Advice on pre-court settlement offer

[sheff1]

A "final update" on this...

Thanks for letting us know.

Ridiculous that it took them so long to drop the case.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Ridiculous that it took them so long to drop the case.

Ever heard of bureaucracy?

 

[WesternLancer]

I assume that when these sorts of outcomes eventually come through there is no offer of apology or financial compensation for the wasted time and effort / letters etc that the OP will have had to have put in to make it clear to GWR that they were in the wrong?

 

[najaB]

I assume that when these sorts of outcomes eventually come through there is no offer of apology or financial compensation for the wasted time and effort / letters etc that the OP will have had to have put in to make it clear to GWR that they were in the wrong?

It's not unknown for TOCs to throw in a free ticket or some RTVs as a gesture of goodwill.

 

[Peter Kelford]

It's not unknown for TOCs to throw in a free ticket or some RTVs as a gesture of goodwill.

It's also not unknown for TOCs to use common sense when it comes to prosecuting or not, so whilst your local company (Scotrail I presume from your profile photo) might, GW seems not to.

 

[najaB]

It's also not unknown for TOCs to use common sense when it comes to prosecuting or not, so whilst your local company (Scotrail I presume from your profile photo) might, GW seems not to.

Well, that's a whole different matter. In Scotland private prosecutions are the exception (I think three in the last 50 years or so) - as a result Scotrail doesn't prosecute!

 

[Peter Kelford]

Well, that's a whole different matter. In Scotland private prosecutions are the exception (I think three in the last 50 years or so) - as a result Scotrail doesn't prosecute!

Which means there's no bureaucracy gone mad.

 

[aztec29]

I assume that when these sorts of outcomes eventually come through there is no offer of apology or financial compensation for the wasted time and effort / letters etc that the OP will have had to have put in to make it clear to GWR that they were in the wrong?

All I had was basically "I trust that this outcome is acceptable to you".

Taking a belts and braces approach, it might be worth contacting the court to ensure that the case wasn't accidentally included on the day's docket. Just to be sure.

I've phoned them and it's rung off. Again. I was tempted to go along on the day to make sure but didn't have the time off work to spend in any case.

 

[WesternLancer]

All I had was basically "I trust that this outcome is acceptable to you".

I've phoned them and it's rung off. Again. I was tempted to go along on the day to make sure but didn't have the time off work to spend in any case.

disgraceful really - 'I am sure you will be pleased we didn't try to prosecute you for something you didn't actually do...'

 

[radamfi]

So what counter action can be taken against GWR? There must surely be a case for suing the TOC given the amount of stress involved? How would one go about this?

 

[Peter Kelford]

So what counter action can be taken against GWR? There must surely be a case for suing the TOC given the amount of stress involved? How would one go about this?

I suppose the OP could sue for damages... but I imagine he'd rather forget about the whole affair (I may be wrong).

 

[Wombat]

I suppose the OP could sue for damages... but I imagine he'd rather forget about the whole affair (I may be wrong).

Well done to aztec29 for persistence in the face of incompetence. That said, it seems to me that the problem runs deeper than than the stress caused to the OP (which was no doubt highly unpleasant) - GWR have attempted to put the frighteners on him by using the threat of legal action to demand money to which they were not entitled. No doubt plenty of other people with less stomach for a fight would, and have, paid up to make the problem go away, so it seems reasonable to conclude that GWR is unjustly profiting from its own incompetence.

I wouldn't blame the OP for a nanosecond if he feels that he's wasted enough energy on this sorry business, but perhaps it would be cathartic to get his MP to give them some polite aggravation.

 

[radamfi]

Are "meet the manager" sessions any use? What if one of us showed a manager this thread at one of these events?

 

[Peter Kelford]

Are "meet the manager" sessions any use? What if one of us showed a manager this thread at one of these events?

Might there even be a manager or PR man who is a member of the forum?

 

[Fare-Cop]

Might there even be a manager or PR man who is a member of the forum?

There are senior rail staff / managers who are users of this and other forums, but it would be entirely inappropriate of any to discuss individual cases on any public forum.

 

[radamfi]

There are senior rail staff / managers who are users of this and other forums, but it would be entirely inappropriate of any to discuss individual cases on any public forum.

But the general point could be discussed. For example, if you went to a meet the manager session, you could show the thread and ask if the normal company procedure had been followed.

 

[WesternLancer]

But the general point could be discussed. For example, if you went to a meet the manager session, you could show the thread and ask if the normal company procedure had been followed.

That's what I'd be asking my MP to ask both the TOC CEO and the DfT, given where the case got to.

 

[Peter Kelford]

There are senior rail staff / managers who are users of this and other forums, but it would be entirely inappropriate of any to discuss individual cases on any public forum.

What I meant was that perhaps someone could forward the matter on to the relevant person rather than it being met with a standard 'thank you, we have read your email and thank you for your contribution' type email upon contacting the TOC.

 

[aztec29]

I suppose the OP could sue for damages... but I imagine he'd rather forget about the whole affair (I may be wrong).

Yes, I think I've had enough of it at this point.

Something I would like to ask, though, is what's the best course of action should this happen again. If I get as far as Patchway without being given the opportunity to buy a ticket, and I then run into an inspector who, rather than selling me a ticket, asks for my ID, what do I say to him? Do I have reasonable grounds to refuse to give my details? Because that seems to be the last point at which I can stop the whole process from potentially repeating itself.

 

[Kilopylae]

Do I have reasonable grounds to refuse to give my details?

No. However far the railway officer is in the wrong, it's a criminal offence not to give your details when requested.

§(5)(2) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889: "If a passenger having failed either to produce, or if requested to deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or to pay his fare, refuses or fails on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, to give his name and address, any officer of the company may detain him until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law."

Railway Byelaws §24(1): "Any person reasonably suspected by an authorised person of breaching or attempting to breach any of these Byelaws shall give his name and address when asked by an authorised person". (Breaking this is strictly a civil violation of contract and not a criminal offence, but you can still end up in court for it)

 

[najaB]

Do I have reasonable grounds to refuse to give my details?

No. But you can specifically ask that the guard/RPI include a statement to the effect that you are providing your ID to comply with the law despite you not having committed any offence and then sign the statement. That means that if it does get to the prosecutions team's in tray they'll likely pay it a bit more attention.

 

[WesternLancer]

Yes, I think I've had enough of it at this point.

Something I would like to ask, though, is what's the best course of action should this happen again. If I get as far as Patchway without being given the opportunity to buy a ticket, and I then run into an inspector who, rather than selling me a ticket, asks for my ID, what do I say to him? Do I have reasonable grounds to refuse to give my details? Because that seems to be the last point at which I can stop the whole process from potentially repeating itself.

It seems to me that the only way to pro-actively prevent the hassle would be to go and find the staff on board the train that you get on and try to demand they sell you a ticket (even though you are entitled to wait for them to come and find you as I think is mentioned up thread).

EDIT - Just refreshed my memory of the reasons why this is not required as set out very clearly up thread in some very useful posts, it was not my intention to suggest a course of action set out by GWR themselves in their less than competent reply early on!

I'd certainly keep an eye on this page - even though it's clearly a part of their website with plenty of cobwebs... - or local info for a Bristol session and really put a manager on the spot about what happened.
https://www.gwr.com/help-and-support/meet-the-manager
"The next session will be at Gloucester station from 07:00 on Thursday 18 July.
A full programme of future meetings will be published soon."

 

[WesternLancer]

Yes, I think I've had enough of it at this point.

Something I would like to ask, though, is what's the best course of action should this happen again. If I get as far as Patchway without being given the opportunity to buy a ticket, and I then run into an inspector who, rather than selling me a ticket, asks for my ID, what do I say to him? Do I have reasonable grounds to refuse to give my details? Because that seems to be the last point at which I can stop the whole process from potentially repeating itself.

Also interesting to note this: (but they last had a Customer Panel in Bristol 2 years ago, even though they claim to have one such session in each area a year - if you look and the minutes and presentation downloads the Head of Retail was present).
https://www.gwr.com/help-and-support/customer-panel

 

[aztec29]

No. But you can specifically ask that the guard/RPI include a statement to the effect that you are providing your ID to comply with the law despite you not having committed any offence and then sign the statement. That means that if it does get to the prosecutions team's in tray they'll likely pay it a bit more attention.

OK, that's slightly worrying, given GWR's previous behaviour! I'm more tempted to involve my MP in that case as there's nothing really to stop GWR doing the same thing to anyone taking that journey and, as noted above:

GWR have attempted to put the frighteners on him by using the threat of legal action to demand money to which they were not entitled. No doubt plenty of other people with less stomach for a fight would, and have, paid up to make the problem go away, so it seems reasonable to conclude that GWR is unjustly profiting from its own incompetence.

 

[island]

No. But you can specifically ask that the guard/RPI include a statement to the effect that you are providing your ID to comply with the law despite you not having committed any offence and then sign the statement. That means that if it does get to the prosecutions team's in tray they'll likely pay it a bit more attention.

You do not have to provide your ID to comply with the law.

 

[najaB]

You do not have to provide your ID to comply with the law.

By ID meant your identifying information rather than a physical ID card.

 

[Kilopylae]

You do not have to provide your ID to comply with the law.

Nonsense.

§(5)(2) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889: "If a passenger having failed either to produce, or if requested to deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or to pay his fare, refuses or fails on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, to give his name and address, any officer of the company may detain him until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law."

Railway Byelaws §24(1): "Any person reasonably suspected by an authorised person of breaching or attempting to breach any of these Byelaws shall give his name and address when asked by an authorised person".

 

[swt_passenger]

Nonsense.

§(5)(2) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889: "If a passenger having failed either to produce, or if requested to deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or to pay his fare, refuses or fails on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, to give his name and address, any officer of the company may detain him until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law."

Railway Byelaws §24(1): "Any person reasonably suspected by an authorised person of breaching or attempting to breach any of these Byelaws shall give his name and address when asked by an authorised person".

I think they’re debating the fact that you only have to “state” your name and address rather than providing proof?

 

[sheff1]

Nonsense.

§(5)(2) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889: "If a passenger having failed either to produce, or if requested to deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or to pay his fare, refuses or fails on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, to give his name and address, any officer of the company may detain him until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law."

Railway Byelaws §24(1): "Any person reasonably suspected by an authorised person of breaching or attempting to breach any of these Byelaws shall give his name and address when asked by an authorised person".

Not sure quoting text which makes no reference to ID supports your allegation of "Nonsense".

ID - any official card or document with your name and photograph or other information on it that you use to prove who you are.

 

[MikeWh]

You do not have to provide your ID to comply with the law.

By ID meant your identifying information rather than a physical ID card.

I think they’re debating the fact that you only have to “state” your name and address rather than providing proof?

Nonsense.

I agree with @swt_passenger. This is clearly a misunderstanding between physical proof of ID and providing ID (as in name and address).