Broken phone - could not present e-ticket

[warnerbro]

Hi,

Looking for some advice please all.

In January I bought a return day ticket to Peterborough starting at Leicester on CrossCountry. The ticket was an e-ticket and therefore I presented it on the outward journey to Peterborough on my phone. I was in Peterborough to watch the football and after the game my phone was smashed by a football hooligan in a pub who thought I was filming a fight that had broken out when I wasn't. I had a few drinks throughout the day and in Peterborough got split up with my friends who I was with. In a bit of a drunken panic I got thought it was later than it was and I may have missed the train and was trying to contact my friends via Facebook. I then realised that it was not that late and I would be able to make the last train and made a mad dash for the train station.

When I arrived at the station the barriers were up so I could go straight though and I didn't realise I didn't have my ticket as it was an e-ticket until the inspector came round. Unfortunately I can't remember the full conversation with the inspector however I thought I had explained that my phone had broken and therefore couldn't present my ticket. He took my details but I can't remember him asking me to pay for another ticket, I thought he was taking my details so I could prove it was my identity and match this up with my e-ticket.

Anyway 2 months later I have received a letter from TIL stating that someone using my name was on the train and did not have a valid ticket. I responded to the initial letter and explained the above (not that I was drunk!) and included screen shots of my e-ticket and thought this would be enough. I have now received another letter saying that the report alleged that I failed to show a valid ticket and that I failed to pay the appropriate fare due in accordance with the rules in force and that an application for the issue of summons may now be made. I am just wondering where I go with this in response as I thought the evidence that I had purchased an e-ticket would be enough.

Any advice would be very greatly appreciated!

 

[najaB]

Anyway 2 months later I have received a letter from TIL stating that someone using my name was on the train and did not have a valid ticket.

You couldn't present a valid ticket so you are 'bang to rights' if they choose to prosecute. However, if you reply apologising and promising to pay the fare due they may settle without taking you to court.

 

[Gareth Marston]

You couldn't present a valid ticket so you are 'bang to rights' if they choose to prosecute. However, if you reply apologising and promising to pay the fare due they may settle without taking you to court.

I don't think we can expand much more on what najaB has said. It's basically the old story of a drunk on train with no ticket however you want to dress it up. Just admit to making a silly drunken mistake and promise not to do it again and offer to pay the fare.

BTW how were you contacting your friends by Facebook if your smart phone was broke?

National Rail Conditions are very clear you must be in possession of a valid ticket no matter what flavour it is.

 

[Dai Corner]

Also, how could you not realise you didn't have your ticket when it was an e-ticket on your phone which been smashed up?

 

[warnerbro]

I don't think we can expand much more on what najaB has said. It's basically the old story of a drunk on train with no ticket however you want to dress it up. Just admit to making a silly drunken mistake and promise not to do it again and offer to pay the fare.

BTW how were you contacting your friends by Facebook if your smart phone was broke?

National Rail Conditions are very clear you must be in possession of a valid ticket no matter what flavour it is.

I asked to use another persons phone to contact them.

 

[warnerbro]

Also, how could you not realise you didn't have your ticket when it was an e-ticket on your phone which been smashed up?

The barriers were up so I didn’t really think about it. It was a bit of a catalogue of errors but I am more than happy to pay the fare. I would have thought giving my details would prove that I had purchased a ticket, not land me in trouble!

 

[warnerbro]

Perhaps if you still have the e ticket you can present that to them to show you had a ticket for travel on that date?

Apologies I forgot to mention that I attached this in my initial response to them.

 

[323235]

The barriers were up so I didn’t really think about it. It was a bit of a catalogue of errors but I am more than happy to pay the fare. I would have thought giving my details would prove that I had purchased a ticket, not land me in trouble!

You have a legal duty to provide your name and address to railway personnel when requested in these circumstances regardless of the reason however a guard is very unlikely to go down that avenue of questioning unless you refuse to pay for a new ticket. It's better to pay and then contact customer relations later if you feel inclined to, although e-ticket are only valid if available for inspection.

It's difficult to determine whether it was a guard or a revenue inspector that you encountered from what has been described.

The best thing you can do is apologise and promise not to do it again and pay reasonable costs to close the matter.

Be aware that should you come on their radar again you will likely wind up with a court summoms for this type of offence as it comes across as a classic "intend to avoid paying the correct fare" offence. The lesser offence is not having a valid ticket without intend which is a strict liability offence. They could be investigating you for either (apologies if I missef this).

You should always use the ticket facilities provided at a railway station if they retail your method of payment and ticket or follow instructions to obtain a permit to travel.

I hope you get a favourable outcome and learn for next time.

 

[najaB]

. I responded to the initial letter and ... included screen shots of my e-ticket .

While it's not an adequate defence, It does help show that there was no intent to avoid payment before the fact.

 

[221129]

While it's not an adequate defence, It's not *completely* irrelevant. It does help show that there was no intent to avoid payment before the fact.

There is nothing to say it was the OPs ticket or that it wasn't just brought after being caught.

 

[warnerbro]

There is nothing to say it was the OPs ticket or that it wasn't just brought after being caught.

It has my name on and I could show the e-mail confirmation in my name and print screen from my phone including date and time. (Before travel). I also could present evidence of a new phone handset being provided close to this date.

 

[najaB]

There is nothing to say it was the OPs ticket or that it wasn't just brought after being caught.

While it's not an adequate defence, it does help show that there was no intent to avoid payment before the fact.

(a) E-tickets are tied to a phone/email account, and (b) since it was the return part and the out portion had already been used it must've been purchased prior to being caught.

 

[Gareth Marston]

While it's not an adequate defence, It's not *completely* irrelevant. It does help show that there was no intent to avoid payment before the fact.

Up to a point I had a guy today who showed me a screen shot of an e ticket he said someone else had bought him. He bought an Anytime Single off me when I pointed out a screen shot could be construed as attempted fraud. Genuine or trying it on?

We've had posters on here suggesting some people are buying e tickets with the intent of asking for refunds after the journey so long as there "covered" if checked.

The National Conditions are clear you have to have a valid ticket with you whatever the flavour. It's very black and white and clear with no room for grey areas.

Though hopefully the fact the OP hasn't subsequently refunded the e ticket is a good pointer as to intent.........

 

[323235]

(a) E-tickets are tied to a phone/email account, and (b) since it was the return part and the out portion had already been used it must've been purchased prior to being caught.

I've admitedly never used an e-ticket / m-ticket because I don't trust that my battery will last long enough to see out a full day of travel and can't be bothered with the extra hassle however I can see the potential for someone to buy a ticket as them on their own or a friends device , give the original device/ticket to a friend and claim their phone is smashed or battery flat, (use a screenshot on or from friends device), end up in this type of scenario then provide the ticket their friend was using in their name to claim they had a ticket, in the hope of a more lenient outcome after the event.

Therefore I don't think whether they can prove they purchased a ticket linked to them is neither hither nor tither.

The rules are there for a reason to avoid abuse.

 

[TUC]

It has my name on and I could show the e-mail confirmation in my name and print screen from my phone including date and time. (Before travel). I also could present evidence of a new phone handset being provided close to this date.

Exactly. I would have thought that if anything, a passenger with an e-ticket is in a stronger position than one with a paper one in terms of the intent issue, since it is clearly linked both to their name and their phone.

 

[warnerbro]

So am I best advised to write another response to the second letter apologising and ask to pay the fare rather than court summons?

 

[Hadders]

You're always best keeping it out of court.

 

[najaB]

Therefore I don't think whether they can prove they purchased a ticket linked to them is neither hither nor tither.

For defense against a Byelaw 18 prosection I completely agree. However it does go a long way to showing that there was no intent to avoid payment if a RoRA prosecution is sought.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Typical TIL. Profitable business, this sort of thing.

Next steps depends on your appetite for risk. You didn't show a valid ticket, but you did have one, so no evasion issues but a Byelaws breach. Their systems should know if the ticket had been activated and on which phone. You'd be taking pot luck in court on having a sympathetic bench, but TIL may not prosecute if there's no evidence. Paying up is the easiest resolution, but probably not the fairest, though is the ticket cost more than a day's wages if you have to go to court?

 

[Bensonby]

I’ve never understood why anyone would want an e ticket: what safeguards are there against batteries running out or a phone failing/breaking? For this reason I’ve only ever bought physical tickets.

 

[AM9]

I’ve never understood why anyone would want an e ticket: what safeguards are there against batteries running out or a phone failing/breaking? For this reason I’ve only ever bought physical tickets.

I agree that e-tickets just introduce additional risks such as this, so unless there is a corresponding benefit for the passenger, why expose yourself to such risks.
The subject was discussed a couple of years ago phone charging was seen by some posters as a responsibility of the railway, rather than the person who chose to use a phone. The difference here is that no charging facility will help those carrying a faulty phone. Paper tickets weigh virtually nothing, are easily carried, don't break and are less likely to be lost or stolen. E-tickets are a convenience for the TOC yet as they make clear, their use by passengers does impose additions responsibilities on the passenger. Paper tickets remain the property of the TOC so any malfunction of them is ultimately the TOC's problem.
Whilst nobody is disputing the OP's intent here, the fact that they were unable to present a valid ticket on demand is a byelaw offence whether it was their negligence or a random failure. It would seem that the inspector had no evidence of payment having being made, and has presumed at least a byelaw transgression, (whict it was indeed). Recognising that in dealings with the investigators may be the best way to keep out of court. The potential additional cost to be incurred should be born in mind when any convenience of e-tickets is considered in the future.

 

[Randomer]

I would understand e-tickets if they came with an extra discount for the potential problems with using them e.g. 5% off normal face value. Or if we ever moved to a national OV-Chipkaart type system with the withdrawal of paper tickets a small fee for using a one use smart card would be understandable.

At the moment you have the TOC making potential savings, in TOD collections fee at another TOC machine for example, but not the customer. Otherwise you are paying for potential convenience against problems of broken phone, bugs in the application or back-end hardware/software.

In this case as the fault was at the users end I can see the breach of bylaws. However, if the fault is at the TOC end (or RDG like the case with the bugs in the Railcard app last year wrongly showing cards as invalid) should Bylaw 18 be rewritten to not be so absolute?

 

[Bensonby]

Indeed, as not being able to present a ticket is a strict liability offence (I.e. no intent is required) it seems to be an unacceptable risk to rely on an e ticket when there is no tangible benefit for the passenger.

 

[Jordeh]

I’ve never understood why anyone would want an e ticket: what safeguards are there against batteries running out or a phone failing/breaking? For this reason I’ve only ever bought physical tickets.

Personally I think batteries running out or phone failing/breaking are very low risk for me so I've never had an issue with it. I appreciate batteries are poor with older smartphones and intensive use but this can be managed quite easily.

There's a much greater risk of me losing or damaging a paper ticket compared to my smartphone. Mainly though there is the convenience of not having to queue up to use a ticket machine, put in my card and tap in some random numbers. It is easier to just press "Activate" on a smartphone app and the ticket is there, especially when you're in a rush in a busy railway station.

 

[najaB]

...should Bylaw 18 be rewritten to not be so absolute?

No need. All that's required is some common sense as to if to prosecute or not.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

No need. All that's required is some common sense as to if to prosecute or not.

Something sorely lacking in a number of TOCs' prosecutions departments, as demonstrated by a number of very poor decisions to proceed with prosecution. Wouldn't it be fun if passengers has the resources and knowledge to prosecute TOCs for all their breaches of different laws...

 

[takno]

No need. All that's required is some common sense as to if to prosecute or not.

How can you possibly accept a legal system that allows 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? There shouldn't be any special laws on the books for trains at all - it should either be fraud or a civil matter like any other service. I'm not at all convinced that these weird absolute offences set up to trick the unwary would make it through a decent supreme court challenge.

 

[AM9]

How can you possibly accept a legal system that allows 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? There shouldn't be any special laws on the books for trains at all - it should either be fraud or a civil matter like any other service. I'm not at all convinced that these weird absolute offences set up to trick the unwary would make it through a decent supreme court challenge.

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'.

 

[takno]

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'.

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.

 

[najaB]

There shouldn't be any special laws on the books for trains at all - it should either be fraud or a civil matter like any other service.

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?