Busaholic - you are not ranting or being OTT I can see why you might think like that , however unfortunately the legal system could not operate fluidly if Ignorance of the Law was accepted as a defence and Tocs just had to accept passengers where always making mistakes as to ticket validity .
It is a common fallacy that ignorance of the law is never an acceptable defence. Which individual has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the billions of words contained in the laws, statutes, bye-laws, etc of England, let alone other parts of the U.K.? Even the rules regarding rail travel and ticketing are beyond the knowledge of Methuselah and would send a Professor of Logic screaming to the nearest rehabilatation clinic.
It is not a fallacy it is an accepted principle of jurisprudence and I know of not one case in England and Wales where Ignorance of the law was accepted as an excuse . If you can suggest one to me for my reading I would be much grateful . I mean how many people who commit murder ,rape ,gph,theft ,fraud etc etc etc know of the specific legal detail of the offence as detailed in the statute book or by the body of common law that criminal law consists of . Not many id be willing to guess . But how many people who are found guilty of this offence are allowed to claim ther ignorance of the law is a defence . .
I know it seems a little unfair at times that knowledge of the law is presumed especially given that criminal responsibility begins at age 10. However the alternative to this would bring the legal system crashing down as the parties would have to prove each others knowledge of the law prior to engaging in a prosecution or civil litigation . Anybody that engages in anything that is on the fringes of things that are not obviously morally repugnant should do their research before doing so I would advise .So If you are buying a house or engaging in some financial business it might be prudent to make oneself aware of the law surrounding those areas so you dont fall fowl of it .
Contracts are between two parties, so all the onus is not on one side, and if it is seen to be so in law the contract or its terms can be declared invalid.
Contracts are between two parties I agree , and in the realm of the railway those contracts are between passengers and the TOC . Whilst you are correct in stating that terms of a contract can be declared invalid . As far as I am aware the terms and conditions TOCS agree with their customers have not been challenged as unfair . The terms and conditions are readily available as well as passengers charters and the railway bylaws so nobody should really be ignorant to them if they use the train then they should make themselves aware of them .If you where to travel abroad and attempt to use the public transport system there you would try and read up on how it works before attempting to use it or you could face a hefty penalty - take the need to validate metro tickets when boarding a tram in praque . If you dont read up on how it works you dont suddenly become immune from a fine . But just as has become the norm in society today people just take it for granted that the TOC would provide nice cushy terms and conditions and why would they try to screw us over . Well because they are a business so one of their key aims is to make money . If you dont read the terms and conditions but then fall foul of them you have nobody to blame but yourself .
We have seen many examples on this forum of TOCs and their employees and agents admitting to 'honest mistakes' when challenged (a solecism, for please define a 'dishonest mistake' and any decent barrister or, indeed, judge would make mincemeat of that in court) so quite why they, or their unofficial spokesmen on this forum, deem passengers incapable of this too I cannot imagine. When a TOC then colludes in not taking a passenger it considers, presumably with pretty damning evidence even if some of it only hearsay, to be the most prolific faredodger ever caught in Britain to a criminal court is indicative of the lack of moral probity in such organisations.
Doubtless I will now be accused by some of ranting or being OTT but, if doing so, please be prepared to say precisely where I am wrong.
Yes we have seen occassions when TOCS have made mistakes , there are times when things go wrong and it is a TOCS fault . And the provisions in place when this goes wrong are specified in the terms and conditions . Usually if a TOC makes a mistake that leads to a substantial delay to the passenger they will then pay compensation to that passenger .
There is of course no such thing as a dishonest or an honest mistake because the word mistake means no Malice . I acknowledge that passengers can make mistakes and board the wrong train . But that does not draw away from the invalidity of the ticket they hold and the need for them to hold a valid one .
what you are suggesting leads to the situation where someone can board a "TOC A" Train holding an Advance "TOC B" fare and should just be allowed to travel with that ticket on the notion that they have made a mistake and did not understand the law/rules . The logical problem there though is that it places the customer in an elevated position above the TOC (unequal bargaining power is a reason to strike down the terms of a contract)because then TOC A cannot exercise their right to charge that passenger for a valid ticket . And furthermore it is even worse because the customer holds a TOC B specific ticket TOC A has not recieved any money for that ticket . So you are essentially stating that you would like the law to compell TOC A to carry passengers for free which then undermines the whole prupose of their business .
