I am truly scared.....

Ian Whitehouse · 23 Aug 2019

najaB said:
Believe it or not, there's a silver lining to this cloud...

Up until now it appears that you've been dealing with Transport Investigations Ltd. Opinions vary as to their competency but I think most would agree that they couldn't successfully arrange a piss-up in a brewery. Now that they've ignored your letter (as usual) they will be handing the case file back to the TOC. At which point it should be pretty easy to get them to realise that they don't have a case that would stand up in court.

Hi there - thanks for the reply - I guess wait and see when the summons comes and get a solicitor. I am actually now feeling really, really angry about this and a big part of me wants to go to court just so I can make them look as foolish and petty as possible!

furlong said:
If they do take it to court under byelaw 18, I'd certainly recommend looking for a good solicitor, and then trying to throw in every argument there is, including trying the one that the byelaw might be ultra vires (invalid) because parliament's version (RORA) explicitly requires an intent not to pay. (Discussed extensively on earlier threads in the forum. This appears to be a good case to demonstrate what is wrong with that byelaw if they try to use it.)

Good argument and thanks for your input - as with all, it is very much appreciated!

RailUK Forums

krus_aragon · 23 Aug 2019

some bloke said:
There's also the issue of the inspector and the letters claiming you have to find the conductor, which has been extensively discussed on this forum.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/requirement-to-find-the-guard.189136/page-3#post-4163146

If they pursue that angle, it may also be worth questioning how one is meant to do that with a bicycle, while still obeying the platform annonucements (in my neck of the woods at least) telling passengers not to leave any luggage unattended.

Edit: byelaw 12 may cover that argument, if one chose to make it:

12. Safety instructions
(1) An Operator may issue reasonable instructions relating to safety on any part of the railway by means of a notice on or near that part of the railway. No person shall, without good cause, disobey such notice.
(2) An authorised person may, in an emergency or in other circumstances in which he believes he should act in the interests of safety, issue instructions to any person on the railway. No person shall, without good cause, disobey such instructions.
(3) No offence is committed under these Byelaws where a person acts in accordance with the notices or instructions given under Byelaw 12(1) or 12(2).

Ian Whitehouse · 23 Aug 2019

krus_aragon said:
If they pursue that angle, it may also be worth questioning how one is meant to do that with a bicycle, while still obeying the platform annonucements (in my neck of the woods at least) telling passengers not to leave any luggage unattended.

Edit: byelaw 12 may cover that argument, if one chose to make it:

LOL! That is brilliant, cheers!!!

some bloke · 23 Aug 2019

Ian Whitehouse said:
I guess wait and see when the summons comes and get a solicitor

It's understandable that you're angry on getting basically the same letter again.

Unless you're keen to go to court, it might be best to contact the company before they send a summons.

The more serious RoRA prosecution may not be likely, but if you contact them before the summons you might at least influence them against that. Hopefully, as najaB says, the company would take what you say more seriously than TIL does in any case. If the first letter you received doesn't clarify what offence they have in mind, then maybe you could ask them so you know what you're dealing with.

They might argue on the basis that you've accepted in your last letter what you did was against the regulations. Maybe that's something to ask a solicitor about.

TIL's odd communications may be partly due to sending out standard letters, processing cases with next to no "Investigation". The advent of computers means companies can "deal with" correspondence in a small fraction of the time it would take to actually do what they claim to do. I have an image in mind of a very rapid process where they deal with far more cases per day than is reasonable.

I can't see how the charter wouldn't at least raise some questions in court.

West Midlands Trains Passengers' Charter said:
Remember to arrive at the station in plenty of time to buy a ticket if you have not already bought one in advance. Our aim is to make sure you do not have to queue more than five minutes at peak times or three minutes at any other time. We display details of these peak times at ticket offices. We will monitor our achievements of these queuing times as part of our continuous improvement programme. In specific situations where queueing times are not being achieved at a station, you can buy either a ticket en route or at your destination.

https://www.westmidlandsrailway.co....KFAntkGJM2Qs/wmt-passengers-charter-dec17.pdf

furlong · 23 Aug 2019

So that's two sets of arguments to try - ultra vires (byelaw invalid) and abuse of process (prosecuting someone who was only doing what your published instructions said they should do i.e. bad faith, misconduct?, entrapment?) before you even get to the various possible defences to the byelaw itself.

trainophile · 23 Aug 2019

I hope you get some compensation for all the stress this has caused you.

Realfish · 23 Aug 2019

furlong said:
So that's two sets of arguments to try - ultra vires (byelaw invalid) and abuse of process (prosecuting someone who was only doing what your published instructions said they should do i.e. bad faith, misconduct?, entrapment?) before you even get to the various possible defences to the byelaw itself.

When I get a moment I'll dig them out, but by my recollection this is the third recent example of questionable action by RPOs on this line which have been reported on this board. One of the examples included a threat of prosecution where the TVM at Wellington was not working. What's going on?

Ian Whitehouse · 23 Aug 2019

some bloke said:
It's understandable that you're angry on getting basically the same letter again.

Unless you're keen to go to court, it might be best to contact the company before they send a summons.

The more serious RoRA prosecution may not be likely, but if you contact them before the summons you might at least influence them against that. Hopefully, as najaB says, the company would take what you say more seriously than TIL does in any case. If the first letter you received doesn't clarify what offence they have in mind, then maybe you could ask them so you know what you're dealing with.

They might argue on the basis that you've accepted in your last letter what you did was against the regulations. Maybe that's something to ask a solicitor about.

TIL's odd communications may be partly due to sending out standard letters, processing cases with next to no "Investigation". The advent of computers means companies can "deal with" correspondence in a small fraction of the time it would take to actually do what they claim to do. I have an image in mind of a very rapid process where they deal with far more cases per day than is reasonable.

I can't see how the charter wouldn't at least raise some questions in court.

https://www.westmidlandsrailway.co....KFAntkGJM2Qs/wmt-passengers-charter-dec17.pdf

Thanks for this! That is very interesting and will definitely be used! Have already phoned them before I sent the second letter so I don't know what more I can do. I am now feeling 'bring it on!' in regards to court - if I have a chance to make them look stupid, I will.

furlong said:
So that's two sets of arguments to try - ultra vires (byelaw invalid) and abuse of process (prosecuting someone who was only doing what your published instructions said they should do i.e. bad faith, misconduct?, entrapment?) before you even get to the various possible defences to the byelaw itself.

Cheers for that - definitely one of my options. Am going to fight anyway.

trainophile said:
I hope you get some compensation for all the stress this has caused you.

It is extremely stressful - was discussing it earlier with a friend and was thinking something like this can potentially put an individual with mental illness over the edge. What if I was an elderly person with early stages of dementia - this would have a terrible impact on them. Whilst I understand the need to stop deliberate ticket fraud, I feel their approach is tantamount to bullying tactics and is VERY intimidating. Once this is over, I may even consider going to the press.

trainophile · 23 Aug 2019

Ian Whitehouse said:
It is extremely stressful - was discussing it earlier with a friend and was thinking something like this can potentially put an individual with mental illness over the edge. What if I was an elderly person with early stages of dementia - this would have a terrible impact on them. Whilst I understand the need to stop deliberate ticket fraud, I feel their approach is tantamount to bullying tactics and is VERY intimidating. Once this is over, I may even consider going to the press.

Do it. And no need to wait for the outcome. Do it while you're still feeling angry enough to bother.

yorkie · 23 Aug 2019

Ian Whitehouse said:
It is extremely stressful - was discussing it earlier with a friend and was thinking something like this can potentially put an individual with mental illness over the edge. What if I was an elderly person with early stages of dementia - this would have a terrible impact on them. Whilst I understand the need to stop deliberate ticket fraud, I feel their approach is tantamount to bullying tactics and is VERY intimidating. Once this is over, I may even consider going to the press.

Certain train companies do not care about such matters; they are absolutely ruthless.

Make sure you get proper legal representation, and ensure that you seek damages from the company when you win the case.

some bloke · 23 Aug 2019

some bloke said:
The byelaw is about intent to travel, which is what @Ian Whitehouse cites from the company's letter.

The situation would be even stranger if they tried to prosecute under anything other than the byelaws. They did mention the idea of intent to avoid a fare in the second letter, but in 2 and 3 they said "as...previously advised". Unless there was something else significant in the first letter, that would refer to an alleged byelaw offence.

fowler9 · 23 Aug 2019

Hope it goes well Ian. Am sure it will. Your story has really saddened me. Especially when I see the number of people who bunk on the route I use to Lime Street because they can be pretty certain the train will arrive at a platform with no barriers.

cuccir · 23 Aug 2019

Just a note that while I agree broadly with everyone, the issue with the conductor is irrelevant.

A bylaw prosecution can't be made if there were no facilities available when boarding. Presumably you will be arguing that there weren't any. If that's accepted, you cannot be guilty. If it's not accepted, then you were already guilty when you boarded the train. So whether or not you purchased from the guard cannot impact on a Bylaws prosecution.

Llanigraham · 23 Aug 2019

cuccir said:
Just a note that while I agree broadly with everyone, the issue with the conductor is irrelevant.

A bylaw prosecution can't be made if there were no facilities available when boarding. Presumably you will be arguing that there weren't any. If that's accepted, you cannot be guilty. If it's not accepted, then you were already guilty when you boarded the train. So whether or not you purchased from the guard cannot impact on a Bylaws prosecution.

There are facilities at Wellington; there is a ticket machine at the bottom of the stairs on P2 and a ticket office on P1, however there was a queue at the ticket office.
The OP was on P1 with his bike.
His defence is that he could not go over to P2 because he could not carry his bike over the bridge, and he couldn't leave it because he didn't have a lock to secure it to the provided cycle stands.

Parham Wood · 24 Aug 2019

Llanigraham said:
There are facilities at Wellington; there is a ticket machine at the bottom of the stairs on P2 and a ticket office on P1, however there was a queue at the ticket office.
The OP was on P1 with his bike.
His defence is that he could not go over to P2 because he could not carry his bike over the bridge, and he couldn't leave it because he didn't have a lock to secure it to the provided cycle stands.

The OP arrived ten minutes before departure. There were only two people ahead of them in the queue. Due to one person taking a long time to complete their business there was not enough time to buy a ticket from the ticket office. A reasonable person would expect ten minutes to be sufficient with only two people in front and would not immediately go to the other platform to the TVM.

This case is very sad and I wish the OP all success.

Llanigraham · 24 Aug 2019

From my experience, I suspect that IF this went to Court the Prosecution would be concentrating on why he didn't use the machine on P2, and that his "excuse" of not having a lock for the bike would be picked on with some strength. Prosecutors can and will pick up on the flimsiest of "excuses" and will attempt to take those apart to the detriment of the accused. Remember that all they have to do is bring doubt into the minds of the 3 Magistrates; there is no Jury of Peers in these cases.

trainophile · 24 Aug 2019

So how long are you supposed to queue before abandoning the wait and dashing over to a machine? I would have thought up to five minutes before your train is due, after which if there is no obvious sign of the customer/s in front of you finishing their business, then you think about heading for the machine.

However if said machine is on the opposite platform, (and may have a queue of its own), even without a bike it would be a bit of a challenge to go up and over, make your purchase (especially as not all machines are the same interface), and back up and over the bridge. Also it depends how close the bridge is to the booking office. Not everyone is young and sprightly, the OP may well be, but as a general rule you can't expect everyone to be able to do the "correct" thing in these circumstances.

najaB · 24 Aug 2019

Llanigraham said:
Remember that all they have to do is bring doubt into the minds of the 3 Magistrates; there is no Jury of Peers in these cases.

Isn't that backwards? I thought the prosecutor's job was to make their case beyond reasonable doubt. If the magistrates are in doubt then the presumption of innocence must prevail.

Llanigraham · 24 Aug 2019

najaB said:
Isn't that backwards? I thought the prosecutor's job was to make their case beyond reasonable doubt. If the magistrates are in doubt then the presumption of innocence must prevail.

The point is that if the defendant tells his side of the story and then the Prosecutor starts taking that story to pieces it creates a doubt of the veracity of the "story" to the Magistrates, and therefore a doubt to their innocence. Now if the defendant can provide some evidence that will support their case.

cuccir · 24 Aug 2019

Llanigraham said:
There are facilities at Wellington; there is a ticket machine at the bottom of the stairs on P2 and a ticket office on P1, however there was a queue at the ticket office.
The OP was on P1 with his bike.
His defence is that he could not go over to P2 because he could not carry his bike over the bridge, and he couldn't leave it because he didn't have a lock to secure it to the provided cycle stands.

To be clear and as I said, the legal defence is that Bylaw 18 can't be applied because there were no facilities available when boarding. Thes facilities weren't available to the passenger, for the reasons you give; but those are the reasons rather than the defence.

Whether or not they are adequate to support the defence is the point which the TOC might contest in court. While I think the defence sounds solid I would not like to say with 100% confidence that it would succeed.

radamfi · 24 Aug 2019

trainophile said:
So how long are you supposed to queue before abandoning the wait and dashing over to a machine? I would have thought up to five minutes before your train is due, after which if there is no obvious sign of the customer/s in front of you finishing their business, then you think about heading for the machine.

What if there is also queue at the machine? You are supposed to miss the train even if you have waited for an hour whether that is a machine or a ticket office.

When queues are effectively infinite, the station can be considered closed to everyone except existing ticket holders.

Llanigraham · 24 Aug 2019

cuccir said:
To be clear and as I said, the legal defence is that Bylaw 18 can't be applied because there were no facilities available when boarding. Thes facilities weren't available to the passenger, for the reasons you give; but those are the reasons rather than the defence.

I would suggest that he is using those excuses as his defence, and over which I have stated my concerns, based on several years of presenting cases in Magistrate Courts, as the Prosecutor.

exile · 25 Aug 2019

Llanigraham said:
I would suggest that he is using those excuses as his defence, and over which I have stated my concerns, based on several years of presenting cases in Magistrate Courts, as the Prosecutor.

"excuses" is not the right word, as it suggest the OP is making up the whole thing to avoid prosecution. We have to assume here he is telling the truth unless there is something clearly inconsistent or phoney about the story presented.

Llanigraham · 25 Aug 2019

I've checked the meaning of the word "excuse", as follows:
As a verb:
"seek to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offence); try to justify."
As a noun:
"a reason or explanation given to justify a fault or offence."

However, what ever word you use, he is using the facts that he had his bike with him and didn't have a lock for it as a reason for not using the ticket machine on P2. Now from my experience those are the sort of "facts" that a Prosecutor will concentrate on and attempt to pick apart, and in doing so provide a doubt in the minds of the Magistrates. I did it many times, that was my job.
What the OP has to do is have a feasible and reasonable argument to counter those questions, and justify his actions. Hopefully he can do that.

Realfish · 26 Aug 2019

Llanigraham said:
I've checked the meaning of the word "excuse", as follows:
As a verb:
"seek to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offence); try to justify."
As a noun:
"a reason or explanation given to justify a fault or offence."

You once again assume guilt. The OP has not committed a fault or offence, and will only have done so if a magistrate decides so. If we accept the OP's version of events, his actions are not 'excuses' as you describe above, he has availed himself of the latitudes written in the National Rail Conditions of Travel and those implied in WM's Passenger Charter.

Llanigraham · 26 Aug 2019

Realfish said:
You once again assume guilt. The OP has not committed a fault or offence, and will only have done so if a magistrate decides so. If we accept the OP's version of events, his actions are not 'excuses' as you describe above, he has availed himself of the latitudes written in the National Rail Conditions of Travel and those implied in WM's Passenger Charter.

I have assumed NOTHING.
I am pointing out what can happen in Court, what the Prosecutor could concentrate on, what he could question, and why he does that, in relation to the facts that the OP has stated.
I suggest you reread my last 2 sentences in post 100.

Trackman · 30 Aug 2019

trainophile said:
So how long are you supposed to queue before abandoning the wait and dashing over to a machine? I would have thought up to five minutes before your train is due, after which if there is no obvious sign of the customer/s in front of you finishing their business, then you think about heading for the machine.

However if said machine is on the opposite platform, (and may have a queue of its own), even without a bike it would be a bit of a challenge to go up and over, make your purchase (especially as not all machines are the same interface), and back up and over the bridge. Also it depends how close the bridge is to the booking office. Not everyone is young and sprightly, the OP may well be, but as a general rule you can't expect everyone to be able to do the "correct" thing in these circumstances.

That's what I was thinking.
The bridge in question is long as the station has stopping loops (I think).

I suggest the OP contacts the TOC for CCTV footage to prove he was queuing.

Puzzled why this didn’t go to penalty fare.

Ian Whitehouse · 30 Aug 2019

Llanigraham said:
I've checked the meaning of the word "excuse", as follows:
As a verb:
"seek to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offence); try to justify."
As a noun:
"a reason or explanation given to justify a fault or offence."

However, what ever word you use, he is using the facts that he had his bike with him and didn't have a lock for it as a reason for not using the ticket machine on P2. Now from my experience those are the sort of "facts" that a Prosecutor will concentrate on and attempt to pick apart, and in doing so provide a doubt in the minds of the Magistrates. I did it many times, that was my job.
What the OP has to do is have a feasible and reasonable argument to counter those questions, and justify his actions. Hopefully he can do that.

Hi there Llanigraham.

Thank you for giving an honest, expert post - I understand what others are saying in that the word 'excuse' sounds like I am making it up but I do understand the context in which you made it. The point of fact is that, yes, I could have gone over the bridge with my bike and back again but there was not enough time to do so before my train arrived. I think the word, instead of excuse would be 'reasons' but nevertheless, that is why I didn't - and it was a very conscious decision not to do it as I remember weighing up the time factor in my head.

I also am aware of a number of posters asking for the original letter - apologies for not responding earlier as I have been away with work. However, I have attached for your thoughts. Thanks again all for your posts!

Trackman · 30 Aug 2019

Ian Whitehouse said:
Hi there Llanigraham.

Thank you for giving an honest, expert post - I understand what others are saying in that the word 'excuse' sounds like I am making it up but I do understand the context in which you made it. The point of fact is that, yes, I could have gone over the bridge with my bike and back again but there was not enough time to do so before my train arrived. I think the word, instead of excuse would be 'reasons' but nevertheless, that is why I didn't - and it was a very conscious decision not to do it as I remember weighing up the time factor in my head.

I also am aware of a number of posters asking for the original letter - apologies for not responding earlier as I have been away with work. However, I have attached for your thoughts. Thanks again all for your posts!

@Ian Whitehouse the upload is showing an unique ID and pass for the website in question.

some bloke · 30 Aug 2019

There seems to be a part missing from the letter. If what's in your first post is all they said about allegations, then the last letter from them ("as previously advised") seems to refer to a byelaw prosecution.

I am truly scared.....

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

On Moderation

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Member

Attachments

Established Member

Established Member