Off peak ticket during on peak

js1000 said:

Really don't understand why the conductor or RPI didn't just supplement the excess fare and bumped it up to a peak time ticket under NRCoT 9.5.3. It's a depressing state of affairs when too many staff clearly don't know the guidelines and rules set out and do not follow the correct procedure. TOCs need to do far more to train their staff, particularly third party agents, to an adequate standard.

I'd actually be amazed if the TOC actually got in touch with you over this as the most they can charge you the £3 excess fare so it's not going to be worth the hassle so don't go looking for your 'friend' as it's not worth it. Although, try not to do it again in the next 6 months because that will potentially ring alarm bells if an over-zealous RPI decides to take you name and address.

Click to expand...

Honestly I was absolutely baffed that he was taking this genuine mistake so seriously, I was speaking to one of my friends today who said his letter came after 3 days when he had an altercation with the GWR guys. I guess I can only wait and see what happens next

It does seem odd, when they write to you just say that you'll pay the difference in fare and nothing else!

Hi all,

So I bumped into the same inspector today and showed him my ticket and said ‘look It’s only a £3 difference’ and then politely asked why I just wasn’t charged the difference and that I have seen other inspectors charge the difference and then I proceeded to show him the contract with the National rail. (I made sure to come accross very friendly and not aggressive). Anyway to my happiness and surprise he apologised and said your lucky I haven’t sent off the information and the best he could do was give me a £9 fine as an unpaid ticket or something like that which I immediately accepted and paid at the ticket office.

Thank you everyone for you help and special thank you to the user who sent me the contract laws

Jamie_786 said:

I got stopped whilst showing the ticket inspector my card as the barriers were open due to congestion. The ticket Inspector was just standing there looking at tickets whilst people were walking and and as I showed him mine whilst walking through he immediately stopped me saying it was an off peak ticket

Click to expand...

The thing is that by trying to go out the gates rather than going to the excess fare office to pay, you could be interpreted as trying to avoid payment of your fare.

I see from your subsequent posts that you have managed to resolve the matter informally, so the above is rather moot.

island said:

The thing is that by trying to go out the gates rather than going to the excess fare office to pay, you could be interpreted as trying to avoid payment of your fare.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid that's a view that isn't backed up by the precedent which exists. It is often claimed to be justified by Corbyn v Saunders, but that was a case that bears few similarities with this, or indeed most other cases we hear of. In that particular case, the fact that Mr. Corbyn was in the regular habit of not paying the correct fare was certainly an influencing factor in the finding of intent. It may also be that someone who isn't used to the rather old-fashioned concept of an excess fare office simply isn't aware of what they are there for, and that they think that such matters are dealt with entirely by the gateline staff.

As you say, with the situation now settled it doesn't matter for this case, but it is a suggestion often made, and yet rarely proven in Court, that such mundane things such as using the barriers counts as anything malicious.

ForTheLoveOf said:

I'm afraid that's a view that isn't backed up by the precedent which exists. It is often claimed to be justified by Corbyn v Saunders, but that was a case that bears few similarities with this, or indeed most other cases we hear of. In that particular case, the fact that Mr. Corbyn was in the regular habit of not paying the correct fare was certainly an influencing factor in the finding of intent. It may also be that someone who isn't used to the rather old-fashioned concept of an excess fare office simply isn't aware of what they are there for, and that they think that such matters are dealt with entirely by the gateline staff.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about court. I said "could be interpreted", implying by the train company staff. Particularly if someone flashes a ticket in a manner which is inferred to be trying to get it through without all of its details being seen.

island said:

I'm not talking about court. I said "could be interpreted", implying by the train company staff. Particularly if someone flashes a ticket in a manner which is inferred to be trying to get it through without all of its details being seen.

Click to expand...

In which case any such interpretations are pure conjecture and the only effect they have is to determine perhaps the nature of the report the member of staff makes. Either way, it doesn't change the legal position.

ForTheLoveOf said:

In which case any such interpretations are pure conjecture

Click to expand...

As, indeed, are yours.

I realise you’re here to promote your interpretations of the law (which, most of the time, are correct), but the law is only one of the things we need to consider when giving good advice to members. One can be right and still make choices that lead to one being inconvenienced, stressed, detained, detrained, out of pocket, &c. Not everyone on the forum wishes to “stick it to the man” and chase every penny to the steps of the County Court. Many want as smooth a journey as possible, even if they need to give up some cost or rights to do so.

island said:

As, indeed, are yours.

I realise you’re here to promote your interpretations of the law (which, most of the time, are correct), but the law is only one of the things we need to consider when giving good advice to members. One can be right and still make choices that lead to one being inconvenienced, stressed, detained, detrained, out of pocket, &c.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what that all has to do with the simple fact that, as I said, the significance and extent of Corbyn is often vastly overstated. I'm not saying that this means people should feel free to try and dodge fares because they will 'get away' with it - what I am saying is that they should take any suggestion by a TOC that a certain piece of behaviour constitutes intent to avoid payment, with a healthy pinch of salt.

island said:

Not everyone on the forum wishes to “stick it to the man” and chase every penny to the steps of the County Court. Many want as smooth a journey as possible, even if they need to give up some cost or rights to do so.

Click to expand...

Seems you have a personal grievance there, all I'm doing is giving people accurate advice to counteract the nonsense spouted by some TOCs (in particular, GWR in a number of recent threads). Nonsense that, naturally, just so happens to be in their favour.

ForTheLoveOf said:

all I'm doing is giving people accurate advice to counteract the nonsense spouted by some TOCs

Click to expand...

It might be accurate to state that a person does not necessarily commit an offence simply by exiting through a ticket barrier without paying the appropriate fare for their journey, but is that really what you are advising people to do if they travel with an Off-Peak ticket on a train on which restrictions apply?

The onus is on the customer to check whether their ticket is valid for travel on the train(s) they are using and if necessary to purchase the appropriate ticket or an excess fare. A customer who waits until they are challenged runs the risk of being seen as someone who is intentionally avoiding paying, so what's the best advice to give?

Wait until challenged/see if you can exit the ticket barrier unchallenged, as you might not be convicted should it get to court, or find a member of railway staff and ask where/how to pay for the ticket or excess fare at the earliest opportunity?

Silverdale said:

It might be accurate to state that a person does not necessarily commit an offence simply by exiting through a ticket barrier without paying the appropriate fare for their journey, but is that really what you are advising people to do if they travel with an Off-Peak ticket on a train on which restrictions apply?

The onus is on the customer to check whether their ticket is valid for travel on the train(s) they are using and if necessary to purchase the appropriate ticket or an excess fare. A customer who waits until they are challenged runs the risk of being seen as someone who is intentionally avoiding paying, so what's the best advice to give?

Wait until challenged/see if you can exit the ticket barrier unchallenged, as you might not be convicted should it get to court, or find a member of railway staff and ask where/how to pay for the ticket or excess fare at the earliest opportunity?

Click to expand...

Quite apart from the fact that the onus to purchase an excess isn't on the customer, that's not what I have said:

ForTheLoveOf said:

I'm not saying that this means people should feel free to try and dodge fares because they will 'get away' with it - what I am saying is that they should take any suggestion by a TOC that a certain piece of behaviour constitutes intent to avoid payment, with a healthy pinch of salt.

Click to expand...

In other words, if someone does something and have their details taken, they should be very careful before believing a suggestion by the that their behaviour constituted intent to avoid payment. I find it very concerning that TOCs sometimes misrepresent the legal position, in the hope of ensuring that the customer simply pays them the inflated settlement sum they are asked for.

ForTheLoveOf said:

I'm not sure what that all has to do with the simple fact that, as I said, the significance and extent of Corbyn is often vastly overstated. I'm not saying that this means people should feel free to try and dodge fares because they will 'get away' with it - what I am saying is that they should take any suggestion by a TOC that a certain piece of behaviour constitutes intent to avoid payment, with a healthy pinch of salt.


Seems you have a personal grievance there, all I'm doing is giving people accurate advice to counteract the nonsense spouted by some TOCs (in particular, GWR in a number of recent threads). Nonsense that, naturally, just so happens to be in their favour.

Click to expand...

And all that island is getting(and as I have mentioned many times in the past as have numerous other forum members) is that to ensure you have an easy ride in life then if you go about things in the correct way you will find that you seldom get into any bother - though I am aware of forum members who have done so and still got into bother but that does not negate about doing things the right way as much as possible for an easy life as possible.

ForTheLoveOf said:

In other words, if someone does something and have their details taken, they should be very careful before believing a suggestion by the that their behaviour constituted intent to avoid payment. I find it very concerning that TOCs sometimes misrepresent the legal position, in the hope of ensuring that the customer simply pays them the inflated settlement sum they are asked for.

Click to expand...

And for the sake of extreme clarity, I agree.

Conversely, where a passenger has the option to take one of several paths which he/she is legitimately entitled to choose, such as excessing a ticket before travel, on board, or at the destination (if the conductor doesn’t come round), the passenger may completely avoid the risk of stress and upset from having his/her details taken &c by choosing, for example, to seek out the conductor, excess fares office, or staff member, as opposed to choosing other actions carrying a higher risk of being misinterpreted in this way.

island said:

And for the sake of extreme clarity, I agree.

Conversely, where a passenger has the option to take one of several paths which he/she is legitimately entitled to choose, such as excessing a ticket before travel, on board, or at the destination (if the conductor doesn’t come round), the passenger may completely avoid the risk of stress and upset from having his/her details taken &c by choosing, for example, to seek out the conductor, excess fares office, or staff member, as opposed to choosing other actions carrying a higher risk of being misinterpreted in this way.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, we are in agreement here.

ForTheLoveOf said:

Quite apart from the fact that the onus to purchase an excess isn't on the customer, that's not what I have said:

Click to expand...

Really? You think 9.5 gives a customer with an Off-Peak ticket the right to travel on a train on which restrictions apply, unless and until challenged?

9.5 states that where the customer holds a ticket which is restricted by route or time, only an excess fare is payable (rather than the purchase of a new valid ticket). However, the remainder of NRCoT still applies and the onus remains on the customer to have a valid ticket for the journey they are making, by purchasing that excess.

ForTheLoveOf said:

I find it very concerning that TOCs sometimes misrepresent the legal position, in the hope of ensuring that the customer simply pays them the inflated settlement sum they are asked for.

Click to expand...

The legal position is that intent will be determined in each individual case, by a court and based on admissible evidence, so you are right that a TOC cannot state that, simply by exiting through a ticket barrier without a valid ticket, the offence of intentionally avoiding payment has necessarily been committed. What they can say is that in such circumstances they will take the view that an offence has been committed and that they will seek to prosecute.

Semantics aside, I would agree with you if TOCs are using the threat of prosecution to effectively extort a settlement. The evidence that they are doing this would be a significant number of cases where customers stand by their actions and refuse to pay up, but the TOC doesn't prosecute. Do you know to what extent TOCs are issuing empty threats in this way?

Silverdale said:

Really? You think 9.5 gives a customer with an Off-Peak ticket the right to travel on a train on which restrictions apply, unless and until challenged?

9.5 states that where the customer holds a ticket which is restricted by route or time, only an excess fare is payable (rather than the purchase of a new valid ticket). However, the remainder of NRCoT still applies and the onus remains on the customer to have a valid ticket for the journey they are making, by purchasing that excess.

Click to expand...

The customer would be well advised to make use of available ticketing facilities to purchase the excess prior to boarding, but there is no absolute obligation to obtain the excess prior to travel. The ticket doesn't become completely void just because it hasn't been excessed.

Silverdale said:

The legal position is that intent will be determined in each individual case, by a court and based on admissible evidence, so you are right that a TOC cannot state that, simply by exiting through a ticket barrier without a valid ticket, the offence of intentionally avoiding payment has necessarily been committed. What they can say is that in such circumstances they will take the view that an offence has been committed and that they will seek to prosecute.

Semantics aside, I would agree with you if TOCs are using the threat of prosecution to effectively extort a settlement. The evidence that they are doing this would be a significant number of cases where customers stand by their actions and refuse to pay up, but the TOC doesn't prosecute. Do you know to what extent TOCs are issuing empty threats in this way?

Click to expand...

I think the evidence of problematic dealings with TOCs has been proven in this thread, just as it has been in numerous others over the weeks, months and years of this forum section. Some of the TOCs aren't making empty threats, inasmuch as they will actually take an ill-conceived case to Court, and simply hope that taking it that far and having a summons issued will ensure that the passenger pleads guilty because they are afraid it may cost more to afford themselves a proper legal defence than it will cost if they plead guilty at the earliest stage.

Overall, the intertwining of civil and criminal law is very murky here. Many of my concerns would be allayed if those cases that didn't represent a justifiable RoRA prosecution became decriminalised and simply dealt with by means of the NRCoT's penalties and/or a Penalty Fare; cases that did represent a justifiable RoRA prosecution could then be left for an independent organisation to prosecute, if and to the extent that the public interest was satisfied - much as is the case in Scotland with the Procurator Fiscal. I don't have any information to suggest that fare evasion is notably higher in Scotland than it is in any other part of the country, so I see no reason why this wouldn't work.

ForTheLoveOf said:

In other words, if someone does something and have their details taken, they should be very careful before believing a suggestion by the that their behaviour constituted intent to avoid payment.

Click to expand...

Wikipedia, being what it is, is often not the best source but I find this quote expresses intent quite succinctly: Intention is generally defined in terms of foresight of particular consequences and a desire to act or fail to act so that those consequences occur.

In the case of our passenger travelling with a ticket that is not valid: that they had foresight of the consequence (travelling for £x where they should have paid £x+) is quite obvious, and their failure to act to avoid the consequence (by seeking to exit the station without paying an excess) cannot be in doubt. So the only question is if they *knew* that their ticket wasn't valid.

ForTheLoveOf said:

The customer would be well advised to make use of available ticketing facilities to purchase the excess prior to boarding, but there is no absolute obligation to obtain the excess prior to travel. The ticket doesn't become completely void just because it hasn't been excessed.

Click to expand...

I agree it doesn't. However doing so would go a long way to establishing that there was no intent to avoid paying the correct fare, conversely failing to do so when there was an opportunity and instead heading for the exit in an expeditious manner does not.