National Rail Bye Law 17

[kg94sat]

Hello All

With reference to National Rail Byelaw http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/uploads/nationalrailwaybyelaws.pdf,

Section 17:

17. Compulsory Ticket Areas
(1) No person shall enter a compulsory ticket area on the railway unless he has
with him a valid ticket.
(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity
when asked to do so by an authorised person.
(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 17(1) or 17(2) if:
(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or
validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where,
he began his journey; or
(ii) there was a notice at the station where he began his journey
permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket; or
(iii) an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a
valid ticke


I notice that Section 24: Enforcement, excludes the breach of above Section 17. What happens when a passenger is in breach of Section 17? Why is it excluded from the Byelaw.

Thanks

kg

 

[wintonian]

Is this a general equiey or did you have a particular scenario in mind?

Knowing this will help people to give an answer more taylord to the circumstances.

Sent from my HTC Desire S

 

[kg94sat]

Scenario: Say a passenger travels from any of the national rail penalty fare stations(but non-compulsory ticket area) in London to Waterloo without appropriate ticket. In waterloo station, the passenger approaches a RPI to purchase a ticket. The RPI refuses to issue a one way ticket or issue a penalty fare notice, but starts taking statement (supposedly with intention to prosecute)

If he were to be prosecuted subsequently under National Rail Byelaw, which is the appropriate section

Section 17(1) or
Section 18(1)

Kg

-------------Section 18(1) for reference-------------------------

18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas
(1) 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.
(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity
when asked to do so by an authorised person.
(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if:

(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or
validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where,
he began his journey; or
(ii) there was a notice at the station where he began his journey
permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket; or
(iii) an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a
valid ticket

 

[yorkie]

South West Trains do not have any Compulsory Ticket Areas (CTAs) last time I checked. For example there is a CTA at Clapham Junction but that's the Overground platform only, as far as I know.

I was shocked in Croydon when I discovered that it is impossible to enter some houses without entering a CTA. Anyone who lives at the houses affected appears to be technically committing an offence whenever they step outside their drive.

 

[kg94sat]

Ok. So basically Southwest do not have any CTAs, so that they can charge people on 18(1). Makes sense

So, let us instead of Waterloo assume that the station is Marlyebone (which has a CTA), what happens then?

 

[John @ home]

In this scenario, the passenger /RPI encounter happens at Waterloo station which is a Compulsory Ticket Area.

I don't think it is. Contrast National Rail Enquiries' description of Marylebone:

Penalty Fares apply to journeys from London Marylebone station when travelling with Chiltern Railways.

Parts of this station are within a Compulsory Ticket Area - you are not permitted to enter this area without a valid ticket, travel authority or platform ticket. The Compulsory Ticket Area will be clearly signed.

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/MYB.html

with that of Waterloo:

Penalty Fares apply to journeys from London Waterloo station when travelling with South West Trains.

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/WAT.html

 

[Eagle]

I was shocked in Croydon when I discovered that it is impossible to enter some houses without entering a CTA. Anyone who lives at the houses affected appears to be technically committing an offence whenever they step outside their drive.

I'm trying to conceive of how that's possible (unless their front doors open directly onto the platform, which admittedly would be quite handy in the morning ). Are the roads part of the CTA? How can they be?

 

[yorkie]

I'm trying to conceive of how that's possible (unless their front doors open directly onto the platform, which admittedly would be quite handy in the morning ). Are the roads part of the CTA? How can they be?

I don't think the roads are, but the pavements are. As for how, that's because we elect people who make these decisions. Again, it's biased toward car users, because I'd imagine someone driving a car out of their drive cannot be 'done' yet theoretically, to the letter of the law, someone walking could be. Now I know that they will use the defence "but we wouldn't use it like that" but just look at some of the appealing prosecutions for byelaw offences on railway ticketing matters. The byelaws are misused by some operators and should be rescinded and replaced with reasonable, fair, up-to-date byelaws that are fit for the 21st century and do not penalise innocent people who have no ill intentions.

 

[kg94sat]

John

Agree with you.

I had assumed that any area that has ticket barriers would be Compulsory Ticket Areas (areas where visitors can not enter). Hence, I had assumed that London Waterloo has a Compulsory Ticket Area.

That is why in my example scenario, I changed the station to London Marylebone, which has a Compulsory Ticket Area

 

[Eagle]

I don't think the roads are, but the pavements are.

Why? Are they railway property? And if so why just the pavements?

 

[yorkie]

Actually I've found their get-out. After basically saying anyone entering/exiting certain driveways is commiting an offence it does pardon these people if they have not got on a tram...

"No person at a tramstop or a station compulsory ticket area shall be in breach of this Byelaw 19 unless he came there by alighting from a tram."
​

So the Croydon Tramline Byelaws in respect of CTAs are quite different to Railway Byelaws. On the Railway Byelaws you can be issued a penalty fare merely for entering the CTA, there is no need to have travelled. But on the tram network the offence does not apply unless you got off a tram.

But imagine if you are waiting for someone outside their house, and a tram arrives. If the tram RPIs are anything like some of the RPIs I've seen and heard of in the London area (not up North; we're civilised here!) then it would not at all surprise me if that person could be accused of exiting from a tram and it would be their word against an RPI, and Courts may incorrectly believe that all RPIs tell the truth all of the time. I'd hope not, but I have concerns.

Penalty Fare schemes are open to abuse by a minority of rogue RPIs. I know; I've seen it and heard about it.

 

[wintonian]

South West Trains do not have any Compulsory Ticket Areas (CTAs) last time I checked. For example there is a CTA at Clapham Junction but that's the Overground platform only, as far as I know.

I was shocked in Croydon when I discovered that it is impossible to enter some houses without entering a CTA. Anyone who lives at the houses affected appears to be technically committing an offence whenever they step outside their drive.

I'm not convinced.

I suspect that a right of access or a presumed right of access would trump the railway by-laws/ penalty fare regulations in a situation like this.

Still it's quite an oddity.

 

[kg94sat]

So getting back to

Section 24(of National Rail Byelaw): Enforcement

(1) Offence and level of fines
Any person who breaches any of these Byelaws commits an offence and,
with the exception of Byelaw 17, may be liable for each such offence to a
penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale

Why is Byelaw 17 excluded from Enforcement?

 

[John @ home]

I was shocked in Croydon when I discovered that it is impossible to enter some houses without entering a CTA.

I don't think the roads are, but the pavements are.

I think the explanation for this may lie in the definition of Compulsory Ticket Area.

London Tramlink - Conditions of Travel

3 Explanation of terms

Compulsory ticket area - Generally, all trams and, for passengers alighting from trams, the tram stop platforms themselves.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/tramlink-conditions.pdf

It seems that the tram stop platforms are Compulsory ticket areas only for people alighting from trams.

 

[Eagle]

Ah, so the pavement is a tram stop (so I was right the first time, their house opens onto a platform :P)

Legally, the pavement is a right of way that can't be extinguished, and this law certainly overrides the CTA byelaws.

(The same way that when they upgrade bits of the A1 to A1(M) they have to provide a parallel local road—motorways aren't rights of way. This is also why the A34 and the like aren't motorways.)

 

[wintonian]

Ah, so the pavement is a tram stop (so I was right the first time, their house opens onto a platform :P)

Legally, the pavement is a right of way that can't be extinguished, and this law certainly overrides the CTA byelaws.

(The same way that when they upgrade bits of the A1 to A1(M) they have to provide a parallel local road—motorways aren't rights of way. This is also why the A34 and the like aren't motorways.)

A pavement is only a right of way if it is on a public highway, there are many examples of private roads up and down the country, some of which also have pavements.

 

[Eagle]

A pavement is only a right of way if it is on a public highway, there are many examples of private roads up and down the country, some of which also have pavements.

Indeed, but I take it this is a public road we're referring to.

 

[kg94sat]

Yorkie / John

You bring up an interesting point. The London Tram Link conditions of carriage explicitly specify what is a Compulsory Ticket Area.

Now for National Rail Byelaw, there is no explicit definition of compulsory ticket area. how does one define a "compulsory ticket area" for the purpose of the byelaw

 

[John @ home]

how does one define a "compulsory ticket area" for the purpose of the byelaw

"Compulsory ticket area" has the meaning defined in the appropriate Conditions, such as National Rail Conditions of Carriage Appendix A or London Tramlink Conditions of Travel Section 3.

The Railway Byelaws are not "National Rail Byelaws". "National Rail" is a brand used by the Association of Train Operating Companies, a trade association.

 

[swt_passenger]

Regarding the original question, is the answer just that CTAs can only exist as part of a wider Penalty Fare scheme - so the issue of a Penalty Fare (when applicable) basically takes the place of the possible fine on the standard scale called up by the enforcement paragraph which is dealing with the more general case.

... there is no explicit definition of compulsory ticket area. how does one define a "compulsory ticket area" for the purpose of the byelaw

Para 25. (1) of the byelaws defines a CTA. You just have to read right through. This is a similar definition to the CofC, quoted by John @ home although without the bit about arriving/departing on a train.

 

[Clip]

John

Agree with you.

I had assumed that any area that has ticket barriers would be Compulsory Ticket Areas (areas where visitors can not enter). Hence, I had assumed that London Waterloo has a Compulsory Ticket Area.

That is why in my example scenario, I changed the station to London Marylebone, which has a Compulsory Ticket Area

IIRC Marylebone has a CTA since before the actual barrier line gates were put in and this is still in existance but beyond the gateline and it just hasnt been changed

 

[kg94sat]

Now that swt_passenger has resolved the issue of definition of "Compulsory Ticket Areas", back to the original question

Why does Railway Byelaw under its Enforcement Section(Clause 24) exclude breach of Byelaw 17?

 

[swt_passenger]

Now that swt_passenger has resolved the issue of definition of "Compulsory Ticket Areas", back to the original question

Why does Railway Byelaw under its Enforcement Section(Clause 24) exclude breach of Byelaw 17?

As explained in the first part of my earlier post #20. Because Penalty Fare procedures will apply in a CTA.

 

[kg94sat]

As explained in the first part of my earlier post #20. Because Penalty Fare procedures will apply in a CTA.

swt_passenger, I understand that bit. But, what is the underlying thought process to apply penalty fare procedures to a CTA area and other procedures to a non-CTA area.

Were there any prior (prior to the byelaws were drafted) legislations that necessiated this?

If you look at it, how a ticketless traveller is punished, is based on whether he arrives at a CTA station or a non-CTA station.

His action is the same - ticketless travel. But his punishment is different. Infact even the jurisdictions are different. For a CTA area, the jurisdiction is civil law and for a non-CTA area it is criminal law.

Basically, this is a major contradiction in the Railway Byelaw. Hence, I am trying to get to the root of why Section 17 was excluded from enforcement in Railway Byelaw?

 

[swt_passenger]

Basically, this is a major contradiction in the Railway Byelaw. Hence, I am trying to get to the root of why Section 17 was excluded from enforcement in Railway Byelaw?

Removal of double jeopardy I think.

The Penalty Fare regulations, just like the Byelaws, are made under the authority of various other Railway Acts, so enforcing the offence under the byelaws isn't necessary as well. I think you might be looking at this as though there are a hierachy of rules, and the Byelaws should include the PF regulations, but I don't think that's the case - I think they sort of sit alongside each other.

As someone posted earlier, although some Penalty Fare areas include CTAs, they aren't set up as a matter of routine - they are pretty rare on National rail.

 

[MarkyMarkD]

I'm not convinced.

I suspect that a right of access or a presumed right of access would trump the railway by-laws/ penalty fare regulations in a situation like this.

Still it's quite an oddity.

At Woolwich Arsenal station, there is a red line denoting the boundary of the TFL penalty fare zone. Despite this, there are signs directing passengers beyond this line to cross the bridge to National Rail platform 1.

Because of this signage, I didn't even realise that there was another bridge further down the platform, which doesn't have this problem, until the second time I visited the station (after breaching the penalty fare zone the first time on a change between Southeastern trains).

The newer bridge (presumably thrown up when the DLR reached Woolwich Arsenal) is incredibly over-specced for a simple pedestrian bridge - it's about 16 feet wide and built on a huge reinforced beam.

 

[kg94sat]

Removal of double jeopardy I think.

I think you are right. This is a link to a FOI request about TFL's training manual for RPIs. Link

Look at page 10. Breach of Byelaw 17 is covered by Penalty Fares Act 1994

 

[swt_passenger]

I think you are right. This is a link to a FOI request about TFL's training manual for RPIs. Link

Look at page 10. Breach of Byelaw 17 is covered by Penalty Fares Act 1994

They've quoted it as an Act in error I think, they are the 'Penalty Fares Regulations 1994' according to my earlier searching of DfT's archives - typically they don't have a current link to them on their useless website...

Interesting that TfL's 'Railway' byelaws are now fundamentally the same, line by line, as the 'big railway' - and apply equally to LU, LO and DLR. Quite a recent change too, made only a few months ago - and makes a lot of sense with all the shared stations nowadays...

 

[kg94sat]

swt_passenger

Given that we have established that Penalty Fares Regulation 1994 is the reason why Byelaw 17 is excluded from Enforcement, the natural question that flows is whether the Penalty Fare Regulation 1994 distinguishes between passengers travelling to a CTA station Vs non-CTA station.

3.—(1) Subject to the provisions of these Regulations and to rules, any person present travelling by, present on or leaving a train shall, if required to do so by or on behalf of the operator of that train in accordance with these Regulations and with rules, produce a ticket or other authority authorising his travelling by or his being present on that train, as the case may be.

(2) Subject to the provisions of these Regulations and to rules, any person present in or leaving a compulsory ticket area, other than a person leaving a train, shall, if required to do so by or on behalf of the operator of a train in accordance with these Regulations and with rules, produce a ticket or other authority authorising him to be present in or leave that compulsory ticket area.

(3) Any requirement imposed pursuant to this regulation shall be imposed by an authorised collector in the manner specified in rules.​

There is no difference in treatment.

Having excluded Byelaw 17 from enforcement as the breach is covered in Penalty Fares Regulation 1994; should not Byelaw 18 also have ben excluded from enforcement?