Merseyrail / Trainline disconnect

[Hadders]

Some excellent advice from @John Palmer

 

[MTDar82]

This is terrific advice, thank you so much. I have amended the draft to the following and would be so delighted to have any further comments.

---

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Notice which I have received for Failure to Produce, which I believe to be incorrect, and am therefore requesting be withdrawn.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 Statement of Facts 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 an Off Peak Return routed via Runcorn on which an operator was not specified (enclosed).

I have consulted National Rail Condition of Travel (From 2 April 2024), in which Merseyrail are listed as an operator bound by these conditions:

Appendix A: Merseyrail Electrics 2002 Limited (trading as “Merseyrail”).
and which therefore governs the contract between traveller and operator in this case, states that:

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.

According to this condition, it is Merseyrail’s obligation to explain to me that the ticket via Runcorn was valid and an excess charge was payable. Instead, they deemed it valid only on Transport for Wales and not 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.

It is my obligation, according to this condition, to pay the excess of XX which I am happy to do (enclosed). On this basis, I expect Merseyrail to withdraw the charge and terminated criminal proceedings against me, and to confirm this in writing.

Furthermore, I must point out that the charge on this Single Justice Procedure Notice does not conform to the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2020:

Allegation of offence

7.3.—(1) 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

The SJPN does not identify any legislation creating an offence which is being alleged, preventing me from knowing the nature of the case against me. Therefore, in the event that Merseyrail decides not to withdraw this charge, I will be left with no option but to enter a Not Guilty plea. Merseyrail, a known prosecutor in multiple ticketing cases, must have no excuse for not conforming to the rules, thereby obscuring whatever offence it is alleging I have committed, and, accordingly, I will seek to oppose any application Merseyrail makes to amend the charge against me and will invite the magistrates to decline to hear the case.

 

[gray1404]

Take out: between Runcorn and Birkenhead.

Also change it to an Off Peak Return routed via Runcorn.

 

[MTDar82]

Take out: between Runcorn and Birkenhead.

Also change it to an Off Peak Return routed via Runcorn.

Righto.

 

[AlterEgo]

I assume the OP has proof of the ticket, still? As this will be needed in evidence.

 

[MTDar82]

I assume the OP has proof of the ticket, still? As this will be needed in evidence.

I do.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Therefore, in the event that Merseyrail decides not to withdraw this charge, I will be left with no option but to enter a Not Guilty plea [and appoint legal representation?].

A typo corrected. And my feeling is that you shouldn't yet be committing to employing a lawyer - what if M'Rail decline to back don, but then you find that a lawyer is too expensive?

 

[MTDar82]

A typo corrected. And my feeling is that you shouldn't yet be committing to employing a lawyer - what if M'Rail decline to back don, but then you find that a lawyer is too expensive?

Thank you. I have taken it out, but I'm getting to the point where I think I would just go into debt about it if necessary out of principle.

 

[WesternLancer]

The SJPN does not identify any legislation creating an offence which is being alleged, preventing me from knowing the nature of the case against me. Therefore, in the event that Merseyrail decides not to withdraw this charge, I will be left with option but to enter a Not Guilty plea [and appoint legal representation?]. Merseyrail, a known prosecutor in multiple ticketing cases, must have no excuse for conforming to the rules, thereby obscuring the nature of whatever offence it is alleging I have committed, and, accordingly, I will oppose any application Merseyrail makes to amend the charge against me and will invite the magistrates to decline to hear the case.

Just a general comment about the content of the last paragraph (as I can see plenty of expert advice been given about what to say) - which is that I would tend to be careful about what you say as I suspect you have to be fully prepared to 'follow through' with it eg are you really going to appoint a solicitor to represent you in court if they do not withdraw the case?

Unless you are prepared to do that, and of course meet the costs of doing so, don't say that you will. Also, are you fully prepared to go to court and represent yourself if you do not wish to employ a solicitor to do so? That of course does not come with the costs of a solicitor but does involve the time and cost taken to get there, be at the court etc etc, perhaps for a long time waiting for your case to be called

I suppose you have to make them infer that you will or might well do those things, and I think your wording is pretty good at that but perhaps without 100% committing to it.

In any case good luck with this next stage.

 

[Haywain]

I have taken it out,

I think that's the right thing to do because it is no business of Merseyrail's whether you do or not. If you mention it they might just think it's a bluff by someone with Limited knowledge of the matter.

 

[MTDar82]

Yes, agreed, thank you. I was really just querying whether I should say so, hence the [?] and good that everyone's agreed that I can leave it out.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Sep 2024 ==

I suppose you have to make them infer that you will or might well do those things, and I think your wording is pretty good at that but perhaps without 100% committing to it.

and, accordingly, I will seek to oppose any application Merseyrail makes to amend the charge against me and will invite the magistrates to decline to hear the case.

..do you think?

 

[furlong]

"no excuse for conforming to" ? (not)
"the nature of" ? (they have told you the nature of the offence just not the precise offence)

 

[WesternLancer]

and, accordingly, I will seek to oppose any application Merseyrail makes to amend the charge against me and will invite the magistrates to decline to hear the case.

..do you think?

seems reasonable I think (assuming it fits with wording that experts here have suggested is possible to do - which no doubt has been suggested / and I expect you have checked).

 

[MTDar82]

"no excuse for conforming to" ? (not)
"the nature of" ? (they have told you the nature of the offence just not the precise offence)

oh, good spot, thank you.

 

[John Palmer]

You need to change 'terminated' to 'terminate', and I suggest a couple of changes to your final paragraph so that it reads as follows:

“The Single Justice Procedure Notice does not identify any legislation creating whatever offence is being alleged, preventing me from knowing the precise nature of the case against me. Therefore, in the event that Merseyrail decides not to withdraw this charge, I will be left with no option but to enter a Not Guilty plea. As a known prosecutor in multiple ticketing cases, Merseyrail has no excuse for not conforming to the rules, thereby obscuring the nature of whatever offence it is alleging I have committed, and, accordingly, I will oppose any application Merseyrail makes to amend the charge against me and will invite the magistrates to decline to hear the case.”

For precisely the reason given I have retained your threat of opposing an application to amend and inviting the court not to hear the case. Such a course is more or less dictated by Merseyrail's failure to follow the rules. If you raise no challenge to the specification of the charge you are left in the dark as to the nature of the offence you are alleged to have committed and in turn that makes it practically impossible to mount an effective defence. The court will be equally hamstrung as it will have no idea of the nature of the alleged offence with which it is being asked to deal. Given Merseyrail's total disregard of an important element of the Criminal Procedure Rules, I do not see what course you can take other than raising a challenge to the validity of the charge.

I have no familiarity with legal aid provision in criminal cases, but understand that it is now referred to as a 'representation order'. If you choose to engage professional representation, no doubt your appointed lawyer will provide you with full details, but, briefly, an application for such a representation order is a prerequisite for subsequently making an application for costs in the event of acquittal. There is a high probability in a case such as yours that a representation order will not be granted, but if you have not applied for such an order an application for costs will fail on that ground alone, irrespective of whether a representation order was granted or refused. As an additional kick in the teeth for a successful defendant, any award of costs will be capped at the level of costs payable under a representation order, notwithstanding that these will be substantially less than the charges payable to a lawyer acting on a private client retainer.

Perhaps it is a reach, but a possibility that may be worthy of further consideration is to include in a civil law claim for damages for breach of contract the irrecoverable element of any charges for professional representation incurred in the current criminal proceedings. For this element of such a claim to succeed, you would have to demonstrate that such charges either represent a loss that flows sufficiently directly and naturally from Merseyrail's disregard of its obligations under NRCoT 9.5 and choice of prosecuting you instead, or were an expense that would foreseeably arise from Merseyrail's decision to breach the travel contract in the way that it did. This might be a possibility to explore with any lawyer you choose to retain.

 

[MTDar82]

I'm starting to feel really out of my depth here. Why am I arguing about whether the ticket was valid or not if the charge itself is invalid though?

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm starting to feel really out of my depth here. Why am I arguing about whether the ticket was valid or not if the charge itself is invalid though?

They may argue that you did not, in fact, present the ticket, and the case is not especially clear cut.

 

[John Palmer]

Your ticket was valid subject to payment of the due excess, and Merseyrail had no discretion to charge you a penalty fare or otherwise deal with you on the basis that the ticket was invalid. But, due to its error in specifying the charge, it is is not clear whether Merseyrail is alleging an offence involving a failure to purchase a valid ticket, or some other offence such as a failure to produce a ticket when asked to do so. As matters stand, you simply cannot tell what criminal offence Merseyrail accuses you of committing, and the validty of your ticket may, or may not be in issue.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I'm starting to feel really out of my depth here. Why am I arguing about whether the ticket was valid or not if the charge itself is invalid though?

A couple of ways of thinking about it are that
(1) it's belt and braces - if one argument doesn't work, the other might
(2) it's also about showing the railway that you are serious about getting them to back down: not only do you have your first answer, but you have your second one too. For you to win, you only need to be right on one point: for them , they need to be right on both points. So the railway may decide that from their point of view, the better thing to do is to withdraw now rather than have to fight the difficult battle where they need to win everything.

 

[gray1404]

I have read over this entire thread this afternoon. From the OPs accounts it is clear that they did present the Off Peak Return routed via Runcorn. Otherwise how would the Ryanair Vs Easyjet comment from the staff have come about!

It is of non concern if they actually examined the ticket only that the OP presented it to them. Which they clearly did, hence the airline comment. The OP should stop doubting themselves here and be confident that they did present the ticket.

 

[AlterEgo]

I have read over this entire thread this afternoon. From the OPs accounts it is clear that they did present the Off Peak Return routed via Runcorn. Otherwise how would the Ryanair Vs Easyjet comment from the staff have come about!

It is of non concern if they actually examined the ticket only that the OP presented it to them. Which they clearly did, hence the airline comment. The OP should stop doubting themselves here and be confident that they did present the ticket.

Such a reply from the RPI of course could come from the OP's insistence that they had "paid TfW for the journey" and now also paid Merseyrail. Of course it is not quite correct that they had a "TfW" ticket, something the RPI would have known had they seen it, as it was valid on any itinerary via Runcorn and not limited to TfW at all.

 

[Wallsendmag]

Have to say I read the orignal post as having a TfW only routed ticket

 

[SuspectUsual]

According to this condition, it is Merseyrail’s obligation to explain to me that the ticket via Runcorn was would be valid and if an excess charge was payable, and to give me the opportunity to pay the excess charge. Instead, they deemed it valid only on Transport for Wales and not 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.

I think the amends in bold / strikethrough make more sense.

 

[furlong]

I think the amends in bold / strikethrough make more sense.

I don't.
payable -> paid though

 

[SuspectUsual]

I don't.
payable -> paid though

My problem with it as currently phrased is that it says the ticket held "was valid" (past tense). I think the more accurate view is that it would become valid (future tense) upon payment of the excess. Is that not the case?

 

[furlong]

My problem with it as currently phrased is that it says the ticket held "was valid" (past tense). I think the more accurate view is that it would become valid (future tense) upon payment of the excess. Is that not the case?

That part of the wording is quite clear. There's no need to replace it with something less clear. It is conditional validity, but not invalid.
You could improve on the "explain" part though. Better forms of words to use have already been suggested in this thread.

 

[island]

Have to say I read the orignal post as having a TfW only routed ticket

There are no TfW only routed return tickets available on that journey.

 

[Ben Rhydding]

The OP has been given excellent advice and should now be armed to defend the case in court - If the OP has sufficient nerve to see it through which may be the critical question.

But surely, before it were actually to reach court, the OP would have an opportunity to involve an elected representative - an MP or maybe the Metro Mayor.

The OP held a ticket which was valid, subject to the payment of an excess of about £1. There was no obligation to have paid this before boarding. A competent RPI would have issued the excess. Instead, an incompetent one issued a penalty fare. Merseyrail subsequently cancelled the penalty fare in order that they could initiate a prosecution. They were so incompetent in doing this that they failed even to specify the crime of which the defendant is accused.

The OP is going to point all this out to Merseyrail and hope this causes them to withdraw. But we know from other cases on the Forum that Merseyrail are capable of taking a meritless case the full distance. Either through malice, or more likely sheer incompetence, they would put a fare paying customer through all this stress, in the hope that their "victim" will cave in under the pressure.

But are these people not answerable to their political masters?

 

[furlong]

Also in support of the route argument, the SRA's Penalty Fares Policy 2002 stated

Ticket routing. A passenger who has a ticket for the journey they are making, but who is using a route on which their ticket is not valid, may not be charged a penalty fare. The National Rail Conditions of Carriage allow the passenger to pay an excess fare to travel on a different route from that shown on their ticket.

There can be no question that the contract has always allowed this and penalty fares remain inapplicable.

 

[WesternLancer]

The OP has been given excellent advice and should now be armed to defend the case in court - If the OP has sufficient nerve to see it through which may be the critical question.

But surely, before it were actually to reach court, the OP would have an opportunity to involve an elected representative - an MP or maybe the Metro Mayor.

The OP held a ticket which was valid, subject to the payment of an excess of about £1. There was no obligation to have paid this before boarding. A competent RPI would have issued the excess. Instead, an incompetent one issued a penalty fare. Merseyrail subsequently cancelled the penalty fare in order that they could initiate a prosecution. They were so incompetent in doing this that they failed even to specify the crime of which the defendant is accused.

The OP is going to point all this out to Merseyrail and hope this causes them to withdraw. But we know from other cases on the Forum that Merseyrail are capable of taking a meritless case the full distance. Either through malice, or more likely sheer incompetence, they would put a fare paying customer through all this stress, in the hope that their "victim" will cave in under the pressure.

But are these people not answerable to their political masters?

Just for info if you choose to raise it with an MP it has to be your own MP. It’s then up to them they choose to raise it with (which might be no one at all) ie if they wish to raise it with the metro mayor or Merseyrail ceo etc it’s their call.

The metro mayor is also an elected representative but only your elected representative if you live in the area over which the metro mayor presides.

Post 1 the op says they don’t live in Liverpool so chances are they would have to raise it with their mp and ask them to raise it with the transport authority on Merseyside and/or the metro mayor as I assume the transport authority and its contractors are ultimately answerable to the metro mayor.

I’m not sure when in the process it is most effective to raise it with elected representatives. Possibly a little after trying to raise it with Merseyrail prosecutions team directly.