At a loss with Northern Rail...

[DaleCooper]

So, I didn't buy the ticket at that point and went on to the train knowing that I could still purchase my ticket at any point of the journey before exiting the station at the final destination.

What on earth made you think you would get a ticket any cheaper than the one offered at Leeds? The price is the price and that's it. Perhaps you thought you'd get away without buying one at all.

Or maybe tell them you came from Shipley!

 

[Darandio]

So, I didn't buy the ticket at that point and went on to the train knowing that I could still purchase my ticket at any point of the journey before exiting the station at the final destination.

And after 24 hours, there we are. That is not how it works.

I'm not qualified to give any legal advice, but I'd strongly suggest trying to do all you can to keep this out of court! It would appear you haven't got a leg to stand on.

 

[Nextgenratpack]

Looks that way.

Thanks for all the help guys, it's been a good exercise in futility.

 

[Darandio]

There also seems to be so much fragmentation in this thread, so lets see if this just about sums the events up, hopefully for the benefit of everyone!

1, You boarded a train at Burley Park without a ticket. Although NRE claims there are no facilities to buy a ticket there, ainsworth74 suggests there is actually a TVM. Did you bypass this, was it not working, is it actually there?

2, You arrived at Leeds and queued to buy a ticket (this was left out of the OP). It seems you were then offered a ticket that was actually cheaper than the one you required, but refused to buy it believing you could get a cheaper one on the train?? Then boarded another train without a valid ticket.

3, You arrived at Bingley, you tried to buy a ticket (now far too late) but had your details (rightly) taken. We are now where we are.

Is that pretty much correct?

 

[bb21]

It came along and they wanted to charge me the Leeds to Bingley fare.....did you know that it costs more to travel from Leeds to Bingley than it does to travel from Burley Park to Bingley?

So, I didn't buy the ticket at that point and went on to the train knowing that I could still purchase my ticket at any point of the journey before exiting the station at the final destination.

There is your problem. You obviously had the opportunity and decided to ignore it.

Even if what you claim about the fare comparison were right, you surely could have asked them to issue a ticket from Burley Park? Did you ask them to doublecheck the fares for you? What were you expecting to pay?

 

[Nextgenratpack]

Darandio,

Yep, that's pretty much it.

Am I wrong in thinking that you can buy a ticket at any point in the journey as long as you buy it before you exit your destination station?

Burley Park, my understanding is that there's no facilities to buy tickets and this has been confirmed by NRE. If there is, then they must be pretty well hidden because I didn't see any when I was there hence why I bought a monthly pass for this journey.

Before people start jumping the gun, can you look at the rail prices October last year because I was told the two prices were 3.90 from Leeds and 3.70 from Burley Park hence why I didn't buy the ticket at that point. It would have been cheaper paying the difference on the train.

 

[Darandio]

Am I wrong in thinking that you can buy a ticket at any point in the journey as long as you buy it before you exit your destination station?

Yes, you are. To put it simply, where facilities exist to do so, you must buy a ticket before boarding a train.

 

[DaleCooper]

Before people start jumping the gun, can you look at the rail prices October last year because I was told the two prices were 3.90 from Leeds and 3.70 from Burley Park hence why I didn't buy the ticket at that point. It would have been cheaper paying the difference on the train.

All this trouble for 20p? I've become very suspicious about the whole story, it took enough questioning to get this far, what else haven't we been told?

Looking on the bright side we may have saved you the embarrassment of a court appearance, if the people on this forum can find holes in your story what would an experienced prosecutor do?

 

[Nextgenratpack]

All this trouble for 20p? I've become very suspicious about the whole story, it took enough questioning to get this far, what else haven't we been told?

Northern Rail have prosecuted for less, so yes, it is worth the trouble.

 

[221129]

All this trouble for 20p? I've become very suspicious about the whole story, it took enough questioning to get this far, what else haven't we been told?

Northern Rail have prosecuted for less, so yes, it is worth the trouble.

Indeed and it seems you are next on the list.

 

[Nextgenratpack]

Indeed and it seems you are next on the list.

Dude, even I smiled at that.

Don't you find it a shame though that in modern day society the human element has gone out of life?

It's just accepted now that you can do nothing about anything and it's your fault for even trying.

Crazy, crazy world.

I

 

[DaleCooper]

It's just accepted now that you can do nothing about anything and it's your fault for even trying.I

But it was your fault and the "trying" you're doing is trying to get away with it.

 

[najaB]

It's just accepted now that you can do nothing about anything and it's your fault for even trying.

You had two opportunities to buy your ticket and chose not to. You have neither anything to complain about, nor a leg to stand on.

 

[Mag_seven]

I had a bit of sympathy for the OP as the original story was told: TVM not functioning at Burley Park, attempt to pay before leaving the station at Binlgey, wrong station name (Shipley) on the prosecution papers. Now it turns out the OP did have an opportunity to pay at Leeds but refused that opportunity. Now I have no sympathy whatsoever.

 

[ainsworth74]

To be fair the OP had a ticket from Burley Park to Leeds si without a booking office or a TVM which can sell tickets from other origins (which are startlingly rare) at their origin didn't actually do anything wrong by not buying a ticket at their origin. The mistake was not buying a ticket from Leeds even though they were able to talk to ticket seller at the station.

I would say to the OP that you need to contact Northern's prosecution department urgently and see if you can come to arrangement with them. You might find an offer to pay the fare outstanding (Leeds - Bingley) plus an offer to cover any administrative costs they've incurred in dealing with this might be met with success.

 

[bb21]

Before people start jumping the gun, can you look at the rail prices October last year because I was told the two prices were 3.90 from Leeds and 3.70 from Burley Park hence why I didn't buy the ticket at that point. It would have been cheaper paying the difference on the train.

Assuming that you meant singles, £3.80 from Leeds and £3.90 from Burley Park.

What do you mean by "It would have been cheaper paying the difference on the train."? What were you expecting to pay onboard? What "difference"?

As for the issue of when the fare is due, it is due before you board the first train, unless there is no opportunity to pay at your origin station.

 

[clagmonster]

Just to clarify, although I think they are probably moot points anyway, two questions:
1) what is the season ticket held
2) how did you intend to pay; cash, card or other. Did you have you payment out ready so that it was seen by the officials.

Point of clarification for everybody else:
To the best of my knowledge, although it is a little while since I left the area, there is a card only TVM on the Leeds bound platform at Burley Park. It is hard to miss.

Conjecture:
A passenger going to the excess fares booth, requesting and being offered a ticket and then walking off to board a train without paying said fare is presumably a rare occurrence. I wonder whether the RPI at Bingley was waiting for said passenger, having been informed of his unusual behaviour at Leeds. Just a thought.

 

[455driver]

Didn't we have a thread a few months ago where the consensus was that a 'journey' ended with the expiry of your (last) ticket, you couldn't argue the fact of wanting to (legitimately) use a combination of 2 or more tickets to make one journey if you hadnt purchased all tickets at the earliest opportunity (the good old Corbyn case) so in the OPs case the 'journey' ended at Leeds, so once they boarded the train at Leeds without a ticket they were effectively making a second 'journey' without a valid ticket.

 

[najaB]

... so in the OPs case the 'journey' ended at Leeds, so once they boarded the train at Leeds without a ticket they were effectively making a second 'journey' without a valid ticket.

Doubly so as they refused an opportunity to buy the required ticket at Leeds.

 

[34D]

Didn't we have a thread a few months ago where the consensus was that a 'journey' ended with the expiry of your (last) ticket, you couldn't argue the fact of wanting to (legitimately) use a combination of 2 or more tickets to make one journey if you hadnt purchased all tickets at the earliest opportunity (the good old Corbyn case) so in the OPs case the 'journey' ended at Leeds, so once they boarded the train at Leeds without a ticket they were effectively making a second 'journey' without a valid ticket.

Surely though the ticket held expires once it is inserted into the Leeds ticket barriers: before that point (including at the excess fare window) it is fair game for excess-ing and for 19c-ing?

 

[najaB]

Surely though the ticket held expires once it is inserted into the Leeds ticket barriers: before that point (including at the excess fare window) it is fair game for excess-ing and for 19c-ing?

Yes, that is correct. At least as I understand it.

 

[reb0118]

Surely though the ticket held expires once it is inserted into the Leeds ticket barriers: before that point (including at the excess fare window) it is fair game for excess-ing and for 19c-ing?

You may think so but I know that excess offices have been known to refuse to excess single tickets upon arrival at the station shown on the ticket. This is because a) they have been instructed not to do so and/or b) their issuing machines are unable to do so because they have been set up to reject such excesses as invalid.

 

[najaB]

You may think so but I know that excess offices have been known to refuse to excess single tickets upon arrival at the station shown on the ticket.

Interesting. I know that an excess has to be requested before the expiry of your current ticket but, like 34D, believed that to be on passing through the barriers/gateline.

 

[OffertonBlue]

Hi,

I'm wondering what more Northern Rail need before they consider my version of events because at the moment I am at a total loss because all they've submitted it two witness statements against what I've submitted.

All help will be appreciated, the clock it ticking for me.

Cheers,
NG

Ha - I have been waiting for you Nextgenratpack; my daughter made an error, did wrong, was caught, no complaints.

However the statement by NorthernRail to court containing many inaccuracies (provable). Including being written by a different person than the person who dealt with her. I have been hanging around on here to see if Northern has done the same with anyone else.

I would not personally go to court, I tend to concur with the "Law is an Ass" school of thought, but I will pm you. I am interested to build up a number of similar examples to my own.

 

[Starmill]

You may think so but I know that excess offices have been known to refuse to excess single tickets upon arrival at the station shown on the ticket. This is because a) they have been instructed not to do so and/or b) their issuing machines are unable to do so because they have been set up to reject such excesses as invalid.

I agree - you can either be of the view that a ticket is expired once it is of no further validity, as a ticket to Leeds is when you alight from a train at Leeds, or when you leave station premises at this destination. I can't see what difference it would make which side of the barriers you are on as they do not affect ticket validity. Personally I lean more towards the former interpretation. If you're at Leeds and have just travelled there using a ticket to 'LEEDS' - that portion at least is now expired.

 

[DarloRich]

The key here is the failure to buy at Leeds and that failure makes this an open and shut case.

That is a shame as having trailed through the usual holier posts there is a interesting issue about the offence the OP is charged with. The particulars of the offence are wrong yet we seem to simply accept that - surely that cant be right and should be challenged.

Sloppy procedure costs more convictions than anything else. It isn't acceptable to proceed to court on the basis of an incorrect summons in other cases - why should it be in relation to fare evasion?

 

[34D]

The key here is the failure to buy at Leeds and that failure makes this an open and shut case.

That is a shame as having trailed through the usual holier posts there is a interesting issue about the offence the OP is charged with. The particulars of the offence are wrong yet we seem to simply accept that - surely that cant be right and should be challenged.

Sloppy procedure costs more convictions than anything else. It isn't acceptable to proceed to court on the basis of an incorrect summons in other cases - why should it be in relation to fare evasion?

He does have a cast iron alibi that he didn't board at Shipley, so can plead ng

 

[causton]

I agree - you can either be of the view that a ticket is expired once it is of no further validity, as a ticket to Leeds is when you alight from a train at Leeds, or when you leave station premises at this destination. I can't see what difference it would make which side of the barriers you are on as they do not affect ticket validity. Personally I lean more towards the former interpretation. If you're at Leeds and have just travelled there using a ticket to 'LEEDS' - that portion at least is now expired.

I would agree. Barriers or no barriers, if your ticket says e.g. Crewe on it and you get off a train at Crewe, that ticket has ceased to be valid. Where there are no barriers where would the validity end? If you are claiming that going through the barriers with a ticket at Leeds and then going to the ticket office for an excess is not okay but going to another ticket office just inside the gateline is okay, perhaps there is an imaginary line in Crewe station before the ticket office where the ticket ceases to be valid! IMO the journey is finished when the train arrives at the destination on your ticket. (I could say when you alight, but you could stay on and go back the other direction and that doesn't count )!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . you can either be of the view that a ticket is expired once it is of no further validity, as a ticket to Leeds is when you alight from a train at Leeds, or when you leave station premises at this destination. I can't see what difference it would make which side of the barriers you are on as they do not affect ticket validity. Personally I lean more towards the former interpretation. If you're at Leeds and have just travelled there using a ticket to 'LEEDS' - that portion at least is now expired.

I would agree. Barriers or no barriers, if your ticket says e.g. Crewe on it and you get off a train at Crewe, that ticket has ceased to be valid. Where there are no barriers where would the validity end? If you are claiming that going through the barriers with a ticket at Leeds and then going to the ticket office for an excess is not okay but going to another ticket office just inside the gateline is okay, perhaps there is an imaginary line in Crewe station before the ticket office where the ticket ceases to be valid! IMO the journey is finished when the train arrives at the destination on your ticket. (I could say when you alight, but you could stay on and go back the other direction and that doesn't count )!

I wonder if there are two very similar questions being answered here, similar questions but which have differing answers.

In Great Western Railway Company v Pocock (1979), Hawkins J found that “when he arrived on his return journey at Westbourne Park, the contract was at an end, and the company had fulfilled their part of the contract, and Pocock was not entitled to travel on to Paddington" (although an excess had been offered). This judgement terminates the authority to be conveyed on arrival at the destination shown on the ticket.

In Bremme v Dubery [1964], Parker LCJ clarified that (in terms of the 1889 RoRA) "the term ‘railway’ is defined as including “every station, siding, wharfe or dock of or belonging to such railway and used for the purpose of public traffic.” . . . . “ it is sufficient to say that he does not cease to be a traveller when he alights on the platform.”". This judgement sustains the obligation to show a ticket for travel while the passenger remains at railway premises beyond their arrival or passage through any ticket barrier.

There was further clarification of the availability of an adjustment to fare on reaching the destination in Covington v Wright (1963). The wording of the London Passenger Transport Act is very similar to the RoRA, and judgements from the two are often compared. Parker LCJ noted "The Prosecution had argued that the fare from whence she started was the fare from whence she started the second stage, where the first ticket terminated, That puts a great strain on language, but prosecution urged that it is necessary to read it in that way because otherwise “pay his fare from the place whence she started would mean that having paid 5d, the defendant would then have to pay an extra 6d. That is quite wrong, because “pay his fare” must mean “make up the full payment of his fare”. Refer to earlier Railway Acts, e.g. travel in first class on a second class ticket . . . . it would be idle in these circumstances to say that “pay his fare” meant he had to pay the full first class fare over and above the second class fare he has already paid. “Pay his fare” must mean the full fare less what he has already paid. The place whence he started means the place where he got on the bus.
. . . . There is ample evidence that she left with intent to avoid payment."