A "final update" on this...
Thanks for letting us know.
Ridiculous that it took them so long to drop the case.
A "final update" on this...
Ridiculous that it took them so long to drop the case.
It's not unknown for TOCs to throw in a free ticket or some RTVs as a gesture of goodwill.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.
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!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!
All I had was basically "I trust that this outcome is acceptable to you".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?
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.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.
disgraceful really - 'I am sure you will be pleased we didn't try to prosecute you for something you didn't actually do...'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.
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?
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 suppose the OP could sue for damages... but I imagine he'd rather forget about the whole affair (I may be wrong).
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?
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.
That's what I'd be asking my MP to ask both the TOC CEO and the DfT, given where the case got to.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.
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.
Yes, I think I've had enough of it at this point.I suppose the OP could sue for damages... but I imagine he'd rather forget about the whole affair (I may be wrong).
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.Do I have reasonable grounds to refuse to give my details?
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.
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.
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: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.
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.
You do not have to provide your ID to comply with the law.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.
By ID meant your identifying information rather than a physical ID card.You do not have to provide your ID to comply with the law.
You do not have to provide your ID to comply with the law.
I think they’re debating the fact that you only have to “state” your name and address rather than providing proof?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".
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".
Cambridge Dictionary said:ID - any official card or document with your name and photograph or other information on it that you use to prove who you are.
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?
I agree with @swt_passenger. This is clearly a misunderstanding between physical proof of ID and providing ID (as in name and address).Nonsense.