Sorry - Another Northern Rail court summons

ukkid · 3 Jan 2020

So to summarise
So the OP paid the fare on the day. Either by part paying the penalty fare to the amount of the actual fare or seperately to the penalty fare.
Northern accepted he was not dishonest by issuing the penalty fare in the first place, and this is even referred to in posts above. They didn't withdraw it, they rejected his appeal.

A summons maybe on the way based on an email sent to the OP. For any criminal prosecution (barred or otherwise ) the fare due is nil (the penalty fare value cannot come in) because a ticket was purchased before leaving Leeds Station.

To the OP, how did the email mentioning the summons come about. Is it your appeal rejection that mentions it? Were you informed if you don't pay admin fees you will be prosexuted?. Can you post what the email says and the timeline of correspondence.

RailUK Forums

trenopendo · 3 Jan 2020

221129 said:
This isn't actually true.

Care to specify? As I said, any magistrate would convict -- even if you were being represented by OJ Simpson's lawyer.

221129 · 3 Jan 2020

Not every railway regulation is strict liability.

The offence the OP is charged with requires intent and is therefore NOT strict liability.

It would be a very incompetent magistrate to convict with a statute barred prosecution.

trenopendo · 3 Jan 2020

221129 said:
It would be a very incompetent magistrate to convict with a statute barred prosecution.

Just so we are clear, are you suggesting OP to go to court and challenge the prosecution? You are of course entitled to that opinion, but at least you should note he needs to seek legal counsel in the form of a barrister/solicitor if he wishes to go down that route. Otherwise, the risk of being destroyed is too high.

najaB · 3 Jan 2020

trenopendo said:
Care to specify?

Ahem...

Regulation of Railways Act 1889 said:
(3)If any person—
(a)Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or
(b)Having paid his fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeds by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or
(c)Having failed to pay his fare, gives in reply to a request by an officer of a railway company a false name or address,
he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [level 3 on the standard scale], or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, either to a fine not exceeding [level 3 on the standard scale], or in the discretion of the court to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [three months].

najaB · 3 Jan 2020

trenopendo said:
Just so we are clear, are you suggesting OP to go to court and challenge the prosecution?

The suggestion is that the OP contact Northern and remind them that, if this was a properly issued Penalty Fare, they are statute barred from prosecuting. The summons should never have been applied for.

Attending court would be a last resort.

MarlowDonkey · 3 Jan 2020

JimmyC said:
I lived in Bramley and I was getting the train to Harrogate for work - I needed to change in Leeds. I was running late (same old story) so boarded the train without a ticket, planning on buying one of the conductor who comes round most days. However, he didn't come raound on the 8 minute journey into Leeds.

It's marginally strange that someone making a regular journey for work doesn't buy a season ticket, thus avoiding the periodic headache of having to queue for a ticket or travelling without one.

najaB · 3 Jan 2020

MarlowDonkey said:
It's marginally strange that someone making a regular journey for work doesn't buy a season ticket, thus avoiding the periodic headache of having to queue for a ticket or travelling without one.

It may be strange, but it's not a reason to be facing criminal charges now is it?

jamiearmley · 3 Jan 2020

Came across this earlier. I don't pretend to know anything about it, but someone with better knowledge might be able to shed light on wether it's relevant.
It's from the railway penalty fares regulations 2018 from the .Gov website.

221129 · 3 Jan 2020

trenopendo said:
Just so we are clear, are you suggesting OP to go to court and challenge the prosecution? You are of course entitled to that opinion, but at least you should note he needs to seek legal counsel in the form of a barrister/solicitor if he wishes to go down that route. Otherwise, the risk of being destroyed is too high.

If you had read the thread that is exactly what I stated. Do you have any actual understanding of the rules and regulations in place? It would seem not.

221129 · 3 Jan 2020

jamiearmley said:
Came across this earlier. I don't pretend to know anything about it, but someone with better knowledge might be able to shed light on wether it's relevant.
It's from the railway penalty fares regulations 2018 from the .Gov website.

It's only relevant in the sense that Northern could seek to attempt to recover the penalty fare through the civil courts. However the chances of it doing so are slim.

trenopendo · 3 Jan 2020

221129 said:
Do you have any actual understanding of the rules and regulations in place? It would seem not

I beg your pardon? I very much do, insofar as knowing -unlike you- that something called "structured liability" (sic) doesn't exist, thank you very much.

221129 · 3 Jan 2020

trenopendo said:
I beg your pardon? I very much do, insofar as knowing -unlike you- that something called "structured liability" (sic) doesn't exist, thank you very much.

I do apologise for a simple autocorrect (Now corrected) However you seem to be unaware that not every offence on the railway is strict liability.

ForTheLoveOf · 3 Jan 2020

jamiearmley said:
Came across this earlier. I don't pretend to know anything about it, but someone with better knowledge might be able to shed light on wether it's relevant.
It's from the railway penalty fares regulations 2018 from the .Gov website.

As stated by 221129, this simply makes a Penalty Fare a debt recoverable in the (civil) County Court in the same way as any other debt. It bears no relation on a criminal prosecution, and frankly you needn't worry about it because it simply isn't in any TOC's revenue protection processes, as far as I know, to take Penalty Fares to County Court.

najaB · 3 Jan 2020

221129 said:
I do apologise for a simple autocorrect (Now corrected) However you seem to be unaware that not every offence on the railway is strict liability.

Indeed. Not even every Byelaw offence is strict liability.

some bloke · 3 Jan 2020

JimmyC said:
the requirements of 5(1) of the RORA

If it's 5(1) they are talking about, they aren't barred from prosecuting after a penalty fare appeal - see 11(3) and 11(4):
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/366/made

But you can't be guilty under 5(1), because you gave your name and address - as you could remind them in a letter.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/52-53/57/section/5

Kilopylae · 4 Jan 2020

some bloke said:
If it's 5(1) they are talking about, they aren't barred from prosecuting after a penalty fare appeal - see 11(3) and 11(4):
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/366/made

But you can't be guilty under 5(1), because you gave your name and address - as you could remind them in a letter.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/52-53/57/section/5

That isn't how 5(3) works. The use of the word 'or' (rather than 'and') at the end of the lettered paragraphs means that 5(3)(a) [i.e. "Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof"] is itself an offence. Other posters have explained why OP may not be liable for that offence. Northern are prosecuting under the RoRA, which they may well be statute barred from so doing, but the part of paragraph (c) that mentions one's name and address details a separate offence to that detailed in paragraph (a).

Giving one's name and address correctly does not mean that no offence has been committed under section five of the Regulation of Railways Act.

furlong · 4 Jan 2020

Kilopylae said:
That isn't how 5(1) works. The use of the word 'or' (rather than 'and') at the end of the lettered paragraphs means that 5(1)(a)

There is no 5(1)(a) in the version I am looking at. Have you confused 5(1) with 5(3)?

sportzbar · 4 Jan 2020

Forgetting the nuances as to if it is a criminal offence or not, the op has already admitted to walking passed a working ticket machine because he was running late. Unfortunately this is not an excuse anywhere on the railway. You must buy your ticket at the first opportunity, in this case the ticket machine. By walking past it (even if you were running late) and not making any attempt to purchase from it you are in effect in the eyes of the law showing intent to not pay.

I worked this line before penalty fares came in and can tell you that it made no difference then either. As a guard I could have issued you with an unpaid fare notice. However this would take forever to do so normally a ticket would be issued on board.

It is the responsibility of the passenger to buy a ticket at the first opportunity. Sorry if you don't see it this way but that is the t&c of the service you used. Accept that you broke the t&cs, come to an out of court settlement and move on....

furlong · 4 Jan 2020

sportzbar said:
You must buy your ticket at the first opportunity, in this case the ticket machine. By walking past it (even if you were running late) and not making any attempt to purchase from it you are in effect in the eyes of the law showing intent to not pay

I disagree - whether or not intent is displayed would be for a court to determine based on all the particular facts of the case, and the court might or might not take into account factors such as the time needed to use the machine, familiarity with alternative purchase methods that were available but not used, the frequency of the service, whether it's a regular journey, notices displayed, tickets being sold on board without comment on other occasions, that the destination station had barriers etc.

Realfish · 4 Jan 2020

In a number of responses the OP has said that when they got to Leeds, they went straight to the 'ticket office' to explain the situation and purchase a return ticket (presumably Bramley to Harrogate?) which they did, but was given a penalty fare on top of that. They do not elaborate on who by and how the penalty fare was demanded (by 'ticket office', unpaid fares staff or RPI's standing nearby, as they do in Leeds), but if the sequence of events is as described by the OP, surely, by accepting the fare due in the first instance, the situation has been regularised and that should have been the end of the matter?

sportzbar · 4 Jan 2020

The

furlong said:
I disagree - whether or not intent is displayed would be for a court to determine based on all the particular facts of the case, and the court might or might not take into account factors such as the time needed to use the machine, familiarity with alternative purchase methods that were available but not used, the frequency of the service, whether it's a regular journey, notices displayed, tickets being sold on board without comment on other occasions, that the destination station had barriers etc.

The OP stated he was running late. Is that Northern's fault? I don't recall any where it stating in the national conditions of carriage that "if you are running late then bypass the ticket purchasing facilities". He was late. He decided to bypass the ticketing facilities therefore leaving himself liable. It's black and white. Plain and simple.

furlong · 4 Jan 2020

sportzbar said:
It was before the fine. I boarded the train in Bramley (1 stop away from Leeds) without a ticket, planning to buy one from the conductor who normally comes around but he/she didn't come, so when I got off the train in Leeds, I went straight to the ticket office and advised them I had boarded at Bramley and I needed to buy a return ticket from there. I paid the standard fair but was issued with the penalty fare on top.

Like others, I'm still confused about the apparent contradictions in your accounts of the exact sequence of what happened. Please would you set out again the sequence of people you spoke to at the station and what was demanded, what was paid in each case and what paperwork/tickets you were given?

furlong · 4 Jan 2020

And was your appeal a formal Appeal made under the Penalty Fares regulations? If so, when did you receive the result of that appeal, did you consider a second appeal and if not, why not?

furlong · 4 Jan 2020

sportzbar said:
The OP stated he was running late. Is that Northern's fault? I don't recall any where it stating in the national conditions of carriage that "if you are running late then bypass the ticket purchasing facilities". He was late. He decided to bypass the ticketing facilities therefore leaving himself liable. It's black and white. Plain and simple.

The previous point concerned intent under criminal law, not contractual obligations under the Conditions of Travel and not liability to a Penalty Fare. For example, contractually someone running late might forego an entitlement to choose from the full range of fares (but even that may unfortunately now be arguable due to a poor choice of words in the CoT).

sportzbar · 4 Jan 2020

furlong said:
The previous point concerned intent under criminal law, not contractual obligations under the Conditions of Travel and not liability to a Penalty Fare. For example, contractually someone running late might forego an entitlement to choose from the full range of fares (but even that may unfortunately now be arguable due to a poor choice of words in the CoT).

No incorrect. I can tell you that by walking past a working ticket machine just because you are running late does not entitle you to just pay in the train or at your arrival station. As I have already pointed out the passenger is responsible and by doing the above does leave him liable to prosecution under railway bylaws. By walking past a working ticket machine ( regardless of being late ) does show none intent to pay.

As for being charged a penalty fare on top of paying the fare between the stations something does not add up. Was the OP charged £20 on top of the fare paid? Or was he charged the same fare again as the penalty in which case the penalty fare was issued correctly.

My point isn't to look at the ins and outs of the specific laws, more to educate people that if you don't follow the rules then expect to pay....

furlong · 4 Jan 2020

sportzbar said:
N By walking past a working ticket machine ( regardless of being late ) does show none intent to pay.

It is a factor that may point towards such non-intent, but not the only factor a court might choose to take into account. Much as the railway would like it to be this simple, the reality may be much more nuanced.

As for being charged a penalty fare on top of paying the fare between the stations something does not add up. Was the OP charged £20 on top of the fare paid? Or was he charged the same fare again as the penalty in which case the penalty fare was issued correctly.

Exactly - the accounts given so far are contradictory, and it's unclear yet where the error is (though I've made my guess).

furlong · 4 Jan 2020

(To be clear, if the OP really had first been sold a ticket for the journey they actually made, then it would be too late to issue a penalty fare after that as they'd then be able to produce a valid ticket so the criteria for issuing a PF would not be met. It's one or the other, not both.)

Kilopylae · 4 Jan 2020

Furlong - yes, I'd meant 5(3). The dangers of forum posting while not entirely sober! :lol:

furlong · 4 Jan 2020

Kilopylae said:
Furlong - yes, I'd meant 5(3). The dangers of forum posting while not entirely sober!

And the discussion was about 5(1) not 5(3). 5(3) is explicitly irrelevant whereas 5(1) is not.

Sorry - Another Northern Rail court summons

Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Attachments

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member