WMC SUMMONS- I bought a ticket.

Afope. said:

It does predate the summons.
Summons was Monday 18th November.
Appeal was rejected 24th July.

Click to expand...

You now need to email Greater Anglia and ask them to drop the prosecution as it is not permitted according to Section 11 of The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018.

Ask also how you can settle the outstanding penalty fare amount, as it is still due. Payment of that should conclude matters.

If you do not get a reply from Greater Anglia before you need to reply to the court please post back here, though we would also like to know how it is resolved in any event.

Puffing Devil said:

As the OP did not have a ticket, 18.1 is valid charge. They admitted to losing a ticket, therefore they did not possess one. It matters not, though

Click to expand...

Afope entered the train with a valid ticket. So isn't she innocent under 18.1, and if so is that not of interest to her?

[Edit: Removed the part about a possibility that the company could be able to prosecute. They can't.]

gwrtimetable19 said:

The amount of the Penalty Fare was itself incorrect. The 16th of June was a Sunday so the relevant fare to be doubled to calculate the amount of the Penalty Fare is the Super Off-Peak Day Single (which is valid at any time on weekends). This is £19.90 so the correct amount of a Penalty Fare from Stratford (London) to Braintree on a weekend is £39.80.

So not only do we have a Penalty Fare issued otherwise than in accordance with the requirements of the Regulations (thereby making it invalid), but an appeal against the Penalty Fare which was considered by the appeals body - and yet the TOC are conducting a prosecution from which they are thereby statute barred.

This is definitely a case in "see a solicitor" territory. I would search for a few local ones (say, at least 2 or 3) using the Law Society's find a solicitor function, in the area of criminal law and ask for a free initial consultation. Explain the circumstances and ask in particular whether they consider that they may be able to recover their costs from Greater Anglia, and whether proceedings (civil or criminal) could be brought against Greater Anglia for what would appear to be a prosecution they are unlawfully conducting. Choose one to represent you based on whichever solicitor you have the best impression of (it's a kind of "job interview" if you will).


It was issued otherwise than in accordance with the Regulations, so if they want to attempt to recover an amount that they have no entitlement to, they can chance their arm in County Court

Click to expand...

There is a choice here - pay up and lesson learned, unfair as it may be for losing a ticket, or invest time and possibly money on a dispute that may also be time-barred, as an appeal has already been lodged against the PF and no further appeal has been made in the prescribed timeframe. It's not as open and closed as it may initially appear.

Personally, I would ensure that the prosecution is dropped, then pay up and move on.

some bloke said:

Afope entered the train with a valid ticket.

Click to expand...

That is her claim. Greater Anglia asserts otherwise. That is why we have courts.

Puffing Devil said:

As the OP did not have a ticket, 18.1 is valid charge. They admitted to losing a ticket, therefore they did not possess one.

Click to expand...

some bloke said:

Afope entered the train with a valid ticket. So isn't she innocent under 18.1, and if so is that not of interest to her?

Click to expand...

Puffing Devil said:

That is her claim. Greater Anglia asserts otherwise. That is why we have courts.

Click to expand...

We may be in more agreement than is obvious. To clarify: I have a working assumption that people inquiring on here are telling the truth, unless I have a special reason to doubt it.

The first issue above - non-possession of a ticket later - is relevant to the question of what evidence there is for prosecution. It isn't relevant to the fact that Afope is (of course, according to what she said) innocent of the new allegation under 18.1.

some bloke said:

We may be in more agreement than is obvious. To clarify: I have a working assumption that people inquiring on here are telling the truth, unless I have a special reason to doubt it.

The first issue above - non-possession of a ticket later - is relevant to the question of what evidence there is for prosecution. It isn't relevant to the fact that Afope is (of course, according to what she said) innocent of the new allegation under 18.1.

Click to expand...

The bylaw is this "no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel."

The OP presented without a ticket (asserting that it had been lost). Without a ticket, it's a slam dunk that they entered a train without a ticket. Unless the OP can show that they had a ticket before they boarded there is no defence in this case.

18.2 is "A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person." If you have no ticket to handover, you're already bound by 18.1 I can only believe that this was to defeat those who would like to say "I had a ticket, I chose not to show it".

Puffing Devil said:

Without a ticket, it's a slam dunk that they entered a train without a ticket. Unless the OP can show that they had a ticket before they boarded there is no defence in this case.

Click to expand...

Is it really inconceivable - in the same way as it's difficult to see how someone in Afope's position could defend against an 18.2 prosecution for not producing a ticket - that someone might persuade the magistrates there is reasonable doubt as to whether they broke 18.1?

some bloke said:

We might think that a bank statement together with your word is enough to provide reasonable doubt.

Click to expand...

some bloke said:

Is it really inconceivable - in the same way as it's difficult to see how someone in Afope's position could defend against an 18.2 prosecution for not producing a ticket - that someone might persuade the magistrates there is reasonable doubt as to whether they broke 18.1?

Click to expand...

The bylaw offences are "strict liability", much like driving without insurance. If you're caught, there is a very limited set of defences, all of which are in statute. The law is very clear cut with bylaws, unlike the Regulation of Railways act offences which allows for a broader set of defences. That's why I suggested that the OP aim for an Absolute Discharge before the issue of the penalty fare being appealed was very well spotted.

Puffing Devil said:

The bylaw offences are "strict liability", much like driving without insurance. If you're caught, there is a very limited set of defences, all of which are in statute. The law is very clear cut with bylaws, unlike the Regulation of Railways act offences which allows for a broader set of defences. That's why I suggested that the OP aim for an Absolute Discharge before the issue of the penalty fare being appealed was very well spotted.

Click to expand...

How could Afope, who says she had a valid ticket on entering the train, be liable in law for an offence of entering the train, for the purpose of travelling, without a valid ticket?

The fact that she might not be believed, and so be wrongly convicted, is a separate matter.

some bloke said:

How could Afope, who says she had a valid ticket on entering the train, be liable in law for an offence of entering the train, for the purpose of travelling, without a valid ticket?

The fact that she might not be believed, and so be wrongly convicted, is a separate matter.

Click to expand...

Because it’s a “strict liability” offence, as pointed out earlier.

swt_passenger said:

Because it’s a “strict liability” offence, as pointed out earlier.

Click to expand...

If we put aside the penalty fare appeal issue, she would be strictly liable for a breach of byelaw 18.2. She was recently accused under 18.1.

some bloke said:

If we put aside the penalty fare appeal issue, she would be strictly liable for a breach of byelaw 18.2. She was recently accused under 18.1.

Click to expand...

Also strict liability surely? Post #30. (If as you say putting aside the penalty fare issue.)

swt_passenger said:

Also strict liability surely? Post #30. (If as you say putting aside the penalty fare issue.)

Click to expand...

Yes, but the issue of liability doesn't arise at all if the person doesn't meet the basic criterion for a breach. The question is how she can be liable for that offence if she entered with a valid ticket.

some bloke said:

Yes, but the issue of liability doesn't arise at all if the person doesn't meet the basic criterion for a breach. The question is how she can be liable for that offence if she entered with a valid ticket.

Click to expand...

I fear we're going round in circles.

Strict liability means that you are guilty of the offence if caught and are unable to rely on any of the statutory defences (Unable to Buy, Notice Permitting Travel, Given Permission) you are guilty. That's it. The end. Even if you were unaware of the need to buy a ticket; even if you had a ticket and lost it; even if your ticket is stolen from you before the ticket check.*

It's not an issue of Liability per se; that's the legal term used to describe the situation.

As I said before, driving without insurance is in the same category. There are a very narrow set of grounds for a defence and many people have found themselves in court because an insurer has withdrawn their cover and they have not collected the notification.

* of course, one would hope that a TOC would not prosecute in this case if there was substantive evidence to support the claim.

Puffing Devil said:

Without a ticket, it's a slam dunk that they entered a train without a ticket.

Click to expand...

I'm not as convinced as you it is a "slam dunk" or strict liability. If you enter the train with a ticket, and it is lost on the train, then you may not actually breach the law. The law is "enter the train" not "remain within the train".

However this is probably a bit of pedantry; without a ticket, it's very hard to prove you actually had one, so chances are a prosecution would succeed (although it is for the operator to prove the offence, not the other way around).

I would agree that they are now barred from bringing the prosecution and must recover the debt through the civil courts. A letter stating this and enclosing a cheque for the relevant amount may be the OP's correct way forward.

Tetchytyke said:

If you enter the train with a ticket, and it is lost on the train, then you may not actually breach the law. The law is "enter the train" not "remain within the train".

Click to expand...

Yes - and it's perhaps hard to see how you could breach the byelaw. In this case the allegation is simply of an offence at Stratford, which Afope said didn't occur.

In respect of strict liability, or automatic guilt, it's like being accused of having no insurance when you do, so the special defences in the byelaws aren't needed. In respect of evidence against you, it's different.

There's little point in continuing - please go and research "strict liability offences railway".

Puffing Devil said:

There's little point in continuing - please go and research "strict liability offences railway".

Click to expand...

With respect, even Greater Anglia's own website says this:

Q. It was not my intention to avoid my fare?
A. If you are charged under Railway Byelaw 18 (1), it is known as a strict liability offence. This means that the Prosecutor needs only to prove that you boarded the train without purchasing a valid ticket at the start of your journey and the proof of intention is not required.

Click to expand...

Strict liability merely means that the prosecutor doesn't need to prove mens rea. They still have to prove the substantive offence, i.e. that the OP boarded the train without possessing a valid ticket.

It''s very hard to prove (enough to show reasonable doubt) that you had a ticket in your possession when you boarded if you now don't have a ticket in your possession, I quite agree, but that isn't the same thing at all.

It's an important distinction but one that is of less use to the OP than the Penalty Fares Regulations.

Some of the responses to this thread has a very deja vu feel to them - and so is this: I don't recall we have had an example where "I had a ticket when I boarded but I no longer have it" has succeeded as a defence against byelaw 18.1.

Challenging the amount of the PF (£1.20 too high, the regulations are clear) might be worth it. Perhaps the OP in her reply should offer to pay the correct PF?

30907 said:

I don't recall we have had an example where "I had a ticket when I boarded but I no longer have it" has succeeded as a defence against byelaw 18.1.

Click to expand...

It has been tried many times, but on its' own has never succeeded as a defence in Court in my experience.

Mind you, with the vagaries that sometimes arise in Magistrates rulings....there's always a possibility of a first time...….Just don't bank on it

If the PF is indeed invalid due to having been issued for the wrong amount, then it is not in fact legally due at all (it is now too late for the TOC to issue a "correct" PF), and in any event it would be for the TOC to demonstrate, in the county court, on the balance of probabilities, that it was validly issued in any respects.

The main issue is the prosecution and whether it is indeed statute barred by the Penalty Fares Regulations 2019. If, as I believe, it is, then the OP may wish to contest the manner in order to defeat the prosecution, albeit that there is also a question of how much hassle and risk he/ she is willing to face in the process.

If the OP would prefer not to face the hassle, then he/ she should consider offering a settlement.

Firstly I think maybe some of the discussion should have been split off as it discusses a hypothetical prosecution, and might confuse the OP. Criminal prosecution is barred and the OP needs to make that very clear to the TOC and the court. Additionally in the unlikely event the TOC pursues the penalty fare civilly in county court (anyone have any examples) the action should fail for reasons given above by other posters.

Whilst some are advising the OP to offer a settlement, we should remember that the TOC is not entitled to anything and has suffered no loss caused by the OP. The OP made an error (lost a ticket) and is subjected to both a PF and prosecution. The TOC however made multiple errors, (invalid PF and statute barred prosecution) and rather than being penalised, may even get some cash to go away.

The point of the discussion about byelaw 18.1 is that Afope is not guilty as charged. The main overall point is that the company is not allowed to prosecute her at all for this incident. The fact that she's not guilty of the charge is not so crucial, but it may influence what she writes to them.

Afope, is it clear from this image why the company is not allowed to prosecute you?

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/wmc-summons-i-bought-a-ticket.195403/#post-4295828

They aren't allowed to put someone through the hassle of the penalty fare system and then have a second go by prosecuting.

If you're uncertain, you can simply write to the company saying politely that you don't understand why they are proposing to prosecute when the regulations "appear to me to say" that they are not allowed to.

If you like, a student union might be able to provide advice, or alternatively some solicitors (look for one dealing with crime) offer a free initial consultation.

As they can't prosecute, you don't need to offer a settlement (and you aren't guilty of getting on the train without a valid ticket in any case, though it might have been hard to persuade the magistrates.).

Their other mistake was to ask you to pay too much for the penalty fare. This is a general issue that all the companies got wrong.

https://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/news/view?id=777&x[0]=news/list

Paragraph 16 (3) (a) of the Penalty Fare Regulations (first link above) says that if the penalty fare is not imposed in accordance with the Regulations (which includes it being for the wrong amount) that's grounds for appeal. So if you'd known about that mistake by the company, you wouldn't have had to pay anything (again, they aren't allowed to hassle you too much).

So you could point that out to the company as well.

You can pay the £39.80, which would have been the correct penalty fare, or you could argue that you aren't liable because it wasn't imposed in accordance with the Regulations and the Regulations say it would be grounds for appeal. Here again, you could write to them that "my understanding is" that it's for the wrong amount because it isn't for the "fare applicable" as defined under the Regulations, rather than saying whether you are refusing to pay.

The good news is that they can't prosecute you at all for this. If you chose not to pay the penalty fare, the very worst possibility would be that they could pursue a civil claim. That's very different from being able to prosecute for a criminal offence.

Puffing Devil said:

1. If you do end up in court, you can speak directly to the magistrates about your lost ticket and ask them to consider an Absolute Discharge - this means that you admit your guilt, but receive no punishment*. It does sit on your record, though is immediately spent. That means it will not show on a standard DBS check.

Click to expand...

This is potentially incorrect. A standard DBS check shows all spent and unspent convictions. However the offence is non-recordable, so it would be unlikely to show for that reason.

island said:

This is potentially incorrect. A standard DBS check shows all spent and unspent convictions. However the offence is non-recordable, so it would be unlikely to show for that reason.

Click to expand...

I agree - it is not strictly true; I was trying to keep it simple and didn't want to go down the route of recordable and not and DBS filtering, etc. The outcome is the same and the need to declare is also the same.