Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
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.
Just to make sure - you will be sending a statement about what you showed, which you would say on oath in court if it came to it?
If you mean by "believe" that you aren't quite sure about showing the ticket to the first person, and are making an inference from the airline comment, then it seems prudent to only say the part you would "swear" to.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Maybe it's reasonable to write to the Mayor regardless of where a wronged "customer" lives. It may be seen at least partly as information helping him do his job.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Given the timescale, if a simple summary is put at the start (or the summary used as a short letter with the detail in an appendix) it could be cc'd to the head of prosecutions, the head of Merseyrail, the Mayor, and maybe a selection of organisations interested in for example consumer matters, news, and/or railway oversight.
I can absolutely swear that I told both inspectors I had two tickets, I had paid twice. I was saying it over and over again.
However, despite all of the excellent support here, I feel like I am going to have to get a solicitor. I certainly don't feel like I understand the full implications of everything everyone is saying.
I will most certainly be contacting my MP and the Transport Secretary and consumer watchdogs.
I can absolutely swear that I told both inspectors I had two tickets, I had paid twice. I was saying it over and over again.
However, despite all of the excellent support here, I feel like I am going to have to get a solicitor. I certainly don't feel like I understand the full implications of everything everyone is saying.
I will most certainly be contacting my MP and the Transport Secretary and consumer watchdogs.
In many respects if this is an important point of principle, which by rights it should be, using a solicitor (and I imagine it needs to be one with suitable railway ticketing law knowledge) will cost more than the other options that I listed in my post #22.
IE either trying to persuade merseytravel to apply the rules correctly and just charge the excess fare, or try to get them to re open their (erroneous in my view) out of court settlement offer of £125.
But very best wishes with whatever option you decide to do.
I can understand how you are feeling, but I would suggest sending your letter and the excess payment, and waiting to see what response you get. You will gain nothing by engaging a solicitor now rather than waiting to see what the response is. Unless Merseyrail decide to go ahead with their prosecution you may save yourself a significant amount but being both brave and patient for a short time.
However, despite all of the excellent support here, I feel like I am going to have to get a solicitor. I certainly don't feel like I understand the full implications of everything everyone is saying.
I can understand how you are feeling, but I would suggest sending your letter and the excess payment, and waiting to see what response you get. You will gain nothing by engaging a solicitor now rather than waiting to see what the response is. Unless Merseyrail decide to go ahead with their prosecution you may save yourself a significant amount but being both brave and patient for a short time.
I'll second the above advice. No need for a solicitor (with their added costs) until you have exhausted all you can do "on your own". Hopefully, it will not come to that and Merseyrail see the error of their ways.
However, despite all of the excellent support here, I feel like I am going to have to get a solicitor. I certainly don't feel like I understand the full implications of everything everyone is saying.
I think your text in post 62 is perfectly clear and sensible, and that you should send it. There are some good pieces of advice after that, but frankly they strike me as fairly subtle to the core message, which you have captured. Their reply will provide you with a more informed view of how they intend to proceed and thus sharpen the decision as to what you do next.
Please accept my assurance that we are not trying to be unnecessarily pedantic or wind you up. If this case gets to court then you will likely be getting specific questions such as this, and being prepared will help us advise you and help you answer.
Please accept my assurance that we are not trying to be unnecessarily pedantic or wind you up. If this case gets to court then you will likely be getting specific questions such as this, and being prepared will help us advise you and help you answer.
I do understand that and I appreciate everything everyone is doing to help. As we're getting down to this level, does discussing my case on an open forum not damage it though?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I think your text in post 62 is perfectly clear and sensible, and that you should send it. There are some good pieces of advice after that, but frankly they strike me as fairly subtle to the core message, which you have captured. Their reply will provide you with a more informed view of how they intend to proceed and thus sharpen the decision as to what you do next.
Yes, I do see why this is sensible, but I'm afraid of muddying the waters. If I end up hiring a solicitor anyway because it's going to court, which everyone seems quite convinced it could, I might as well do it from the get-go.
Yes, I do see why this is sensible, but I'm afraid of muddying the waters. If I end up hiring a solicitor anyway because it's going to court, which everyone seems quite convinced it could, I might as well do it from the get-go.
The main purpose of the proposed letter is to stop the matter from reaching court. Don't be mislead by the letter having to cover the consequences of the case proceeding further as that is included precisely to try to stop it actually happening! Once you have the response, if they don't give up, then you can escalate through management / politicians / press. (This worked with Merseyrail previously.)
I do understand that and I appreciate everything everyone is doing to help. As we're getting down to this level, does discussing my case on an open forum not damage it though?
It's really up to you what you choose to post, but not answering will adversely affect the help we can give and thereby your chance of getting the outcome you want.
The offence you are (or seem to be) charged with is of not showing your ticket on request.
If you did show your ticket you are not guilty of the offence.
If you said you had a ticket but you did not show it, you may be guilty of the offence.
If it goes to a contested trial in magistrates court, this is the level of detail you're likely to be asked – so you need to be prepared.
We do not know what the charge was intended to be for the reasons already discussed. You describe one possibility.
However the charge sheet actually states "You have been charged with the following criminal offence: Failed to Produce (FPN)" and says "It is an offence to fail to either produce, and if so requested to deliver up, a ticket showing that your fare was paid"
This looks more like an incorrectly truncated version of RORA 5(1) (which we have seen on this forum before):
(1) Every passenger by a railway shall, on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, either produce, and if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or pay his fare from the place whence he started, or give the officer or servant his name and address; and in case of default shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
We do not know what the charge was intended to be for the reasons already discussed. You describe one possibility.
However the charge sheet actually states "You have been charged with the following criminal offence: Failed to Produce (FPN)" and says "It is an offence to fail to either produce, and if so requested to deliver up, a ticket showing that your fare was paid"
This looks more like an incorrectly truncated version of RORA 5(1) (which we have seen on this forum before):
SJPN cannot be used to charge RORA 5(1) and anyway, the OP provided name and address.
I have sent the letter as discussed and I have received a reply.
I have written but not sent an immediate response; unless I'm reading this wrong, it doesn't actually make sense, so any comments would be gratefully received.
We can see from our system when requested to provide our team with a valid ticket or pass for your journey, you were unable to do so. As you produced both a trainline collection code that is not a valid ticket for a journey on our network until it has been printed.
Please see below terms and conditions from Trainline that you agree too once you make this reservation via the website or app
[Quotes 4.2 Getting your ticket.... 4.5 Collecting tickets at the station....]
The ticket from Chester to Liverpool Lime Street that was produced is valid via Runcorn only and via any Merseyrail train.
Your case is now awaiting a court hearing due to non-payment. Merseyrail strongly suggest you enter a plea via the court [plea pack you have received.
The positive thing is that they have confirmed that you definitely produced the ticket via Runcorn. Apart from that, they seem to have ignored your (valid) argument.
I would be inclined to go back to them and quote again the relevant section of NRCoT, and ask that the case is reviewed by a more senior person.
Yes that is a very helpful reply that eliminates one of the issues we were debating. (What the reply says amounts to acceptance that you didn't breach byelaw 18.2 as alleged in the accompanying statement.)
You can now focus on teaching them why the via Runcorn ticket was valid subject to payment of an excess. There is ample material available to support this position, so as John R says, your response may focus on this single point and then escalate it. I would include the quotation I provided earlier from the SRA's 2002 policy (and leave it to them to try to invent reasons it's wrong if they think it is).
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.
Was there nothing in the response regarding the procedural error?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I think you will need to teach them the difference between an operator restriction and a route restriction too as they still seem to be conflating the two.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
You can find the SRA document in numerous places online, including here https://www.penaltyservices.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Penalty-Fares-Policy-2002.pdf - see page 11
(There have been many changes to the contract and penalty fares since that document was produced, but those changes shouldn't have any impact on the matter under discussion.)
The wording in 2006 (which I have easily to hand) was
If you make your journey by a route other than those referred to in (a) and (b) above, you will be liable to pay an excess fare. This excess fare will be the difference between the price paid for the ticket you hold and the price of the lowest priced ticket(s) available for immediate travel that would have entitled you to travel by that route.
If you make a journey by a route that is not valid you will be liable to pay an excess fare. The price for this will be the difference between the amount paid for the Ticket you hold and the lowest price Ticket available for immediate travel that would have entitled you to travel by that route.
(The Policy document remained in place until 2018 - you'll see the link is from 2017 when it was still being actively referred to.)
The reason I dwell on the SRA document is that I would hope Merseyrail would pay attention when a railway body (former regulator of Penalty Fares) stated this to be the position.
To add to what @John R and @furlong say, I suggest you post on here exactly what you sent and your draft, as both may have information useful to people giving advice.
Perhaps an argument like this would help:
The Consumer Rights Act says,
"69 Contract terms that may have different meanings
(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail."
The National Rail Conditions of Travel form part of a contract.
If Condition 9.5 could mean that companies will not prosecute anyone for producing the "excessable" ticket (which i think it could) then Merseyrail is bound by that.
No, I don't think it's necessary to muddy the argument by bringing in the CRA.
This part of the contract is unambiguous.
(The usual problem seems to be that the train companies save money by not employing appropriately trained and regulated staff and it's an effort to get cases like this escalated to someone with sufficient legal knowledge to realise what's wrong. Regulated professionals making mistakes like these would be risking their livelihoods.)
Maybe they would accept that it means a penalty fare is not chargeable, and stay confused as to whether it excludes prosecution. It might look silly to us but maybe these things have to be spelt out?
Maybe they would accept that it means a penalty fare is not chargeable, and stay confused as to whether it excludes prosecution. It might look silly to us but maybe these things have to be spelt out?
Let's attempt to express this another way. You've paid some money for a contract which entitles you to do some particular things. The contract also entitles you to do some further things but if you do you will be required to pay further sums of money. The ticket acts as evidence of the contract. When doing one of the further things envisaged the contract remains a valid contract - the ticket remains valid. Subsequently though you must pay the extra sum stipulated for the further thing that you did to avoid being in breach of the contract.
On the other hand, refusing to accept a valid ticket puts the train company in breach of the contract (and potentially in breach of its operating licence too).
The current problem about that is they seem to be implying it has to be a valid ticket.
"We can see from our system when requested to provide our team with a valid ticket or pass for your journey, you were unable to do so."
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
So it seems they still need persuading either that that is not true, or that the excess argument works.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I think it's plausible that a shorter message may have a better chance of being read properly:
"Please answer my point that under National Rail Condition of Travel 9.5, the only proper course of action for the ticket via Runcorn is to charge an excess fare. I have emphasised in bold the relevant parts of my last email below. "
Their wording is "a ticket showing that your fare was paid".
Their claim is that neither of the tickets presented did that.
Iit would indeed be possible to focus instead on the procedural matter now but there's still the possibility they might attempt to find a way to substitute 18(1) - which could happen if the current proceedings were deemed a nullity (though for this reason, the situation is different from the cases that the Chief Magistrate examined). So I do think there's merit in focussing on the substantive issue here (the contractual liability to pay the excess) as that would eliminate all proceedings.
The current problem about that is they seem to be implying it has to be a valid ticket.
"We can see from our system when requested to provide our team with a valid ticket or pass for your journey, you were unable to do so."
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
So it seems they still need persuading either that that is not true, or that the excess argument works.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I think it's plausible that a shorter message may have a better chance of being read properly:
"Please answer my point that under National Rail Condition of Travel 9.5, the only proper course of action for the ticket via Runcorn is to charge an excess fare. I have emphasised in bold the relevant parts of my last email below. "
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
