Northern Rail lose 50p court case

pemma · 27 May 2011

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereve...after-11-month-legal-battle-costing-thousands

Commuter finally cleared over 50p train fare fraud after 11-month legal battle costing thousands

A commuter has been dragged through the courts three times in a case costing thousands of pounds – in a dispute over 50p. The 11-month legal wrangle finally ended with magistrates finding Conrad Astley not guilty of fraud.

A commuter has been dragged through the courts three times in a case costing thousands of pounds – in a dispute over 50p.

The 11-month legal wrangle finally ended with magistrates finding Conrad Astley not guilty of fraud.

He was prosecuted by Northern Rail after they claimed he intentionally did not pay enough when travelling into Manchester.

Legal experts estimate it would have cost the company, which was represented by a barrister, at least £2,000 to bring the case.

Based on court cases they've won their legal fees are quoted as around £400 per court case.

RailUK Forums

mikeg · 27 May 2011

I'm surprised at this. To be honest, I don't think that it was a good use of the court's resources but still there have been people caught offering similar short fares over the period of several years and defrauding the railway out of about £1000. I'm sure I read of such a case in RAIL a few months ago.
Fraud is fraud, whether for 50p or £1000, but of course the former deserves a slap on the wrist whereas the latter is a much more serious matter.
Maybe there were other reasons why he was found not guilty other than the reason it was just 50p?

DaveNewcastle · 27 May 2011

This appears to be have been a prosecution brought against a passenger by Northern Rail following one of their 'stings' at an unstaffed station. A team of Revenue staff appear at a station near Manchester and hand out 'vouchers' to all passengers travelling towards the City, so that when the passengers arrive at their destination, still ticketless, and go to buy a ticket there, they're asked to show the 'voucher'.
The 'sting' is that people travelling from further afield but claiming just to have travelled a shorter journey (from the station with the 'vouchers'), are detected because they can't produce a voucher. They are sent for prosecution.

The press article doesn't explain the reason for Northern's prosecution failing, but it seems likely that this 'voucher' system was challenged - perhaps because it is unenforceable in law.

Although the passenger 'won' and Northern are portrayed in a poor light, it does remind any 'chancers' trying to dodge their due fare that Northern take fare dodging seriously.

Hardly "an 11-month legal battle", though!

pemma · 27 May 2011

If Newton for Hyde has CCTV then maybe he was clearly found to be telling the truth. The 11 months mentioned is probably how long between the alleged offence and the court ruling.

Railjet · 27 May 2011

DaveNewcastle said:
This appears to be have been a prosecution brought against a passenger by Northern Rail following one of their 'stings' at an unstaffed station. A team of Revenue staff appear at a station near Manchester and hand out 'vouchers' to all passengers travelling towards the City, so that when the passengers arrive at their destination, still ticketless, and go to buy a ticket there, they're asked to show the 'voucher'.
The 'sting' is that people travelling from further afield but claiming just to have travelled a shorter journey (from the station with the 'vouchers'), are detected because they can't produce a voucher. They are sent for prosecution.n are portrayed in a poor light, it does remind any 'chancers' trying to dodge their due fare that Northern take fare dodging seriously.

I know this has been debated before, but just run this by me. If you destroyed the voucher, what happens?

Obviously, Northern is trying to save money, putting an unfair onus on the passenger to "prove" where they have boarded. The honest fare-paying passenger shouldn't have to prove anything other than that he/she has paid (or will pay, at destination) the correct fare for the journey travelled, evidenced by the ticket bought or to be bought. If Northern can't supply adequate ticketing facilities, and wants to prove where passengers boarded, it's just going to have to invest in the necessary infrastructure. Why doesn't the franchisor insist on this?

DaveNewcastle · 27 May 2011

jcollins said:
If Newton for Hyde has CCTV then maybe he was clearly found to be telling the truth.

No. If CCTV evidence was the determining factor, and the CCTV evidence is managed by Northern, then they would have realised that their evidence was flawed and would have dropped the prosecution.
Nobody takes a prosecution to Court with evidence which doesn't support their claim.
I'll stick with my initial assessment that it was the 'voucher' system which was challenged and found to have no basis in the contract to travel.

pemma · 27 May 2011

DaveNewcastle said:
No. If CCTV evidence was the determining factor, and the CCTV evidence is managed by Northern, then they would have realised that their evidence was flawed and would have dropped the prosecution.

CCTV doesn't have to be on station premises itself. If the local council/police have CCTV for the local area then it's possible the passenger could be seen walking towards the station and Northern wouldn't know the CCTV exists prior to turning up at court.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

ANorthernGuard said:
Newton for Hyde has an open Booking office up to around Midday.

NRE shows the ticket office as Newton for Hyde being currently out of operation due to refurbishment works. I don't know when these works started.

yorkie · 27 May 2011

It does not surprise me. Northern will prosecute over pennies.

Did it really cost "the company" £2,000? I don't know the answer to that but it is wishful thinking. I strongly suspect taxpayers foot the bill. As a taxpayer I totally and utterly object to that.

I am glad that justice was served and Northern have, once again, been humiliated in court.

Pete Myers is, I'm assured from people who know him, a nice guy. Unfortunately the quote from him leaves me with far more questions than answers. Perhaps he, or someone else from Northern, can do some more explaining.

I would also like to know from the customer more information on how he won the case. It is interesting that the customer offered to pay a fine. Only a court can issue a fine, and he contested the allegations in court, meaning he was not fined. I suspect he actually offered to settle out of court.

I am aware of some cases where Northern have settled out of court, but they do seem to pursue these "voucher" cases vigorously.

I would also like to know exactly what the person selling the ticket said.

It is not uncommon for people to travel back to a different station later in the day.

If the question was asked "Did you board at Flowery Field?" and the customer said yes, then I would say Northern's case would be a lot stronger. However I suspect they did not, I base this on what people in this situation have told me personally, and the fact that the customer won the case.

Sadly Northern will continue to defraud taxpayers of thousands of pounds by pursuing petty, spurious cases against their customers. They never learn!

ANorthernGuard · 27 May 2011

jcollins said:
CCTV doesn't have to be on station premises itself. If the local council/police have CCTV for the local area then it's possible the passenger could be seen walking towards the station and Northern wouldn't know the CCTV exists prior to turning up at court.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

NRE shows the ticket office as Newton for Hyde being currently out of operation due to refurbishment works. I don't know when these works started.

its been open for many months, typical out of date NRE lol, even if it was not open on the day, there was the guard on the train (CoC says he finds the guard not the other way around) and the barriers at Picc, and its not easy confusing Flowery Field with Newton lol, seems strange to me but heck what do I know lol, I only spend more minutes dealing with fare evaders in that area than anywhere else on my routes (and I do a heck of a lot)

pemma · 27 May 2011

Railjet said:
If Northern can't supply adequate ticketing facilities, and wants to prove where passengers boarded, it's just going to have to invest in the necessary infrastructure. Why doesn't the franchisor insist on this?

It's part of the Merseyrail franchise to maintain a certain amount of seating on platform relating to how many people board at a station as well as ticket buying facilities but franchises were DfT is the franchisor don't include things like this.

Bittern · 27 May 2011

Can I just point something out?

How would they have known he had traveled from a further station and not from a nearer one, but planned to go out to the further station after his trip into the city?

I mean, if I need to do say, Merryton - Glasgow but after Glasgow I want to go to Larkhall, I'd just get a Larkhall - Glasgow return.

DaveNewcastle · 27 May 2011

jcollins said:
. . . . Northern wouldn't know the CCTV exists prior to turning up at court.

Really?

(Sorry, I don't intend to criticise you. But I think we can deduce a little more from what the journo has written - albeit as an unwitting reporter - than that which requires us to speculate.)

ANorthernGuard · 27 May 2011

yorkie said:
It does not surprise me. Northern will prosecute over pennies.

Did it really cost "the company" £2,000? I don't know the answer to that but it is wishful thinking. I strongly suspect taxpayers foot the bill. As a taxpayer I totally and utterly object to that.

I am glad that justice was served and Northern have, once again, been humiliated in court.

Pete Myers is, I'm assured from people who know him, a nice guy. Unfortunately the quote from him leaves me with far more questions than answers. Perhaps he, or someone else from Northern, can do some more explaining.

I would also like to know from the customer more information on how he won the case. It is interesting that the customer offered to pay a fine. Only a court can issue a fine, and he contested the allegations in court, meaning he was not fined. I suspect he actually offered to settle out of court.

I am aware of some cases where Northern have settled out of court, but they do seem to pursue these "voucher" cases vigorously.

I would also like to know exactly what the person selling the ticket said.

It is not uncommon for people to travel back to a different station later in the day.

If the question was asked "Did you board at Flowery Field?" and the customer said yes, then I would say Northern's case would be a lot stronger. However I suspect they did not, I base this on what people in this situation have told me personally, and the fact that the customer won the case.

Sadly Northern will continue to defraud taxpayers of thousands of pounds by pursuing petty, spurious cases against their customers. They never learn!

if what you have said isn't libel Yorkie I don't know what is! its a franchise agreement to pursue Fare Evaders and a very minute amount of cases are brought incorrectly, the hadfield line has always been known as a hotbed of Fare evasion and the genuine fare payers see the same people getting away with it day in and day out, we as guards do our best but we need help, the voucher system 99.9% of the time works and I seriously doubt this guys story!, this time Yorkie i'm afraid you have got it wrong (IMHO) I see it every time I work that route, I challenge you to spend say 3-4 hours travelling and you will see it (I guarantee it)

pemma · 27 May 2011

ANorthernGuard said:
I only spend more minutes dealing with fare evaders in that area than anywhere else on my routes (and I do a heck of a lot)

If that's the case then Northern should be putting more RPI staff on those stations platforms to ensure everyone has a ticket before they get on and that everyone who travelled to the station has purchased a ticket.

michael769 · 27 May 2011

The problem with a voucher system like this is that in order to use the lack of a voucher as evidence of fraud the prosecution would have to provide the court with evidence that there was no way that a passenger travelling from the station in question could get on the train without a voucher.

As passengers could not reasonably be expected to know that they need to obtain a voucher, any decent defence solicitor would point out that it is entirely possible that at a busy time a passenger could end up being overlooked and manage to get onto the train without having been given a voucher, and thus the absence of the voucher is not sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the passenger did not board the train at the station in question.

The interesting thing in this case, though, is that the passenger seems to be admitting that he joined the train at another earlier station. Assuming he admitted that in court then that would provide the evidence required. We can only speculate what happened in court, but as in a fraud case the prosecution has to prove that the accused intended to defraud, I suspect that the court felt that the prosecution had failed to provide satisfactory evidence that the defendants claim that he had made a genuine mistake was untrue.

ANorthernGuard · 27 May 2011

jcollins said:
If that's the case then Northern should be putting more RPI staff on those stations platforms to ensure everyone has a ticket before they get on and that everyone who travelled to the station has purchased a ticket.

and where exactly do they get the money from?? there are 11 stations on that route (12 if u include the 1 that stops at ardwick) so to cover all the platforms that would be 22 RPI's needed thats more than they have at Picc during rush hour, they do there best with the limited resources they have at there disposal and the voucher scheme 99.9% of the time works.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

michael769 said:
The problem with a voucher system like this is that in order to use the lack of a voucher as evidence of fraud the prosecution would have to provide the court with evidence that there was no way that a passenger travelling from the station in question could get on the train without a voucher.

As passengers could not reasonably be expected to know that they need to obtain a voucher, any decent defence solicitor would point out that it is entirely possible that at a busy time a passenger could end up being overlooked and manage to get onto the train without having been given a voucher, and thus the absence of the voucher is not sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the passenger did not board the train at the station in question.

The interesting thing in this case, though, is that the passenger seems to be admitting that he joined the train at another earlier station. Assuming he admitted that in court then that would provide the evidence required. We can only speculate what happened in court, but as in a fraud case the prosecution has to prove that the accused intended to defraud, I suspect that the court felt that the prosecution had failed to provide satisfactory evidence that the defendants claim that he had made a genuine mistake was untrue.

it looks to me that the last couple of sentences were true, that they couldn't prove intent, a very rare occurence as that is the 1st I have heard of it

wintonian · 27 May 2011

Where in the NCoC does it say passengers may be required to present an official voucher before buying a ticket? Why can't they just sell the passengers a flippin ticket instead of this voucher malarkey? :roll:

ANorthernGuard · 27 May 2011

wintonian said:
Where in the NCoC does it say passengers may be required to present an official voucher before buying a ticket? Why can't they just sell the passengers a flippin ticket instead of this voucher malarkey? :roll:

One of the main reasons is actually quite simple, season tickets when they 1st trialed the scheme on the Hadfield line they caught about 5 people having season tickets from Gorton when they actually boarded from earlier stations, as a guard especially at rush hour we basically scan for dates and ticket types, on a norma ticket its easy to sport start and finish stations but with a season ticket it needs more investigation and that takes time and its easy to miss!

pemma · 27 May 2011

ANorthernGuard said:
and where exactly do they get the money from?? there are 11 stations on that route (12 if u include the 1 that stops at ardwick) so to cover all the platforms that would be 22 RPI's needed thats more than they have at Picc during rush hour, they do there best with the limited resources they have at there disposal and the voucher scheme 99.9% of the time works.

They don't need RPI staff at every station on every day - they can rotate between stations on an irregular pattern. If someone comes up to you as a guard just as the train's near Ardwick and says they need a single from Newton for Hyde but you know there were RPI staff there then you know that they didn't board at Newton for Hyde.

DaveNewcastle · 27 May 2011

wintonian said:
Where in the NCoC does it say passengers may be required to present an official voucher before buying a ticket?

Exactly!
There is no reference to the 'voucher' in the Terms & Conditions of the Contract; consequently, a Prosecutor is going to struggle to demonstrate that the presence or absence of a 'voucher' is sure evidence of a breach of those T&Cs; they'd be struggling harder to demonstrate that it is evidence of 'intent to avoid payment' because they wouldn't have the benefit of Case Law as an authority.

pemma · 27 May 2011

wintonian said:
Where in the NCoC does it say passengers may be required to present an official voucher before buying a ticket? Why can't they just sell the passengers a flippin ticket instead of this voucher malarkey? :roll:

Apparently it's what Northern do in the Leeds area they pick a station like Cross Gates that's near Leeds so a cheapish fare to Leeds, put RPI staff there ensuring everyone buys a ticket before boarding then if anyone says they want a ticket from Cross Gates at the barriers at Leeds they say "we know you didn't board there."

But Northern effectively operate as 2 companies a West side and an East side and different procedures are in place for the different areas.

ANorthernGuard · 27 May 2011

jcollins said:
They don't need RPI staff at every station on every day - they can rotate between stations on an irregular pattern. If someone comes up to you as a guard just as the train's near Ardwick and says they need a single from Newton for Hyde but you know there were RPI staff there then you know that they didn't board at Newton for Hyde.

thats basically the idea of the voucher scheme, we are mean't to get told what stations are being covered (usually its the last half of the stations on that route) so we go through and sell them a ticket, now if they buy a ticket from flowery field and they got on at Godley (for instance) no voucher in hand what would you think? there is no full proof way of avoiding fare evasion but atleast Northern are tackling it in a proactive way. this is the 1st time I have heard of a case failing at court because of the voucher system.

Tom B · 27 May 2011

ANorthernGuard said:
One of the main reasons is actually quite simple, season tickets when they 1st trialed the scheme on the Hadfield line they caught about 5 people having season tickets from Gorton when they actually boarded from earlier stations, as a guard especially at rush hour we basically scan for dates and ticket types, on a norma ticket its easy to sport start and finish stations but with a season ticket it needs more investigation and that takes time and its easy to miss!

I thought they had a solution to this, called "ticket inspectors"? If a guard is busy at rush hour then lay on an extra inspector ON THE TRAIN. Obviating the need for passengers to queue at their destination, and the need for so many/any G4S fatblokes etc (perhaps one team could do a random set of platforms each day or something).

wintonian · 27 May 2011

ANorthernGuard said:
One of the main reasons is actually quite simple, season tickets when they 1st trialed the scheme on the Hadfield line they caught about 5 people having season tickets from Gorton when they actually boarded from earlier stations, as a guard especially at rush hour we basically scan for dates and ticket types, on a norma ticket its easy to sport start and finish stations but with a season ticket it needs more investigation and that takes time and its easy to miss!

Ok, I can see that with seasons, but still it would be easy enough to look out the window (for most stations) pick one that doesnt have a block on and say you boarded there.

ANorthernGuard · 27 May 2011

wintonian said:
Ok, I can see that with seasons, but still it would be easy enough to look out the window (for most stations) pick one that doesnt have a block on and say you boarded there.

to be fair you wouldn't know as they position the staff usually either at the exit of the booking office (manned station) or at the station entrance (unmanned) they are crafty like that

wintonian · 27 May 2011

DaveNewcastle said:
Exactly!
There is no reference to the 'voucher' in the Terms & Conditions of the Contract; consequently, a Prosecutor is going to struggle to demonstrate that the presence or absence of a 'voucher' is sure evidence of a breach of those T&Cs; they'd be struggling harder to demonstrate that it is evidence of 'intent to avoid payment' because they wouldn't have the benefit of Case Law as an authority.

As such pepole are within there rights to lose it on the way!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

ANorthernGuard said:
to be fair you wouldn't know as they position the staff usually either at the exit of the booking office (manned station) or at the station entrance (unmanned) they are crafty like that

So you have to pass the block before you can buy a ticket at the ticket office?

ANorthernGuard · 27 May 2011

wintonian said:
As such pepole are within there rights to lose it on the way!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So you have to pass the block before you can buy a ticket at the ticket office?

EXIT of the booking office not entrance lol

wintonian · 27 May 2011

ANorthernGuard said:
EXIT of the booking office not entrance lol

Sorry,

But isn't the exit normaly on the platform and so visiable when passing on a train?

ANorthernGuard · 27 May 2011

wintonian said:
Sorry,

But isn't the exit normaly on the platform and so visiable when passing on a train?

the majority (of that line, atleast on the Down) is you have to go through the booking office before the platform)

WestCoast · 27 May 2011

The Hadfield line is a tricky one to deal with. It's metro-like: all covered by the TfGM area, very frequent stops (every 3-5 mins) and high-capacity 323s. If it was in the South East it would be covered by penalty fares and PTT/machines.

Not many like penalty fares - I personally think this line is a candidate.

This voucher nonsense (not covered by the NRCoC) isn't what is needed - more machines and offices following Merseyrail's example. Put a revenue block at certain stations randomly and sell tickets!

By giving out vouchers you are basically handing people over to G4S to deal with at Piccadilly.

Northern Rail lose 50p court case

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member