"Train passenger fined £470 for not paying £2 fare (after he'd just spent £200 on another ticket)"

Starmill · 30 Mar 2018

thedbdiboy said:
No, ORCATS doesn't work like that - it models allocations based on probable use so there are many permitted route/operator combinations that don't actually allocate any money to the potential carrying operator.

Isn't it based on the fastest possible journeys? So flipping your point on its head, in the significant number of cases where all tickets are routed Any Permitted and the fastest journeys are not on permitted routes (meaning many online journey planners will actively hide them from customers), revenue may actually be allocated to operators the customer was not even permitted to travel with.

From my understanding, the mapped routes / shortest route do not have an effect at all?

RailUK Forums

whhistle · 30 Mar 2018

theironroad said:
Why wasn't his mail being redirected by the post office to his new address, he would have received the initial letter within a couple of days?

Not everyone uses that service.
I certainly never have.

I wonder how this would stand up if, for example the Guard on the train said he was okay to travel without a ticket and couldn't be bothered to print out an over distance excess, knowing it was the same price.

Interesting that Arriva Trains Wales' policy doesn't openly state what to do if there are no ticket buying facilities on the station. It's only listed under the "overview" section, which appears to be more like "more details" - why not list it clearly at the top?

From Arriva's point of view, the guy ignored the 21 day limit he had to dispute the facts they gained from him on the day, but their website also suggests court action is the "Prosecution will be the last course of action."

More info from Arriva's site:

Customers can make genuine mistakes. If this is the first time a customer has been identified within this process they should not normally be taken to prosecution and may be offered an administrative settlement. The exception to this is if there is an attempted fraud or other aggravating circumstance.

There are some areas where prosecution is unavoidable.

Fraud

Giving false personal details

Knowingly claiming a short journey

Repeat offender e.g. Travelling without a ticket on more than one occasion

I guess they saw the apparent ignorance of the letter as "Fraud".
I wonder if it was recorded by the RPI that the guy wanted to pay?

Gareth Marston · 30 Mar 2018

Bletchleyite said:
I bet he'd have got a £80 special. But it isn't even justifying of that. The first check any prosecutions department should do is "did the passenger actually evade payment of any money?" If the answer is no, chuck the report in the bin and move on to the next one.

Actually, it shouldn't even have got that far. The RPI should have checked. Fare evaded: £0.00. "Sorry, sir, did you know the rules have changed and you can't actually do that any more even though it's the same price and it used to be common practice? But you can change your ticket for free if you speak to a ticket window or guard before you finish your ticketed journey". Job done.

It is petty beyond belief.

RPI's will not accept "pay when challenged" or variants there off - they just take details of people who don't have a valid ticket and report them, its then down to the back office who would have written to the person......and got no reply.

JohnB57 said:
View attachment 44473
This one worked ok. I guesss it’s a matter of asking for the right thing...

Yes to says London Zone 1 not London Terminals.

whhistle said:
I wonder if it was recorded by the RPI that the guy wanted to pay?

They would have intercepted him after he left the station boundary and therefore after he had completed his journey without a valid ticket. The offer to then pay is immaterial - this is well established - the pay when challenged defense is then negated as its after the fact.

6Gman said:
Let's work through this.

Man gets off train at Heath, is stopped by RPI, and has no valid ticket for travel to Heath.

His details are taken (so he might reasonably expect some correspondence).

He moves house, but doesn't make any arrangements to forward correspondence or any effort to contact ATW (one presumes, or he would have mentioned it).

ATW (or their agents) write to him, presumably asking for his account of events.

No reply. Perhaps they write again.

No reply.

So they move to prosecution. The relevant documentation is served but there is no response.

The case goes before the Court. No response from the accused, no explanations, no mitigation, no attendance.

The standard fine, costs (and fare) are applied.

This documentation - eventually - reaches him. He gets upset.

Perhaps ATW's actions were ill-advised, but he has rather contributed to his own difficulties hasn't he?

Another factor could be that he was known to ATW/TIL for previous offenses that would certainly be a consideration. The "Naughty List" in South Wales is unfortunately very big indeed due to the invisible x ray beams that make people forget which station further up they valley they actually joined the train at as soon as they get to Queen St/Central and see a ticket collector

the "stupid ray" also makes them say they joined at a station with full ticket buying facility s and barriers.

Antman · 30 Mar 2018

Gareth Marston said:
Another factor could be that he was known to ATW/TIL for previous offenses that would certainly be a consideration. The "Naughty List" in South Wales is unfortunately very big indeed due to the invisible x ray beams that make people forget which station further up they valley they actually joined the train at as soon as they get to Queen St/Central and see a ticket collector the "stupid ray" also makes them say they joined at a station with full ticket buying facility s and barriers.

The fact that he had paid over £200 for a ticket from London suggests that he probably isn't a fare dodger.

whhistle · 30 Mar 2018

Gareth Marston said:
They would have intercepted him after he left the station boundary...

Is that factual or an assumption?

AlterEgo · 30 Mar 2018

Gareth Marston said:
They would have intercepted him after he left the station boundary and therefore after he had completed his journey without a valid ticket. The offer to then pay is immaterial - this is well established - the pay when challenged defense is then negated as its after the fact.

An RPI should not intercept people once they’ve left the station. They probably had a block on the platform. The destination station did not have a ticket office.

Gareth Marston · 30 Mar 2018

whhistle said:
Is that factual or an assumption?

see this thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/hattersley-fixed-penalty-notice.161030/

In this case the station exit was via the open Booking Office, the person walked past the open Booking Office window through the doors and then found the RPI's outside the exit.

swaldman · 30 Mar 2018

mmh said:
I imagine a fair few people don't realise you can buy a ticket from any station to any other, after all the railway does seem to go out of its way to pretend it's a collection of completely unconnected companies. May well be more prevalent amongst younger people who don't remember it acting or portraying itself any differently.

This.
I help to organise a large event every couple of years which attracts people who don't travel often. A significant minority are totally unaware that tickets can run across more than one TOC.

Clip · 30 Mar 2018

AlterEgo said:
An RPI should not intercept people once they’ve left the station. They probably had a block on the platform. The destination station did not have a ticket office.

Station boundaries can extend a lot further than the door of the station so they have evey right to stop people on railway property

swaldman · 30 Mar 2018

AlterEgo said:
Some people would, quite innocently. I have dealt with a few people who wondered why their London Terminals ticket wouldn’t work the Euston barrier line.

I thought for some time that this was the whole point of a London Terminals ticket - that you could use it to get to any London terminal, even if this required crossing London.

Not the case, but also not an unreasonable assumption.

Gareth Marston · 30 Mar 2018

AlterEgo said:
An RPI should not intercept people once they’ve left the station. They probably had a block on the platform. The destination station did not have a ticket office.

The person walked past the excess fares window in the tunnel at Central and joined the train to Heath High Level

said he expected to pay the conductor during the journey.

Clip · 30 Mar 2018

JohnB57 said:
View attachment 44473
This one worked ok. I guesss it’s a matter of asking for the right thing...

That' a different ticket type to a 'London terminals' ticket

AlterEgo · 30 Mar 2018

Gareth Marston said:
The person walked past the excess fares window in the tunnel at Central and joined the train to Heath High Level

Yes. And was intercepted on the platform.

He would not have been intercepted beyond the station boundary. HHL has no ticket office and therefore you can’t walk past an opportunity to pay there. The offence was complete on boarding the train.

Not sure why you think he was intercepted beyond the station boundary?

Gareth Marston · 30 Mar 2018

George166 said:
The fact that he had paid over £200 for a ticket from London suggests that he probably isn't a fare dodger.

The need to have a ticket valid for the journey your undertaking is well established in the National Terms and Conditions.

ATW have had a "Buy before you board" campaign /policy since August last year. The person ignored an opportunity to buy a valid ticket at Cardiff Central whilst interchanging from the Mainline. If he had joined at a station without Ticket Buying Facility's the RPI's are under instruction to issue UFN's Unpaid Fares Notices if no ticket buying facilities exist at the block station or let people purchase if facility's exist.

The fact that they reported him is entirely consistent and correct with current procedure. The reason he's ended up with a Court Fine is to do with his failure to engage with the follow up to the TIR (Ticket Irregularity Report).

Did you respond to the Welsh Government Consultation on the new Wales and Borders franchise asking for tickets "to Cardiff" to be valid at Cardiff Central and the other 20 or so stations in the Cardiff Unitary Authority Area?

ForTheLoveOf · 30 Mar 2018

Gareth Marston said:
I'm sure it wouldn't if he had engaged with the initial correspondence. The person says he moved from the address he gave the RPI's and for whatever reason the court judgement was the first thing that was forwarded to him , according to him anyway. We haven't got the invidual here to help fill in the gaps but don't you think it's a bit strange that a court judgement letter finds its way to him months after he's moved but other stuff apparently hasn't?

Whether there should be a Cardiff Zone 1 fare or whatever? Yes but it's a different matter to not responding to correspondence.

Regardless of the passenger's negligence in failing to update the address or forwarding mail, there is still no reason this should have gone to court. There already is a kind of Cardiff Zone 1, in that the fares from London Paddington to Cardiff Central are really just manifestations of the

Gareth Marston said:
The need to have a ticket valid for the journey your undertaking is well established in the National Terms and Conditions.

ATW have had a "Buy before you board" campaign /policy since August last year. The person ignored an opportunity to buy a valid ticket at Cardiff Central whilst interchanging from the Mainline. If he had joined at a station without Ticket Buying Facility's the RPI's are under instruction to issue UFN's Unpaid Fares Notices if no ticket buying facilities exist at the block station or let people purchase if facility's exist.

The fact that they reported him is entirely consistent and correct with current procedure. The reason he's ended up with a Court Fine is to do with his failure to engage with the follow up to the TIR (Ticket Irregularity Report).

Did you respond to the Welsh Government Consultation on the new Wales and Borders franchise asking for tickets "to Cardiff" to be valid at Cardiff Central and the other 20 or so stations in the Cardiff Unitary Authority Area?

I'm sorry, but ATW's policies and application thereof are entirely ludicrious in this case. There is no suggestion that the passenger has not committed an offence in the letter of the law, but equally, given that there is no doubt that the passenger has not committed an offence in the spirit of the law, I find it an abuse of Court for them to have prosecuted the matter.

No matter how incompetent or negligent the passenger was - in not receiving, forwarding or responding to letters, as well as buying the ticket to the incorrect stated destination (though still to the same flow destination) - this case is so egregious a misuse of the Court process and of the arcane anti-passenger laws applying to the railway that I find it prima facie evidence as to why private railway prosecutions should no longer be allowed (it properly being a matter for the BTP or CPS) and why Byelaw 17/18 and possibly even RoRA S5 should be repealed.

By all means, punish a misdeed such as this by a Penalty Fare as part of a properly implemented and vetted system, and take passengers to County Court for non-payment thereof, but the use of prosecution for what in any other industry would be a civil dispute is a gross abuse of power.

Bletchleyite · 30 Mar 2018

ForTheLoveOf said:
Regardless of the passenger's negligence in failing to update the address or forwarding mail, there is still no reason this should have gone to court. There already is a kind of Cardiff Zone 1, in that the fares from London Paddington to Cardiff Central are really just manifestations of the

I'm sorry, but ATW's policies and application thereof are entirely ludicrious in this case. There is no suggestion that the passenger has not committed an offence in the letter of the law, but equally, given that there is no doubt that the passenger has not committed an offence in the spirit of the law, I find it an abuse of Court for them to have prosecuted the matter.

No matter how incompetent or negligent the passenger was - in not receiving, forwarding or responding to letters, as well as buying the ticket to the incorrect stated destination (though still to the same flow destination) - this case is so egregious a misuse of the Court process and of the arcane anti-passenger laws applying to the railway that I find it prima facie evidence as to why private railway prosecutions should no longer be allowed (it properly being a matter for the BTP or CPS) and why Byelaw 17/18 and possibly even RoRA S5 should be repealed.

By all means, punish a misdeed such as this by a Penalty Fare as part of a properly implemented and vetted system, and take passengers to County Court for non-payment thereof, but the use of prosecution for what in any other industry would be a civil dispute is a gross abuse of power.

I completely agree. It demonstrates how the railway is not responsible or sensible enough to have the law on its side in this case, and justifies my belief that railway fare evasion on the level of simple failure to pay the correct fare should be a civil matter (with regular fraud charges used for genuine fraud e.g. falsification and misrepresentation).

It seems to be reaching the point with this utter nonsense (prosecution for an administrative error and evasion of £0.00) that it's time for the railways to be treated like the car parking companies and have many of their rights removed.

Llanigraham · 30 Mar 2018

George166 said:
The fact that he had paid over £200 for a ticket from London suggests that he probably isn't a fare dodger.

Well he dodged the fare between Cardiff General and Heath High Level.

Clip · 30 Mar 2018

Bletchleyite said:
It seems to be reaching the point with this utter nonsense (prosecution for an administrative error and evasion of £0.00) that it's time for the railways to be treated like the car parking companies and have many of their rights removed.

Again ill ask you how you think the fare evaded is £0.00 - his tickets validity ended at Cardiff Central and again ticket price does not denote validity does it? If so please point me in the direction of this information and ill be happy to stand corrected.

Lets face it there isnt enough evidence in the story to let us know why he carried on his journey to another station and if that was his intention from the start then why not buy one to there? Or even if it changed mid journey why not ask the guard on the GWR service? Or, given how frequent the services seem to be why not just buy one at Cardiff?

AlterEgo · 30 Mar 2018

Clip said:
Station boundaries can extend a lot further than the door of the station so they have evey right to stop people on railway property

Yes, I know. I was saying they can’t stop people beyond the station boundary.

broadgage · 30 Mar 2018

Despite the railway being legally correct in this case, this is the sort of nonsense that gives "the railway" a bad name in the UK.
there is a widely held view that fares and ticketing are DELIBERATLY made as complex as possible, SPECIFICALY in order to extract fines, penalties and surcharges from passengers.
The comparison with car parking companies is IMO valid. Some railway practices such as regularly encouraging passengers to pay on board and then when enough victims have been thus entrapped, to prosecute them, certainly seem comparable to the worst excesses of private parking firms.
Legal controls have been enforced on parking contractors, so perhaps railways should be next.

Clip · 30 Mar 2018

broadgage said:
Legal controls have been enforced on parking contractors, so perhaps railways should be next.

There are legal controls on the railway - one of them happens to be that you must be in possession of a valid ticket when travelling on ATW trains. This passenger didnt possess such a ticket so was penalised then didnt turn up to court.

its pretty much black and white no matter how you try to spin it.

ForTheLoveOf · 30 Mar 2018

Clip said:
There are legal controls on the railway - one of them happens to be that you must be in possession of a valid ticket when travelling on ATW trains. This passenger didnt possess such a ticket so was penalised then didnt turn up to court.

its pretty much black and white no matter how you try to spin it.

The facts, and the law are black and white - no one disagrees. Though the passenger could and should have got a zero-fare excess, they didn't and so they were guilty of an offence.

What I and many others take umbrage at is prosecuting passengers for failing to get a zero-fare excess. Prosecuting for not paying a small excess - £1 or so - would at least show an intent to penalise evasion. But this is pure lunacy and it demonstrates well why the railway simply cannot be trusted with, and should hence be stripped of, the unbelievably powerful rights they currently enjoy.

Clip · 30 Mar 2018

ForTheLoveOf said:
The facts, and the law are black and white - no one disagrees. Though the passenger could and should have got a zero-fare excess, they didn't and so they were guilty of an offence.

What I and many others take umbrage at is prosecuting passengers for failing to get a zero-fare excess. Prosecuting for not paying a small excess - £1 or so - would at least show an intent to penalise evasion. But this is pure lunacy and it demonstrates well why the railway simply cannot be trusted with, and should hence be stripped of, the unbelievably powerful rights they currently enjoy.

You seem to have it round the wrong way and as you dont know what the passenger said to the guard on the second train so you can in no way know that they even knew of what an 'excess' was. This is the problem with this forum at times because people know more(at times) that the average passenger does then some can make these statements but that still does not absolve the passenger of their responsibilities either.

He simply failed to have a ticket for his journey. That is not lunacy and ATW quite rightly have posters up everywhere informing passengers of this.

You simply cant go after a TOC on one hand for applying things incorrectly as happens on other threads and then have a go at them when they have done everything correctly. Thats called having your cake and eating it and the consumer rights act and contract law that you favour when posting on these pages do not make an allowance for this.

Clip · 30 Mar 2018

Plus you also forgot the bit about the passenger moving and not conversing with ATW about this incident which is probably what landed him in court in the first place and you simply cannot blame the TOC for the wilful ignorance of someone moving and not redirecting their mail too? Or can you?

Holly · 30 Mar 2018

This kind of thing is exactly why my elderly sister, who is nearing 80 years old, still drives more than 50 miles each way to visit her son every few weeks. She could easily make the journey by rail and her son begs her to, but she doesn't want to make an honest mistake and fall afoul of this kind of thing. It is an unintended consequence of de-nationalisation.

yorkie · 30 Mar 2018

Holly said:
This kind of thing is exactly why my elderly sister, who is nearing 80 years old, still drives more than 50 miles each way to visit her son every few weeks. She could easily make the journey by rail and her son begs her to, but she doesn't want to make an honest mistake and fall afoul of this kind of thing. It is an unintended consequence of de-nationalisation.

broadgage said:
Despite the railway being legally correct in this case, this is the sort of nonsense that gives "the railway" a bad name in the UK.

Indeed. That's the way some people like it.

They will defend the actions of train companies and staff/contractors who do not operate in a pragmatic way. They will never change their ways. They will say things that are ludicrous, and clearly expose their bad intentions...

Clip said:
Again, the fare evaded is £3. his tickets validity ran out at Cardiff Central

...even though he did pay the correct amount for his journey.

While it is true that a passenger is entitled to use a combination of fares for one journey, it is more pragmatic to issue an excess fare of £0.00 in cases like this. A sensible person would have done (see post above by ANorthernGuard)

swaldman said:
I thought for some time that this was the whole point of a London Terminals ticket - that you could use it to get to any London terminal, even if this required crossing London.

Not the case, but also not an unreasonable assumption.

Unfortunately this assumption could someone a conviction because of this...

ForTheLoveOf said:
... this case is so egregious a misuse of the Court process and of the arcane anti-passenger laws applying to the railway that I find it prima facie evidence as to why private railway prosecutions should no longer be allowed (it properly being a matter for the BTP or CPS) and why Byelaw 17/18 and possibly even RoRA S5 should be repealed.

By all means, punish a misdeed such as this by a Penalty Fare as part of a properly implemented and vetted system, and take passengers to County Court for non-payment thereof, but the use of prosecution for what in any other industry would be a civil dispute is a gross abuse of power.

... which I very much agree with.

AlterEgo · 30 Mar 2018

Clip said:
You seem to have it round the wrong way and as you dont know what the passenger said to the guard on the second train so you can in no way know that they even knew of what an 'excess' was.

But the fact remains that the fare evaded is nil. Zero. Nothing.

This is the problem with this forum at times because people know more(at times) that the average passenger does then some can make these statements but that still does not absolve the passenger of their responsibilities either.

Nobody is arguing that the passenger had an invalid ticket. He didn't have a valid ticket. This is not in dispute.

He simply failed to have a ticket for his journey. That is not lunacy and ATW quite rightly have posters up everywhere informing passengers of this.

But surely you can see that while he may have held an invalid ticket, and boarded a train without one, he was actually no better off for doing so.

You simply cant go after a TOC on one hand for applying things incorrectly as happens on other threads and then have a go at them when they have done everything correctly. Thats called having your cake and eating it

Do you think the spirit of the law was upheld in the case outlined in the OP?

Do you think it is fair and just that a criminal prosecution resulted from the case resulted in the OP?

farleigh · 30 Mar 2018

I am afraid some people are not able to see beyond rulebooks.

Clip · 30 Mar 2018

yorkie said:
...even though he did pay the correct amount for his journey.

While it is true that a passenger is entitled to use a combination of fares for one journey, it is more pragmatic to issue an excess fare of £0.00 in cases like this. A sensible person would have done (see post above by ANorthernGuard)

He did pay the correct fare for his journey between Pad and Cardiff yes - its his second journey he did not pay for.

It may well be pragmatic to issue an excess but as you allude to in your very own post in the Fares FAQ HERE

This excess may only available before the original journey has been completed i. e. once a single or the outward leg of a return is fully used,

So by yoru own admission the rules state that its before the journey has been completed.

And people keep saying guard when it really couldve been an RPI who caught the passenger and was therefore not in a position to issue an excess(if he even showed his original ticket which we dont know)

mmh · 30 Mar 2018

So effectively the fine is for having a ticket that says Cardiff on it not

Clip said:
Again ill ask you how you think the fare evaded is £0.00 - his tickets validity ended at Cardiff Central and again ticket price does not denote validity does it? If so please point me in the direction of this information and ill be happy to stand corrected.

Lets face it there isnt enough evidence in the story to let us know why he carried on his journey to another station and if that was his intention from the start then why not buy one to there? Or even if it changed mid journey why not ask the guard on the GWR service? Or, given how frequent the services seem to be why not just buy one at Cardiff?

I'm genuinely surprised quite how many people are defending ATW here. As for, trying to buy a ticket from the GWR guard, here's a link to my experience of trying to do just that https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/first-opportunity-to-purchase.162165/#post-3395429

The "fare evaded" is 0.00 because excessing a ticket exists. As multiple ATW defending posters have said, he should have gone to the window at Cardiff Central, and had he done so ATW should have charged him 0.00, so that's the fare he didn't pay.

"Train passenger fined £470 for not paying £2 fare (after he'd just spent £200 on another ticket)"

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Forum Staff

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member