Broken phone - could not present e-ticket

[AM9]

All of that is fine for bringing a civil case. There is absolutely no reason for a minor disagreement about whether a ticket was shown or not to be anything other than a simple civil dispute.

We only have one side of the situation. What isn't in dispute is that the OP couldn't show a valid ticket for travel when asked by a TOC's representative. It may have been because of something not directly under his control but just like driving a car with faulty headlights/wipers etc., the fact that a fairly simple rule has been broken is not in doubt. You suggested a that we cannot have a practice of companies who "judge on a whim whether to prosecute people". I would agree with that, hence my last post, but the OP's position is not one of those given the original clear breach of the rules of the NRCoT regarding presenting a valid authority to travel. Any official wriggle room would clearly allow such unfair judging on a whim which i would be against. Unauthorised 'letting people off' by frontline staff is not really the essence of this thread.

 

[Gareth Marston]

But failure to present a valid ticket is not a minor technicality, whether it is a faulty personal device like a smartphone or a faulty person's memory causing their ticket to be left at home. If it is OK (on either count referred to in the last sentence) to waive the rule to present evidence of your authority to travel during the journey, then that applies to everybody. So, guess what would happen then with every chancer saying that their wallet is at home/phone isn't charged etc., each demanding that 'common sense' is used to their benefit as it was to somebody else. If the TOCs are not prepared to accept every such defense, then that clearly would be "random private companies to judge on a whim whether to prosecute people who have clearly held up their end of the contract and merely failed to uphold the law on some minor technicality of that private company's procedures".
Strict liability is quite simple for anybody bright enough to be allowed to travel by themselves to understand. It is also universally fair as everybody can understand it. A court can decide if the breach of contract is worthy of a large, small or even no fine ( in the sense that a rule itself is unclear or unfair) but at least it would be objective and not 'OK if your face fits'.

An out break of sanity sense this post.

Theirs people posting on this forum who seem to want a system whereby anyone can say or do anything under almost any circumstance and be let off any consequence. Personal Responsibility appears to be an alien concept to them.

You must hold a valid ticket to travel and be able to present it to rail staff is not an obscure concept with grey areas.

 

[exile]

An out break of sanity sense this post.

Theirs people posting on this forum who seem to want a system whereby anyone can say or do anything under almost any circumstance and be let off any consequence. Personal Responsibility appears to be an alien concept to them.

You must hold a valid ticket to travel and be able to present it to rail staff is not an obscure concept with grey areas.

For Pete's sake. All we want is for honest mistakes to be distinguished from criminal actions. This may not always be possible of course but "strict liability" means that the train operators are not obliged even to attempt to do so.

 

[falcon]

An out break of sanity sense this post.

Theirs people posting on this forum who seem to want a system whereby anyone can say or do anything under almost any circumstance and be let off any consequence. Personal Responsibility appears to be an alien concept to them.

You must hold a valid ticket to travel and be able to present it to rail staff is not an obscure concept with grey areas.

It has been made grey though by the manner in which tickets can now be bought.

When the railway laws where made none of the modern day facilities were in use.

That is what is now causing so many problems. Tickets on phones is really a silly concept and is fraught with problems.

IE "if the ticket has not been activated by the passenger before boarding treat as having no ticket"!

How do ticket checking staff cancel the return portion of a return portion on a monthly return on a phone? Clip the phone!

Then different apps from different online ticket providers so always app problems.

To my mind phone tickets should never have been introduced.

Print at home ticket are bad enough with the rule " if the ticket is printed on any other colour paper than white A4 treat as having no ticket"

In my opinion parliament would never agree to laws that allow someone who pays for a ticket and prints it off on the wrong coloured paper to be taken to court for travelling without a ticket.

If the TOC want to enforce ticket laws based on laws made in 1889 then they should stick to selling tickets in the manner that they were sold by in 1889. When people went and bought a ticket from the train station and had to pass through a ticket barrier to board a train.

Even when the Transport act 2000 was introduced there were no print at home or phone tickets.

For the TOC introducing such systems that are causing these problems (it's the tip of the iceberg that appears on this forum) it is simply not eqitable to sit in contentment and rely on laws made in 1889 to rectify a defective system.

 

[najaB]

This may not always be possible of course but "strict liability" means that the train operators are not obliged even to attempt to do so.

They aren't obliged to prosecute.

All we want is for honest mistakes to be distinguished from criminal actions.

Referring to speeding since that's the strict liability law that people are most likely to encounter. Does it matter if it was an honest mistake that you broke the speed limit?

 

[najaB]

Tickets on phones is really a silly concept and is fraught with problems.

It's not a silly concept if the customer accepts that, if they are unable to present the ticket, they will have to pay for a new one (exactly as with paper tickets, by the way).

 

[exile]

But failure to present a valid ticket is not a minor technicality, whether it is a faulty personal device like a smartphone or a faulty person's memory causing their ticket to be left at home. If it is OK (on either count referred to in the last sentence) to waive the rule to present evidence of your authority to travel during the journey, then that applies to everybody. So, guess what would happen then with every chancer saying that their wallet is at home/phone isn't charged etc., each demanding that 'common sense' is used to their benefit as it was to somebody else. If the TOCs are not prepared to accept every such defense, then that clearly would be "random private companies to judge on a whim whether to prosecute people who have clearly held up their end of the contract and merely failed to uphold the law on some minor technicality of that private company's procedures".
Strict liability is quite simple for anybody bright enough to be allowed to travel by themselves to understand. It is also universally fair as everybody can understand it. A court can decide if the breach of contract is worthy of a large, small or even no fine ( in the sense that a rule itself is unclear or unfair) but at least it would be objective and not 'OK if your face fits'.

Do TOCs want passengers to use mobile tickets or not? If you can't use your phone when challenged then you should get a penalty fare which can be revoked if you provide evidence later on that you had bought the ticket.

 

[exile]

There aren't 'special laws' for trains. Bus companies have pretty much the same powers and have you seen how much legislation there is around air travel?

If there's a strict liability offence of failing to show a bus ticket I'd like to see evidence of it. As for air travel - yes there is legislation: butyou are not going to be prosecuted for not having a ticket. If you don't have ID, or fail to meet some other condition of travel, you will not be allowed to fly: but you won't be prosecuted.

 

[Clip]

Do TOCs want passengers to use mobile tickets or not? If you can't use your phone when challenged then you should get a penalty fare which can be revoked if you provide evidence later on that you had bought the ticket.

Only if they board at a station and on a service that is subject to penalty fares

 

[najaB]

If there's a strict liability offence of failing to show a bus ticket I'd like to see evidence of it.

Here you go: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/14/section/25

 

[exile]

Here you go: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/14/section/25

Thanks. A couple of things leap out (1) the penalty is a level 3 fine (level 2 for a train ticket) (2) 1 (d) is breached if you buy a ticket and then lose it, but it isn't if you never bought a ticket in the first place - in which case, if you can't find your ticket, you'd be well advised to pretend you never had one, and buy a ticket from the conductor/inspector. When it comes to coach travel, of course, you have to show your ticket (paper or electronic) on entry, and you will never be asked to show it again. But according to this legislation, you could be . NB - the last time I was on a bus and was asked to show my ticket by an inspector must have been 50 years ago.....

 

[AM9]

Do TOCs want passengers to use mobile tickets or not? If you can't use your phone when challenged then you should get a penalty fare which can be revoked if you provide evidence later on that you had bought the ticket.

Provided that you can prove that neither you nor anybody else had used the ticket for travel when you couldn't present it.

 

[AM9]

... As for air travel - yes there is legislation: butyou are not going to be prosecuted for not having a ticket. If you don't have ID, or fail to meet some other condition of travel, you will not be allowed to fly: but you won't be prosecuted.

Well that's a straw man argument as in the case of failing to present a valid flight ticket (or well publicised ID) at the point of boarding or even before entering airside, you won't have started your journey, - it's just like trying to argue your way through a manned gateline without a ticket. The OP's situation is that he entered the railway 'railside' through an open gate without checking that he had a valid ticket to present. The fact that he was the worse for alcohol and the ticket required him to operate a phone is irrelevant, both were his choice (were it at an airport he may have been refused boarding just by being unfit even when holding a valid ticket). Once he had entered 'railside', he would be liable for prosecution but it would be unlikely. Everything changes when boarding a train though and the NRCoT previals, unless a TOC (representative) decides 'on a whim' to let him off!

 

[falcon]

If there's a strict liability offence of failing to show a bus ticket I'd like to see evidence of it. As for air travel - yes there is legislation: butyou are not going to be prosecuted for not having a ticket. If you don't have ID, or fail to meet some other condition of travel, you will not be allowed to fly: but you won't be prosecuted.

I agree with you on that. The circumstance don't bring rise to it like the railways do. It's not possible to get on a plane without a ticket as it is all delt with before hand.

 

[AlterEgo]

They aren't obliged to prosecute.
Referring to speeding since that's the strict liability law that people are most likely to encounter. Does it matter if it was an honest mistake that you broke the speed limit?

Speeding is strict liability because the consequences can be exceptional - a higher likelihood of crashing, and a higher likelihood of death resulting if a crash does occur.

I’d imagine the median fare pursued by most prosecution cases under the Bylaws in this country is something like six quid.

I fully support the RoRA and catching intentional evaders and throwing the book at them. Fare evasion is fraud or theft by any other name. I don’t support people being criminalised for failing to display a ticket. It ought to be a civil process.

 

[AlterEgo]

Well that's a straw man argument as in the case of failing to present a valid flight ticket (or well publicised ID) at the point of boarding or even before entering airside, you won't have started your journey, - it's just like trying to argue your way through a manned gateline without a ticket. The OP's situation is that he entered the railway 'railside' through an open gate without checking that he had a valid ticket to present. The fact that he was the worse for alcohol and the ticket required him to operate a phone is irrelevant, both were his choice (were it at an airport he may have been refused boarding just by being unfit even when holding a valid ticket). Once he had entered 'railside', he would be liable for prosecution but it would be unlikely. Everything changes when boarding a train though and the NRCoT previals, unless a TOC (representative) decides 'on a whim' to let him off!

Nobody is excusing the OP, it’s just that in the overwhelming majority of circumstances in the overwhelming majority of industries, he would not be prosecuted. He’d probably have a civil debt to settle.

Hell, I can fill my car up with fifty quid of petrol, fail to pay, and leave my details to pay the next day or enter a civil recovery process. And not be prosecuted.

There’s too strong a fetish with sending people in front of the magistrates.

 

[AM9]

Nobody is excusing the OP, it’s just that in the overwhelming majority of circumstances in the overwhelming majority of industries, he would not be prosecuted. He’d probably have a civil debt to settle.

Hell, I can fill my car up with fifty quid of petrol, fail to pay, and leave my details to pay the next day or enter a civil recovery process. And not be prosecuted.

There’s too strong a fetish with sending people in front of the magistrates.

Part of the problem is that the railway was run as a nationalised industry for a number of years (not a bad thing per se but it came with laid back attitude to fare evasion in many areas). This attitude created a public conception that when they didn't pay, it was a victimless crime so it didn't count and wasn't their problem. Air travel and generally bus travel (even corporation run services) didn't seem to suffer in the same way, probably because the driver (OMO) or conductor was always there as a gatekeeper and never far out of sight. In addition buses tended to be more community based than most rail services.
For many ordinary passengers (including would-be fare evaders), the railways are still 'British Rail' - it's only the liveries that have changed.

 

[Gareth Marston]

It's not a silly concept if the customer accepts that, if they are unable to present the ticket, they will have to pay for a new one (exactly as with paper tickets, by the way).

Like the customer we had recently who said he'd left his ticket (part of group to Manchester Piccadilly) in another wallet. His colleague thought I could "print another one off" - but at least they flagged up the problem and did something about it. We split his ticket to save him some money.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Part of the problem is that the railway was run as a nationalised industry for a number of years (not a bad thing per se but it came with laid back attitude to fare evasion in many areas). This attitude created a public conception that when they didn't pay, it was a victimless crime so it didn't count and wasn't their problem. Air travel and generally bus travel (even corporation run services) didn't seem to suffer in the same way, probably because the driver (OMO) or conductor was always there as a gatekeeper and never far out of sight. In addition buses tended to be more community based than most rail services.
For many ordinary passengers (including would-be fare evaders), the railways are still 'British Rail' - it's only the liveries that have changed.

BR knew that the cost of full fare collection far outweighed what was being lost through evasion. However with 25 years of passenger growth and fares going up and up its a different £ scenario now.

 

[6Gman]

Just to get back to the OP, rather than broad arguments about the principles of rail fare legislation, if he knew that his phone had been smashed up (and that he would therefore be unable to display the ticket) why didn't he do something about it? How does it differ from e.g. somebody in the pub pouring beer over his (paper) ticket and making it illegible or similar?

 

[falcon]

Just to get back to the OP, rather than broad arguments about the principles of rail fare legislation, if he knew that his phone had been smashed up (and that he would therefore be unable to display the ticket) why didn't he do something about it? How does it differ from e.g. somebody in the pub pouring beer over his (paper) ticket and making it illegible or similar?

How many people do a TOC expect to have a ticket out on the table in the pub and then pour beer on it to such an extent it is unreadable as aposed to how many people have a flat battery on their phone or drop it and smash the screen or the phone fails for any other reason.

To clarify the TOC's are fully aware that peoples phones will knacker up in some way or another by the hundreds every day. At the same time as knowing that it is not going to come across one ticket that has had beer spilt on it to such an extent that ALL the information on it is unreadable in a week

When the railway laws were made they were made for instances were someone was silly enough to have his ticket out on a table then spill beer on it to such an extent it was unreadable. Then try and travel on a train with it.

The laws were not made for people who in everyday normal practice drop their phone or have a falt battery ect. That is what is wrong with the current system. It is somewhat of a trap because the TOC's know they can rely on outdate laws to recover revenue.

It's a good business plan to sell someone a ticket in such circumstances that there is a good possibility they will be unable to produce it and therefor fall foul of laws that give the power to charge the full fare again.

"Roll up, roll up, come one and all buy your ticket on your phone" £££££

 

[shredder1]

So if he`s bought and paid for a ticket and can prove it after the event, has the TOC lost money through this?

 

[6Gman]

How many people do a TOC expect to have a ticket out on the table in the pub and then pour beer on it to such an extent it is unreadable as aposed to how many people have a flat battery on their phone or drop it and smash the screen or the phone fails for any other reason.

To clarify the TOC's are fully aware that peoples phones will knacker up in some way or another by the hundreds every day. At the same time as knowing that it is not going to come across one ticket that has had beer spilt on it to such an extent that ALL the information on it is unreadable in a week

I was using it as an example, hence the "or similar".

If my (paper) ticket was stolen, defaced etc I would know that I would need to replace it.

I never have, and I suspect never will, use a phone-based ticket, but if said phone had been smashed up in a pub I would similarly realise that I needed to get a ticket sorted. (By buying a ticket at the booking office or TVM, or by approaching staff.)

I really don't understand why the OP didn't realise this too.

 

[6Gman]

So if he`s bought and paid for a ticket and can prove it after the event, has the TOC lost money through this?

Potentially, yes.

 

[warnerbro]

Nobody is excusing the OP, it’s just that in the overwhelming majority of circumstances in the overwhelming majority of industries, he would not be prosecuted. He’d probably have a civil debt to settle.

Hell, I can fill my car up with fifty quid of petrol, fail to pay, and leave my details to pay the next day or enter a civil recovery process. And not be prosecuted.

There’s too strong a fetish with sending people in front of the magistrates.

This. It seems bonkers that a ticket inspector can look up your details to prove whether you are who you say you are however they cannot validate the fact that you have purchased a ticket with those details. Furthermore not even being given the option to pay before being summoned to court seems harsh given the circumstances.

For those asking why I didn’t purchase a ticket knowing my phone was broken - I was in a bit of a panic having had my phone broken and losing my friends. It was also in a rush to make the last train. Not excusable I know, but they were factors that influenced the event.

 

[shredder1]

Potentially, yes.

Thanks for the reply but how?

 

[mmh]

I was using it as an example, hence the "or similar".

If my (paper) ticket was stolen, defaced etc I would know that I would need to replace it.

I never have, and I suspect never will, use a phone-based ticket, but if said phone had been smashed up in a pub I would similarly realise that I needed to get a ticket sorted. (By buying a ticket at the booking office or TVM, or by approaching staff.)

I really don't understand why the OP didn't realise this too.

Because unlike a paper ticket, he had to register for an account and the purchase of his electronic ticket is made against this account. I can't think of any other service you might buy online and have available on your phone but need to buy a new one with no way of transferring it to a different phone.

"E-ticketing" has been done for years by airlines - if you print your ticket but lose it on the way to the airport, no problem as they know exactly what you bought. Many people will be used to "online" tickets working like this.

Why, if the railway wants to ape airline tickets can it not do the same? Without it, online tickets are as another poster said pointless and less convenient than paper ones.

I wish people would stop pretending that there's any real point to these tickets - just because you can do something on your phone, doesn't mean that you should.

 

[najaB]

To clarify the TOC's are fully aware that peoples phones will knacker up in some way or another by the hundreds every day.

It's a good business plan to sell someone a ticket in such circumstances that there is a good possibility they will be unable to produce it and therefor fall foul of laws that give the power to charge the full fare again.

Blimey, these people should take better care of their phones! My last phone was bought in 2012 and only replaced last month because the battery life was getting to be a bit restrictive.

 

[falcon]

Blimey, these people should take better care of their phones! My last phone was bought in 2012 and only replaced last month because the battery life was getting to be a bit restrictive.

But you should know you are much more intellegent, wise, and astute than the average person. Not everyone is a savy as you.

 

[AM9]

But you should know you are much more intellegent, wise, and astute than the average person. Not everyone is a savy as you.

Given how some (on here) have assumed that it is a basic human right that TOCs provide free battery charging facilities on every train that they want to travel on just so that they can keep up with their instagram traffic <insert other trivial application>, I find it absurd that there are demands now that they be let off for not taking enough care of their rail tickets that they have elected to put at risk of their smart phones' unreliability. If it became possible to have an electronic passport on their phone, would they have the same attitude when they were presented from flying as the phone wasn't presented in a condition that could display their ID?
In this thread, the OP has a) started his journey without any valid ticket, b) at the time of the event produced no evidence that he had paid the fare for the journey (by his own words, in the first paragraph he was "In a bit of a drunken panic", in the second paragraph he couldn't remember much of the conversation with the inspector and by paragraph three claiming "not that I was drunk!" to justify his sense of unfairness. It sems that the TOC has responded to what the inspector reported of the event, seen the semmingly perfunctory first response, and decided on a reasonable course of action. The OP offered an image of an e-ticket which according to his words was all that was being offered. It may be that the TOC sees no acceptance of error from the OP over what is an offence (I don't think failing to understand the rules of actually needing a ticket when travelling is a valid excuse). Travelling after consuming alcohol carries an own risk that senses are dulled and mistakes can be made. I don't think that that is an excuse either.
I'm sure that if the OP had posted here before just sending-off a picture of his phone screen, he would have been advised to be somewhat contrite given that he had the potential of prosecution and this thread would probably have taken a different direction.