Explaining a ticket to a conductor

[drbdrb]

instead he prefers to say loudly within earshot of other passengers that I am committing a crime.

Just turn on the audio recording function on your phone the next time you see them approach.

It may be useful if their bosses think that all their staff can do no wrong.

 

[Haywain]

My issue is with the staff member being unwilling to engage in a polite conversation with me where I am happy to explain why I believe the ticket is valid but instead he prefers to say loudly within earshot of other passengers that I am committing a crime.
I'm no legal expert and know little about slander - but I believe that a false accusation of committing a crime could be slanderous.

Which is a matter to take up with the TOC. Even if you had a case for defamation, and I very much doubt that you have, it will be costly and time consuming to take it to court and you will not only need to produce the said ticket examining bod but witnesses as well. Just because he said these things loudly does not mean others heard or believed them.

 

[Llanigraham]

My issue is with the staff member being unwilling to engage in a polite conversation with me where I am happy to explain why I believe the ticket is valid but instead he prefers to say loudly within earshot of other passengers that I am committing a crime.
I'm no legal expert and know little about slander - but I believe that a false accusation of committing a crime could be slanderous.

As previously said, I suggest you look up the legal definition of slander first, otherwise you will be on a very expensive hiding to nothing.
Even Google has a good explanation!!

 

[RJ]

Southeastern's customer service team are useless at dealing with fare dispute complaints requiring anything more than a cursory look at a ticket. It's better to take legal action if a crime has been committed or damages have arisen as the result of the actions of their staff.

 

[Wolfie]

Southeastern are not going to give you personal details of one of their employees. Be sensible and write to them about the incident so that they can deal with it. Unless of course you don't want to tell them what season ticket you are using, in which case you'll have to live with the occasional staff member being ill informed.

You are of cours equite correct. However, given that this individual is acting as Southeastern's agent if they do nothing about his slander it makes them liable legally for it - so the OP should sue them instead! That will doubtless concentrate their minds PDQ!

 

[Flamingo]

You are of cours equite correct. However, given that this individual is acting as Southeastern's agent if they do nothing about his slander it makes them liable legally for it - so the OP should sue them instead! That will doubtless concentrate their minds PDQ!

Again, this will require the OP to communicate his ticket type and route to Southern...

 

[Llanigraham]

You are of cours equite correct. However, given that this individual is acting as Southeastern's agent if they do nothing about his slander it makes them liable legally for it - so the OP should sue them instead! That will doubtless concentrate their minds PDQ!

Sue them for what?
As has been said several times, look up the legal definition of slander!!

 

[andypops]

Sue them for what?
As has been said several times, look up the legal definition of slander!!

I'll bite.

Why is it not slander?

I have no legal knowledge btw. And my opinion of wikipedia is very low; but for the purposes of this hypothetical argument it'll do

Let's start from the google definition:

"The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation."

The guard said something which the OP believes to be untrue, and is able to prove with their ticket and associated documents. If he could prove the guard said it - witness, recordings etc - and a reasonable person within earshot may think less of the OP, case closed. No?


Now let's look at the wikipedia article on Defamation, under the section "Slander":

"The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of "slander" (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech), each of which gives a common law right of action."

Again, the guard said something which the OP believes to be untrue, and is able to prove with their ticket and associated documents. If he could prove the guard said it, and a reasonable person would think less of him by hearing it - job done.


Regarding "reasonable person" - I don't *think* there actually has to be a witness to the slander, as long as it can be proven - eg by recording etc - that it took place, and what was said could be thought of as damaging to the claimant.



NB that the 1975 Faulks committee recommended that the distinction between libel and slander should be abolished - thus slander should be assimilated to libel.


Now looking at the wikipedia article on English Defamation Law:

"English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual ... in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them."

I am unsure about what is meant by a "published statement". I haven't read the act, but it may just be the way the article has been written. Let's assume by "published statement" they mean "anything said or written that's publicly available".

The part about a named individual may not be good for the OP - but there is some relief in that :

"A statement can include an implication; for instance, a photograph of a particular politician accompanying a headline reading "Corrupt Politicians" could be held as an allegation that that politician was personally corrupt. Once it is shown that a statement was published, and that it has a defamatory meaning, that statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant is able to raise a defence to his defamatory act."

So, if the guard implied the OP was breaking the law / acting as a fare dodger, and it was said to him, and that the statement would be thought of as defamatory, then from my POV it's job done.


In terms of a possible defence for what the guard may or may not have said:

"Allowable defences are justification (i.e. the truth of the statement), fair comment (i.e., whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (i.e., whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest)."

Fair comment is interesting, but appears that could be overcome if the guard did not, for example, check the validity with the tools at their disposal before making the statement.


Moving on, there is now the matter of the Defamation Act 2013. This seems to make it harder to prove defamation, by making a higher burden of proof for the claimant. Notably, it seems to give two strong defenses which are plausible in this case:

Requirement of serious harm: "A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant".

Up to OP to prove that calling someone a fair dodger / whatever is going to hurt their reputation... .

Honest opinion: It is a defence for defamation, to show the statement complained of was a statement of opinion. That it indicated in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion. That an honest person could have held the opinion on any fact which existed when the statement was published

Again, up to OP to show that the guard was wrong.As for "Fair comment" above. If the guard didn't first use their knowledge and tools to check what the OP was saying was untrue, my money is still with the OP.


So, in my opinion, based on five minutes searching, I tend to side with the OP, that there could be a case for defamation. Although I am no lawyer!

Please feel free to tell me why I'm wrong...

 

[maniacmartin]

But if you have no damages, a court isn't going to award you anything!

 

[andypops]

But if you have no damages, a court isn't going to award you anything!

How can you put a financial value on feelings...?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16001446
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17181065
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-24060269
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7433144.stm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-126250/Posh-face-slander-trial.html
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/node/48632


The courts seem to do it quite easily.

 

[island]

The law on defamation changed recently. You must now prove serious damage to your reputation.

 

[Llanigraham]

Thank you Island.
So Andypops, where is the "serious damage"?
(Please note you looked up the old definitions.)

 

[andypops]

So Andypops, where is the "serious damage"?

Serious is a subjective term, to be argued about in a court. That's open to interpretation, and outside the discussion here.


I think a decent solicitor could make a case that accusing somebody of being a fare dodger satisfies the first section of the act:

A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.

It is questioning the claimant's truthfulness and character, which (if they are in a position of trust) may be extremely damaging.


The act only seems to define "serious harm" as made regarding 'a body that trades for profit':

For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss.

So it may be able to argue that if the person is clearly not in a responsible role / position of trust, the act may not apply. But still, there's probably decent legal argument to be made.

Please note you looked up the old definitions.

You know better? Please expand. As far as I'm concerned, the Defamation Act 2013 (which I did discuss in my long post above, if you noticed?) is the most recent legislation, and was apparently made in order to "strengthen and reform existing criteria" for Defamation, which was previously (I believe) a Tort matter.

I could of course be wrong, and am happy to be proved so.

I don't have any legal training, but managed to find the best I could in five minutes. Can you substantiate your side of things now, if you're going to keep on just saying cryptic put-downs. I'm getting tired of giving you free legal advice


As I said, I am completely happy to be wrong, but I would like you to tell me why I might be.

 

[bb21]

How can you put a financial value on feelings...?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16001446
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17181065
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-24060269
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7433144.stm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-126250/Posh-face-slander-trial.html
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/node/48632


The courts seem to do it quite easily.

The courts have not awarded anything for feelings. They have awarded the victims of defamation financial sums in these cases because they could demonstrate that either their reputation (thus potential future earnings) or sales have been harmed in these cases. It is not a coincidence that all those individuals of defamation you have quoted are people in the spotlight and in the public eye.

In the OP's case, there is no other witness. The chances are that there is no one in the vicinity of the incident who knows the OP, so what damages can you claim? While I disagree with the RPI's actions, I think it is a tall order if a challenge is made on defamation grounds.

 

[andypops]

The courts have not awarded anything for feelings. They have awarded the victims of defamation financial sums in these cases because they could demonstrate that either their reputation (thus potential future earnings) or sales have been harmed in these cases. It is not a coincidence that all those individuals of defamation you have quoted are people in the spotlight and in the public eye.

Absolutely. But then again, what about "if" the OP was, for example, an MP? Or a local councilor? Or a doctor? To accuse them incorrectly is wrong, and potentially could harm their future prospects - in terms of being re-elected, patient confidence, etc etc. For all we know, the OP could be any of the above.

We know only what the OP has said, and so my discussion is purely hypothetical (vide infra).

You could look at the McAlpine v. Bercow case recently. You could argue that McAlpine's future earning potential was minimal as he is largely out of the public spotlight...he still won his case. What about the cases he said he will bring against all of those people with X numbers of followers on twitter? It is probable that (m)any of them aren't high profile people, but they might be guilty.

In the OP's case, there is no other witness. The chances are that there is no one in the vicinity of the incident who knows the OP, so what damages can you claim? While I disagree with the RPI's actions, I think it is a tall order if a challenge is made on defamation grounds.

Agree in principle, but it does seem like prima facie defamation. I did mention in my original post (#68) that it would be up to the OP to argue it caused "substantial damages".

However, it shouldn't matter about the means of the person; potential damages to be claimed, perhaps, could be loss of earnings? (what if his boss overheard it, or he was wearing a company uniform, and it was decided it amounted to gross misconduct?). Would amount to a decent fee for a doctor - ~£60-150k p.a.? I cringe to say it, but what about mental anguish and suffering?

We know few details, but the possibility remains, and this is what I was discussing.

To be clear, I didn't take the bait to get into complex legal argument, or hijack the thread; I responded to merely disagree with earlier posts (eg #63) which stated:

As previously said, I suggest you look up the legal definition of slander first, otherwise you will be on a very expensive hiding to nothing.
Even Google has a good explanation!!

I did look it up, and in my opinion, it is a defamation, even if making it stick in a court is a whole different matter. I believe I have disproven llanigraham and other's argument by showing what slander is, and that's all I wanted to do. It is the application of it that's the issue, and I think that is above most of our pay grades!

As ever, I am happy to reconsider if someone who knows more about the subject wants to wade in; or if llangraham can provide some evidence (case law perhaps?) showing otherwise.


Now, back on topic!

 

[bb21]

Absolutely. But then again, what about "if" the OP was, for example, an MP? Or a local councilor? Or a doctor? To accuse them incorrectly is wrong, and potentially could harm their future prospects - in terms of being re-elected, patient confidence, etc etc. For all we know, the OP could be any of the above.

There is no difference. Did anyone overhear it? It is important to realise that to constitute defamation, a claim must be "published", ie. communicated to another person. You cannot have a claim of defamation if it is a private conversation between the RPI and the OP.

Agree in principle, but it does seem like prima facie defamation. It shouldn't matter about the means of the person; although damages to be claimed, perhaps, could be loss of earnings? (what if his boss overheard it, or he was wearing a company uniform, and it was decided it amounted to gross misconduct?)

Again, the same questions will be asked. Did the boss overhear it? Did it result in some sort of consequence for him which means loss of future earnings?

"What if" is not important. What is important is what happened?

I cringe to say it, but what about mental anguish and suffering? We know few details, but the possibility remains, and this is what I was discussing.

Not relevant.

To be clear, I didn't take the bait to get into complex legal argument, or hijack the thread; I responded to merely disagree with earlier posts (eg #63) which stated:

You are perfectly entitled to your own opinion. This is not a problem.

In my opinion, it is a defamation, even if making it stick in a court is a whole different matter. I believe I have disproven llanigraham's argument by showing what slander is, although I am happy to reconsider if someone who knows more about the subject wants to wade in.

If it is not defamation, then it cannot be slander, by definition.

 

[455driver]

Andypops you are an idiot!

Sue me!

Unfortunately, although lots of people will read my line above (apologies for that) it hasnt caused you any significant harm?
So the answer is no you cant sue me.

If you had been accused of, say rape etc, and had your name plastered all over the daily rags for a few weeks and were then found not guilty, you would have reason to sue the accuser because they have caused you significant harm, to my mind the papers ought to be sued as well, parasitic bunch of <deleted>.

If a guard said loadly to me "your ticket is not valid you are commiting fraud" I would simply say (loadly) "if that is what you believe then either deal with it or have me removed from the train", whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Southeastern are not going to give you personal details of one of their employees. Be sensible and write to them about the incident so that they can deal with it. Unless of course you don't want to tell them what season ticket you are using, in which case you'll have to live with the occasional staff member being ill informed.

If, entirely hypothetically, one wished to bring a private criminal prosecution against a member of staff for being an absolute **** an offence such as (but not limited to) [molesting] or willfully [interfering] with the comfort or convenience of any person on the railway, how would they go about obtaining the relevant person's name and address? Please could a forum legal eagle comment on whether the TOC in question be committing an inchoate offence by not sharing this information? Assisting an offender (CLA 1967 s.4(1)) might be relevant, but I am not sure whether corporations can commit it.

 

[LowLevel]

You have no right to request a person's name and address for contravention of Byelaw 6(8) of the Railways Byelaws (No person shall molest or wilfully interfere with the comfort or convenience of any person on the railway.) because you are not an authorised person carrying out your duties on behalf of the railway company.


Can a private prosecution for breach of a byelaw even be carried out by someone who isn't the railway company/BTP etc?

 

[island]

Yes. Anyone can prosecute anything in the UK. Not generally advisable though.

 

[andypops]

To reitterate my earlier post (#75), I suggested we get back to the OP's topic?

I originally started the divergence because I didn't agree with what other people were saying; now it seems to have reached a conclusion why don't we stop the legal discussion and let the OP continue to describe their saga?


Although I see the context, I do take offense at this:

Andypops you are an idiot!

Sue me!

You only seem to apologise for lots of people seeing it? Rather than actually saying it?


Here's a few helpful quotes from the forum rules:

General Rules

It is your responsibility to ensure all your contributions to this forum are respectful...

Respectful

We aim to create a friendly environment for all members, where individuals respect each other. Please ensure your contributions comply with this.

 

[Llanigraham]

I suggest you read the context of 455's comment and his further comments in his posting!

He was showing how difficult it is to prove slander. It was NOT a personal insult towards you. If you are so concerned about it then you should have brought it to the attention of the Moderators.

And a question to you:
If a man in a pub turns around and loudly called you an idiot for no obvious reason, would you take out a slander action against him?

 

[bb21]

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourri...efamation/defamation-elements-of-a-claim.html

A statement that amounts to an insult or is mere vulgar abuse is not defamatory.

 

[andypops]

I suggest you read the context of 455's comment and his further comments in his posting!

Although I see the context, I do take offense at this:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You only seem to apologise for lots of people seeing it? Rather than actually saying it?

Bold added to highlight parts you may have missed.

...although I do agree with the rest of 455driver's sentiments about the media!

And a question to you:
If a man in a pub turns around and loudly called you an idiot for no obvious reason, would you take out a slander action against him?

No; but if I was, for example, in a shop and I was wrongfully accused of stealing, and which happened repeatedly, I might well consider it - whether you think it's right or not.

...and if I was on an internet forum where someone called me an idiot, I would probably highlight the forum's rules first :roll:


As BB21 says above, I am entitled to my opinion, as are you. We aren't going to agree on this, and I keep asking if the thread can be brought back on topic.

Please stop asking me silly questions, as (a) my point has been adequately made, and (b) I have no need or desire to continue to justify myself to you. Lets leave it now to others who will move things forward.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourri...efamation/defamation-elements-of-a-claim.html

Thanks. But I was aware of this already.

We've drifted off tangentially to a dark and disturbing place. The OP's post isn't about just being insulted. It's about being accused of being a fare dodger, and I (for one) can see why he might be upset by that.

 

[bb21]

We've drifted off tangentially to a dark and disturbing place. The OP's post isn't about just being insulted. It's about being accused of being a fare dodger, and I (for one) can see why he might be upset by that.

Absolutely. I don't blame him, but defamation is a different ball game altogether.

Agreed that we will have to leave the argument here. We are all entitled to our opinions and no one should feel compelled to agree with the others.