Issued a travel incident report - Although had a promise to pay (Northern rail)

some bloke said:

Or maybe the promise is a valid ticket, so the byelaw doesn't apply anyway.

Click to expand...

You might be right but that would, in my humble opinion, by an extremely courageous argument to run in a court.

ainsworth74 said:

You might be right but that would, in my humble opinion, by an extremely courageous argument to run in a court.

Click to expand...

Maybe - but my thinking is that the argument should be put to the company long before then. As they say it's a ticket that allows you to board and pay at the destination, how can they seriously argue it isn't a valid ticket for travel?

And then we have the separate issue of whether, given what they say on the web page, a penalty fare can legitimately be charged where the passenger has obtained a promise to pay. If not, then the "abusive" language may be seen in a different light.

The company might be on shaky ground in claiming there is a case for intent to avoid a fare, because of the recording of the attempt to buy from the conductor.

Depending on what is on the video recordings, perhaps you might be in an unusually strong position to appeal to management, or to the head of the prosecution unit, at an early stage to get the case abandoned and avoid worry.

However, I feel I have to ask, so I'm sorry if these are inappropriate - why did you record the attempt to buy from the conductor, and did you attempt that only after seeing the revenue officers?

Sadnorthern said:

Thank you ! I find it hard to articulate what i mean. Will defiantly screenshot this.

Click to expand...

Can I suggest that you read post #53, from one of the Forum Admin Team first.

some bloke said:

And then we have the separate issue of whether, given what they say on the web page, a penalty fare can legitimately be charged where the passenger has obtained a promise to pay. If not, then the "abusive" language may be seen in a different light.

The company might be on shaky ground in claiming there is a case for intent to avoid a fare, because of the recording of the attempt to buy from the conductor.

Depending on what is on the video recordings, perhaps you might be in an unusually strong position to appeal to management, or to the head of the prosecution unit, at an early stage to get the case abandoned and avoid worry.

However, I feel I have to ask, so I'm sorry if these are inappropriate - why did you record the attempt to buy from the conductor, and did you attempt that only after seeing the revenue officers?

Click to expand...

Would the video even be admissable, since they had no permission to record on railway property?

Llanigraham said:

Would the video even be admissable, since they had no permission to record on railway property?

Click to expand...

I can't see why that would be a problem. Taking a video on railway property isn't in itself obviously against a byelaw.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ectors-your-rights.198353/page-2#post-4389076

some bloke said:

And then we have the separate issue of whether, given what they say on the web page, a penalty fare can legitimately be charged where the passenger has obtained a promise to pay. If not, then the "abusive" language may be seen in a different light.

The company might be on shaky ground in claiming there is a case for intent to avoid a fare, because of the recording of the attempt to buy from the conductor.

Depending on what is on the video recordings, perhaps you might be in an unusually strong position to appeal to management, or to the head of the prosecution unit, at an early stage to get the case abandoned and avoid worry.

However, I feel I have to ask, so I'm sorry if these are inappropriate - why did you record the attempt to buy from the conductor, and did you attempt that only after seeing the revenue officers?

Click to expand...

Hi,

Thanks for all your responses you have been really helpful. The officers were blocking the path Directly of the train. So there was no chance to even walk towards the ticket office.

I recorded the incident, because i have been told by multiple people about the conduct of the agents. And to watch out for them as they are hired goons and will do anything to fine you. I had a nasty feeling in my stomach so i decided the proper thing to do. Would be for my own safety to record. With my phone facing down, so it doesn't look like im recording.

I attempted to buy from the conductor. As there was a big que of people. And i thought it would be much faster, than being escorted round by a agent who wasn't particularly in a hurry.

Also used this as the reason for the fine.

The agent said - "Bylaw 18 states that you must have a ticket if there is a open ticket office"

To which i replied i obtained a promise to pay. I have a ticket right there.

If this is the case, why are they even issuing promise to pay tickets?

Llanigraham said:

Can I suggest that you read post #53, from one of the Forum Admin Team first.

Click to expand...

Hi thanks for your comment and i have read it. However i believe that common sense dictates - "Maybe - but my thinking is that the argument should be put to the company long before then. As they say it's a ticket that allows you to board and pay at the destination, how can they seriously argue it isn't a valid ticket for travel?"

Why issue these tickets in the first place, if they are not valid.

Why would it say on the agents uniform "Purchase a ticket or obtain a promise to pay"

Why would it also say the same thing on the platform. "You must either purchase a ticket or obtain a promise to pay" - Will take picture of this Monday.

I have followed all policy's that they have presented.

The raw simple fact is. I followed the rule of "You must either purchase a ticket or obtain a promise to pay"

And was then refused to be allowed to purchase a ticket. harassed, unlawfully detained and surrounded by agents.

Sadnorthern said:

train guards. Who informed me that even though i had obtained this promise to pay. And also asked the train conductor if i could purchase a ticket. Once i got off the platform. That i still had to pay a penalty fine !

Click to expand...

Sadnorthern said:

The officers were blocking the path Directly of the train. ...I recorded the incident....I attempted to buy from the conductor. As there was a big que of people. And i thought it would be much faster, than being escorted round by a agent who wasn't particularly in a hurry.

Click to expand...

If you didn't ask the conductor until you saw the inspectors, other things being equal it's a less convincing point to make (even if it would have been quicker). Train companies and their agents will generally have a heightened sense for things that might be consistent with trying to avoid a fare, so sometimes innocent explanations are less help.

Sadnorthern said:

i am not without fault in this situation.

Click to expand...

Could you clarify this? Is there anything else that might have given the inspectors suspicion?

Although Transport Focus have a policy of only looking at complaints after the train company has dealt with them, perhaps they might be interested in this. They may think it raises a significant general issue.

If you'd prefer to be kept busy, you could go through the videos writing down exactly what was said and anything else relevant - for your next response, and potentially a complaint or other action.

some bloke said:

If you didn't ask the conductor until you saw the inspectors, other things being equal it's a less convincing point to make (even if it would have been quicker). Train companies and their agents will generally have a heightened sense for things that might be consistent with trying to avoid a fare, so sometimes innocent explanations are less help.

Could you clarify this? Is there anything else that might have given the inspectors suspicion?

Although Transport Focus have a policy of only looking at complaints after the train company has dealt with them, perhaps they might be interested in this. They may think it raises a significant general issue.

If you'd prefer to be kept busy, you could go through the videos writing down exactly what was said and anything else relevant - for your next response, and potentially a complaint or other action.

Click to expand...

I am at fault for swearing. I shouldn't of swore. I was upset at being detained, for feeling like i had done nothing wrong but follow policy.

I can't think of anything that might of given the agents suspicion. Besides they are rude to literally everyone young and old. (Its the same group of 6 agents working this line) They also have a arrogance around them that they are a authoritative figure and better than you. And there word is law.

Maybe my age. Im 21. However i was in a suit. So i couldn't see that being the issue. I think maybe the fact i didn't accept there verdict. Might of annoyed them.

Filming in a public place is fine and totally legal in England. By public place this also includes private property that is accessible by the public. This therefore includes the railway.

some bloke said:

Or maybe the promise is a valid ticket, so the byelaw doesn't apply anyway.

Click to expand...

A Promise to Pay is a ticket, but it is not (or at least shouldn't be), if the ticket office is open, a valid ticket.

My view would be that the defence to follow would be that the instructions are sufficient to make a promise to pay valid, even when the ticket office is open, by telling a passenger that they can travel with one.

Of course, if after hearing back from Northern Rail you get an offer to settle out of court, that would remain a lower risk route to take than trying to mount a defence in court, based on such a careful reading of the byelaws and the wording on a TVM.

Have Northern ever taken anyone to Court to fight a Promise to Pay issue?

If the OP is near the station they begun their journey anytime soon I would strongly advise taking photographic evidence of any signage (or indeed any lack of signage) that is that the station, or anything they read on the day and formed a belief based upon. You might want to also photograph the screens on the ticket machine as you go through the process of getting a P2P and the instructions this gives. Might want to print of another P2P so you know exactly what the wording of them is.

Having read through all of this thread a couple of times and accepting the OPs post at face value, regarding staff behaviour, which I will comment on in a moment, it seems clear to me that breaches of National Railways Byelaw 18 (1) and NR Byelaw 6 (1) could be pursued by the TOC if they choose to do so.

National Railway Byelaws (2005)
18 (1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, 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 admits that there was an open and staffed booking office at the station where he joined the train, and because he arrived very late, he decided that he didn't have time to purchase a ticket, but he did have time to obtain a Promise to Pay voucher from the machine. (Post #1). The fact that the OP could have paid by cash at the ticket office negates any argument that suggests that facilities were not available and from past experience of similar cases, I believe that the TOC could succeed in successfully prosecuting this matter at a Magistrates Court hearing. Like a Permit to Travel, a Promise to Pay voucher is normally interpreted as only to be used when pre-purchase facilities are not available. I appreciate the point about 'a notice' under 18 (3), but I do know that a persuasive line by the prosecutor (not Northern) has succeeded with Magistrates several times in the past

The OP was spoken to by revenue staff at his destination and says that he tendered the PTP and offered his fare, which was not accepted. It seems that staff intended to issue a penalty notice. The OP argued his case and by his own admission, says that after being spoken to by rail staff the OP said "This is ****ing ridiculous i am now 15 minutes late". The staff member then advised that because the OP had sworn the matter would be reported. Having been told this, the OP says he went on to say "Please hurry up and give me the ****ing fine, so i can go and get to work. As i have to go to work"

The OP says "One member of the agents, decided this was extremely funny. And decided to start laughing" That describes what can only be said to be unprofessional behaviour and must be the subject of an entirely separate complaint to the TOC.

The argument about whether or not the TOC has failed to honour a promise to provide 2 trains an hour is entirely irrelevant so far as this incident is concerned, but is also a complaint that could be pursued separately

Returning to the irregularity, the OP later admits "Something else to add that may be important i should of said from the start - This may count against me. This did not result in me paying for a ticket. As i was over the 30 minutes late. And very upset. I should of gone right > to the ticket office. But i went Left, the quickest route to work." (Post #50)

It may just be how I read it, but this doesn't make clear whether the OP walked left to leave the station before being spoken to by staff, or whether this was after staff decided to write a report of the incident. That could be very important. If the OP alighted and headed for 'the quickest route to work' before being spoken to, this changes the case somewhat.

I would hope that the TOC will give an opportunity to resolve this administratively and that the OP will pursue i) his complaint about the staff and ii) his complaint about failed service promises as entirely separate issues.

I agree that clear photographs of existing signage would be helpful, the badly angled photo of the bottom of the Penalty Fare Notice doesn't really help, but it might be helpful to post clear signs on here for further comment.

cuccir said:

a defence in court, based on such a careful reading of the byelaws and the wording on a TVM.

Click to expand...

The defence could be based on more than the byelaws and the instructions on the machine. There are also the website and the signs. Doesn't contract law mean that the validity of the ticket should be decided by interpretations in the customer's favour, so that if the public statements can be reasonably read as saying it's a valid ticket, it is?

Sadnorthern said:

on the sign at the station and also on his badge it says. "Purchase a ticket, or obtain a promise to pay"

Click to expand...

Sadnorthern said:

the picture of it saying "You either need to obtain a ticket or a promise to pay" There is no where it says i must purchase a ticket if the office is open.

Click to expand...

some bloke said:

And then we have the separate issue of whether, given what they say on the web page, a penalty fare can legitimately be charged where the passenger has obtained a promise to pay. If not, then the "abusive" language may be seen in a different light.

The company might be on shaky ground in claiming there is a case for intent to avoid a fare, because of the recording of the attempt to buy from the conductor.

Depending on what is on the video recordings, perhaps you might be in an unusually strong position to appeal to management, or to the head of the prosecution unit, at an early stage to get the case abandoned and avoid worry.

However, I feel I have to ask, so I'm sorry if these are inappropriate - why did you record the attempt to buy from the conductor, and did you attempt that only after seeing the revenue officers?

Click to expand...

On a slight tangent I would be interested to know what classes as abusive language. In the 70' or 80's yes probably the f word but when I retired in 2012 from a professional office environment the f word was in common day to day use by both sexes and the c word was not becoming that uncommon.
Is there actually a legal or TOC list of what is abusive?

packermac said:

On a slight tangent I would be interested to know what classes as abusive language. In the 70' or 80's yes probably the f word but when I retired in 2012 from a professional office environment the f word was in common day to day use by both sexes and the c word was not becoming that uncommon.
Is there actually a legal or TOC list of what is abusive?

Click to expand...

A good starting point might be to consider what you would consider to be acceptable language from the member of staff.

packermac said:

On a slight tangent I would be interested to know what classes as abusive language. In the 70' or 80's yes probably the f word but when I retired in 2012 from a professional office environment the f word was in common day to day use by both sexes and the c word was not becoming that uncommon.
Is there actually a legal or TOC list of what is abusive?

Click to expand...

I don't think there needs to be - it would depend on the circumstances as the byelaws allow wide interpretation:

6 (1) No person shall use any threatening, abusive, obscene or offensive language on the railway.
(2) No person shall behave in a disorderly, indecent or offensive manner on the
railway.
(8) No person shall molest or wilfully interfere with the comfort or convenience of
any person on the railway.

packermac said:

On a slight tangent I would be interested to know what classes as abusive language. In the 70' or 80's yes probably the f word but when I retired in 2012 from a professional office environment the f word was in common day to day use by both sexes and the c word was not becoming that uncommon.
Is there actually a legal or TOC list of what is abusive?

Click to expand...

I'd draw a distinction by arguing that in an office, or other workplace where the only other people there are your co-workers, everyone has a fair idea of what will cause offence and so will know what to avoid. In a more public place, such as a railway station where not everyone involved in a discussion will know everyone else's sensitivities, a reasonable person will restrict their language to that which will not offend other reasonable people. To fail to do so would at least support the idea of the language being used being offensive.

I think @Fare-Cop has pretty much nailed this one.

Perhaps there's arguments to be made around byelaw18(3) and whether or not there was a notice which could have acted to give a dispensation from 18(1) or 18(2) but I certainly wouldn't be keen to test them in court as a prosecutor I'm sure would be readily able to make a compelling case against the OP. Perhaps the OP could defend themselves with a well reasoned argument backed up by evidence of the signs at the station and the TVM (as others have said I would also strongly advise getting pictures ASAP). But I certainly would consider it to be gamble.

Meanwhile 6(1) seems to be something of a slam dunk to me if they were to decide to also or alternatively prosecute for that. I can appreciate the point being made that language has moved on but I doubt a magistrate would be persuaded that the f-word is anything other than offensive. Back in 2016 OFCOM did some research into "Attitudes to potentially offensive language and gestures on TV and radio". The full report is here but perhaps most relevant is the table at page 44 (page 47 of the pdf)* which puts the f-word into the category of "Strongest words (highly unacceptable prewatershed but generally acceptable postwatershed)". I would suggest that it is a non-starter to try and suggest that an offence under 6(1) hasn't been committed personally.

*I would expect this to be obvious considering the title but if you do go reading the report it's full of words which could be potentially offensive.

ainsworth74 said:

I would suggest that it is a non-starter to try and suggest that an offence under 6(1) hasn't been committed personally.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

But where are passengers told that a Promise to Pay is not a valid ticket when the office is open?

If they are told, how is it clear and prominent enough (and enough to override any other messages) to tell passengers clearly that they have no valid ticket under contract law? Contract law favours the customer's interpretation.

If the magistrates aren't sure whether the ticket is valid, they aren't supposed to decide it's beyond reasonable doubt that someone is guilty, even of a strict liability offence.

One option is to write to Northern management, and Transport Focus, asking

1) their view of the requirements on passengers in those circumstances
and
2) how passengers are told/this overrides other information (see above).

You could mention this:

Sadnorthern said:

the person taking my details. Explained to the women "But we can't issue him a fixed penalty notice, as he has obtained the promise to pay"

Click to expand...

It refers to penalty fares rather than a byelaw offence, but a Northern/TF answer on penalty fares may well be relevant to your case because your refusal to pay the penalty fare, and the irregularity report, and the language, occurred after what may have been an error by the inspector about the circumstances where a penalty fare is due.

Or it might be best to make it a general inquiry without referring to your case, so that management can't just say the prosecutors are the people who should be dealing with it.

ainsworth74 said:

I think @Fare-Cop has pretty much nailed this one.

Perhaps there's arguments to be made around byelaw18(3) and whether or not there was a notice which could have acted to give a dispensation from 18(1) or 18(2) but I certainly wouldn't be keen to test them in court as a prosecutor I'm sure would be readily able to make a compelling case against the OP. Perhaps the OP could defend themselves with a well reasoned argument backed up by evidence of the signs at the station and the TVM (as others have said I would also strongly advise getting pictures ASAP). But I certainly would consider it to be gamble.

Meanwhile 6(1) seems to be something of a slam dunk to me if they were to decide to also or alternatively prosecute for that. I can appreciate the point being made that language has moved on but I doubt a magistrate would be persuaded that the f-word is anything other than offensive. Back in 2016 OFCOM did some research into "Attitudes to potentially offensive language and gestures on TV and radio". The full report is here but perhaps most relevant is the table at page 44 (page 47 of the pdf)* which puts the f-word into the category of "Strongest words (highly unacceptable prewatershed but generally acceptable postwatershed)". I would suggest that it is a non-starter to try and suggest that an offence under 6(1) hasn't been committed personally.

*I would expect this to be obvious considering the title but if you do go reading the report it's full of words which could be potentially offensive.

Click to expand...

I try very hard to be objective in commenting in all these threads, but as someone who personally prosecuted fare evasion & railway Byelaw matters for over 20 years, I think I am usually able to give a fair assessment of what a TOC might do based on taking the OPs postings at face value.

It would of course be easier if we could also see all of the TOCs evidence & assessment in any dispute, but that is never going to happen here on a public forum.

As I said before, I genuinely hope that the TOC will give the OP an opportunity to resolve this administratively and after that has been achieved, that the OP will then pursue;

i) his complaint about the alleged staff behaviour
ii) his complaint about alleged failed service promises

These are entirely separate issues and neither of these complaints negate his liability for his own actions with regard to obtaining a valid ticket.

This sign is only on one platform. There is literally 0 signs about the new obtain a ptp or valid ticket. On the other platform. The amount of people I see travelling everyday without a ticket or ptp is mind boggling.

Fare-Cop said:

Having read through all of this thread a couple of times and accepting the OPs post at face value, regarding staff behaviour, which I will comment on in a moment, it seems clear to me that breaches of National Railways Byelaw 18 (1) and NR Byelaw 6 (1) could be pursued by the TOC if they choose to do so.

National Railway Byelaws (2005)


Returning to the irregularity, the OP later admits "Something else to add that may be important i should of said from the start - This may count against me. This did not result in me paying for a ticket. As i was over the 30 minutes late. And very upset. I should of gone right > to the ticket office. But i went Left, the quickest route to work." (Post #50)

Click to expand...

This was after being spoken to by the agents. I took the quickest route left > to work.

Sadnorthern said:

This sign is only on one platform. There is literally 0 signs about the new obtain a ptp or valid ticket. On the other platform. The amount of people I see travelling everyday without a ticket or ptp is mind boggling.

Click to expand...

Like so many notices of this nature it is vague, ambiguous and misleading.

The attachment a couple of posts back has the top missing, but it does not appear to be a "standard notice" as defined by the regulations i.e. it would be of no relevance when considering whether or not a penalty fare could be issued for travel from that station - there would have to be some other notices that do comply.

The notice might well limit the ability to prosecute as it seems to indicate fairly clearly that a PtP is acceptable in lieu of a ticket as conditional authorisation to travel (byelaw 18(3)(ii)), provided that the full PtP terms including those described in the left hand white box on the poster are complied with - and it seems to leave no provision for prosecution in those circumstances, so additionally an attempt to do that might be deemed to be an abuse of process. An attempt to argue that the PtP was required to be exchanged immediately at the ticket office would strike me as 'brave' ('perverse').