Advice on pre-court settlement offer

[ForTheLoveOf]

Scanning this thread it does seem strange that GWR are pursuing this any further than simply recovering the fare due, the cynic in me is asking the question as to whether there are any additional or aggravating factors? In the past when I've become aware of people regularly travelling between two stations with no facilities and avoiding their fare we have conducted special operations, the simple but effective way of doing this is to put a Ticket Examiner on the train, ensure that they pass through the train selling tickets and have covered the whole train, then RPI'S have been at the problem station safe in the knowledge that people have had the opportunity to buy tickets.
We would only continue with reporting anyone stopped if the person on the train had confirmed that they had passed through the entire train from end to end and we would have their body camera footage and the train CCTV as evidence.

I'm not suggesting that this is the case here but it is a technique used by several TOC'S and one that has been both successful and not so successful in court in my experience.
I do apologise that I've only skimmed this thread but did the op say straight away where they had travelled from or was another, closer station stated when first stopped?

The OP has told us they were not given any opportunity to pay before reaching their destination, and that they gave all their correct details. GWR haven't suggested that the OP failed to make use of an actively offered opportunity to pay either - they are suggesting he should himself have sought ought the guard, or delayed his journey to use the excess fare queue at Temple Meads, both ridiculous suggestions.

 

[RPI]

The OP has told us they were not given any opportunity to pay before reaching their destination, and that they gave all their correct details. GWR haven't suggested that the OP failed to make use of an actively offered opportunity to pay either - they are suggesting he should himself have sought ought the guard, or delayed his journey to use the excess fare queue at Temple Meads, both ridiculous suggestions.

Ok so we have one side of the story, GWR wouldn't be pushing this so much unless they were confident of a result in court, what I'm suggesting is that there may be supplementary evidence to suggest that the guard/TE had passes through the entire train offering ticket sales, then again they may Not, you wouldn't get full disclosure until the summons was actually issued, I'm merely looking at this from every angle, every GWR train outside the Thames Valley has a guard, if they didn't go through the train then I'd quite agree that this action should be asking for nothing else other than the fare due.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Ok so we have one side of the story, GWR wouldn't be pushing this so much unless they were confident of a result in court, what I'm suggesting is that there may be supplementary evidence to suggest that the guard/TE had passes through the entire train offering ticket sales, then again they may Not, you wouldn't get full disclosure until the summons was actually issued, I'm merely looking at this from every angle, every GWR train outside the Thames Valley has a guard, if they didn't go through the train then I'd quite agree that this action should be asking for nothing else other than the fare due.

If there is part of this that the OP isn't telling us about then it is pointless going to us for advice. We can only base our assumptions and suggestions on what the OPs say. But I understand what you are saying - it's just that I don't put it beyond most TOCs to be this incompetent/malicious (delete as per your view!).

 

[ainsworth74]

I think the OP has the advice required for now regarding their case so to avoid the thread getting dragged off-topic I'm going to lock it for now.

@aztec29 if/when you do hear more from GWR please report this post (button at the bottom of this post) or drop me a private message (called a "Conversation" on this Forum software) and we'll get the thread re-opened for you to update and ask any questions you may have.

 

[bb21]

Reopened on OP's request.

 

[aztec29]

Reopened on OP's request.

Thanks.

Last week I received a letter from Bristol Magistrates Court along the following lines:

Notice of new date of hearing

New date, time and place
The court has adjourned the cases listed below:

to (date in September, time, place)

You must attend the court 30 minutes before the time shown above, etc.

Reasons
The matter has been adjourned because:

1. For further enquires (sic) by Great Western Railways

If you do not follow these instructions or you fail to attend the hearing, the court can still decide to deal with the case in your absence.

...

Date: 3 July 2019

Cases

(case number)
On 11/02/2019 at Bristol travelled on a railway, namely Patchway, without previously having paid your fare of £4.40 and with intent to avoid payment thereof.
Contrary to section 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

I've had nothing from GWR - in fact nothing from anyone relating to this since the 19th of March (see post #47), so I can only assume that GWR have gone ahead with a prosecution attempt without letting me know.

If anyone has any suggestions on what I do next, that would be appreciated - presumably consulting a solicitor would be best.

 

[Peter Kelford]

I absolutely suggest that you consult a solicitor. Also a few points to watch out:

1. Prepare appeal arguments. Some QCs have said that people should choose trial by ducking stool over Magistrates Court.
2. Be aware that an out-of-court settlement will appear on your doorstep 24 hours (or probably less) before your hearing. Thus, they will seek to have the case thrown out on the grounds that you have refused the out of court settlement. I'm not suggesting whether you take it [the settlement] or not - I'm not a lawyer - but in my experience that happens a lot.
3. You'll get a junior solicitor (possibly even one who's just graduated last month) who hasn't racked up the experience nor remembered enough from his/her law classes. Be prepared to deal with a 20-something who is a bit incoherent.

Consulting a solicitor is a matter of urgency. Give Law Centres a call first though: https://www.lawcentres.org.uk/. Also try The Law Society https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/. I'm afraid to say that unless you earn a low wage, you will have to pay. I don't know if it's really worth it though. If the fine £100 and your legal fees are £200+, you might be better off representing yourself.

 

[steve12]

On some GWR trains it depends who the Conductor is as to whether passengers are given the opportunity to buy a ticket. Some Conductors don't bother coming through so GWR should be monitoring some of their Conductors rather than blaming their customers. At the same time I agree that tickets should be inspected to prevent fare evasion.

 

[Puffing Devil]

I absolutely suggest that you consult a solicitor. Also a few points to watch out:
1. Prepare appeal arguments. Some QCs have said that people should choose trial by ducking stool over Magistrates Court.

This is not an appeal, this is a first appearance in court. It certainly will not be a trial; presented with a robust defence the TOC may well throw in towel rather than taking it to trial.

Should the TOC want to proceed with the trial, a later date will be set.

2. Be aware that an out-of-court settlement will appear on your doorstep 24 hours (or probably less) before your hearing. Thus, they will seek to have the case thrown out on the grounds that you have refused the out of court settlement. I'm not suggesting whether you take it [the settlement] or not - I'm not a lawyer - but in my experience that happens a lot.

Utter rubbish. This is not a County Court, this is a criminal matter. I'd like to see any evidence you have @Peter Kelford to support this statement - matters being thrown out of a Magistrate's Court on the basis of an out of court settlement or even TOCs coming with a last-minute offer before the court date.

3. You'll get a junior solicitor (possibly even one who's just graduated last month) who hasn't racked up the experience nor remembered enough from his/her law classes. Be prepared to deal with a 20-something who is a bit incoherent.

Again, utter rubbish. I would be extremely offended if I were a solicitor.

Consulting a solicitor is a matter of urgency. Give Law Centres a call first though: https://www.lawcentres.org.uk/. Also try The Law Society https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/. I'm afraid to say that unless you earn a low wage, you will have to pay. I don't know if it's really worth it though. If the fine £100 and your legal fees are £200+, you might be better off representing yourself.

Contacting a solicitor is not a matter of urgency. Law Centres maybe some help, the Law Society less so, other than finding a local solicitor. The Citizens Advice Bureau may also be useful, though court matters may often be beyond them they sometimes have tame legal contacts. You can also take a friend into court to help you, though they may not generally speak. (Search McKenzie Friend)

The facts in this case a very simple.

• The OP boarded at a station without any ticket buying facilities
• The OP did not have the opportunity to buy a ticket before arriving at Patchway
• On arrival at Patchway, the OP approached ticketing staff and attempted to pay their fare
• They were refused the opportunity to pay and reported for prosecution.

The OP needs to put the TOC to strict proof. If they are suggesting that the OP had the opportunity to buy on board, they need to show that opportunity existed.

I would also ask the court where your summons was for the hearing of the 5th July - you should have received a copy. The good news is that if the TOC are reconsidering, it may be as a result of your correspondence and they may be thinking of dropping the matter.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Perhaps I was being rather negative during my earlier post. The positive news is not to forget that:

1. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor.
2. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the OP: 'on 11/02/2019 at Bristol travelled on a railway, namely Patchway, without previously having paid your fare of £4.40 and with intent to avoid payment thereof. Contrary to section 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.' [sic].
3. The prosecutor is obliged under law to provide all evidence which aids your case to you. That will mean CCTV and so-called 'body cams' if applicable. The latter generally also records audio, which will be able to show that you did not resist payment.

 

[Llanigraham]

Perhaps I was being rather negative during my earlier post. The positive news is not to forget that:

1. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor.
2. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the OP: 'on 11/02/2019 at Bristol travelled on a railway, namely Patchway, without previously having paid your fare of £4.40 and with intent to avoid payment thereof. Contrary to section 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.' [sic].
3. The prosecutor is obliged under law to provide all evidence which aids your case to you. That will mean CCTV and so-called 'body cams' if applicable. The latter generally also records audio, which will be able to show that you did not resist payment.

I relation to the last part of the last sentence of point 3 (underlined by me), I suggest you need to understand the legal definition of "intent" in this matter.
I also suggest that you need to re-read the facts of this case as laid out by Puffing Billy above.

 

[cuccir]

Please pay attention to Puffing Devil's useful post. Peter Kelford also offers some useful help in his second post, however, I would not particularly expect the TOC to have or be using CCTV or bodycam evidence.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Well, CCTVs tend to be everywhere. If the ticket inspector pulls out a fines book as soon as the OP's face appears, that that is 'reasonable doubt' in itself. Similarly, if they want to seek to say that the ticket inspector tried to offer the OP the chance to pay, then the CCTV will show that the OP had a long and heated discussion. Admittedly, most ticket inspectors won't carry body-cams, but I thought that I'd point out that, if body-cam video mysteriously shows up in court, that is in contravention of their obligations.

P.S. Is the McKenzie friend any use? If you don't know anyone, there is a charity/volunteer service that will be able to provide you with one.

 

[Parham Wood]

A bit off track but assuming the OP is found not guilty is there any process in suing for damages as if I was in this case I would want to see a considerable amount of compensation for the stress, inconvenience etc caused?

 

[cjmillsnun]

Well, CCTVs tend to be everywhere. If the ticket inspector pulls out a fines book as soon as the OP's face appears, that that is 'reasonable doubt' in itself. Similarly, if they want to seek to say that the ticket inspector tried to offer the OP the chance to pay, then the CCTV will show that the OP had a long and heated discussion. Admittedly, most ticket inspectors won't carry body-cams, but I thought that I'd point out that, if body-cam video mysteriously shows up in court, that is in contravention of their obligations.

P.S. Is the McKenzie friend any use? If you don't know anyone, there is a charity/volunteer service that will be able to provide you with one.

"pulls out the fines book"

What the hell is a fines book?

The court sets a fine.

An RPI can issue a penalty fare, but that was not what happened in this case. In this case a TIR was filed and the OP given a zero fare ticket to enable travel.

Based on the OP's description, GWR were trying it on. However if they go for a RoRA prosecution, it is likely they have evidence that we do not.

They may try a byelaw prosecution, as this is normally a slam dunk. However if they try that, then in this case, the OP can use the byelaws to their advantage.

A reminder of byelaw 18

18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas
(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.
(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.
(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if:
(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey; or
(ii) there was a notice at the station where he began his journey permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket; or
(iii) an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.

Obviously in this case 18(3)(i) applies. There were no ticket facilities at the station where he began his journey.

 

[aztec29]

Thanks for the replies. I'll ask for some legal advice straight off since I've had a court summons.

I find it remarkable that GWR have chosen to take this to court, given the circumstances. I presume that they think they have proof of intent to avoid payment, but I can't see where that would come from given that I wasn't presented with an opportunity to pay before (or even after) being cautioned.

I would also ask the court where your summons was for the hearing of the 5th July - you should have received a copy. The good news is that if the TOC are reconsidering, it may be as a result of your correspondence and they may be thinking of dropping the matter.

Yes, I was wondering about this. I'll contact the magistrates court as well.

 

[gray1404]

Which court is the case to be heard in and on what date and time? I'm wondering if there are people on this forum with the right backgrounds or industry experience who would be willing to act as expert witnesses for you.

 

[cuccir]

There might still be some merit in writing again to GWR, or even given that writing hasn't worked phoning the prosecutions department - reemphasising your beleif in your innocence and expectation that they can't have any evidence of intent to avoid a fare, and asking them to withdraw this proescution.

 

[philthetube]

I would be inclined to try and get the media interested in your case, papers are always looking for space fillers, and this issue could affect quite a few of their readers.

Local radio might also be interested. A request from them to get a GWR manager in for interview would be very interesting.

 

[gray1404]

Is it worth the OP contacting The Severnside Community Rail Partnership https://www.severnside-rail.org.uk/ as a local resident asking for assistance (given travel was between 2 stations both within their partnership area). I wonder if a Community Rail Partnership will have a greater ability to get in touch with management at GWR. At the very least I would expect them to be very concerned about a passenger being treated this way when joining at a station in their area without ticket selling facilities.

 

[cuccir]

Yeah that's not a bad idea re: the Community Rail Parternship

 

[aztec29]

The case is on the 25th of September in Bristol. I'm hoping that it can be dealt with before that, as I don't want to have to take time off work to attend, but I would of course be very grateful for any help. I've tried phoning the magistrates court but without success (it rings off).

I'll contact GWR again and try and get an answer as to why they think a prosecution can be successful. I'll also contact Severnside and see if they can help. I'm a bit reluctant to "go nuclear" and get media involved for now - at least before obtaining legal advice.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Is it worth the OP contacting The Severnside Community Rail Partnership https://www.severnside-rail.org.uk/ as a local resident asking for assistance (given travel was between 2 stations both within their partnership area). I wonder if a Community Rail Partnership will have a greater ability to get in touch with management at GWR. At the very least I would expect them to be very concerned about a passenger being treated this way when joining at a station in their area without ticket selling facilities.

Now, that's excellent advice. I think it can be easy to be trapped into belligerent legal strategies (myself included) but Severnside Rail might work better.

 

[aztec29]

Now, that's excellent advice. I think it can be easy to be trapped into belligerent legal strategies (myself included) but Severnside Rail might work better.

Severnside Rail were very helpful - I had an email back from their chairman - but they don't have the capabilities to help with this. They've forwarded it on to Transport Focus who hopefully do.

 

[gray1404]

I am glad to hear that they were helpful. Its a shame that they could only forward it to Transport Focus. I am not sure if Transport Focus are able to do anything at this point? I hope that maybe they can.

I was hoping that Severnside Rail might have contacts with GWR Management due to the nature of their work. As we have seen before, when a TOC are in the wrong in order for it to be dropped it needs to end up on the desk of either the right person, or someone senior enough. It might be worth a polite email back to their Chairman thanking them for forwarding it to Transport Focus and asking if it might also be possible for them to forward the matter to any member's of GWR's Management known to them given the severity and urgency of the matter.

 

[Haywain]

I was hoping that Severnside Rail might have contacts with GWR Management due to the nature of their work. As we have seen before, when a TOC are in the wrong in order for it to be dropped it needs to end up on the desk of either the right person, or someone senior enough. It might be worth a polite email back to their Chairman thanking them for forwarding it to Transport Focus and asking if it might also be possible for them to forward the matter to any member's of GWR's Management known to them given the severity and urgency of the matter.

Or it could be worth respecting their statement that they don't have the capability to assist, rather than telling them that they're wrong.

 

[Bungle158]

I would be inclined to try and get the media interested in your case, papers are always looking for space fillers, and this issue could affect quite a few of their readers.

Local radio might also be interested. A request from them to get a GWR manager in for interview would be very interesting.

Surely, if a matter is being considered for prosecution, the TOC could not comment for fear of prejudicing the case, neither could journalists speculate on facts surrounding said case, proceedings or an outcome.

 

[gray1404]

Or it could be worth respecting their statement that they don't have the capability to assist, rather than telling them that they're wrong.

There was never a suggestion to tell them they were wrong. Merely asking a question in a polite way.

 

[aztec29]

A "final update" on this...

A week before the case was due to be heard, I emailed GWR Prosecutions again, asking them for evidence of intent to avoid payment, reiterating my scepticism that this evidence didn't exist, and asking that they drop the case if it didn't.

On the morning of the hearing, they emailed back to say that they would withdraw the matter and that I didn't need to attend. I haven't heard from GWR or the magistrates court since, and don't expect to in future.

Thanks again to those of you who have provided advice. It seems that this finally got through to someone who knew what they were doing!

 

[najaB]

On the morning of the hearing, they emailed back to say that they would withdraw the matter and that I didn't need to attend. I haven't heard from GWR or the magistrates court since, and don't expect to in future.

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.