Court Summons - Not being able to produce a valid ticket

[All Line Rover]

Yes, I've seen many passengers travelling "on the wrong train" or "with the wrong TOC" for valid reasons and there's never been any difficulty in the Guard / TM accepting the reason. There's a woman just a few seats from me now travelling London - Glasgow on a Virgin WCML ticket but on an EC train, and her reason was accepted without a blink.

That is understandable, as there are currently severe delays around Milton Keynes and VT passengers to Scotland are being advised to travel with EC. (And VT passengers to Manchester to travel with EC to Leeds and then TPE to Manchester.)

 

[DaveNewcastle]

That is understandable, as there are currently severe delays . . . .

Well, no. Its because there is evidence, whatever that may be doesn't concern us.
That was the point I was attempting to make (though apparently have failed to do so).

 

[sheff1]

I'm sorry, but you're being ridiculous. You are not committing an offence if following the instructions of a member of staff either in person or on a notice. When the TOC concerned confirms that the story is genuine it WILL get dropped.

But others have said that the very fact that someone does not have a ticket means they have committed an 'absolute offence' and therefore the reason for not having a ticket is irrelevant - they are guilty.

Now I do not know whether this statement is true or not, but neither do I know on what grounds you say it definitely would not happen. It therefore seems perfectly reasonable to say I am not 100% sure.

 

[Old Timer]

But others have said that the very fact that someone does not have a ticket means they have committed an 'absolute offence' and therefore the reason for not having a ticket is irrelevant - they are guilty.

Now I do not know whether this statement is true or not, but neither do I know on what grounds you say it definitely would not happen. It therefore seems perfectly reasonable to say I am not 100% sure.

What (I think) MikeWh is trying to say, is that whilst an Absolute Offence may have been committed, very few of them are ever Prosecuted.

Were it to be the case that they were, then the Courts would be packed day and night with cases. The very fact that they are NOT proves the point that something far greater has to go on in the background before a TOC will go down the route of Prosecuting for what is a very minor offence in the scale of things and for which it costs far more to Prosecute that to ignore.

In my Revenue Protection experience, albeit many years ago, we only went to the letter and threw "everything" into the Prosecution when the passenger really deserved to be taught a lesson.

 

[AlterEgo]

But others have said that the very fact that someone does not have a ticket means they have committed an 'absolute offence' and therefore the reason for not having a ticket is irrelevant - they are guilty.

Now I do not know whether this statement is true or not, but neither do I know on what grounds you say it definitely would not happen. It therefore seems perfectly reasonable to say I am not 100% sure.

No - it is perfectly legal to fail to show a valid ticket if one or more of the legal defences apply to you. For example an authorised person has allowed travel in lieu of having a ticket (which would happen if the ticket machines failed). There being no opportunity to buy a ticket before the point where you're asked for your ticket is another defence.

 

[yorkie]

In my Revenue Protection experience, albeit many years ago, we only went to the letter and threw "everything" into the Prosecution when the passenger really deserved to be taught a lesson.

Sadly that no longer appears to be the case. So much so that one TOC was prosecuting a member of rail staff, alleging that the rail staff member was misusing their PRIV boxes when they were about 10 years old, madness. That was settled out of court, but the threat from some TOCs is very real and innocent customers, even rail staff, are considered fair game by some TOCs these days.

 

[MikeWh]

But others have said that the very fact that someone does not have a ticket means they have committed an 'absolute offence' and therefore the reason for not having a ticket is irrelevant - they are guilty.

Now I do not know whether this statement is true or not, but neither do I know on what grounds you say it definitely would not happen. It therefore seems perfectly reasonable to say I am not 100% sure.

You have only committed an absolute offence if you had the opportunity to buy before travel. If the station you board at had no ticket issuing facilities, or the single TVM is not accepting cash, or there is any other genuine reason out of your control why you could not possibly purchase your ticket, then no offence has occured. 99% of the time that reason will be propagated to all staff likely to need to be aware of it and there will be no issues. But if there is an issue, perhaps because a later leg of a long journey is a long way from the source of the problem, it won't remain a problem once you have explained to the TOC and they have checked it out.

 

[Old Timer]

But others have said that the very fact that someone does not have a ticket means they have committed an 'absolute offence' and therefore the reason for not having a ticket is irrelevant - they are guilty.

Now I do not know whether this statement is true or not, but neither do I know on what grounds you say it definitely would not happen. It therefore seems perfectly reasonable to say I am not 100% sure.

The relevant Byelaws are there to enable the Railway to have a protection against fraud. Were these not in place then it would be impossible to take action against people who would pay only when challenged.

The fact is that in the great majority of cases these Byelaws are NOT applied, think of it somehwat like a policeman's discretion - he does NOT have to charge everyone when an offence has been committed, he can use discretion in whther or not to apply the Law. The same applies to a TOC.

The 1889 Regulation of Railways Act addressed a situation whereby a person was deliberately trying to avoid paying the fare. Parliament did not at that time think that there would be a class of people who would deliberately attempt to evade the fare and only pay when challenged.

In such cases although the Inspector knows in his heart that the person is a serial evader, unless the evader fails the 1889 "test" then there would be absolutely nothing one could do about it.

The Byelaws remedy that, because a Prosecution undert them can later be used to provide intent for an S5 1889 Prosecution against the same evader.

 

[WelshBluebird]

For example an authorised person has allowed travel in lieu of having a ticket (which would happen if the ticket machines failed).

Surely that is what the OP is saying happening in this case though? (that an authorised person allowed them to travel despite not having picked up their ticket).

(of course the usual questions about if the OP is being 100% accurate come up).

 

[Old Timer]

Sadly that no longer appears to be the case. So much so that one TOC was prosecuting a member of rail staff, alleging that the rail staff member was misusing their PRIV boxes when they were about 10 years old, madness. That was settled out of court, but the threat from some TOCs is very real and innocent customers, even rail staff, are considered fair game by some TOCs these days.

When you say "fair game" what do you mean ?

If someone passes through a station and boards a train when there was ample opportunity to pay then I would class the TOCs actions as being well and truly properly if indeed somewhat belatedly applied.

We read many tales on here from people who "find" themselves in trouble, but of course this is always one side of the argument. It is a shame that both sides of the argument are not heard as I can reel off occasions where a passenger's tale appears to be so truly awful that one would immediately seek out and sack the staff on the spot but upon hearing the whole tale, a far different story emerges - usually one which is far different and not so favourable to the complainant.

Whenever I travel on a Railway outside of the UK I go to the "trouble" of establishing how to purchase a ticket so as that I do not fall foul of the TTIs or the travel conditions.

Simples as the advert says.

It is not rocket science yet there seems to be this attitude within the UK that this is unecessary or not something that people need to bother about. A situation fuelled and certainly not helped by some of the emotional hand-wringing and emotionally charged responses we see on here, when those who try it on are called to account.

.....(of course the usual questions about if the OP is being 100% accurate come up).

And THAT of course is where the Devil is....in the detail we do not have.

There are many questions which arise from the original story and many things that do not add up.

As I said earlier if EVERY TOC Prosecuted every Byelaw offence then the Magistrates Courts would be filled.

 

[MikeWh]

Surely that is what the OP is saying happening in this case though? (that an authorised person allowed them to travel despite not having picked up their ticket).

(of course the usual questions about if the OP is being 100% accurate come up).

The OP did not arrive at the station in time to pick up his tickets. It wasn't entirely his fault, granted, but it wasn't the fault of the railway either. I'm not going to go through the whole thing again, but it is not the same as facilities not being available.

 

[WelshBluebird]

The OP did not arrive at the station in time to pick up his tickets. It wasn't entirely his fault, granted, but it wasn't the fault of the railway either. I'm not going to go through the whole thing again, but it is not the same as facilities not being available.

I did not say it was the same.
I was just saying an authorised person (the 1st TM) did give the OP permission to travel, and so according to what AlterEgo has said, that should have meant he would not be chased up about it. Yes it was not a "railway issue" that stopped him from getting the tickets, but he was given permission to travel without the ticket. And it is easy to just say he should have turned up earlier, but depending on the situation sometimes you really cannot blame the person for that.

Whenever I travel on a Railway outside of the UK I go to the "trouble" of establishing how to purchase a ticket so as that I do not fall foul of the TTIs or the travel conditions.

And by buying a ticket in advance and planning to pick it up at the station, the OP did exactly that.
Yes he should have got there early enough to pick it up, but sometimes you really cannot avoid being late.

And THAT of course is where the Devil is....in the detail we do not have.

There are many questions which arise from the original story and many things that do not add up.

First of all, I do think we should give a little benefit of the doubt to the OP. If we just assume everyone who posts on here is not telling the truth, then what is the point of people asking questions?

And secondly, I don't know. It is something very easy to do and something I imagine quite a lot of people fall foul of (because of how easy it is to do).

 

[jon0844]

Well, I am on a FCC train to St Albans right now (that left a minute early) without a ticket as I had no means to get one. It's an absolute offence presumably, if an RPI boards between St Pancras and St Albans.

I did ask how to buy a ticket, both to a member of staff and to FCC on Twitter. Staff told me to use a machine (not possible) and no response via Twitter. So, off I went with no valid ticket to SAC.

Am I liable for prosecution?

 

[big_dirt]

Well, I am on a FCC train to St Albans right now (that left a minute early) without a ticket as I had no means to get one. It's an absolute offence presumably, if an RPI boards between St Pancras and St Albans.

I did ask how to buy a ticket, both to a member of staff and to FCC on Twitter. Staff told me to use a machine (not possible) and no response via Twitter. So, off I went with no valid ticket to SAC.

Am I liable for prosecution?

On FCC the way to deal with this is to be a complete lunatic, laugh and make loud noises and then get off at a station such as Herne Hill or Loughborough Junction with no barriers.

This also works if you wish to pull the emergency handle for no good reason and are challenged by the guard. Just insist that you'll do it as often as you want and then get off at the next stop.

If, on the other hand, you intended to pay but were unable to or confused how to do so and would like to resolve the issue then you will be lucky to escape with a £20 fine from someone whose appearance does not inspire confidence in the whole system.

 

[AlterEgo]

Well, I am on a FCC train.....without a ticket as I had no means to get one.

Am I liable for prosecution?

Of course you have a valid defence, as people have earlier stated. An easily provable one too.

 

[district]

No ability to purchase at origin (even if no particular tender accepted of your choice) then you should be able to buy onboard. I understand FCC is DOO so purchasing from an RPI with an Avantix machine or purchasing at destination should be fine as well.

TVM's report what tender they accept at what times, and whether they are working or not, and this log can be checked, so don't use that in mitigation if it isn't true

 

[b0b]

I did ask how to buy a ticket, both to a member of staff and to FCC on Twitter. Staff told me to use a machine (not possible) and no response via Twitter. So, off I went with no valid ticket to SAC.

Am I liable for prosecution?

Of course you are! I hope you have taken the time to carefully document your inability to buy a ticket so the defence of 'no facilities' will be possible.

 

[jon0844]

Perhaps I should have alighted at Elstree & Borhamwood and got a ticket from there to St Albans, then waited 90 minutes for the next train!

 

[Old Timer]

...First of all, I do think we should give a little benefit of the doubt to the OP. If we just assume everyone who posts on here is not telling the truth, then what is the point of people asking questions?.

We have but a LOT of things do not add up and there are a number of questions that are raised by a simple reading of the posts.

There is one simple way of staying out of trouble, and that is to quite simply NOT pass through a barrier if you do not have your ticket with you. Many troubles on here stem from a failure to follow that simple premise.

Where there are no ticket issuing facilities then buying the ticket at the earliest opportunity, even if it means finding the Guard - which in general is not too difficult, is another simple way of keeping out of bother.

The longer and the further one travels, the more likely that a number of very searching questions are likely to be asked.

The advice given by the CPS with regards to Prosecution sets out those points in its guidelines.

 

[big_dirt]

We have but a LOT of things do not add up and there are a number of questions that are raised by a simple reading of the posts.

There is one simple way of staying out of trouble, and that is to quite simply NOT pass through a barrier if you do not have your ticket with you. Many troubles on here stem from a failure to follow that simple premise.

Where there are no ticket issuing facilities then buying the ticket at the earliest opportunity, even if it means finding the Guard - which in general is not too difficult, is another simple way of keeping out of bother.

The longer and the further one travels, the more likely that a number of very searching questions are likely to be asked.

The advice given by the CPS with regards to Prosecution sets out those points in its guidelines.

The law is an ass.

When someone enters in to an agreement with the railway, there are obligations on both sides.

What you are suggesting is that all passengers' rights are less important than those of the TOCs.

I might as well say that if someone wants to stay out of trouble they should stay off the railway altogether!

 

[Old Timer]

The law is an ass.

Why ?

When someone enters in to an agreement with the railway, there are obligations on both sides....

And the obligation entered into by the passenger is to have with them at all times when travelling a ticket, your point being ?

..What you are suggesting is that all passengers' rights are less important than those of the TOCs.

You, yourself pointed out that there are obligations on both sides, so this post appears to be a direct contradiction of your previous comment.

..I might as well say that if someone wants to stay out of trouble they should stay off the railway altogether!

What a crass observation. You really should calm down or you will end up with high blood pressure.

If a person buys a ticket before travelling then there is no problem. If on the other hand YOU believe that it is appropriate for a passenger to travel a whole journey before buying a ticket when there is an opportunity, then I rather think you need to consider the implications of that through - especially the fact that without a ticket a passenger is actually NOT covered by any insurance and is in fact trespassing as well as being in breach of a whole variety of different sections of Legislation.

Before you go apoplectic again, you should be aware that the same arrangements apply to other carriers, such as National Express coaches(indeed they apply a much harsher approach), and bus companies.

 

[yorkie]

... you should be aware that the same arrangements apply to other carriers, such as National Express coaches(indeed they apply a much harsher approach), and bus companies.

My understanding is that some bus/coach operators allow a reference number to be quoted. Is my understanding incorrect?

I might as well say that if someone wants to stay out of trouble they should stay off the railway altogether!

That's the only guaranteed way, yes. However if you know your rights and your obligations well enough, then it should be possible to adequately safeguard yourself to 'stay out of trouble'.

Nevertheless, it was only the presence of an off duty Virgin Trains employee who came to our assistance on an FGW train that a group of us were not issued with PFs or prosecutions, when the previous RPI got off our train with our Permits to Travel to chase after a fare evader while issuing our tickets. Yes, I couldn't believe it, but some quite amazing things happen, they are very rare, but you are right in that if you want to be absolutely 100% safe then you would have to not travel by train. I'd say if you look after your tickets carefully, and act sensibly, you'd be 99.99% safe though!

 

[Old Timer]

My understanding is that some bus/coach operators allow a reference number to be quoted. Is my understanding incorrect?

I really would not like to say, chap.

I checked the website and there are arrangements that can be made, because obviously there is a lot more control over a passenger turning up without a pre-booked ticket, however the Ts&Cs that I have read pack more "punch" about prosecution, etc, etc. and as you may know Travel WM inspectors take no excuses. No ticket or over-riding and you are reported full stop. I am sure other large bus operators behave similarly.

 

[scotsman]

I am sure other large bus operators behave similarly.

Interesting, as Stagecoach only threaten a £5 penalty fare

 

[b0b]

And the obligation entered into by the passenger is to have with them at all times when travelling a ticket, your point being ?

One would think the TOC has an obligation to actually issue the ticket that has been paid for.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

One would think the TOC has an obligation to actually issue the ticket that has been paid for.

I think that question is adequately addressed in the very first post of this thread.

The TOC had machines and counter staff at Temple Meads but the passenger was late and saw that the barriers were open so took a chance. Subsequently, a TM inspecting tickets allowed the passenger to travel onwards despite the lack of ticket. Can you help me please in explaining how "the TOC" failed in any obligation?

 

[LondonJohn]

I have a question which isnt unrelated but please feel free to move if necessary.

What happens if you start a journey at an unmanned station and you have rail travel vouchers that you want to use for full/part payment. Can you board the train and buy on board/at the first opportunity or should you buy ANY ticket or should you buy the ticket for your journey and ask for the cash back for the voucher ?

Also, what happens if you want a ticket to Boundary Zone 6 are you supposed to know what station this is and

This thread and others has made me very wary of getting caught out for my misunderstanding.

 

[yorkie]

If the ticket(s) you require are not available at your origin, perhaps because they are not available from a machine, or perhaps your valid payment method is not accepted by the machine, if you are in a position to do so, buy a ticket part way and then buy the rest/excess at the first opportunity, e.g. on board. You are not required to delay your journey at an interchange.

See:

• http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=786228&#post786228
• http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=563972&#post563972
• http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=500406&postcount=3

There is more detail in these topics, all your questions should be answered in those (I think), but if you have any further questions about any of them feel free to ask.

 

[big_dirt]

Instead of getting in to multi-quotes:

To abide by Old Timer's way of doing things there would be many valid reasons whereby an intending passenger should not board a state subvented railway journey.

Old Timer seems to suggest that the best way to protect your rights is not to exercise them.

There are rules and regulations which acknowledge that there are times when a passenger must board the train without a ticket yet your advice is not to do that otherwise face criminal prosecution and the personal impact which that carries.

Old Timer, you should edit your post and remove that ridiculous claim.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If a person buys a ticket before travelling then there is no problem. If on the other hand YOU believe that it is appropriate for a passenger to travel a whole journey before buying a ticket when there is an opportunity

by the way the whole is a qualification added by you after your initial point.

How does a ticketless passenger complete a partial journey without passing a barrier line?

 

[island]

If the ticket(s) you require are not available at your origin, perhaps because they are not available from a machine, or perhaps your valid payment method is not accepted by the machine, if you are in a position to do so, buy a ticket part way and then buy the rest/excess at the first opportunity, e.g. on board. You are not required to delay your journey at an interchange.

That's the rule, but some TOCs (SET as a minimum) have been known to complain at passengers for following it!