FCC intention to prosecute - Hertford North to London / Bowes Park split issue

[John @ home]

I would be arguing that your London Travelcard meets the definition of "which for this purpose does not include Season Tickets or travel passes issued on behalf of a passenger transport executive or local authority".

I need to point out that we have debated the status of London Travelcards on several occasions and that 34D's opinion that Transport for London is either a passenger transport executive or a local authority is disputed.

My own view is that Transport for London is neither a passenger transport executive nor a local authority, and therefore that this line of argument would be unhelpful to you.

I will try to edit this post later to add links to previous debates on the subject.

 

[BRX]

I need to point out that we have debated the status of London Travelcards on several occasions and that 34D's opinion that Transport for London is either a passenger transport executive or a local authority is disputed.

Surely if it went to court, the question asked would be whether it would be reasonable to expect someone to know that TfL is not technically a passenger transport executive or local authority. If it's "disputed" then I'd argue that the fault is not with the passenger who genuinely believes he has a valid ticket, but with the information presented to him. The NRCoC should be written in a way that is clear and easily understandable to the passenger, in my opinion.

If I was the OP I'd be very tempted to let it go to court as a matter of principle, although of course I understand why he would not want to.

My question to the OP - do you ever buy your travelcard from FCC? If you could show that you'd bought both at the same time from the same vendor then that could be argued as proof that FCC ticket selling staff hadn't seen it as problematic.

Best would be to try going to a FCC station and asking about the ticket combination. If you could record a member of FCC staff giving the same advice you've had in the past, then that would be very strong evidence in your favour and I would guess that it would be enough to get them to drop the case.

 

[OwlMan]

Surely if it went to court, the question asked would be whether it would be reasonable to expect someone to know that TfL is not technically a passenger transport executive or local authority. ..............

.

There is no "technically" about it TFL in not a PTE (as they are clearly defined in law) and it is not a local authority.


Peter

 

[34D]

There is no "technically" about it TFL in not a PTE (as they are clearly defined in law) and it is not a local authority.


Peter

Peter, you aren't helping. If you want to help, please point us to a definition IN THE CONDITIONS OF CARRIAGE that defines the terms 'passenger transport', 'executive', 'local' or 'authority'.

To the OP - I should have pointed out that this is a grey area, and thank senior member john at home for reminding us.

 

[Perns1972]

FCC say in their letter tthat the inspection took place near Grange Park, and according to the helpful contributors here, made my ticket valid.

 

[island]

I do hope you haven't incriminated yourself in your correspondence.

 

[34D]

This is a tricky one. Technically speaking you do not appear to have committed a Railway Bye-Laws offence as you did have a valid ticket when inspected. However, as you continued on the same train having been informed you did not have a valid ticket, you could be considered to have committed the more serious Regulation of Railways Act Offence of travelling beyond the distance for which you had paid the fare, with the intention to avoid payment thereof.

If you are certain the inspection happened at a place where your first ticket was still valid, a possible course of action (but one which should be taken only with the proper advice) is to let the matter go to court, plead not guilty, and point out that you had a valid ticket when inspected. Or speak to the prosecutor beforehand and make that point.

What you should not do is admit that you travelled on without a valid ticket!

May I endorse and repeat island's post about getting the proper advice.

FCC say in their letter tthat the inspection took place near Grange Park, and according to the helpful contributors here, made my ticket valid.

Indeed. If this is pointed out to them now then they will simply amend their papers, as they can (at this point in time).

As I understand it, they have six months from the date of the alleged offence to lay an information in the magistrates court (so allowing for court times, then approx 7 months from the date of offence for you to receive court papers) and usually something like 7 days before the date of a court appearance to send you copies of evidence etc. (Note - 6 years for a civil claim in the small claims court).

I almost think this needs to wait until the morning of the court case for the two solicitors to have a quiet word - BUT I'M NOT A LAWYER AND POSSIBLY THE ADVICE OF ONE MAY ASSIST THIS MATTER.

 

[bb21]

Indeed. If this is pointed out to them now then they will simply amend their papers, as they can (at this point in time).

You are not suggesting that they (FCC) lie, are you?

 

[Monty]

Peter, you aren't helping. If you want to help, please point us to a definition IN THE CONDITIONS OF CARRIAGE that defines the terms 'passenger transport', 'executive', 'local' or 'authority'.

To the OP - I should have pointed out that this is a grey area, and thank senior member john at home for reminding us.

Just had a chat with a friend about the legal status of TfL, apparently it's a nationalised company and can operate its own services. A PTE by law cannot, so TfL is not a PTE.

I'm on my mobile now, but when I get home I'll see if I can get some citation on this.

 

[thedbdiboy]

I haven't had a chance to read through the whole thread, but if the ticket purchase was made on the advice of an FCC employee, then there is a defence against a byelaw 18 or RoRA prosecution. Where advice has been given by a member of staff you would have a clear defence of having been misled.

In addition, there is the whole issue of interpretation of the NRCoC, and the current framing of Condition 19 goes back to 1996 without some of the terms having been adequately defined.

For my money, if this went all the way to court I'd be astounded if FCC succeeded in a conviction, but it might do us all a service in getting a clear judgement on some of these grey areas.

 

[barrykas]

I haven't had a chance to read through the whole thread, but if the ticket purchase was made on the advice of an FCC employee, then there is a defence against a byelaw 18 or RoRA prosecution. Where advice has been given by a member of staff you would have a clear defence of having been misled.

The issue is that the member of staff in question suggested the combination some six years ago (possibly in WAGN days). At which point, WAGN/FCC were quite happy to waive the Condition 19(a) (or 17(a) as it was then) requirement for the train to stop at the station where you change from one season ticket to another.

At some time in the intervening period, they've decided to enforce the condition again, something they're perfectly within their rights to do.

A safe split would be Hertford North - Winchmore Hill/Palmers Green : £30.50 a week (£1220 a year), then a Zone 1 - 4 Travelcard : £41.80 a week (£1672 a year).

Whilst it doesn't save as much as the Bowes Park split, it's perfectly valid as every train stops at both Palmers Green and Winchmore Hill.

Having said that, the £89.00 per week (£3560 per year) Hertford Travelcard is valid on both FCC and Greater Anglia, giving a lot of extra validity and more flexibility should things go tits up.

Cheers,

Barry

 

[BRX]

There is no "technically" about it TFL in not a PTE (as they are clearly defined in law) and it is not a local authority.


Peter

Would you not agree though, that it should be clearly defined in the NRCoC? I don't see that it is reasonable to expect the passenger to be familiar with that kind of legal definition.

 

[Roylang]

Just had a chat with a friend about the legal status of TfL, apparently it's a nationalised company and can operate its own services. A PTE by law cannot, so TfL is not a PTE.

I'm on my mobile now, but when I get home I'll see if I can get some citation on this.

However, from the Passenger Transport Executive Group (PTEG) website (http://www.pteg.net/):

In some cases, PTEs are the operators of public transport, such as some ferry services. However, the vast majority of public transport in PTE areas is operated by private companies.

Which suggests that it is not the case that a PTE cannot run services itself.

As an aside, TfL is an associate member of PTEG.

Roy

Edit: Looking at the Transport Act 1968, I believe that TfL may be allowed to operate sevices (as a PTE if that is the case) as they were already being operated as an undertaking that it took over. Clause 10(1)(ix) stating:

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Executive for a [F1passenger transport] area shall have power—
(ix) where an undertaking has been— .
(a)transferred to the Executive under subsection (1) of section 17 of this Act; or .
(b)wholly or partly resumed by the Executive under subsection (2)(b) of the said section 17; or .
(c)acquired by the Executive otherwise than under the said section 17, .
to carry on (but, in a case falling within sub-paragraph (c) of this paragraph, only with the approval of the Authority) any activities which the Executive would not otherwise have power to carry on but which were carried on by that undertaking immediately before the date of that transfer, the date of the disposal which gave rise to that resumption, or the date of that acquisition, as the case may be;

 

[142094]

Most (if not all) PTEs ran bus services until deregulation. Nexus even ran the Metro until 2010.

 

[34D]

You are not suggesting that they (FCC) lie, are you?

No I am not suggesting that a company of integrity such as FCC would lie - this is a serious allegation, and I do hope you didn't read that.

I was simply suggesting that "summoned to answer the charge of being caught by inspector without a valid ticket at Grange Park" would be changed to to"summoned to answer the charge of being caught by inspector without a valid ticket between Grange Park and Alexandra Palace".

Doing the above would be lawful and above board. Asking the RPI to lie under oath. Is not lawful.

Note there is the legal concept of 'the slip rule' which would allow a prosecutor to correct a minor and trivial error (in my view, this is not).

If I may sum up the OPs options:

We have option A - the safe option
He could do the usual grovelling letter offering to pay £x (3 or 4 figures) to cover FCC's costs and the journeys made. NOTE THAT IF THIS IS BEING CONTEMPLATED advice is needed, to ensure that one doesn't self-incriminate and cause a bigger problem.

Option B would be to stand up and be counted, and potentially attend court
In my opinion (based on the information given here, and assuming you haven't said anything silly in your letters) there are three prongs to your defence:

-location of the ticket check (remember you have a right to not self-incriminate).

-the advice of the ticket office 6 years ago to split your tickets, the continuing tendancy of FCC to sell you both tickets, and their failure to inform you of a change to their policy.

-NRCOC with clause 19c, with a 'different' reading of season ticket issued by a PTE/local authority

What do you think?

 

[BRX]

Option B would be to stand up and be counted, and potentially attend court
In my opinion (based on the information given here, and assuming you haven't said anything silly in your letters) there are three prongs to your defence:

-location of the ticket check (remember you have a right to not self-incriminate).

-the advice of the ticket office 6 years ago to split your tickets, the continuing tendancy of FCC to sell you both tickets, and their failure to inform you of a change to their policy.

-NRCOC with clause 19c, with a 'different' reading of season ticket issued by a PTE/local authority

What do you think?

and

- No ticket inspectors having challenged his ticket combination over the last 6 years, which would seem reasonable grounds to understand that he was not doing anything wrong.

 

[Roylang]

As one who writes European regulation I often teach people to read what the laws actually say, not what you think they say. I think that the same could be applied here.

Let us look at the first ticket, a season ticket from Hertford North to Bowes Park:
1) Can we make unlimited journeys between these stations? Yes;
2) Can we start short / end short? Yes;
3) Are the permissible routes between the start and end stations defined? Yes - by the routing guide;
4) Does the routing guide define a geographical area within which the ticket is valid and, therefore, travel permitted ? Yes, through the series of maps that are provided.

Now taking the NRCoC definition of a Zonal ticket:

“Zonal Tickets” are those tickets which permit travel only within a defined area.

I would, therefore, consider there is a reasonable argument to explain that I consider the season ticket as a Zonal ticket and that I believed that I was covered under 19(a):

19. Using a combination of tickets
You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire journey and one of the following applies:
(a) they are both Zonal Tickets (unless special conditions prohibit their use);

Now, do I think that this is 100% watertight? Absolutely not. However, I think there is sufficient ambiguity to argue it.

I think it is another example where the NRCoC are suitably ambiguous that in many cases they should not be used to prosecute people, bringing about criminal records.

Roy

 

[Monty]

I think it is another example where the NRCoC are suitably ambiguous that in many cases they should not be used to prosecute people, bringing about criminal records.

To my knowledge you can't use the NRCoC to prosecute anyone, you use the railway byelaws for that. All the NRCoC does is lays down the passengers/operators rights & obligations.

Just because something is not permitted in the NRCoC does not necessarily an offence has been committed, I also think you are getting confused. One cannot get a criminal record for being prosecuted under the railway byelaws (Byelaw 18 for this particular instance). You only get a criminal record for prosecution under the RoRA 1889 5, 3a which where intent must be proven, that is another ball game entirely.

 

[Roylang]

To my knowledge you can't use the NRCoC to prosecute anyone, you use the railway byelaws for that. All the NRCoC does is lays down the passengers/operators rights & obligations.

Just because something is not permitted in the NRCoC does not necessarily an offence has been committed, I also think you are getting confused. One cannot get a criminal record for being prosecuted under the railway byelaws (Byelaw 18 for this particular instance). You only get a criminal record for prosecution under the RoRA 1889 5, 3a which where intent must be proven, that is another ball game entirely.

I agree with what you say, however, it is the NRCoC that are quoted to show that you have "broken" your contract (or did not have one) and, therefore, fall foul of the railway bylaws, leading to prosecution. (i.e. I did not say you are prosecuted under the NRCoCs).

As has been expressed by others, the OP has deliberately been using the tickets that he has, which are now being argued as being invalid. As such, there is a fear that the situation may be made worse as it could look that there was intent, when that is not the case.

That aside, can you see anything in the NRCoC that would counter my belief that you could be reasonably argue that the season ticket was "Zonal" under the defintion provided. I am happy to be proven wrong as always!

Roy

 

[Monty]

As has been expressed by others, the OP has deliberately been using the tickets that he has, which are now being argued as being invalid. As such, there is a fear that the situation may be made worse as it could look that there was intent, when that is not the case.

I don't believe there was any intent on behalf of the OP, he genuinely thought his ticket was vaild. FCC would have a hard time proving intent for a 5 3a prosecution, I however do not advise the gentleman to risk it in court and trying and argue his case with waffle about the definition of a PTE or if the ticket comes under a certain section of condition 19. If he were to fluff it and get it wrong it could make him look like he is trying to exploit a loophole to get off and may incriminate himself. The best thing is for him to stick to his story that he thought his ticket was valid and was advised as such by staff. I really hope the OP updates us with the situation and lets us know how things turn out, I really feel this matter should not be pursued any further.

That aside, can you see anything in the NRCoC that would counter my belief that you could be reasonably argue that the season ticket was "Zonal" under the defintion provided. I am happy to be proven wrong as always!

You can't really call the season ticket zonal, it's a point to point ticket on a set line of route. The restrictions allow you to break your journey at any point on the route however you must not deviate from the route unless the restrictions on the ticket allow it (ie Season ticket from Sunningdale to Surbiton route not London is valid via Clapham Junction or Weybridge and not London Waterloo).

I know what you are thinking "But the OP hasn't travelled off route!" Which is true. but condition 19 does not allow this combination of tickets. I have to say I am some what surprised WAGN/FCC did'nt enforce condition 19 or at least educate passengers with OP's particular type of ticket that it wasn't valid. 'Letting it slide' for so long and then suddenly enforcing it is a bit off.

When I was an RPI, I would usually inform the passenger where they had gone wrong then sell a new ticket. I don't think I've ever issued a PFN in a situation like this, though I would keep an eye out for repeat offenders which is a different matter entirely (ie a 5 3a).

 

[Daz28]

Just had a chat with a friend about the legal status of TfL, apparently it's a nationalised company and can operate its own services. A PTE by law cannot, so TfL is not a PTE.

Transport for London is a statutory body created by the Greater London Authority Act 1999.

This*act gives the Mayor of London a general duty to develop and implement policies to promote and encourage safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services to, from and within London.

It also*states that*we have*a duty to help the Mayor complete his duties.

I think that Tfl Travelcards are therefore issued by, or on behalf of, a local authority.

 

[Roylang]

I don't believe there was any intent on behalf of the OP, he genuinely thought his ticket was vaild. FCC would have a hard time proving intent for a 5 3a prosecution, I however do not advise the gentleman to risk it in court and trying and argue his case with waffle about the definition of a PTE or if the ticket comes under condition 19. If he were to fluff it and get it wrong it could make him look like he is trying to exploit a loophole to get off and may incriminate himself. I really hope the OP updates us with the situation, I really feel this case has no real basis and should be thrown out.

I never suggested that there was intent, only that there is a fear that it could be perceived that way by the "powers that be" in FCC.

You can't really call the season ticket zonal, it's a point to point ticket on a set line of route. The restrictions allow you to break your journey at any point on the route however you must not deviate from the route unless the restrictions on the ticket allow it (ie Season ticket from Sunningdale to Surbiton route not London is valid via Clapham Junction or Weybridge and not London Waterloo).

The definition of Zonal within the NRCoC say nothing about it having to be multiple routes, only that the ticket is valid within a defined area, which it is. I know that is not what was intended by the NRCoC, but it is an interpretation that the NRCoCs and the Routeing Guide allow in my opinion.

Roy

 

[Monty]

I think that Tfl Travelcards are therefore issued by, or on behalf of, a local authority.

Well lets say for arguments sake that TfL is a PTE, Conditon 19 section c states

19. Using a combination of tickets
You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire journey and one of the following applies:

(a) they are both Zonal Tickets unless special conditions prohibit their use in this way. The Ticket Seller will, if you ask, advise you whether you can use a Zonal Ticket in combination with another ticket.

(b) the train you are in calls at a station where you change from one ticket to another;
or

(c) one of the tickets is a Season Ticket (which for this purpose does not include Season Tickets or travel passes issued on behalf of a passenger transport executive or local authority) or a leisure travel pass, and the other ticket(s) is/ are not.

Now that to me means Staff Passes, Freedom Passes, Discounted Season tickets issued by schools to students or even Oystercards issued to Olympic volunteers, not tickets sold under normal conditions. I do not imagine they had weekly zones 1-6 in mind when they wrote condition 19, however if you wanted a stab at using this as your defence in court go for it, however if it was me I would feel a bit cautious about do it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I never suggested that there was intent, only that there is a fear that it could be perceived that way by the "powers that be" in FCC.

I see what you mean, but they would still have to prove it. If the OP sticks to his guns there is no way they could do that.

The definition of Zonal within the NRCoC say nothing about it having to be multiple routes, only that the ticket is valid within a defined area, which it is. I know that is not what was intended by the NRCoC, but it is an interpretation that the NRCoCs and the Routeing Guide allow in my opinion.

Roy

Could you point me in the direction where on the CoC is defined? I'm looking through it and it doesn't seem to be defined at all, thanks. I would argue that the point to point season isn't a zonal ticket as it not advertised as such (it is a ticket from point A to point B), where a travelcard is (ie a Zones 1-6). The zones themselves being defined on a map or other publications and the tickets being defined by actually stating on the ticket it is zonal.

 

[lyndhurst25]

Just an observation after reading round the "is TfL a PTE?" issue. It seems that Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive was replaced by the new body Transport for Greater Manchester on 1 April 2011. TfGM seems to be a similar organization to TfL. I'm not sure if it still "counts" as a PTE with regards to Section 19 but this change may have implications for regular travelers who want to combine tickets in that part of England. I think that the NRCoC needs to clarify what exactly it means by "passenger transport executive or local authority".

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I've been reviewing this thread and am greatly dissapointed to read some of the posts on here.
Some do nothing to assist the OP, many do little to support the Forum's reputation, and some serve to spread false and dangerous advice:-

I would be arguing that your London Travelcard meets the definition of "which for this purpose does not include Season Tickets or travel passes issued on behalf of a passenger transport executive or local authority".

No.

Surely if it went to court, the question asked would be whether it would be reasonable to expect someone to know that TfL is not technically a passenger transport executive or local authority.

No.

I almost think this needs to wait until the morning of the court case for the two solicitors to have a quiet word.

No.

I don't see that it is reasonable to expect the passenger to be familiar with that kind of legal definition.

No.It is a reasonable requirement.

Note there is the legal concept of 'the slip rule' which would allow a prosecutor to correct a minor and trivial error (in my view, this is not).

Not applicable.

I do agree with this assesment:

For my money, if this went all the way to court I'd be astounded if FCC succeeded in a conviction, but it might do us all a service in getting a clear judgement on some of these grey areas.

But while the outcome would be helpful, the prospects of reaching it are negligible.

I apologise to the OP that you do appear to have been offered the prospect of some unrealistic support.

It dismays me that some people will post so much incorrect, inexperienced, unqualified or downright opinionated 'comment', rather than silently observe how the Law operates in action?

 

[BRX]

It dismays me that some people will post so much incorrect, inexperienced, unqualified or downright opinionated 'comment', rather than silently observe how the Law operates in action?

The nature of a forum is that people exchange their opinions. If all we did was silently observe, there would be no forum.

Furthermore all the points you've dismissed with a bold-type No are offered as opinions/thoughts with no claims made that they are made with any kind of legal authority.

Maybe it would be more constructive for you to explain why you disagree with each of those points?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Maybe it would be more constructive for you to explain why you disagree with each of those points?

Indeed it would. I apologise for my curtness.

[I have just got home from work at 11pm. I have spent 30 mins considering this thread. I have not the time tonight to study and respond further as I would be, and in the past have often been, pleased to do. But that has been during working hours, as an extension of my work into 'unpaid overtime'.]

I would be pleased to offer my professional support to the OP, but have very little time in which to do so at present.

I hope that the purpose in my cricical post was clear. Simply to alert the OP, and others, that there was unreliable advice in their thread. No more than that.

Maybe it would be more constructive for you to . . . .

The only constuctive strategy worth advocating and that which I could assist with, would follow from a frank and confidential discussion with the Client. But I'm sure you know that already. Analysis and strategy in any challenge is never conducted publically; with obvious justification.

Rhetoric, by definition, must be public. That's a distinction about which you, BRX, and the OP must be perfectly clear when considering advice on a public forum alongside any professional advice. Thay cannot perform the same function.

 

[BRX]

Rhetoric, by definition, must be public. That's a distinction about which you, BRX, and the OP must be perfectly clear when considering advice on a public forum alongside any professional advice. Thay cannot perform the same function.

If you want to make the obvious point that advice offered on a forum is not professional advice and shouldn't be treated as such, fair enough, but there's no need to go about accusing people of offering "false and dangerous advice" in order to make that point.

 

[yorkie]

...there's no need to go about accusing people of offering "false and dangerous advice" in order to make that point.

If Dave believes that advice is "false and dangerous" then it is much more likely than not, that the advice is "false and dangerous", and I would take some convincing to believe that it wasn't!

(and if we become aware of anyone posting advice repeatedly that is false and dangerous we will take appropriate action to minimise the exposure of our members to that advice)

 

[Paul Kelly]

The definition of Zonal within the NRCoC say nothing about it having to be multiple routes, only that the ticket is valid within a defined area, which it is.

I don't agree - condition 13 (a) (i) in the NRCoC says travel on a point-to-point ticket is allowed by a through train - this can take any route at all and still be valid, so I don't think the definition of permitted routes in the NRCoC constrains travel to within a defined geographic area.