Adlington ( Lancs ) to Manchester Victoria

[pemma]

If the ticket office is hidden on the opposite side of the station from the one where you arrive and not sign posted then it could be argued that there was no clear ticket selling facility. Courts have told councils they can't enforce parking tickets for failing to pay where signage has not been clear. I wouldn't be surprised if at certain Northern stations a judge would take a similar view with train tickets - a little hut hidden behind a disused building, not signposted isn't something a first time passenger will find without help.

 

[najaB]

I wouldn't be surprised if at certain Northern stations a judge would take a similar view with train tickets - a little hut hidden behind a disused building, not signposted isn't something a first time passenger will find without help.

While that may be true of some stations, it doesn't appear to be the case here, the station building seems to be clearly visible from the opposite platform (this is a Google image search result for Adlington Station, I'm making the assumption that it is accurate):

 

[Parham Wood]

I agree with much of what you say, many simply expect to be able to do as they wish and pay if asked to do so on train. That is particularly clear from the vast numbers of people who, when spoken to by inspectors, argue "It's up to the guard to come and sell me a ticket".

No it isn't. The Byelaw makes that perfectly clear and the Appeal Court judgment in Corbyn [1978] in relation to criminally avoiding a fare, underlines exactly where the responsibility to pay the correct fare lies.

That said, I also agree that too many stations have no, or limited facilities for the increased patronage on many services.

I do find this a bit hard to accept though; you say

"If they can make announcements on the train about no tickets being sold perhaps they should be announcing that tickets are only sold from stations where there is no means to buy them and that where there is they must be bought before boarding otherwise etc etc. At least for a few months for the message to sink in."

If we look through the posts on this and other forums over the past four or five years it is clear that many TOCs have been ramping up the pressure, putting up posters and issuing press releases and taking people to Court very regularly throughout the past 5 years.

The press, media and all of these forums have been going over the same ground, the same offences and arguments through all that time, so how long do they need to go on issuing warnings before people take notice, use the many apps and other means of purchasing before travelling, or get there a bit earlier and actually buy before boarding when the facilities are available for them to do so?


.

I agree that TOCs have been ramping up the pressure. However I still believe many passengers are in blissful ignorance. (I was until a few years ago when I joined this forum when I believed that an "offence" was only committed if you avoided payment or intended to avoid payment. These days of course there are more signs about it). It would be very interesting to see a survey of passengers and how many actually understood the ticket requirement. My point is that if TOCs keep selling tickets on the train then people are not going to learn. If announcements can be made about not selling tickets then they can be made about buy before you board. It would help drive home the point particularly if tickets still need to be sold aboard to cover stations without ticket facilities. (This could also be explained in the announcement).

 

[snail]

Totally different to an unpaid fares notice. Its like a Northern Penalty Fake but issued on the spot.

I suspect the OP may not have heard of a Penalty Fake.

It's really not that funny any more.

 

[furlong]

If you mean "a court, a magistrate, or a solicitor", I do not. Northern does not operate a Penalty Fares Scheme and rules or publicity around Penalty Fares Schemes are utterly irrelevant to them.

It's a complex area of law that might well develop further. For example, read Regina v Loosely:

It is simply not acceptable that the state through its agents should lure its citizens into committing acts forbidden by the law and then seek to prosecute them for doing so.

Ultimately the overall consideration is always whether the conduct of the police or other law enforcement agency was so seriously improper as to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The greater the inducement held out by the police, and the more forceful or persistent the police overtures, the more readily may a court conclude that the police overstepped the boundary: their conduct might well have brought about commission of a crime by a person who would normally avoid crime of that kind.

 

[furlong]

Can the conduct of a company taking an inconsistent "turn a blind eye" approach to the enforcement of its byelaws be said to bring about the commission of further breaches? Had it not "turned a blind eye" and issued warnings, further breaches due to understandable passenger ignorance and company inconsistency might be avoided.

Might selling a ticket on the train without comment (to someone unaware they are a "criminal") many days, then one day not selling a ticket but instead prosecuting the passenger (or threatening to prosecute unless some "costs" are paid) bring the administration of justice into disrepute?

 

[furlong]

You might consider that the SRA's Penalty Fares policy represents one example where the railway has taken these types of considerations into account and settled on a carefully-reasoned compromise. Similarly GWR's published prosecutions policy gives us another example. As such, you might attempt to reference them if you consider that another TOC's practices fall short - in mitigation if nothing else, hoping for an absolute discharge and/or a favourable decision on costs.

 

[gray1404]

So what advise are we giving to the parent of the daughter here. There is a lot of discussion but not as much advice. I would say that under the circumstances, as there was an open ticket office, they need to pay the failure to pay notice promptly to avoid further action.

 

[Clip]

You might consider that the SRA's Penalty Fares policy represents one example where the railway has taken these types of considerations into account and settled on a carefully-reasoned compromise. Similarly GWR's published prosecutions policy gives us another example. As such, you might attempt to reference them if you consider that another TOC's practices fall short - in mitigation if nothing else, hoping for an absolute discharge and/or a favourable decision on costs.

Again, penalty fare legislation does not count here as they are not part of the penalty fare scheme and to keep bringing it up helps no one at all in this instance

 

[pemma]

While that may be true of some stations, it doesn't appear to be the case here, the station building seems to be clearly visible from the opposite platform (this is a Google image search result for Adlington Station, I'm making the assumption that it is accurate):

Yes and I already said about the sign at the entrance to the Manchester bound platform at Adlington saying the ticket office is on the other side. However, island was implying Northern have the right to prosecute passengers who fail to use a ticket office even if Northern don't advertise the fact the station has a ticket office. I seem to recall a regular poster on here one used Mauldeth Road station and didn't find a little hut which contains the ticket office, despite it being open at the time.

 

[Gareth Marston]

We get people coming in the Booking Office asking if they can buy tickets on the train - which given were not a penalty fare area they can (but only non railcard fares when were open).

As to why you would want to walk into a ticket office and check that before boarding when buying a ticket would be so simple........

 

[pemma]

We get people coming in the Booking Office asking if they can buy tickets on the train - which given were not a penalty fare area they can (but only non railcard fares when were open).

As to why you would want to walk into a ticket office and check that before boarding when buying a ticket would be so simple........

I can understand that if they don't think they have time to buy a ticket and get to the platform before the train departs, particularly if they've been waiting in a queue in the ticket office for a while.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I can understand that if they don't think they have time to buy a ticket and get to the platform before the train departs, particularly if they've been waiting in a queue in the ticket office for a while.

We get them do it 10 minutes before a train goes when there's no one else in the office at the time

 

[Fare-Cop]

We get them do it 10 minutes before a train goes when there's no one else in the office at the time

What do you think makes it quicker to say to the clerk "Can I get my ticket on the train?" than to say to the clerk "Can I have a return to XXX please?"

 

[Gareth Marston]

What do you think makes it quicker to say to the clerk "Can I get my ticket on the train?" than to say to the clerk "Can I have a return to XXX please?"

Lets see what possible reasons could somebody have to walk into an empty/quite booking office and ask if they can buy tickets on the train a few minutes before departure?

The station has several of the current "Buy before you board" campaign posters up around it. The Conductors have promoted it and enforced it on board for several weeks now.

Is it-

1. Perhaps their worried the Conductors aren't getting commission anymore and want to help.
2. There just proving a point.
3. There just being awkward for whatever reason you care to conjure up.
4. There weighing up the consequences of trying to "buy when challenged"

.

 

[Karl60]

An Update.

My daughter did the same journey again today, having bought a ticket first! Another passenger got on at Adlington, travelled to Manchester Victoria, then went to the barrier for people travelling without a ticket, and bought one, no questions asked.

How is it fair that one day she gets issued with a failure to pay notice, and a few days later someone does the same and no questions are asked?

 

[island]

It will depend on a lot of factors, such as how busy things are, whether the staff were aware that the booking office was open or were giving the other passenger the benefit of the doubt, and whether the staff member in question was trained to report passengers for violations.

 

[najaB]

How is it fair that one day she gets issued with a failure to pay notice, and a few days later someone does the same and no questions are asked?

It's not really fair in the cosmic sense but it's no different to one person getting a ticket for speeding and someone else not getting one the next day going the same speed in the same location.

 

[furlong]

How is it fair that one day she gets issued with a failure to pay notice, and a few days later someone does the same and no questions are asked?

It isn't fair and this shouldn't be happening. You could try to get the interest of your M.P. or go directly to the DfT or the ORR as either of them could sort out the general situation if they were so minded. There are rumours of the creation of a new Rail Ombudsman in the near future and it'll be interesting to see if it is provided with sufficient powers and independence to solve problems like these. Seeking a legal opinion and using the courts could prove expensive (5 figures or more) with no guarantee of success. The problem is that, unless you're particularly lucky, challenging either the validity of the byelaw used or the manner of its application based on general legal principles (e.g. abuse of process, human rights act etc.) may require seeking rulings from higher (expensive) courts.

 

[furlong]

It's not really fair in the cosmic sense but it's no different to one person getting a ticket for speeding and someone else not getting one the next day going the same speed in the same location.

Analogies never really work - there's widespread awareness of speed limits. A policeman stops your car and tells you it was quite OK to have travelled at 85mph today here and you infer the same will be true on the same stretch of road tomorrow.

The company is free to choose whether or not to enforce these byelaws which exist as a last resort to ensure people pay the correct fares for their journeys. There has been contact between the company and the individual and by selling the ticket the company has demonstrated knowledge of the offence and by not giving any warning it has condoned the breach of its own byelaw - and it may then be reasonable to infer that it is company policy not to enforce it in such circumstances. Add to this a widespread ignorance of the byelaw anyway and there's your problem.

 

[najaB]

Analogies never really work - there's widespread awareness of speed limits.

I would have thought that there's widespread awareness that you generally pay for travel before or as you board. And there's not widespread knowledge of where PSRs exist.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would have thought that there's widespread awareness that you generally pay for travel before or as you board. And there's not widespread knowledge of where PSRs exist.

Paying the guard was the norm in the North for many years.

 

[najaB]

Paying the guard was the norm in the North for many years.

As you say, was the norm but not, generally, when travelling from a station with an open ticket office. From all reports Northern (and others) are making quite a noise about it not being the new norm.

 

[Karl60]

There really isn't widespread awareness that you pay for travel before you get on board. I do this route a few times a year and I have always paid on the train, with no warning that I was doing something wrong. If you travel regularly then perhaps you do, and I know many of you will say that ignorance is no defence, but I am sure that I was not alone in this belief.

I think we are going to see the MP.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As you say, was the norm but not, generally, when travelling from a station with an open ticket office.

It was even then.

 

[najaB]

I think we are going to see the MP.

Good luck with that (and I mean it), I really don't think you'll get very far with it. Pay at first opportunity is the law and has been for well over a hundred years.

Had your daughter boarded at a station without a ticket office, or had she a disability that made using the ticket office difficult you might get somewhere but "it was too much bother to go buy a ticket" doesn't get you very far as a mitigating factor.

 

[sheff1]

I would have thought that there's widespread awareness that you generally pay for travel before or as you board.

No such awareness exists in many areas where paying on board has been actively encouraged and, when the encouragement stopped, tickets continued to be sold on board, without question, as before.

This has been explained many times previously and I do not see the point in raising the matter yet again.

 

[najaB]

No such awareness exists in many areas where paying on board has been actively encouraged and, when the encouragement stopped, tickets continued to be sold on board, without question, as before.

From posts on the forum I was left with the impression that over the last few months Northern has been making a big push towards pay before boarding.

 

[Darandio]

From posts on the forum I was left with the impression that over the last few months Northern has been making a big push towards pay before boarding.

Every station I have been to for the last 6 months or so has 'Buy Before You Board' displayed on the PIS as part of the page cycle, well, the ones that have been working at least.

 

[Karl60]

Every station I have been to for the last 6 months or so has 'Buy Before You Board' displayed on the PIS as part of the page cycle, well, the ones that have been working at least.

Well I can assure you that it isn't at Adlington.