E Tickets should be in a pdf version not a screenshot
E-tickets can be shown in
any format, so long as the barcode can be scanned and the ticket details identified. You yourself have said later in the same post that you don't have to present a PDF!
screenshots are normally sent from person to person in order to avoid the railfares
Perhaps among some circles, but, if I may engage in a stereotypes, I doubt many septuagenarians are engaging in e-ticket fare avoidance. But it is of no relevance whatsoever what a particular practice is commonly used as (e.g. one might suggest the same about refunds - that a lot of refund claim are fraudulent). The only thing that is relevant is whether,
in this particular case, there has been wrongdoing.
and this passenger has clearly not read the information on the presenting of the ticket.
A baseless suggestion and one that, again, is irrelevant. There is nothing anywhere in the NRCoT or elsewhere that indicates that screenshots of e-tickets are unacceptable.
etickets are emailed as a PDF attachment to you, meaning you’ll need a mobile device that can open PDFs and has internet access to receive the email. You can use them in one of the following ways –
- Open the PDF attachment and show the ticket on your mobile device.
- Print the eticket.
- Download the eticket on our app.
- Download and show the eticket in your Apple Wallet if you are using an Apple Wallet enabled Apple device – there’ll be a live link in the email we send you.
An eticket can only be used by one customer for one valid journey and it’s a criminal offence to amend and/or reproduce an eticket for fraudulent use. If two passengers show the same eticket for travel, they’ll could both be treated as invalid. You’re responsible for any fraudulent use of your eticket
I don't know where you've copied that from but it is totally irrelevant and adds nothing. It says nothing about screenshots.
If the passenger did not agree with the prosecution why pay to settle before court
Because for many people they do not want to risk the stress and potential costs of going to Court, or they may not even have the means to engage a solicitor. The system is unbelievably biased towards train companies in this regard - it is almost always the easiest option to pay a "bribe" they offer, rather than to fight injustices properly.
Because perhaps they were at the end of their tether and wanted some justice? Are you saying that it's somehow wrong that the person in question went to the press?
surely this is something that they should have fought in court if they believed they were in the right.
There are people out there, and I will certainly admit to being one of them, who are happy to have their day in Court to show a train company up as the fool they too often are. But most people are very afraid of Court - they haven't been involved in the Court process before (at most perhaps as a victim or a jurist, guided through the process). It is an unbelievably biased system and the TOCs are abusing it on a daily basis.
I note that the TOC have said that they were correct in reporting the matter or are all TOCS going to accept that anyone who does not comply with the rules can do as they please without penalty.
It is in question whether the passenger broke any rules at all (that depending on whether the barcode was actually readable or whether the passenger could instead give a clear screenshot). Given this, it is hardly appropriate to penalise the passenger, much less so in view of the fact that there is no suggestion anywhere that they were intending to avoid any fare, and the fact that they had already been inconvenienced by a failing by the rail industry (the train cancellation).
The real issue is the lack of clarity within the terms and conditions I can find only one TOC who states that Screenshots are not permitted.
Any such conditions would have to be clearly advertised as a term of the contract, e.g. in the NRCoT or the retailer conditions of sale. No retailer does that as far as I'm aware. The policies of particular TOCs bear no relevance on it (unless they are perhaps suggesting they are more lenient than they are obliged to be).
So what is really needed is better clarity within the terms and conditions.
Not really - what is needed is for the rail industry to start recognising who's actually the paying customer here, and for the regulators to start making examples of TOCs like CrossCountry that engage in tens or hundreds of unjust prosecutions. Next stop after that, decriminalisation and the abolition of the corrupt practice that is private prosecutions.