Definition of the word "journey" as used in railway byelaw 18

Status
Not open for further replies.

jkdd77

Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
557
This largely relates to the closed thread: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=127475
but raises general issues of importance when giving advice. I hoped to return to that thread before it was closed, but was sidetracked by family issues.

Neither byelaw 18 nor byelaw 25 defines the word "journey"; however, it is my firm view, supported by the NRCoC (in particular Condition 16(i) and Condition 25(d)), the Penalty Fares Regulations and Rules, the Delay Repay rules, the general consensus in the 'Fares Advice & Policy' section of the forum, my dictionary, and common sense, that a passenger who travels from station A to station D, changing at stations B and C without breaking their journey, has made a *single journey* from A to D within the meaning of railway byelaws.

I have made successful Delay Repay claims based on short delays on a initial journey leg causing missed connections and subsequent delayed arrival at my destination station(s) of over 30 minutes. The TOCs in questions accepted that I had made a *single journey* by rail, rather than two separate journeys from origin station to intermediate station and then from intermediate station to destination station (neither of which would be entitled to Delay Repay in their own right, had they been separate journeys).

Although analogies with other forms of transport are typically of limited use, it is also my opinion that a passenger driving from (say) Ladybank to Stevenage, briefly stopping at service stations in Edinburgh and Peterborough en route, has also made a single journey rather than three separate journeys.

Furthermore, there is case law to the effect that any ambiguity in a criminal statute must be construed in the manner most favourable to the defendant.

In my opinion, it therefore follows that, if station A did not have ticket purchase facilities at the time of travel, a passenger remains entitled to rely on the 18(3)(i) defence to a byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) prosecution regardless of the number of trains he or she subsequently joins during the same journey, or indeed the number of times he or she is subsequently asked for a ticket on subsequent legs of the journey. Even if a passenger buys a ticket to cover only part of the journey, this does not change the definition of their journey, nor break the journey up into multiple parts (as NRCoC Condition 19 makes clear).

In general, I would agree that a passenger commits a byelaw 18(1) offence each time he or she boards a train without a valid ticket, but that this is not the case where:
a) a passenger is not starting a new journey, but rather continuing on a single journey started at a previous station, and;
b) still has a valid 18(3)(i) defence relating to the station at which he or she commenced his or her journey.

Of course, this assumes the passenger is telling the truth that they boarded at a station with no purchase facilities, and is not, for example, inventing travel on a non-existent train from a minor station lacking purchase facilities in order to excuse an unlawful failure to purchase at the claimed intermediate station, which in fact is his or her true origin station.

If anyone disagrees with my interpretation of the word "journey", I hope that he or she will provide reasons and explanation for their alternative definition.

A passenger who:
a) boards a train at an intermediate station without a ticket, having failed to take advantage of one or more opportunities to purchase on the previous train, or at the intermediate station, or;
b) buys a ticket to cover part of their journey and then wilfully proceeds by rail beyond that station, without buying valid tickets to cover the remainder of their journey prior to departure from that intermediate station;
likely commits other offences, notably fare evasion contrary to s 5(3)(a) RRA 1889. However, my question is concerned solely with the byelaw 18 offence (although similar considerations would apply to any byelaw 17 charge).

Edit- this issue may also be relevant when giving advice on this live thread: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=127759
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Agent_c

Member
Joined
22 Jan 2015
Messages
934
To me a journey is from the moment you enter the national railway network with the intention of travelling, until the time you leave the network at your destination with the intention to do something else.

So if you're in a station changing trains, you're still in the network and still travelling. If you're in the station at your connection getting a bite to eat, you're still within the network and you still have the intention of travelling. If you're between interchange stations you're deemed to be still within the network and you still have the intention of travelling.

If you get out of the station to go to work, then you've left the network, and you've lost your intention to travel (even if you're intending to return just after 5pm for the trip home).

in that case, it for "Must I buy a ticket beforehand" question, only the actual origin matters.
 

Fare-Cop

Member
Joined
5 Aug 2010
Messages
950
Location
England
in that case, it for "Must I buy a ticket beforehand" question, only the actual origin matters.

I would agree with that summary.

Byelaw 18 does not mention the word 'journey' for very good reason

Byelaw 18.1 directs that if facilities are available for an intending traveller to buy a ticket and in the absence of a sign or specific permission to do otherwise, an intending traveller must buy a ticket before boarding a train.

Byelaw 18.2 instructs that the traveller must produce a ticket when asked (subject to the same exceptions as 18.1)

Section 5(3)(b) of the Regulation of Railways Act (1889) makes clear that if a traveller does not produce a ticket showing that they have previously paid the fare for their intended journey, but has knowingly paid a fare for a shorter journey than that they intend to make with the intention of avoiding the correct fare for the intended journey unless detected, then they may be reported and are very likely to be convicted of intending to avoid that fare.
 

exile

Established Member
Joined
16 Jul 2011
Messages
1,337
I would agree with that summary.

Byelaw 18 does not mention the word 'journey' for very good reason

Byelaw 18.1 directs that if facilities are available for an intending traveller to buy a ticket and in the absence of a sign or specific permission to do otherwise, an intending traveller must buy a ticket before boarding a train.

Byelaw 18.2 instructs that the traveller must produce a ticket when asked (subject to the same exceptions as 18.1)

Section 5(3)(b) of the Regulation of Railways Act (1889) makes clear that if a traveller does not produce a ticket showing that they have previously paid the fare for their intended journey, but has knowingly paid a fare for a shorter journey than that they intend to make with the intention of avoiding the correct fare for the intended journey unless detected, then they may be reported and are very likely to be convicted of intending to avoid that fare.

You've forgotten this:-

"there were no facilities in working order for the issue or
validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where,
he began his JOURNEY" (my capitals).

So using a common sense definition of "journey", then you shouldn't be in breach if you start at an unstaffed station, no matter what happens subsequently (eg, changing trains at a staffed station).

If you studiously avoid all opportunities to pay, however, you may be considered to be showing intent to travel without paying, but that's a different scenario.
 

Fare-Cop

Member
Joined
5 Aug 2010
Messages
950
Location
England
You've forgotten this:-

"there were no facilities in working order for the issue or
validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where,
he began his JOURNEY" (my capitals).

So using a common sense definition of "journey", then you shouldn't be in breach if you start at an unstaffed station, no matter what happens subsequently (eg, changing trains at a staffed station).

If you studiously avoid all opportunities to pay, however, you may be considered to be showing intent to travel without paying, but that's a different scenario.


Yes, you're right, I apologise, what I meant to say was 'Byelaw 18 does not define the word 'journey' for very good reason.

It tells you what you must do before starting a journey and it defines the exceptions in 18.3 when you will not be in breach of that Byelaw if travelling without a ticket

The case of a traveller then not taking up an opportunity to pay the correct fare at the first opportunity does leave the scope of a Byelaw prosecution and falls into the area of a more serious charge under RoRA 5.3 and the cases of Corbyn (1978), Bremme (1965) and other relevant matters are frequently cited in such situations.
 
Last edited:

jkdd77

Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
557
The helpful replies, particularly from Fare-Cop, have confirmed my view that the OP in the closed thread was guilty of fare evasion, but not of the specific byelaw 18 offence of which he is charged (presuming that he was indeed telling the truth about boarding at Ladybank!), but nonetheless continues to owe the unpaid fare for the journey made.

I'm sure that thread was closed for good reason, but I hope that this clarification may be of some use in the future to other OPs.
 

reb0118

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
28 Jan 2010
Messages
2,931
Location
Bo'ness, West Lothian
[P]resuming that he was indeed telling the truth about boarding at Ladybank!

Whilst I was originally a bit concerned about the veracity of that fact, due to the confusion re. the arrival & departure times at Edinburgh, the fact that the passenger holds an UFN from Ladybank does go some way to proving it.
 

exile

Established Member
Joined
16 Jul 2011
Messages
1,337
Yes, you're right, I apologise, what I meant to say was 'Byelaw 18 does not define the word 'journey' for very good reason.

It tells you what you must do before starting a journey and it defines the exceptions in 18.3 when you will not be in breach of that Byelaw if travelling without a ticket

The case of a traveller then not taking up an opportunity to pay the correct fare at the first opportunity does leave the scope of a Byelaw prosecution and falls into the area of a more serious charge under RoRA 5.3 and the cases of Corbyn (1978), Bremme (1965) and other relevant matters are frequently cited in such situations.

However then we get into the murky area of whether or not it's reasonable for a passenger who is allowed 5 minutes to make a connection, with the next train an hour or more later, to try to find the ticket office.
 

Haywain

Established Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
5,922
However then we get into the murky area of whether or not it's reasonable for a passenger who is allowed 5 minutes to make a connection, with the next train an hour or more later, to try to find the ticket office.
To say nothing of the customer who started at an unstaffed station, but then paid a visit to a ticket office but declined to take the opportunity to purchase a ticket. If the idea is to pay at the first opportunity, I find it difficult to see how that is not an opportunity.
 

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
3,368
An interesting question, has a passenger made a journey if they hop on a train to travel to the nearest station with a toilet say and then back to make their original trip.
 

CyrusWuff

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2013
Messages
2,651
Not the Byelaws, but I would suggest that Condition 2 of the NRCoC should be read in conjunction with Condition 3 in situations where you are unable to purchase a ticket at the origin station for whatever reason, and that you should seek to rectify the situation at the first reasonable opportunity.

In the linked example, the train from Ladybank is scheduled to arrive at Edinburgh at 0646 in the current timetable (it may have changed since the OP's journey). With a 10 minute minimum connection time, the next valid Southbound VTEC connection would be the 0730 to Kings Cross, which would have made a connection at York (8 minute minimum connection time) into the 1003 to Kings Cross, which stops at Stevenage.

Had the OP in the other thread made that connection, it would have given plenty of time to sort out their ticketing issue, but I appreciate that being awake for three days addles your brain, so I'm guessing the train involved was the 0655 ex-Edinburgh.

The first UFN was, to my mind, correctly issued, as the OP was unable to provide payment for a ticket when requested.

By failing to purchase a ticket at Edinburgh, where there was an opportunity to do so, that set the chain of events in motion for the second (equally valid, as it wasn't a valid connection) UFN to be issued.

It's my understanding that UFNs can only be issued to the train's destination or the point at which the passenger intends leaving the service and, like Penalty Fares, they are only valid on the train on which they are issued.

Any onward travel requires the purchase of an additional ticket, hence why the OP was (correctly) issued a Penalty Fare by GTR.
 

furlong

Established Member
Joined
28 Mar 2013
Messages
2,405
Location
Reading
It's my understanding that UFNs can only be issued to the train's destination or the point at which the passenger intends leaving the service and, like Penalty Fares, they are only valid on the train on which they are issued.

While I have seen UFNs that have printed on them text that purports to restrict travel to services of the issuing operator, I've been unable to work out what part of the franchise agreement allows a TOC to do this. How does the TSA allow these ad-hoc inter-availability restrictions to be imposed - or doesn't it?

6-7 RESTRICTIONS ON THE SALE OF FARES
(1) Restrictions on the Sale of Fares which have not been properly Created
An Operator may not offer any Fare for Sale, or authorise another person to do so, unless that Fare has been Created pursuant to Chapter 4 (and has not been discontinued or replaced). This restriction applies to all Fares, including Dedicated Fares which are Sold by the Operator on whose trains they are valid.

“Fare” means the right, exercisable against one or more Operators (and, where applicable, another person or persons), subject to the Rights and Restrictions applicable to it and the payment of the relevant Price (less any applicable discounts):-
(a) to make one or more journeys on the Network (whether or not together with other rights);...

6-25 RIGHTS AND RESTRICTIONS
(1) Obligations of the Operator making the Sale
When Selling a Rail Product, an Operator must not say or do anything which is inconsistent with the Rights and Restrictions, the National Rail Conditions of Carriage and/or any other conditions which apply to the Rail Product.
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,837
While I have seen UFNs that have printed on them text that purports to restrict travel to services of the issuing operator, I've been unable to work out what part of the franchise agreement allows a TOC to do this. How does the TSA allow these ad-hoc inter-availability restrictions to be imposed - or doesn't it?

I fail to see how any of the quotes from the TSA are relevant here. There is no "ad-hoc interavailability restrictions", the UFN is simply done to the place where the passenger alights the train. Penalty Fares are similar in only being to the next stop rather than to the journey's end.
 

furlong

Established Member
Joined
28 Mar 2013
Messages
2,405
Location
Reading
I fail to see how any of the quotes from the TSA are relevant here. There is no "ad-hoc interavailability restrictions", the UFN is simply done to the place where the passenger alights the train. Penalty Fares are similar in only being to the next stop rather than to the journey's end.

Unlike a Penalty Fare, a UFN may be issued beyond the next stop, and then if the passenger changes their mind and leaves the train early why shouldn't they continue their journey on a different operator in accordance with the Rights and Restrictions of the permanent Fare they have contracted to pay for?
 

CyrusWuff

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2013
Messages
2,651
I suspect the general argument would be along the lines that an employee of TOC A can not generally give a passenger authority to travel on a train operated by TOC B without a valid ticket, so you couldn't issue a UFN for a journey like Ashford International to Fort William, which would involve at least three TOCs.
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,837
Unlike a Penalty Fare, a UFN may be issued beyond the next stop, and then if the passenger changes their mind and leaves the train early why shouldn't they continue their journey on a different operator in accordance with the Rights and Restrictions of the permanent Fare they have contracted to pay for?

IANAL, but it seems to me that, by your own quote from the TSA, a UFN is not a Fare.

“Fare” means the right, exercisable against one or more Operators..... subject to.... the payment of the relevant Price (less any applicable discounts)....to make one or more journeys on the Network.
 

furlong

Established Member
Joined
28 Mar 2013
Messages
2,405
Location
Reading
I suspect the general argument would be along the lines that an employee of TOC A can not generally give a passenger authority to travel on a train operated by TOC B without a valid ticket, so you couldn't issue a UFN for a journey like Ashford International to Fort William, which would involve at least three TOCs.

So that would boil down to "Is a UFN a valid ticket?" If it is, albeit one with a legally-binding agreement (enforceable through the civil courts) that the customer will hand over the money for it at a later time (same principle as a warrant or even a credit card), then surely there's no reason why it shouldn't also cover travel on other TOCs. And if it isn't a valid ticket, then what else could it be, given the TSA's restrictions on ad-hoc charges for travel and the fact that the charge is always set to match a Fare?

I'm not seeing what part of the franchise agreement allows a TOC to charge the price of a permanent inter-available Fare yet attempt to deny the passenger that inter-availability.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
IANAL, but it seems to me that, by your own quote from the TSA, a UFN is not a Fare.

“Fare” means the right, exercisable against one or more Operators..... subject to.... the payment of the relevant Price (less any applicable discounts)....to make one or more journeys on the Network.

By accepting a UFN, the passenger has entered into a legally-enforceable agreement to pay the relevant Price, haven't they? If I pay by credit card or warrant, there are intermediaries involved that should make risk of default considerably lower, but the principle is just the same, isn't it?
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,837
....By accepting a UFN, the passenger has entered into a legally-enforceable agreement to pay the relevant Price, haven't they?....

IANAL, but is there not a difference between the price paid and a price owed? I'm not entirely sure that the payment is entirely guaranteed under a UFN, but then I don't deal directly with that side of things.

....If I pay by credit card or warrant, there are intermediaries involved that should make risk of default considerably lower, but the principle is just the same, isn't it?

Pin verified credit card payments are protected by the bank as I understand it. Warrants have an annual fee which is above the cost of most fares issued on them (in my experience), and each book of warrants also incurs a fee. Warrant account holders are responsible for any warrant issued on their account and the account can be terminated at any time.
 

Fare-Cop

Member
Joined
5 Aug 2010
Messages
950
Location
England
So that would boil down to "Is a UFN a valid ticket?"

In simple terms a UFN is not a valid ticket, it is really just a notice allowing a traveller who otherwise has no ticket, or no valid ticket, to complete the journey on the service/es on which and for which it is issued. Showing this will advise other staff at any subsequent check that the traveller has already been reported on that date and can be allowed to complete the journey described on the UFN.

The notice advises the traveller that a report of the fare owing has been made to the TOC.

The TOCs are not obliged to issue UFNs and in former times staff would simply have made out a report for further action.

The UFN allows that action to be deferred for a short time whilst the matter is finalised by payment of the fare or otherwise investigated.

The TOC will accept payment to close that report, but if the fare is not paid and if the traveller has not successfully challenged the liability within the time scale allowed and shown on the notice, this opportunity can be cancelled and can still result in a Summons for action in a criminal Courts list.

This may be either for an allegation of an offence contrary to Byelaw or RoRA legislation as appropriate. (These are not Civil Court matters, as so often seemingly misunderstood.)
 
Last edited:

reb0118

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
28 Jan 2010
Messages
2,931
Location
Bo'ness, West Lothian
The TOCs are not obliged to issue UFNs and in former times staff would simply have made out a report for further action........

........and in Scotland requiring the passenger to leave the train at the next (staffed?) station was also an option even if the passenger provided their details.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top