I am truly scared.....

Trackman said:

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

Click to expand...

Ooopppsss! Thanks and edit done.

fowler9 said:

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.

Click to expand...

can you please explain how you know these people 'bunk' on the route? how do you know they have not pre purchased tickets?

sauron2010 said:

can you please explain how you know these people 'bunk' on the route? how do you know they have not pre purchased tickets?

Click to expand...

The number of people who pass through a station with ticket buying facilities but have to buy one on the train when there's a check is a bit of a clue!

trainophile said:

The number of people who pass through a station with ticket buying facilities but have to buy one on the train when there's a check is a bit of a clue!

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure bunking means avoiding fare, you can correct me on that if I'm wrong, so if they are buying tickets on te train it's not bunking? Just normal travelling.

sauron2010 said:

I'm pretty sure bunking means avoiding fare, you can correct me on that if I'm wrong, so if they are buying tickets on te train it's not bunking? Just normal travelling.

Click to expand...

Not if they've gone past an opportunity to buy a ticket...

Fawkes Cat said:

Not if they've gone past an opportunity to buy a ticket...

Click to expand...

Thank you, that is what I meant. I thought I explained it clearly enough!

sauron2010 said:

can you please explain how you know these people 'bunk' on the route? how do you know they have not pre purchased tickets?

Click to expand...

When they buy tickets off the guard after the train has left Lime Street and when on a train in to Lime Street as we get towards platforms 6-10 they mention that there are no ticket barriers so they have got away with it. Hope this helps. It happens every day mate and it is so obvious. Ha ha.

if you get the train in to Liverpool on the Cheshire Lines route on a Friday or Saturday afternoon there are hundreds without a ticket. If they get pulled by a guard the just buy a single (Saving pennies) because they know on the last two trains out of Liverpool the guard won't do a ticket check because the trains are full of booze fuelled nutters heading back to the various stops between Liverpool and Manchester.

I kind of get a bit of schadenfreude watching them squirm, especially with one of the regular guards who shows no mercy.

I was on a train from Southport to Manchester Piccadilly a while ago. Chap of about 20 having a long “discussion” with the guard, ending with him saying “yes, I will definitely buy one at Piccadilly”. As soon as the guard was out of earshot the guy was on his phone... “Hi mate, change of plan, I will probably get off at Deansgate”.

Presumably there are (or were) no barriers or gate checks at Deansgate.

Dear Forum

I haven't posted in here since last August as I had heard nothing from the railway company but lo and behold, this came through today. I will highlight my original post below:

I travel around the country every single week on the national rail service for business and spend thousands of pounds a year to do this with various private rail companies. The journey in question was a local one with only one stop and would have cost no more than £5.00 return – very much affordable for me and therefore I had no reason to attempt to do this without a ticket. In addition, as this is a regular local journey I make, I am fully aware that there are barriers in place at Shrewsbury and it is accepted practice at the station (facilities are always provided) to pay for a ticket at the end of the journey. I have made this journey many times and seen many people paying for a ticket in this way before going through the barriers.

On the day in question, I was riding my bicycle to Wellington Station. I arrived at the station (as I always do) 10 minutes early in order to purchase a ticket from the ticket office. When I got to the ticket office, there were two people in front of me – one Gentleman and a woman at the booth. This woman was in a lengthy debate or complaint about her tickets with the ticket seller so I waited in the queue, as I should do.

It was evident that the woman’s complaint was a complex one as it was not being resolved quickly. I was waiting patiently in the queue (as I imagine CCTV will attest to), in order to purchase my ticket. By this time, there were only 3 minutes until my train arrived and the woman was still trying to have her complaint resolved. I was aware that my train was due at any moment and I considered going to the platform on the other side of the station where there was an automated ticket machine. However, I had my bicycle (which is expensive) and thought that, as I did not want to leave it unattended, it would not be possible for me to carry it up and down 4 flights of stairs, get my ticket, and then carry the bike back up and down four flights of stairs without missing my train. Therefore, I stood by the ticket office just in case I could get to the front of the queue in time.

Just as I saw my train pulling into Wellington, the lady had finished and the gentleman in front of me was purchasing his ticket which he just did before the train stopped at the station. This left me no time to purchase mine as I would have missed my train. I am also aware that in clauses 4.2 and 4.11 of the penalty fare rules, passengers must be given "sufficent opportunity" to buy a ticket and that regular queues over three minutes (off-peak) and five minutes (peak) breach the definition of what is "sufficient". My waiting time at the ticket office was significantly over this time.

Once I boarded the train, I was on the lookout for the conductor to pay my fare whilst travelling. Unfortunately, no conductor passed me whilst I was sitting on the train (I could not leave my bike to find the conductor as it was not possible to ensure it did not fall over into the aisle and therefore become a hazard to other passengers).

Once the train arrived at Shrewsbury, I carried my bike down the steps with my Bank Card in hand ready to purchase my ticket from attendant by the ticket barrier (which a number of other people behind me were also doing). As I was standing there in the process of purchasing my ticket (having initiated the process with the attendant), I was tapped on the shoulder by the ticket inspector and he asked to have a word with me.

I gladly did so as I did not feel concerned in any way that I had done anything wrong. He asked me to explain why I was purchasing a ticket now and I explained to him the events I have done so above. At that moment, he became a little aggressive with me, stating quite forcefully that he was going to fine me. He asked me why I didn’t purchase one from the conductor and I told him that no conductor passed me whilst I was on the train – he then told me it was my responsibility to find the conductor and at this point I was feeling very upset as I felt I was being accused of being a ‘Fare dodger’ which I have never done, or was intending to do at that point.

It was evident to me that I was purchasing a ticket at the time he tapped me on the shoulder and therefore there was absolutely no attempt on my behalf to avoid paying the fare. In addition, there were a number of people behind me in the same position as I was and these were not apprehended and allowed to purchase their tickets!

I am aware that the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 states that there has to be an intent to avoid payment. I imagine that standing with the barrier attendant with my bank card in my hand and starting the payment process before being apprehended by the inspector indicates VERY clearly that there was no intent on my part to avoid payment. In addition, it was not as if I could have leaped over the barriers and ‘done a runner’ as I had my bike with me! To support this, I eventually purchased the ticket I needed to (a return ticket!) and left the station.

Overall, I believe that I was singled out unnecessarily when there were many others behind who had also done the same and were queuing to pay for the ticket at the end of the journey. The inspector himself was overly aggressive and I felt I was being treated as criminal and I was very tempted to put in a formal complaint against him as his manner was very provoking. I believe that I had made all efforts to pay for a ticket (as I should have done) and do not believe a summons is required in this instance.

I have attached the summons documents but have a couple of questions:

1.) As they are doing me under Byelaws 18.1 and 6.1 plus regulation of railways act, does this mean a criminal conviction or a fine?
2.) I did say to him - "Why are you acting like a Prick?" however I apologised straight afterwards
3.) If it is only a fine, I am tempted to just plead guilty and pay the fine. However, if it will turn out to be a criminal conviction, then I want to fight it. What are my chances?
4.) I have never been offered the fine in any dealings with the rail company and they have gone straight to court - what the hell is going on!!!!!

Quick answer to (4) - my guess would be that they considered the alleged abuse to be an aggravating factor,

Hi Ian.

Ian Whitehouse said:

they are doing me under Byelaws 18.1 and 6.1 plus regulation of railways act

Click to expand...

Byelaw 6(1) is on offensive language. Others may be able to advise whether you have a reasonable chance of avoiding conviction for that without a solicitor. Perhaps you could apologise more specifically for it than you have already, in the hope of a settlement.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/railway-byelaws

Are you sure it says "Regulation of Railways Act"? If you're referring to text similar to
"Made under Section 219...confirmed under...Transport Act 2000...2005"
then it isn't a reference to a fare evasion offence under the Regulation of Railways Act (1889) but just mentioning the legal basis of the Byelaws - as in the first paragraph of the Byelaws document.

On the Byelaw 18(1) allegation, have you re-read the old thread about convictions/fines, charter and so on?

Question of language: the train company cannot impose a fine (whatever their staff may say - are you sure that word was used?), but they can charge a penalty fare.
A fine is a (non recordable)conviction criminal and, looking at the letter, you are being invited to plead guilty to an offence under the Regulation of Railways Act as well as byelaw offences.

some bloke said:

Hi Ian.
Byelaw 6(1) is on offensive language. Others may be able to advise whether you have a reasonable chance of avoiding conviction for that without a solicitor. Perhaps you could apologise more specifically for it than you have already, in the hope of a settlement.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/railway-byelaws

Are you sure it says "Regulation of Railways Act"? If you're referring to text similar to
"Made under Section 219...confirmed under...Transport Act 2000...2005"
then it isn't a reference to a fare evasion offence under the Regulation of Railways Act (1889) but just mentioning the legal basis of the Byelaws - as in the first paragraph of the Byelaws document.

On the Byelaw 18(1) allegation, have you re-read the old thread about convictions/fines, charter and so on?

Click to expand...

Hi there

Thanks for the reply - one of the charges is:

"Did travel on a Transport for Wales service without previously paying the fare of £5.00 and (here is the key bit), with intent to avoid payment thereof.

Contrary to S. 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 as amended by Section 84(2) of the Transport Act 1962 and section 18 of the British Railways Act.

This is the one that concerns me as I admit to the charge of not having a ticket (due to ticket office not being available because of complainant) and also the swear word which I apologised for straight away - both of which are byelaw offences which do not entail a criminal conviction.

Section 5(3) will if found guilty - I know they have to prove that I was intending to avoid payment. However, as explained right at the beginning, I had my bank card in my hand, bicycle in the other and was queuing to pay before I went through the barriers.

A RoRA charge would be very difficult to prove at trial as, from what I understand, you offered up your fare as soon as you got off the train and didn't try to leave without paying.

Ian Whitehouse said:

2.) I did say to him - "Why are you acting like a Prick?" however I apologised straight afterwards

Click to expand...

Ian Whitehouse said:

he became a little aggressive with me, stating quite forcefully that he was going to fine me.

Click to expand...

I think you are out of your depth here trying to deal with this directly and ought to invest in legal advice and find a solicitor to represent you.

If Wellington is in a penalty fare zone, how can Byelaw 18 (1) - which is for "non-compulsory ticket areas" - be applicable?

(Byelaw 17 is for compulsory ticket areas. However, Byelaw 24 says that in the case of Byelaw 17 there is an exception to the liability to a fine.)

some bloke said:

If Wellington is in a penalty fare zone, how can Byelaw 18 (1) - which is for "non-compulsory ticket areas" - be applicable?

(Byelaw 17 is for compulsory ticket areas. However, Byelaw 24 says that in the case of Byelaw 17 there is an exception to the liability to a fine.)

Click to expand...

I think you are confused; it sounds like you mistakenly believe that a CTA is required for a station to be a Penalty Fare station? This is not the case.

This has cropped up numerous times before on the forum, for example:

swt_passenger said:

To answer the original question a National Rail penalty fare scheme does NOT automatically imply a CTA. Any CTA will have to be separately marked, so if you didn’t pass any signs, it wouldn’t be a CTA.

Click to expand...

furlong said:

I think you are out of your depth here trying to deal with this directly and ought to invest in legal advice and find a solicitor to represent you.

Click to expand...

Furlong is spot-on, if you are intending to contest this matter at trial you really need to speak with a solicitor before attempting to represent yourself.


You do not need to contact one of these generally expensive law firms who claim to be 'experts in railways fare evasion matters'. A brief initial consultation with a local law firm can cost very little (in some cases it may be free of charge) and much of the confusion that can arise through reading many different interpretations along with unqualified opinions will be resolved.

Ian Whitehouse said:

I admit to the charge of not having a ticket...and also the swear word...both of which are byelaw offences which do not entail a criminal conviction.

Click to expand...

This may be relevant to consulting a solicitor: A successful prosecution for either byelaw offence would result in a criminal conviction.

Ian Whitehouse said:

Section 5(3)...they have to prove that I was intending to avoid payment. However...I had my bank card in my hand, bicycle in the other and was queuing to pay before I went through the barriers.

Click to expand...

That isn't a complete defence, because it's consistent with travelling with intent not to pay (ie if you could get away with it). You may have known the barriers would probably be closed, but someone might intend not paying and hope that the barriers would be open. The fact that you appeared ready to pay doesn't say much about your innocence, if you needed to pay to get out.

However, the staff member's statement doesn't seem to provide much evidence of intent. You or a solicitor could ask the company to disclose what evidence they have of it.

some bloke said:

This may be relevant to consulting a solicitor: A successful prosecution for either byelaw offence would result in a criminal conviction.


That isn't a complete defence, because it's consistent with travelling with intent not to pay (ie if you could get away with it). You may have known the barriers would probably be closed, but someone might intend not paying and hope that the barriers would be open. The fact that you appeared ready to pay doesn't say much about your innocence, if you needed to pay to get out.

However, the staff member's statement doesn't seem to provide much evidence of intent. You or a solicitor could ask the company to disclose what evidence they have of it.

Click to expand...

I'm struggling with that interpretation. Surely in a court of law, where guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, no one should be convicted because they 'might...hope that the barriers would be be open'. According to the OP, having been frustrated in his attempt to purchase his ticket at his originating station, he presented himself and his mean of payment at his destination.

As others have suggested downthread, if the facts are as presented, this prosecution wreaks.

Realfish said:

Surely in a court of law, where guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, no one should be convicted because they 'might...hope that the barriers would be be open'.

Click to expand...

Agreed. But the point wasn't that conviction should happen on that basis, or that it is likely. The point is that what @Ian Whitehouse has said isn't a complete defence, so it may be useful for him to ask them to disclose evidence of intent. If they can't produce any evidence, they might drop that charge, relieving some pressure from Ian. Or if they don't drop the charge, their position may look weaker.

I think people are looking at the wrong interpretation of the word "intent". The legal definition does not always tally with the everyday useage of the word.

Hi all

Many thanks for your thoughts and comments - it so very much appreciated!

I have spoken to a solicitor and they advised to try and speak to the prosecutor beforehand (amongst other things) which I will do. I swear that this was a completely genuine set of circumstances and I NEVER had any intent not to pay. However, I do understand that I was on the train without a ticket and I really should not have sworn (which I have never denied). The solicitor suggested that the costs of hiring them was probably not worth it - I intend to plead guilty for the 2 x byelaw offences and not guilty for the intent charge - considering I was in the process of buying the ticket when the inspector tapped me on the shoulder (CCTV will support this), I had a bike and therefore had no way of 'doing a runner' by jumping over the barriers (which I know are there as I make this journey extremely regularly). This whole process has been genuinely upsetting - I am just recovering from severe mental illness over the past 2 years and this is pushing my limits of resilience at present.

What I do not understand is why they have been so insistent on prosecution from the get go and nothing I have said (even offering out of court) has swayed them. I know of 3 other people on this route who have had exactly the same as me (1 was genuinely trying to avoid payment) and none have gone to court.

Thanks again

Llanigraham said:

I think people are looking at the wrong interpretation of the word "intent". The legal definition does not always tally with the everyday useage of the word.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Intent is proved by foregoing an opportunity to pay.

Ian Whitehouse said:

What I do not understand is why they have been so insistent on prosecution from the get go and nothing I have said (even offering out of court) has swayed them. I know of 3 other people on this route who have had exactly the same as me (1 was genuinely trying to avoid payment) and none have gone to court.

Click to expand...

Did any of those 3 people use the word 'prick'?

Haywain said:

Agreed. Intent is proved by foregoing an opportunity to pay.

Click to expand...

Really? If we accept what the OP says (and there is no evidence to the contrary), he was frustrated in his attempts to pay his fare. What is he to do? Let the train leave while the ticket office conclude their dealings with the customer? That is wholly unreasonable.

The OP got to the station in good time. TFW failed to honour their customer charter commitment that sets an expectation for passengers that they would be served in three minutes (five minutes peak). As has happened to me, the ticket seller, knowing a train was due could have asked the woman with the complex query to stand aside, while he / she sold tickets for the incoming service. He /she didn't do this, neither did TFW avail themselves of the fare by checking tickets on the train, and as we know there is no obligation whatsoever for the OP or anyone, should go and seek out a conductor.

We clearly disagree, but I'm with the OP on this one and wish him all the best.

Realfish said:

Really? If we accept what the OP says (and there is no evidence to the contrary), he was frustrated in his attempts to pay his fare. What is he to do? Let the train leave while the ticket office conclude their dealings with the customer? That is wholly unreasonable.

The OP got to the station in good time. TFW failed to honour their customer charter commitment that sets an expectation for passengers that they would be served in three minutes (five minutes peak). As has happened to me, the ticket seller, knowing a train was due could have asked the woman with the complex query to stand aside, while he / she sold tickets for the incoming service. He /she didn't do this, neither did TFW avail themselves of the fare by checking tickets on the train, and as we know there is no obligation whatsoever for the OP or anyone, should go and seek out a conductor.

We clearly disagree, but I'm with the OP on this one and wish him all the best.

Click to expand...

If you read the earlier part of this thread the OP admits that there is also a ticket machine at this station, on the other platform, which he could have had ample time to use. However because he had his allegedly expensive bike with him he was unwilling to use it. Note that there are cycle racks available on the platform he arrived at he could have locked his bike to.

Realfish said:

Really? If we accept what the OP says (and there is no evidence to the contrary), he was frustrated in his attempts to pay his fare. What is he to do? Let the train leave while the ticket office conclude their dealings with the customer? That is wholly unreasonable.

The OP got to the station in good time. TFW failed to honour their customer charter commitment that sets an expectation for passengers that they would be served in three minutes (five minutes peak). As has happened to me, the ticket seller, knowing a train was due could have asked the woman with the complex query to stand aside, while he / she sold tickets for the incoming service. He /she didn't do this, neither did TFW avail themselves of the fare by checking tickets on the train, and as we know there is no obligation whatsoever for the OP or anyone, should go and seek out a conductor.

We clearly disagree, but I'm with the OP on this one and wish him all the best.

Click to expand...

We must take the OPs description of what happened at face value, because none of us can deny it. I am not suggesting for one minute that his description is not perfectly accurate so bear with me.

The TOC investigation will at least have had an opportunity to check any claims, check with the ticket office and with the on-train staff and they should have done so. Whether they did, we don't know, there's no evidence to that effect in the statement copied to the thread, but this just highlights the fact that all of these dispute threads are a one-sided account and readers often only see a small part of the matter in hand.

As others have suggested downthread, if the facts are as presented, this prosecution wreaks.

Click to expand...

Wreaks havoc or reeks of something unpleasant?

furlong said:

Did any of those 3 people use the word 'prick'?

Click to expand...

Probably not - however, I was frustrated, embarrassed as this was happening in front of other passengers and he was being overly aggressive to me in his manner - hence the phrase 'Why are you acting like a prick?". Its noted in his statement that I apologised straight away - we are all human and very briefly lost some control. As far as the phrase 'foul and abusive language' is concerned, I have not denied it wish I hadn't said it. However, calling one word foul and abusive language feels a bit of a stretch.