperwork you have uploaded.

My suggestion is that an appropriately worded letter should be sent to the Merseyrail Prosecutor requesting that the case is withdrawn and setting out the reasons why. I would also add that if the case is not withdrawn then it will be defended virorously in court. Merseyrail are already in deep trouble for using the SJPN process in cases where they are not entitled to do so, and continuing to do this when they are aware it is wrong is a very serious matter.

 

[furlong]

Their error in the letter of 2nd September also looks to warrant an external investigation if it misrepresented the law with the effect of trying to persuade the recipient into agreeing a settlement when any competent person should have known the offence in question had not been committed. The word "either" looks rather like a giveaway: it makes no sense where it is, but suggests the words came from an offence that includes some "or" conditions which the writer has omitted, one of which was satisfied.

 

[island]

If it has been withdrawn, that is crucial to know because it means the Penalty Fare aspect of the situation can be completely disregarded now. (This is however a strange way to tell you that fact - there should have been a separate letter or mention in a covering letter that they have cancelled that debt.)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Sep 2024 ==

There must be something in the paperwork that cites the precise legislation being used.

(If there isn't, might that be evidence to support malicious prosecution? The words come from 5(1) but they must be well aware by now that they cannot use that in a situation such as this, so maybe if they just don't mention that number nobody will notice?)

Their error in the letter of 2nd September also looks to warrant an external investigation if it misrepresented the law with the effect of trying to persuade the recipient into agreeing a settlement when any competent person should have known the offence in question had not been committed. The word "either" looks rather like a giveaway: it makes no sense where it is, but suggests the words came from an offence that includes some "or" conditions which the writer has omitted, one of which was satisfied.

This is putting the cart several miles in front of the horse.

We need to see the rest of the prosecution paperwork and the specific offence being charged first.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Sep 2024 ==

The other, and more important issue, is that it appears that you are being prosecuted under section 5.1 of the Regulation of the Railways Act 1889.

It looks much more like a byelaw 18 (2) to me. But we cannot know without seeing all of the paperwork.

 

[MTDar82]

This is the pack I received dated 17 Sept

 

[John Palmer]

It looks much more like a byelaw 18 (2) to me. But we cannot know without seeing all of the paperwork.

I entirely agree that the OP needs to upload full copies of all the court paperwork. Only when this is done may it become possible to establish the offence charged. What has been produced so far is riddled with ambiguity: the statement of facts makes an irrelevant reference to a 'Non-compulsory ticket area' and includes wording suggesting that this may be a Merseyrail Byelaw 18.2 charge, whilst what appears to be a specification of the charge uses wording apparently derived from Section 5(1) Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (“to either produce...” - where are the other alternatives?)

It seems entirely possible that the section headed “You have been charged with the following criminal offence” is the only specification of charge in the court documentation served on the OP, hence the importance of seeing the rest of that documentation. If no other details of the charge are given, then Merseyrail has contravened the requirements of Part 7.3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2020:

“An allegation of an offence in an application for the issue of a summons or warrant or in a charge must contain—
(a) a statement of the offence that—
(i) describes the offence in ordinary language, and
(ii) identifies any legislation that creates it; ...” (emphasis added)

This might suffice to render the charge bad for ambiguity and justify a refusal by magistrates to entertain the proceedings. On what basis, if any, might Merseyrail obtain leave to amend it?

Suppose the charge is held to be brought under Merseyrail byelaw 18.2 (“A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person”). The OP was asked to produce her ticket and responded by producing what was presumably nothing more than a Trainline confirmation of booking. Does that suffice, by itself, to make out the offence? She also indicated in conversation that she had paid for a TfW ticket, which she presumably had available for production and was a valid ticket for her journey, subject to payment of the appropriate excess. The Merseyrail officials apparently disregarded that piece of information; had they acted in accordance with the terms of the travel contract they should have established that an excess was due by examination of the TfW ticket and sought payment of that excess. Which prompts the further question: being on notice that the OP might be the holder of a ticket that was valid subject to payment of an excess, did the Merseyrail officials' disregard of that information amount to the absence of a request for that ticket's production? If there was no such request then an essential element of the Byelaw 18.2 offence is absent.

 

[MTDar82]

Just to summarise where we are with this:

- You held a ticket from Chester to Liverpool Lime Street route 'via Runcorn'
- You were took the route via Birkenhead. You are allowed to do this on payment of an excess fare which to excess one direction is half the difference between the fares
- There is no penalty for purchasing the excess on board
- When your ticket was checked onboard you tried to regularise the situation by purchasing a new ticket via the Trainline app. As Merseyrail don't do etickets you were required to collect this ticket from a station ticket machine which you were unable to do
- You were issued with a Penalty Fare
- The Penalty Fare was not paid not was it appealed
- Merseyrail sent you a reminder that the Penalty Fare hadn't been paid
- Merseyrail offered you an out of court settlement
- As the matter hasn't been settled Merseyrail have now withdrawn the Penalty Fare and are prosecuting you in the Magistrates Court

Can you confirm that this summary is correct. It would also be helpful to know if you showed the ticket inspector your original ticket from Chester to Liverpool Lime Street.

As for the prosecution, Merseyrail should not be prosecuting you if you presented the Chester to Liverpool Lime Street via Runcorn ticket. What they should've done is sold you an excess fare. This is why it is important to know if you showed the inspector the ticket.

The other, and more important issue, is that it appears that you are being prosecuted under section 5.1 of the Regulation of the Railways Act 1889. There are two issues with this:
1. This offence cannot be prosecuted using the SJPN process - it can only be dealt with by a summons to appear in court
2. You cannot be guilty of a s5.1 offence, the wording suggests they are using s5.1 but we need to know this for certain

It is very important that we see full copies of all the paperwork (both front and back). As @furlong noted the actual offence should be on the paperwork but we cannot see it on the paperwork you have uploaded.

My suggestion is that an appropriately worded letter should be sent to the Merseyrail Prosecutor requesting that the case is withdrawn and setting out the reasons why. I would also add that if the case is not withdrawn then it will be defended virorously in court. Merseyrail are already in deep trouble for using the SJPN process in cases where they are not entitled to do so, and continuing to do this when they are aware it is wrong is a very serious matter.

- When your ticket was checked onboard you tried to regularise the situation by purchasing a new ticket via the Trainline app. As Merseyrail don't do etickets you were required to collect this ticket from a station ticket machine which you were unable to do

This part is incorrect, I bought the ticket before boarding the train, but I didn't know I was supposed to print it out. I've never had to do that before.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

This is the pack I received dated 17 Sept

Thanks for letting us see this.

It's not immediately apparent from the papers what law you're being charged under, which may form a problem for the prosecution. But I do note that in the witness statement on page 16 it says

I informed the Defendant that they had committed an offence under Byelaw 18.2 of the Merseyrail Byelaws

Perhaps someone with more knowledge than I have can advise on whether this is enough to make it clear what law is being relied on? Of course, it's in the OP's interest for this not to be good enough - but we shouldn't be trying to build a defence on something which wouldn't actually work in court, so I think it's important to be clear on whether the charge sheet is 'good enough'.

 

[John Palmer]

This is the pack I received dated 17 Sept

It's clear from this that there has been a breach of the requirement set out in Part 7.3(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2020, because the legislation creating the offence has not been specified in the charge. Joseph Randa's statement refers to commission of an offence under Merseyrail Byelaw 18.2, but that does not form part of the specification of charge and does not exonerate Merseyrail from its breach of CPR Part 7.3(1). It might, however, form the basis of a prosecution application to amend the charge so as to make clear that it is one brought under Byelaw 18.2, and if such an application were to be granted then the issue I raised about disregard of the TfW ticket becomes relevant.

The CPR Part 7.3(1) breach may offer some leverage for negotiation with Merseyrail, as an indication that the charge is defective and an application to amend it will be opposed might give the prosecution pause for thought. The more so if such an indication is coupled with a reminder that the company's officials disregarded the OP's intimation that a TfW ticket was held, that such ticket was valid subject to payment of the appropriate excess, and that the officials' failure to cater for this constituted a breach of the terms of the travel contract imported by NRCoT. The OP might simultaneously provide Merseyrail with a copy of her TfW ticket and offer to pay the due excess in return for Merseyrail's agreement to terminate proceedings against her. Presumably that TfW ticket remains available to be produced?

 

[gray1404]

- When your ticket was checked onboard you tried to regularise the situation by purchasing a new ticket via the Trainline app. As Merseyrail don't do etickets you were required to collect this ticket from a station ticket machine which you were unable to do

This part is incorrect, I bought the ticket before boarding the train, but I didn't know I was supposed to print it out. I've never had to do that before.

Please answer YES or NO to the following question:

When asked to show your ticket did you show them the "via Runcorn" ticket?

Forum members: have I missed something or does it fail to mention which offence and legislation they are being charged under?

 

[skyhigh]

Please answer YES or NO to the following question:

When asked to show your ticket did you show them the "via Runcorn" ticket?

This has already been answered.

Yes, I did have an open return via Runcorn, that's how I realised my ticket was not valid. I definitely showed it to them

 

[WesternLancer]

Please answer YES or NO to the following question:

When asked to show your ticket did you show them the "via Runcorn" ticket?

In post #6 the OP states they did show it, (prompting the whole Ryanair comment from the member of staff that the OP clearly recalls) although further confirmation will do no harm, presumably to the best of their memory the OP believes they showed the via Runcorn ticket.

Even a mention of having another ticket (were that to have provoked the Ryanair comment) and mentioning having replaced it with a new ticket (which they did not need to do as they should have been charged an excess fare) should prompt, in my view, a conscientious and properly trained member of staff to seek to see that ticket before taking further action even if it was not shown.

 

[John Palmer]

Yes, I did have an open return via Runcorn, that's how I realised my ticket was not valid. I definitely showed it to them because then they started telling me 'Well that's like buying a Ryanair ticket and trying to use it on an Easyj - ' And I say 'I KNOW that, that is why I have paid for a Merseyrail ticket as well!'

Sorry, missed that. In that case a ticket was produced on request and the requirements of Byelaw 18.2 were met.

 

[gray1404]

Thank you for confirming that the via Runcorn ticket was certainly shown. In that case this charge needs to be defended.

 

[island]

It's clear from this that there has been a breach of the requirement set out in Part 7.3(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2020, because the legislation creating the offence has not been specified in the charge. Joseph Randa's statement refers to commission of an offence under Merseyrail Byelaw 18.2, but that does not form part of the specification of charge and does not exonerate Merseyrail from its breach of CPR Part 7.3(1). It might, however, form the basis of a prosecution application to amend the charge so as to make clear that it is one brought under Byelaw 18.2, and if such an application were to be granted then the issue I raised about disregard of the TfW ticket becomes relevant.

The CPR Part 7.3(1) breach may offer some leverage for negotiation with Merseyrail, as an indication that the charge is defective and an application to amend it will be opposed might give the prosecution pause for thought. The more so if such an indication is coupled with a reminder that the company's officials disregarded the OP's intimation that a TfW ticket was held, that such ticket was valid subject to payment of the appropriate excess, and that the officials' failure to cater for this constituted a breach of the terms of the travel contract imported by NRCoT. The OP might simultaneously provide Merseyrail with a copy of her TfW ticket and offer to pay the due excess in return for Merseyrail's agreement to terminate proceedings against her. Presumably that TfW ticket remains available to be produced?

I concur with this assessment.

The OP would however need to be very confident in themselves to present all this in court. A solicitor might be needed.

 

[WesternLancer]

A solicitor might be needed.

The cost of which would totally wipe out the option of trying to get Merseyrail to re-offer the £125 out of court settlement that was on the table...

Surely the best help the OP needs is for a well worded letter to the prosecutions section, drafted using the expertise here, that makes a few pertinent points about why this is not appropriate for court, and pointing out that the whole thig resulted in an error on the [art of the original staff member that issued the Penalty Fare, and that the correct course of action would now be to withdraw the court prosecution and allow the Excess fare that should originally have been charged on the train to be paid.

This would be the practical help that would surely be of most value to the @MTDar82 at this point

That would be along the lines of the recent case IIRC that was almost exactly the same as this, and achieved the Excess Fare outcome with help from this forum (ticket via Runcorn held but used the via Birkenhead route and got Penalty Fare) apart from IIRC in that case the person found advice on this forum whilst the Penalty Fare appeal window was still open - apols not got link to that one to hand.

 

[MTDar82]

Ohhhh you guys are making me doubt myself. I believe I showed it to the first inspector; I don't know if the second inspector (who is the witness) looked at it with his eyes. Both were DEFINITELY aware I was in possession of it.

 

[some bloke]

This might be relevant.

The Criminal Procedure Rules say,

"1.2.—(1) Each participant, in the conduct of each case, must
... (c) at once inform the court and all parties of any significant failure (whether or not that participant is responsible for that failure) to take any procedural step required by these Rules..."

The rule also says,

"A failure is significant if it might hinder the court in furthering the overriding objective."

The overriding objective is in Rule 1.1.

It seems to me reasonable to interpret 1.2 as meaning the defendant has a duty to tell the court of relevant failures by the prosecution.

If so, that could be helpful for a defendant as they would be doing what's required, not asking a favour.

The prospect of using up time and energy as a result of such a requirement on the prosecutor and/or defendant might make a company more inclined to apply to withdraw the case.

 

[gray1404]

Ohhhh you guys are making me doubt myself. I believe I showed it to the first inspector; I don't know if the second inspector (who is the witness) looked at it with his eyes. Both were DEFINITELY aware I was in possession of it.

Ironically I would say we are helping you clarify. You have just confirmed you showed it to the first inspector and that is what matters.

Did the second inspector ask you to produce a ticket or simply proceed with the PF as instructed. If so he has lied on his witness statement.

I personally would proceed as follows. A letter to Merseyrail stating that the case should be withdrawn. This is on the basis a valid ticket was shown with merely an excess payable, which is permitted on board.

I would enclosed the appeal decision letter from the other person who was wrongly issued a PF in the same circumstances for reference. Their appeal was upheld.

If they refuse return the forms saying you will pla not guilty. State you will call both the inspectors as witnesses. This will be more work for Merseyrail once they see you are fighting it. I wonder if anyone with the right background would be willing to act as an expert witness for you. They will explain both the penalty fare regulations and excess fare rules.

We have seen TOCs like XC drop cases once they see it will be robustly defended and we've also seen people win against Merseyrail before now when they act in this fashion.

 

[WesternLancer]

I would enclosed the appeal decision letter from the other person who was wrongly issued a PF in the same circumstances for reference. Their appeal was upheld.

Where is this available?

Unless an original copy of a decision notice is available if it were me I would not be including material copied from a web forum with a letter of the sort described (the letter itself is a good idea) - as we say on this forum 'every case is different' - even tho the one I recall didn't sound very different to this one it played out differently not least because the person engaged with the Appeal process promptly - which did not happen in this case.

I personally would proceed as follows. A letter to Merseyrail stating that the case should be withdrawn. This is on the basis a valid ticket was shown with merely an excess payable, which is permitted on board.

I agree with this approach however, and I would include the extract from the NRCoT quoted earlier that make it clear that this is permitted.

 

[some bloke]

You can also ask them to disclose to you any evidence they have as to whether it is permissible to "excess" such a ticket.

If you post a draft on here, people can comment.

 

[MTDar82]

I will try and write something up, thanks so much for your help everyone. I am not 100 per cent sure the second inspector saw my ticket, but either asked to see my TFW ticket, I showed it and he dismissed it with Ryanair story, OR didn't see it but knew about it and deliberately didn't ask to see it, aware that I understood it to be invalid. But he was wearing body cam so I guess they know.

 

[gray1404]

Where is this available?

Unless an original copy of a decision notice is available if it were me I would not be including material copied from a web forum with a letter of the sort described (the letter itself is a good idea) - as we say on this forum 'every case is different' - even tho the one I recall didn't sound very different to this one it played out differently not least because the person engaged with the Appeal process promptly - which did not happen in this case.


I agree with this approach however, and I would include the extract from the NRCoT quoted earlier that make it clear that this is permitted.

I'll have to recall the thread and see if the person uploaded a copy of their appeal upheld decision letter.

 

[WesternLancer]

I'll have to recall the thread and see if the person uploaded a copy of their appeal upheld decision letter.

was it this one perhaps (I've just been trying to search) - looks like some similarities - thread ran April to July:

Penalty fare for wrong ticket, potentially off route

Hi all, I'm looking for some advice. Last week my partner and I travelled between Chester and Liverpool lime street. My partner booked the tickets via thetrainline.com while we were walking to the station. My partner is from Sweden and didn't realise there were different routes available...

www.railforums.co.uk

'm looking for some advice. Last week my partner and I travelled between Chester and Liverpool lime street. My partner booked the tickets via thetrainline.com while we were walking to the station. My partner is from Sweden and didn't realise there were different routes available between Chester and Liverpool, one with TFW and one Merseyrail. Of course we ended up on the wrong train, she had bought one via Runcorn and we ended up on the Merseyrail train. Our tickets were checked on the train and we were issued with a £100 penalty fare (each) which was something of a shock given that we had purchased tickets before travel and it was obviously just an innocent mistake. My question is whether or not the penalty fair is legal given that we had tickets but were off route? There was no warning on the route when buying the ticket and ticket doesn't say TFW only, just route via Runcorn. Shouldn't this have been a new ticket / excess charge rather than a penalty? Ticket and image of penalty attached. We are going to try appealing. Any advice much appreciated!

 

[gray1404]

was it this one perhaps (I've just been trying to search) - looks like some similarities - thread ran April to July:

Penalty fare for wrong ticket, potentially off route

Hi all, I'm looking for some advice. Last week my partner and I travelled between Chester and Liverpool lime street. My partner booked the tickets via thetrainline.com while we were walking to the station. My partner is from Sweden and didn't realise there were different routes available...

www.railforums.co.uk

Good find. That's the one. The OP didn't post of copy of their appeal upheld letter. Just an update of such.

 

[reb0118]

.....but either asked to see my TFW ticket....

Did you mean neither?

 

[MTDar82]

No, sorry, I meant one of those two things has happened: I've either shown it to him and he's said it's not valid, or he's deliberately not asked to look at it so he can penalize me. Either way he knew I had it and knew I believed it to be not valid.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Sep 2024 ==

I have drafted the below... I have a very much longer version which includes more details indicated in the original post but it seems too waffly, so please let me know if I have covered everything here.

----
I am responding to a Single Justice Procedure Notice which I have received for Failure to Produce, which I believe to be incorrect, and am therefore requesting be withdrawn. The reason for the Penalty Fare - 'No ticket' is inaccurate and it should not have been issued.

The charge sheet states "The Defendant was asked by an authorised person to hand over a valid ticket entitling them to travel, but the Defendant failed to do so." This is inaccurate because I showed a valid return ticket via Runcorn.

I had purchased a single ticket via Birkenhead on the Trainline app on the platform a moment before the train set off, which I initially showed the inspectors who deemed not valid as it was not printed. I explained why I had both tickets and was told that neither was valid for travel. [See both tickets attached.]

As per National Rail Condition of Travel 9.5.2:

Where you:
9.5.2 are using a route for which your Ticket is not valid;
...
you will be charged the difference between the fare that you have paid and the lowest price Ticket that is valid for the train you are using.

it should have been explained to me that an excess charge was due on the valid ticket via Runcorn, and the ticket via Birkenhead was refundable. Instead they deemed the via Birkenhead as 'no ticket' and incorrectly informed me the via Runcorn ticket was for Transport for Wales not therefore valid for travel on Merseyrail, likening the operators to airlines whose tickets are not compatible. I was incorrectly issued the Penalty Fare, in violation of the National Rail condition above.

On this basis I would like to pay the excess charge between Runcorn and Birkenhead and have the charge withdrawn.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Sep 2024 ==

It's clear from this that there has been a breach of the requirement set out in Part 7.3(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2020, because the legislation creating the offence has not been specified in the charge.

Should I raise this as well though?

 

[John Palmer]

Whilst wishing not to interfere unnecessarily with the form of words you have used, I do think that you need to make some alterations to your draft.

First, the words “The charge sheet states” at the start of your second paragraph need to be changed to “The Statement of Facts states” because it is in that Statement rather than in the Charge that the words you have quoted are used, and there is a vital legal distinction between the two. Anything that tends to confuse or elide them dilutes the force of the point you do need to make about Merseyrail's breach of the Criminal Procedure Rules.

I suggest that before quoting any part of NRCoT 9.5 you draw to Merseyrail's attention the fact that it is subject to those Conditions, which therefore govern the contract formed between you and the company. You may wish to point this out to Merseyrail by drawing its attention specifically to Appendix A to the Conditions, which lists the companies to which the Conditions apply, including Merseyrail Electrics 2002 Limited. The purpose of this is to pre-empt any assertion by Merseyrail that it was not subject to those conditions in its dealings with you.

In your shoes I would place emphasis on the fact that whenever any of the circumstances specified in NRCoT 9.5.1, 9.5.2 or 9.5.3 are encountered, the Condition imposes on the rail operator a positive obligation to levy the excess charge described, with the consequence that such operator and its agents are left with no discretion to charge a penalty fare instead. But that is already implicit in your own form of words, so you may prefer to leave that part unaltered.

I suggest you are more assertive about payment of the excess. I recommend you to say that you expect Merseyrail to charge that excess in accordance with NRCoT 9.5, and that it is a charge that you are content to pay (if its amount can be correctly ascertained, you could enclose payment of it with your letter). Obviously you should also say that in such circumstances you expect Merseyrail to terminate its criminal proceedings against you, and to confirm in writing that it has done so.

That then leads to Merseyrail's breach of Part 7.3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2020. I do recommend you to point out to Merseyrail that the charge appearing on the SJPN does not conform to the requirements of Part 7.3(1)(a)(ii) of those Rules, in that it fails to identify any legislation creating whatever offence may be being alleged. You should point out that this prevents you from knowing the nature of the case against you that you are being called upon to meet, and that if in those circumstances Merseyrail declines to withdraw its prosecution on the basis you have proposed, you will be left with no option but to enter a 'not guilty' plea. You should also say that, as a known prosecutor in multiple ticketing cases, there can be no excuse for Merseyrail's failure to conform to the rules, thereby obscuring the nature of whatever offence it is alleging you to have committed, and that accordingly you will oppose any application Merseyrail makes to amend the charge against you and will invite the magistrates to decline to hear the case. I am making this recommendation on the footing that reference to Merseyrail's clear breach of the charging requirements can be used, as I suggested above, to leverage the same outcome to your case as should have been obtained at the outset.

If you agree with my suggested changes, please don't hesitate to post a revised draft.

 

[gray1404]

I think you have been given some excellent advise in the previous post.

I would recommend you take out the bit about buying a ticket routed via Birkenhead but this was only a ticket collection code. This stops Merseyrail coming back with a. Standard line about how it should be printed before departure.

The fact is a ticket collection code is indeed no ticket. What is important is you prevented an off peak return routed via Runcorn but Merseyrail refused to afford you your right to pay an excess and proceeded to issue a penalty fare that was not issued in accordance with the regulations.

I fear if you mention the other ticket and that you failed to print it that will only complicate things.

 

[island]

Whilst wishing not to interfere unnecessarily with the form of words you have used, I do think that you need to make some alterations to your draft.

First, the words “The charge sheet states” at the start of your second paragraph need to be changed to “The Statement of Facts states” because it is in that Statement rather than in the Charge that the words you have quoted are used, and there is a vital legal distinction between the two. Anything that tends to confuse or elide them dilutes the force of the point you do need to make about Merseyrail's breach of the Criminal Procedure Rules.

I suggest that before quoting any part of NRCoT 9.5 you draw to Merseyrail's attention the fact that it is subject to those Conditions, which therefore govern the contract formed between you and the company. You may wish to point this out to Merseyrail by drawing its attention specifically to Appendix A to the Conditions, which lists the companies to which the Conditions apply, including Merseyrail Electrics 2002 Limited. The purpose of this is to pre-empt any assertion by Merseyrail that it was not subject to those conditions in its dealings with you.

In your shoes I would place emphasis on the fact that whenever any of the circumstances specified in NRCoT 9.5.1, 9.5.2 or 9.5.3 are encountered, the Condition imposes on the rail operator a positive obligation to levy the excess charge described, with the consequence that such operator and its agents are left with no discretion to charge a penalty fare instead. But that is already implicit in your own form of words, so you may prefer to leave that part unaltered.

I suggest you are more assertive about payment of the excess. I recommend you to say that you expect Merseyrail to charge that excess in accordance with NRCoT 9.5, and that it is a charge that you are content to pay (if its amount can be correctly ascertained, you could enclose payment of it with your letter). Obviously you should also say that in such circumstances you expect Merseyrail to terminate its criminal proceedings against you, and to confirm in writing that it has done so.

That then leads to Merseyrail's breach of Part 7.3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2020. I do recommend you to point out to Merseyrail that the charge appearing on the SJPN does not conform to the requirements of Part 7.3(1)(a)(ii) of those Rules, in that it fails to identify any legislation creating whatever offence may be being alleged. You should point out that this prevents you from knowing the nature of the case against you that you are being called upon to meet, and that if in those circumstances Merseyrail declines to withdraw its prosecution on the basis you have proposed, you will be left with no option but to enter a 'not guilty' plea. You should also say that, as a known prosecutor in multiple ticketing cases, there can be no excuse for Merseyrail's failure to conform to the rules, thereby obscuring the nature of whatever offence it is alleging you to have committed, and that accordingly you will oppose any application Merseyrail makes to amend the charge against you and will invite the magistrates to decline to hear the case. I am making this recommendation on the footing that reference to Merseyrail's clear breach of the charging requirements can be used, as I suggested above, to leverage the same outcome to your case as should have been obtained at the outset.

If you agree with my suggested changes, please don't hesitate to post a revised draft.

I also concur in these recommendations.

If it does end up in court and the case is listed before a bench of magistrates, I would expect it will get adjourned to be relisted in front of a district judge (magistrates court), as detailed legal arguments tend to.