Carnet not filled in - Notice of Prosecution Hitchin

[Jtee]

To be clear, I was given no information or explanation of the mechanics or requirements of the Carnet System at point of purchase. Nor was I offered a pen by the sales clerk. It was early morning, there was a big queue - I guess he understandably wanted to keep the passengers turning over.

I willingly handed my ticket to the inspector believing I was doing everyone a favour by not adding to the numbers of people jostling their way through the barriers.

Why would I do that If I knew I was carrying an invalid ticket?

Had I put it through the barrier it would have gone through as valid. That said, it was just a matter of time as I would have come unstuck at some point because I didn't know that the ticket required me to fill in a date.

Having continued to use Carnet Tickets since, I can see how they might be open to abuse from unscrupulous passengers and, as a consequence, have a better understanding of the line that the inspector took with me at the time.

Perhaps taking the Penalty Fare requested would have been the better option but, rather than being offered as 'an acknowledgement of a genuine mistake' this was very much presented as a punishment - the word 'Penalty' doesn't help.

Hey ho. Thank you all for so many considered and thorough responses, I'm not sure ignorance or naivety should be considered a crime but the law is what it is and I always set out to abide by it.

It seems that the sensible course of action is to seek to settle.

 

[PermitToTravel]

How is it muddied? To use a carnet ticket, according to the T&Cs on the FCC website, you must must:



No date = no valid ticket seems pretty clear from the above. As for being adequately informed, I have never seen a carnet ticket before in my life but I just looked at images on the web and it is pretty clear that you must fill the date in.

Whilst I have every sympathy for the situation, as far as the OP is concerned, his righteous indignation is sorely misplaced.

I agree with the sentiment, but T&Cs on a website that the OP has not been told about cannot form part of his contract. I don't know if the presence of a date box on the top can. It is not clear to me whether the validity of a ticket, as alluded to in the byelaws, is determined by the contract that the TOC normally enters into, or the one that was entered into in this case. IANAL.

 

[Clip]

Jtee I'm not going to again correct others who have posted on here with this constant nitpicking about whether a contract was formed or not because it was but I understand you were being an honest person and had made an honest mistake -shown by your actions of giving the ticket to the inspector.

What I will say is that the penalty fare offered to you was done so because the inspector believed you had made a mistake-in future and this goes for other people reading this before posting - the best advice would be to pay the PF and then appeal afterwards. It will leave a sour taste and your appeal will fail but it is far better doing that than having to now settle with at least a 3 figure bill at the end of it.

Its a harsh lesson I agree but it is what it is.

 

[snail]

To be clear, I was given no information or explanation of the mechanics or requirements of the Carnet System at point of purchase.

How did you find out about Carnet tickets?

 

[Clip]

How did you find out about Carnet tickets?

I would say stop stealing me questions but its an important point.

It could be

1) Here mate if you buy carnets you can use them again and again but if you see an inspector then write a date in quickly

Or

2) Saw the adverts, sounded good and the perfect product for them b ut as is the case with a lot of things never bothered to look up the T&Cs

 

[EM2]

I agree with the sentiment, but T&Cs on a website that the OP has not been told about cannot form part of his contract. I don't know if the presence of a date box on the top can. It is not clear to me whether the validity of a ticket, as alluded to in the byelaws, is determined by the contract that the TOC normally enters into, or the one that was entered into in this case. IANAL.

I am also not a lawyer, but I would say that your first premise is incorrect, as shown by 'Parker v South Eastern Railway Company' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_v_South_Eastern_Railway_Company - which stated that

an individual cannot escape a contractual term by failing to read the contract but that a party wanting to rely on an exclusion clause must take reasonable steps to bring it to the attention of the customer.

Is there an argument that FCC did take reasonable steps to bring it to the attention of the customer? By stating on the face of the ticket 'Enter Date Of Use', I would argue that they did.

 

[island]

I agree with the sentiment, but T&Cs on a website that the OP has not been told about cannot form part of his contract. I don't know if the presence of a date box on the top can. It is not clear to me whether the validity of a ticket, as alluded to in the byelaws, is determined by the contract that the TOC normally enters into, or the one that was entered into in this case. IANAL.

This is also ill-informed and it does no service to the OP.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I agree with the sentiment, but T&Cs on a website that the OP has not been told about cannot form part of his contract.

Yes it can.

Stop muddying the waters with nonsense. The advice Clip has given is pretty much spot on.

It's so important it almost needs to be a sticky at the top: if an authorised ticket collector charges you a Penalty Fare, cough up and argue about it afterwards.

 

[maniacmartin]

I think knowing the relationship between the civil contract and the criminal offences is both important and interesting. I'm not convinced that some text on a website forms part of the contract if it is not referenced from anywhere and think it is worthy of a discussion.

I feel that some posters would rather we don't discuss the rules and their interpretations here, in which case there would be no point in having this forum at all.

 

[island]

I think knowing the relationship between the civil contract and the criminal offences is both important and interesting. I'm not convinced that some text on a website forms part of the contract if it is not referenced from anywhere and think it is worthy of a discussion.

I feel that some posters would rather we don't discuss the rules and their interpretations here, in which case there would be no point in having this forum at all.

To the extent it is "worthy of a discussion", the said discussion should take place on a different thread to avoid distracting the OP and giving false hope. The OP has committed a criminal offence and argument about whether or not such and such a term was pointed out correctly is most unlikely to succeed in Magistrates Court.

 

[Nick W]

Ultimately, if the carnet ticket did not have "enter date on use" on the ticket, nor boxes for this, yet the TOC expected this, the OP would surely be guaranteed to succeed with a defence of unclear terms. If the OP was clearly told to put the date on the ticket, the OP would surely to be unsuccessful.

Sure, this lies somewhere in the middle, and therefore the defence just a have a prospect. The question would be what risks and up-front cost would the OP have to ensure to attempt such a defence. The OP can surely choose their course of action accordingly, and may indeed choose to explain to the TOC that he/she was misinformed as to the reason for giving a penalty fare and ask whether a similar, perhaps more costly, option is still available.

The OP comes across as more than capable to follow a complicated discussion and make a choice accordingly.

Speed limits are also strict liability, however people have successfully defended violations due to poor signage. If the rule was "ignorance is not innocence" the presence of an order for the speed limit would be sufficient! (Plus few people probably realise that a 30mph speed limit needs no signs. )

 

[SPADTrap]

Perhaps taking the Penalty Fare requested would have been the better option but, rather than being offered as 'an acknowledgement of a genuine mistake' this was very much presented as a punishment - the word 'Penalty' doesn't help.

Rather odd attitude to take..

Penalty Fare...

 

[Jtee]

I would say stop stealing me questions but its an important point.

It could be

1) Here mate if you buy carnets you can use them again and again but if you see an inspector then write a date in quickly

Or

2) Saw the adverts, sounded good and the perfect product for them b ut as is the case with a lot of things never bothered to look up the T&Cs

I had been buying a return ticket on a daily basis - testing whether to move from commuting in a car to the train so I didn't want to by a long term ticket.

My wife suggested I buy a Carnet as it would save me queuing and save me a bit of money.

Nothing more complicated than that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Rather odd attitude to take..

Penalty Fare...

I'd go with that if 'Fare' was spelt 'Fair'!

Unfortunately, they may sound the same but they mean very different things.

 

[SPADTrap]

I'd go with that if 'Fare' was spelt 'Fair'!

Unfortunately, they may sound the same but they mean very different things.

Because they are very different things....?

Sadly you've chosen the wrong 'punishment', ironic considering your stance..
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's so important it almost needs to be a sticky at the top: if an authorised ticket collector charges you a Penalty Fare, cough up and argue about it afterwards.

Often far too late by the time many reach here!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Hey ho. Thank you all for so many considered and thorough responses, I'm not sure ignorance or naivety should be considered a crime but the law is what it is and I always set out to abide by it.

It's certainly not a defense to play devils advocate.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Rather odd attitude to take..

Penalty Fare...

Or... Penalty Fare.
All depends on your perspective.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/penalty
1. A punishment established by law or authority for a crime or offense.
2. Something, especially a sum of money, required as a forfeit for an offense.
.....

Note "offense"; not "mistake" or anything similar.

I believe first buses refer to their equivalent as their "standard fare" or some equally wooly term. Which might be less likely to cause grief at the point of issue.

 

[EM2]

But it *is* an offence, however it has been deemed by those operating the scheme that it is either not in their interest, or worth the aggravation, to pursue it to the degree that they could.
With no PF system in place, the railway could go for a Byelaw or RoRa breach every time. That would cost customers more, both those that are penalised and those that are not.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . T&Cs on a website that the OP has not been told about cannot form part of his contract.

By itself, that statement cannot be relied upon as advice. It may or may not be ,and either way, the facts must be read in the correct context.

Ultimately, if the carnet ticket did not have "enter date on use" on the ticket, nor boxes for this, yet the TOC expected this, the OP would surely be guaranteed to succeed with a defence of unclear terms.

Again, this statement cannot be relied upon as advice. I strongly disagree with the "guarantee", something that can only be provided by a 'guarantor' (so, who would that be?).

Or... Penalty Fare.
All depends on your perspective.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/penalty
1. A punishment established by law or authority for a crime or offense.
2. Something, especially a sum of money, required as a forfeit for an offense.
.....

Note "offense"; not "mistake" or anything similar.

This attempt to redefine the terms is also unreliable. The misspelling suggests that it is not even a British on-line dictionary whose interpretations are being imported.

We do Jtee no favour by confusing the matter with these doomed attempts at finding a loophole. I am no supporter of the carnet ticket as it is currently implemented and agree that it is flawed in practice, but that is no reason to confuse the question before us, which is the detection of travel without having correcty used a carnet ticket, after-the-event.

 

[LateThanNever]

Ultimately, if the carnet ticket did not have "enter date on use" on the ticket, nor boxes for this, yet the TOC expected this, the OP would surely be guaranteed to succeed with a defence of unclear terms. If the OP was clearly told to put the date on the ticket, the OP would surely to be unsuccessful.

Sure, this lies somewhere in the middle, and therefore the defence just a have a prospect. The question would be what risks and up-front cost would the OP have to ensure to attempt such a defence. The OP can surely choose their course of action accordingly, and may indeed choose to explain to the TOC that he/she was misinformed as to the reason for giving a penalty fare and ask whether a similar, perhaps more costly, option is still available.

The OP comes across as more than capable to follow a complicated discussion and make a choice accordingly.

Speed limits are also strict liability, however people have successfully defended violations due to poor signage. If the rule was "ignorance is not innocence" the presence of an order for the speed limit would be sufficient! (Plus few people probably realise that a 30mph speed limit needs no signs. )

Seems to me there could be something in this.
If the rules are strict liability then they need to be consistently and correctly enforced. In this case this looks unlikely, as if the OP passed through three automatic barriers without problem then the rail company's machines considered his ticket valid. It could therefore be argued that the rail company has contributed negligently to the OP's 'mistake' by making three of their own.
Three lots of barriers opening without problem would also reinforce the perception that the ticket was indeed valid.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

It could therefore be argued that the rail company has contributed negligently to the OP's 'mistake' by making three of their own.

No!
Or more to the point, it could be argued, at some expense to Jtee but with little prospect of success. The offence is committed. Any less than optimally intelligent programming of ticket barriers by railway company contractors is utterly irrelevant. Poor advice.

There seems to be a lot of wishful thinking on this thread, and little reliable advice.

 

[jon0844]

Three lots of barriers opening without problem would also reinforce the perception that the ticket was indeed valid.

Many gates open with discounted tickets, needing a railcard or photo ID. Can people now claim they weren't aware because the ticket worked a gate? Or even if a member of staff hadn't noticed on an earlier ticket check?

Surely not. Why is this different?

 

[island]

There seems to be a lot of wishful thinking on this thread, and little reliable advice.

Quite.

 

[455driver]

There seems to be a lot of wishful thinking on this thread, and little reliable advice.

Isnt there always on these threads?

If people could stick to the law and facts it would actually help the OP, if they want to go into the whys and wherefores of not being told every intricacy of using a ticket then they should start their own thread.

 

[LateThanNever]

No!
Or more to the point, it could be argued, at some expense to Jtee but with little prospect of success. The offence is committed. Any less than optimally intelligent programming of ticket barriers by railway company contractors is utterly irrelevant. Poor advice.

There seems to be a lot of wishful thinking on this thread, and little reliable advice.

If it is strict liability the offence is indeed committed. But I cannot see how that prevents the negligence of the railway company contributing to the offence.

 

[island]

If it is strict liability the offence is indeed committed. But I cannot see how that prevents the negligence of the railway company contributing to the offence.

To the extent that last sentence means anything, what do you think it implies? Because it certainly doesn't avoid a guilty verdict and the attendant fine, costs, and victim surcharge.

 

[EM2]

Seems to me there could be something in this.
If the rules are strict liability then they need to be consistently and correctly enforced. In this case this looks unlikely, as if the OP passed through three automatic barriers without problem then the rail company's machines considered his ticket valid.

What utter rot.
Quite apart from the question of how a machine that reads magnetic strips can read a handwritten date on the opposite side of a ticket, as soon as the OP has used the ticket by boarding a train without that date being written, the offence is committed.
This is still the case whether the ticket has been passed through a barrier, shown to an inspector/guard/gateline operator, kept in a pocket, or tucked in a bag.

 

[furlong]

Or... Penalty Fare.
All depends on your perspective.

It is a basic condition of all penalty fare schemes that passengers must be fully informed before they get on a penalty fares train - in other words, any mistake leading to a correctly-issued penalty fare amounts to a dishonest mistake.

A penalty fares scheme reverses the normal ‘burden of proof ’ which would apply if a person was prosecuted for not paying their fare.
...
For this reason, we [SRA, 2002] see our main role as making sure that the interests of honest passengers are protected

While it might be understandable for an honest passenger not to have read and absorbed some obscure Term or Condition applicable to their ticket, one who fails to act upon a clear instruction printed on the face of their ticket to 'Enter date on use" really has nobody else to blame for any consequences of their negligence.

I would suggest to admit to this negligence, furnish evidence that they are otherwise a "good customer" with a solid history of ticket purchase, gently point out that there was no actual loss of revenue to the company on this occasion, indicate what lessons have been learnt and offer to cover the company's costs in investigating the matter so they are not left out-of-pocket.

 

[Nick W]

While it might be understandable for an honest passenger not to have read and absorbed some obscure Term or Condition applicable to their ticket, one who fails to act upon a clear instruction printed on the face of their ticket to 'Enter date on use" really has nobody else to blame for any consequences of their negligence..

But this language is so idiosyncratic that the only use on the internet is on this forum! There's no room for "enter date before use" and the font is neither large nor highlighted.

Again, this statement cannot be relied upon as advice.

Of course not, because it deals with a hypothetical situation. However, I believe it is written on the forum that you have had success defending strict liability offences, and that there are various channels available, some of which may be relevant here, if the OP would rather lose £1000s trying than £100s not trying.

 

[Ediswan]

in other words, any mistake leading to a correctly-issued penalty fare amounts to a dishonest mistake.

Interesting theory. I will give just one honest mistake which would correctly attract a penalty fare. Forgetting your season ticket.

 

[SPADTrap]

Or... Penalty Fare.
All depends on your perspective.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/penalty
1. A punishment established by law or authority for a crime or offense.
2. Something, especially a sum of money, required as a forfeit for an offense.
.....

Note "offense"; not "mistake" or anything similar.

I believe first buses refer to their equivalent as their "standard fare" or some equally wooly term. Which might be less likely to cause grief at the point of issue.

Well that IS exactly what it is...I'm not sure of your point.

Not paying because it was put across as a 'punishment' which the OP disagreed with is foolish at best but sadly that is the choice the OP made. The clue is in the name.

That aside this isn't conducive to helping the OP so that is where I'll end it.

 

[EM2]

But this language is so idiosyncratic that the only use on the internet is on this forum! There's no room for "enter date before use" and the font is neither large nor highlighted.

The font is neither large nor highlighted for the date of validity, or the destination, or the route or the ticket type. It isn't relevant. The information is on the ticket.
There's no instruction on the ticket to show it to an inspector either, so why do that if it isn't specified? If you're going down the road of everyone having to have everything explained, we're going to have tickets on A4 paper, and queues four hundred yards long.