It's interesting that in a thread where people are making a big deal over if "regulation" is capitalised or not, I'm being taken for task for not realising that "flawed (threats of) prosecution" and "flawed prosecutions" aren't the same thing.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Being prosecuted for using pay as you go oyster card belonging to someone else
- Thread starter Skadoosh
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
But a flawed threat will become a flawed prosecution unless the punter pays up. And then you’re in the lap of the gods (well, the mags) as to whether or not you get convicted
If the magistrates are doing their jobs correctly then it will be a failed prosecution. Anyway, the OP has their answer so you can all feel free to continue discussing how many pixies can trip the light fantastic on the head of a pin.
Would you gamble on the mags not siding with the organisation that will be bringing dozens of prosecutions per day, whose legal team they’re probably familiar with, especially if the case isn’t a slam dunk and hinges on a little used technicality? Surely you can see why people weigh up the cost and the risk and pay up?
I'd certainly lean towards this result, and have experience of this (not my case thankfully) Thankfully, an appeal was upheld else the innocent person would have had many order of magnitude more than £150 to pay. This was a non railway matter but the same applies. A company that throws many cases at you (which are paid for) with people you are familiar with and possibly even go to the same pub as afterwards will always have to do less to prove they're right (even when they're not).
matt_world2004
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2014
- Messages
- 4,504
It would also require the magistrates to understand the vagaries of the ticketing system . Which considering this RPI and prosecution department didnt. This would be a surprise if they did. But expert witnesses from TfL or another organisation may convince them
Puffing Devil
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Apr 2013
- Messages
- 2,766
It depends on the Legal Advisor understanding the law and interpreting it correctly for the Magistrates - their job is to decide guilt or innocence, not the technical, legal, arguments.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
I thought your point was that GA aren't carrying out flawed prosecutions. They are. This is only a flawed (threat of) prosecution because the OP stood up for himself; if they'd just ignore it, it would have become a flawed prosecution.
If that wasn't your point then apologies for misunderstanding!
True, but "I had a valid ticket" is not a nuanced legal argument, it is a matter of fact. And that is for the Bench to decide.
If a defendant says they had a valid ticket but the TOC says they didn't, a Magistrate is likely to place more weight on the "expert evidence" from the TOC whose job it is to set the ticketing. If, as in this case, the "expert" decides that checking the rules is beneath them, I wouldn't fancy my chances in court.
RJ
Established Member
Those baying for GA's blood, bear in mind it's likely a case like this will be dismissed as an oddity of a niche technical nature. I wouldn't expect any staff to be briefed or compensation to be offered.
To get compensation you'll have to communicate with them in a language that they understand. If they can get away with telling you to foxtrot oscar (in more polite terms), they probably will.
Well done to MikeWh and others for their work in doing the quality technical research GA should have done. The TOCs are well aware that there are technical ticketing experts they can call on for a balanced view - but don't always like doing this before pursuing cases. If this service is outsourced to the customer then the customer should notify them it's a chargeable service at the earliest opportunity and invoice them for it. It's a scarce skill with a value and if the TOC chooses not to source it themselves and pursue the case then charge the fee once it's dropped and chase up though the County Court if needs be.
All that said however, it beats me as to why someone would want to use an Oyster card with someone else's name and photo on it. Many things that are allowed are still likely to cause problems and by the sounds of it the OP didn't know where to find the information that permitted it. If doing things like this, it's advisable to know which document allows it as clearly that would have been enough to fend off Greater Anglia.
To get compensation you'll have to communicate with them in a language that they understand. If they can get away with telling you to foxtrot oscar (in more polite terms), they probably will.
Well done to MikeWh and others for their work in doing the quality technical research GA should have done. The TOCs are well aware that there are technical ticketing experts they can call on for a balanced view - but don't always like doing this before pursuing cases. If this service is outsourced to the customer then the customer should notify them it's a chargeable service at the earliest opportunity and invoice them for it. It's a scarce skill with a value and if the TOC chooses not to source it themselves and pursue the case then charge the fee once it's dropped and chase up though the County Court if needs be.
All that said however, it beats me as to why someone would want to use an Oyster card with someone else's name and photo on it. Many things that are allowed are still likely to cause problems and by the sounds of it the OP didn't know where to find the information that permitted it. If doing things like this, it's advisable to know which document allows it as clearly that would have been enough to fend off Greater Anglia.
Last edited:
The wording says that the offence was committed and that you are charged with committing it. It doesn’t allow for the fact that it might not have been committed (e.g. in this case)
- Status