The intent was (as I understand it) to make things clearer and easier as getting a Condition 13 credit was pretty tricky - a lot of ticket offices seemed to struggle with it.
That’s repeated over and over on this forum but has little or no basis in law.
What basis in law does the TOC have of determining the credit status or otherwise of the debit card?
Magistrates' Courts and true justice are sometimes so far removed that I think two instances of such an argument being accepted, not even on a case stated appeal, carries very limited weight as to whether or not it's truly watertight.
I agree that the legal basis is poor, but that's because the drafters chose not to define what does and does not constitute an "opportunity". So, it slices both ways. Yes, in your example a court might take the view that the passenger intended on avoiding paying his fare but, by the same token, another court might decide otherwise.
The TOC does not have to “determine the credit status or otherwise” of the debit card. It merely has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the cardholder was in a position to use it.
Well I'd like to know how they could do that. As has been discussed before, there are plenty of reasons why a particular card couldn't be used, including available credit required for a purchase which cannot be made by cash, card for specific expenditure only (eg company), not enough credit due to an authorisation not having been cleared.
Although of course the passenger is under no obligation to do anything more than give their name and address (with, of course, potential implications if they do remain silent).
Unfortunately Citizens Advice are not a brilliant resource for helping you themselves when it comes to legal matters such as this, as has been proven by this rather useless response.
A Penalty Fare is not a fine. A fine is only imposed by a criminal Court upon conviction - so there is a substantial difference here, as a Penalty Fare is a civil charge through which a travel irregularity is settled without involving the Courts. There is never an obligation on a train company to issue or offer a Penalty Fare - they can resolve an irregularity through whichever process they prefer, be that ignoring it, selling a discounted ticket, selling an undiscounted ticket, issuing a Penalty Fare, or taking details for prosecution. What you did, however, was not an irregularity by the faintest stretch of imagination.
No you haven't, and it isn't possible to issue a Penalty Fare "after the fact". (Again, a Penalty Fare is not a fine).
They often make such demands. Sometimes it is highly advantageous to take advantage of such an offer; e.g. where a legitimate crime has taken place which could result in more serious consequences (e.g. a fine and criminal record) if taken to Court. In other cases, such as yours, the only reason you would take up their offer is if you are just after the "easy" option. If you are after justice, I would not even consider it - as you have committed no crime and they are way out of line here. But that's a choice for you to make.
Did they retain your newly bought ticket? If so, they were under an obligation to issue you with a receipt.
They can operate whichever policy they like, but it cannot change the criminal law, which is that you are, quite understandably, innocent if you board a train without a ticket if there were no facilities at the station to buy one.
A suggestion that only an organisation as incompetent or malicious (delete as per your views!) as TIL would make. It is only worth even bearing into consideration if there is scheduled to be an extended call for whatever period, and the guard is clearly not occupied by other, more important duties (such as assisting disabled passengers or dispatching the train).
I would suggest that anyone trying to do this at a station like Wellington where there is usually a minimum-length dwell for the train would be told to get out of the way and to sort whatever the matter at hand is, once onboard.
Exactly. No-one can, with a straight face, say that is what you are obliged to do when the train company's facilities have failed. It is a preposterous suggestion (not for you to have made it, but for TIL to insist until they are blue in the face that you must buy before boarding, no matter what).
It would have been entirely inappropriate for them to have issued a Penalty Fare in your circumstances, but as stated, there's never a right to have, or obligation to issue, a Penalty Fare. It's always a discretionary tool; the posters merely warn of one possible method of resolution.
Ah, so did you send the original by post? That's a little different; I thought you meant that TIL had collected the ticket in person somehow.
There should be, if the ticket was purchased by card. Whether you will have any success in obtaining this record is another question!
It's not necessarily the end of the world here. As long as you paid by card, there is a paper trail and so you can certainly provide enough evidence by this means alone to show, on balance, that you did pay your fare.
Such "misadministration" is alarmingly common amongst train companies. It's very rarely in the passenger's favour.
I'm not sure who would have said that (other than TIL), but whoever they are, they are entirely wrong (assuming, of course, that the situation is one of having boarded without any ticketing facilities.
Seems a completely pointless exercise in futility then, once they'd identified you'd boarded at Wellington (and checked the station facilities accordingly). Unfortunately a minority of RPIs out there are really not fit to be in their jobs, for a number of reasons - including them not taking sufficient professional pride in their work that they don't even bother checking basic things like ticketing facilities.
Precisely - they are accusing you of doing something which is not a crime. They're making it up as they go along.
If you're going by what's reported in the forum then we must consider that there may well be a selection bias at play.
That's slightly unfortunate but it doesn't appear they are trying to go after you for not buying a ticket at all, but rather for not buying it when they wanted you to have bought it (at an inexistent opportunity). You can still refer to the fact that they do have the tickets, if that later comes into question. They would be very silly if they claimed not to have them; they could of course say "we've lost them" which would make their sheer incompetence clear to the Court.
Precisely. I don't know how TIL are even close to coming to the conclusion that it's you who is the wrong. It sounds like whoever was processing your case is utterly incompetent (to the point of criminal negligence, in my view, given that they are demanding money for something that constituted no crime).
Precisely - and you may wish to use this as evidence in correspondence with TIL or if it proceeds to Court.
Unfortunately it is likely CCTV was not retained, which may well be a breach of evidential requirements (requiring a prosecutor to ensure they provide the defendant with any evidence that exonerates them, as well as evidence that incriminates them).
No surprise there. Their investigators are trained to try and make people trip up and say the magic words they're after to bag a conviction. It's slimy behaviour and frankly disgusting tactics.
I agree. Unfortunately the only way you can be 100% sure that it won't be taken to Court is to agree to their demands. It's up to you to decide whether you are happy to potentially take it to Court and show them up as the incompetent fools they are. Based on what you've said and what evidence we have seen here already, I see it that there is no way any rational judge could convict you. Sadly, Magistrates' Courts are nowhere near as fair as some people might rightly expect.
I'd be grateful if you could point out the post where this has been said. I can only imagine this is on relation to circumstances where the passenger is in the wrong to begin with (e.g. for wanting to board without a ticket where there are opportunities to buy a ticket, but they are in too much of a rush to use them).
This is correct - the time limit for the papers to be laid before the Court for a 'summary only' offence such as those in question, is 6 months from the date of the alleged offence. Anyone is entitled to bring a private prosecution in respect of offences such as these, so TIL would be entitled to bring the prosecution their own name if they wanted. However, they usually tend to do so as agents of the train company. Perhaps this is to ensure that the train company is awarded compensation to the sum of any fare avoided, something that defendants might try to argue against if it was TIL acting in their own right.
I do not think that means what you think it means...
I know exactly what it means. There is no point in being pedantic here - their offer of settlement is, in these cases, no more acceptable than a police officer saying you can bribe him so that he doesn't falsely reporting you of having committed an offence. It is extremely lamentable that Parliament has not seen fit to curtail the powers of rogue outfits like TIL, and to introduce offences of which they would be guilty.
I think perhaps you need to check the definition of that term.
The mention of a Judge is irrelevant. This is a case that would not be heard at County/Crown Court level.
What is the harm that occurred because the TiL operative failed to act?
That is a serious accusation. One should be loath to ascribe to deliberate malice that which can be adequately explained by sheer incompetence.
Of course TfW are going to say that, because it means they're going to get revenue even if their conductors don't, for whatever reason, come through the train. They're entirely wrong to say that - and they wouldn't stand a chance if they tried to prosecute you merely for not actively finding a member of staff.
I disagree. All we can say for certain here is that: (a) TiL incorrectly believe that the OP committed an offence; and (b) they have offered a settlement in lieu of prosecution.
We're veering wildly off topic for the OP, so this is the last response I will give on this topic.
If only the rail companies were as charitable to ticketless passengers who said they had made a mistake in giving an inaccurate origin station, for which the fare just so happened to be lower. Unfortunately such charitability (or lack thereof) extends both ways - in the case of TIL, I can see nothing other than knowingful malice (perhaps through knowingful incompetence, i.e. failing to properly train case workers on the relevant law and defences). This is based on the frequency with which we have heard of cases of a similar nature to this (bearing in mind we are privy to only a small percentage of all their cases).
