FCC Notice Of Intention To Prosecute - Advice Required Please

[soil]

Jesus christ, I see the "ambulance chasing", "claim Britian", is rift on here.

It is? I read through thread :roll::roll: at all the posts about season tickets to boundary zones and otherwise implying that FCC might have even a rotten wooden leg to stand on.

Didn't notice any ambulance chasing though.

 

[34D]

Blumming eck, there's a lot of rubbish in this thread.

During the course of the journey, both my tickets were inspected, and the inspector said that
• The monthly travelcard was only valid to the last station in Zone 4, which he said was Mill Hill Broadway, but was in fact Hendon.
• The annual travelcard was only valid from the first station in Zone 3, which is Hendon.
Therefore according to him I did not have a valid ticket to travel between Mill Hill Broadway and Hendon, and he demanded that I pay a £20 Penalty Fare.
When I refused to do this, he filled out the form intending to report me for possible prosecution.
Susbequent investigations and a strongly worded e-mail to FCC Customer Services revealed the inspector's mistake, both regarding the last station in Zone 4, and the fact that it is legal under section 19a of the National Rail Conditions of Carriage to use the two tickets specified to travel from St Albans to St Pancras on a train which does not stop at the station at which I change from one ticket to the other. (Hendon). I have an e-mail in my possession from FCC which confirms this.

Firstly, your tickets are valid under clause 19a, which reads "they are both Zonal Tickets (unless special conditions prohibit their use)". The _station(s) where one ticket ends and the other starts are irrelevant.

Do I understand correctly (from the highlighted paragraph) that a written discussion took place AFTER the incident with the RPI, in which the argument of whether Mill Hill Broadway or Hendon was the last station in zone 4?

If so, surely you simply need to refer to this dialogue, and someone will realise that you must have had two tickets.

Were you given any paperwork by the RPI?

 

[carriageline]

A very serious mistake with potentially devastating consequences.

Yea, I completely understand that. But if it got to the point where it did have devastating consequences, then fair enough I would understand that 100%.

But as it stands currently

1) The TOC hasn't even replied about it being a mistake
2) Although, without a doubt it was a stressful time for the OP, he hasn't lost anything over the situation.

If someone tried pushing for compo over that, when it's clearly not the TOCs fault, just an individual missing something, I think would be silly, and would be laughed at. I'm not a law expert, at all, so could be wrong completely, and sorry, I just hate this countries blame culture. Just seems everyone is out to make money at other peoples expense. And thinking about writing to the TOC to get the guard retrained? Come on, people make mistakes, yes it could of been serious, it might not of even been the guard

It is? I read through thread :roll::roll: at all the posts about season tickets to boundary zones and otherwise implying that FCC might have even a rotten wooden leg to stand on.

Didn't notice any ambulance chasing though.

It was mainly the end of the 1st/start of the second page (well, that's how it's displayed on tapatalk!), when someone started mentioned defamation (sp?), and compensation?!

 

[Waldgrun]

I find it very strange that the F.C.C. inspector didn't refer to a Map of travelcard zones, a quick look shows that Hendon station on the Midland mainline, is in both Zones 3 & 4, but just to think what has been said before he didn't know of section 19a of the National Rail Conditions of Carriage.
So it would seem training is an issue! Or is the passenger now expected to carry a copy of the Conditions of Carriage, and a travelcard zone map.

 

[Ferret]

Waldgrun, the RPI may not have had access to the relevant maps at the time he made his (incorrect) call.

I fully expect this to end in the OP's favour. The best thing he can do is keep calm, and deal with FCC rationally and sensibly. A simple articulate letter should be all that's needed to resolve the matter; there is no need for us to rant on here (for once!).

 

[34D]

Waldgrun, the RPI may not have had access to the relevant maps at the time he made his (incorrect) call.

I fully expect this to end in the OP's favour. The best thing he can do is keep calm, and deal with FCC rationally and sensibly. A simple articulate letter should be all that's needed to resolve the matter; there is no need for us to rant on here (for once!).

Every FCC RPI I've seen has had a laminated zonal map with them.

 

[222007]

Providing RPIs with personal cctv cameras would solve this, unless there was a loss of the crucial section.

Dont even get me started on this. Thats a terrible idea and one which my TOC wants to do. This is not something myself nor my colleagues want. No i dont work for FCC and tbh ive never seen anything on this forum to suggest any of my colleagues have been a tit.

Back to the OP i wouldnt worry too much if FCC have written to you confirming your combination is valid.

 

[WillPS]

Jesus christ, I see the "ambulance chasing", "claim Britian", is rift on here. No offence to the OP, but of it was serious, why on earth would he deserve any compo? It's not slander either, someone's made a mistake somewhere. Jesus.

To the op, hope it all gets sorted, with a decent apology too!

Not at all. The OP was threatened with legal action for ticketless travel when they had correct tickets. Responding to that allegation and ensuring it goes no further has a cost in time - and it's entirely within the OP's right to express his displeasure that he has been so inconvenienced.

I should point out that I'm not offering legal advice on whether the OP is entitled to compensation by law - I'm saying that I would personally ask that the TOC offers me something as a gesture of goodwill to apologise for their mistake.

 

[Ferret]

Let's just make sure that the threat of prosecution goes away first, and then deal with trying to elicit what I believe they call a 'goodwill gesture' afterwards!!!!

 

[185]

That appears be what the prosecutions dept is claiming, and likely they're getting that from the inspectors report. So the OP needs to see what paperwork he has from the incident and what it says.

There's the 'P' word again. FirstGroup managers seem to at least be consistent in committing it.

 

[WillPS]

Let's just make sure that the threat of prosecution goes away first, and then deal with trying to elicit what I believe they call a 'goodwill gesture' afterwards!!!!

I don't see why they both can't be done at the same time. If anything, customer services becoming involved might force the prosecutions department in to action.

 

[jon0844]

Only just noticed this thread. Have since spoken to the OP via PM. Everyone here knows the story by now

I wonder if it is the same RPI? Now working out of Kentish Town! Did he wear a name badge? Probably not.

FCC even issued a bulletin using this very example (station to Z456 and Z123) soon after my incident. No wonder they quickly agreed it was a valid combination, but the RPI might have changed things to 'only seeing one ticket' after realising the mistake.

In which case, when his (or her) case falls apart, I'd hope for a bit more than retraining.

 

[duncanp]

He did wear a name badge - his first name was G----, but I did not get his second name.

He was also accompanied by another (male) RPI.

If anyone has had experience of this RPI I would be interested to know.

 

[Ferret]

Have you made any progress in getting this sorted out at all?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't see why they both can't be done at the same time. If anything, customer services becoming involved might force the prosecutions department in to action.

Or it might get their backs up. From personal experience, Customer Relations often get told to keep their noses out of anything involving a prosecution in any case - although it doesn't apply in this case, a wrong move from CR could jeopardise a legitimate prosecution. It's far better for the OP to get in contact with the prosecution team, maybe even by telephone, resolve the matter, and then go to CR and point out the time and energy he's had to put in. Getting people's backs up, while it may make you feel like the big man, it doesn't always get you the result you were hoping for.

 

[jon0844]

G---- is someone else. Funny how some revenue staff think there is some gap between the zone edges. In my case I was told the only way to make my combination valid was an annual Hatfield-456, an annual Z34 ticket (do these even exist?) and my Oyster Z123. Then I was fully covered at the joins.

And he was deadly serious. And he was promoted to the best-of-the-best fraud investigation team following other serious errors. And now he is training to become a driver for FCC!!

Personally, I think if a letter to prosecutions doesn't work then skip customer services and go higher - all the way to the top if needed. They can (and in my case did) stop this nonsense before they make themselves look very stupid. They might even have a word with G---- to suggest against lying in court about only having been shown one ticket.

To be fair to FCC, I doubt management would turn a blind eye to this sort of thing.

 

[duncanp]

I have an e-mail in my possession from FCC Customer Relations which states the following:-

"Thank you for your further email on 16 July regarding the case we dealt with under our reference number 6640851. Thank you for providing the relevant tickets for you journeys between St Albans and St Pancras so that we could investigate your case fully.

I am pleased to advise you that you are absolutely correct and that, as previously advised, the combination of tickets that you use are valid. I sincerely apologise that the Revenue Protection Officer that day advised you incorrectly. We do aim for all Officers to be fully aware of all ticketing issues and I am sorry that this was not the case on this occasion. This will be brought to the attention of his manager and retraining and any other appropriate action taken.

As I have contacted our Fares and Pricing Manager to confirm that your tickets were correct, he has advised me that he will get your Penalty Fare Notice withdrawn immediately. I trust that this is acceptable to you.

Once again for contacting us with this issue and for bringing the matter to our attention."

Apart from them getting it wrong about the Penalty Fares Notice (rather than the notice of prosecution) this reply suggests two things;-

(a) FCC management have investigated the matter fully
(b) They are satisfied that my combination of tickets was valid AND that i showed both tickets to the RPI when asked.

The other thing to bear in mind is that there are automatic ticket barriers at St Albans. If I did not have a valid ticket, how was I supposed to get access to the platform?

 

[Ferret]

Good result Duncan, and it's now up to you if you want to push for some travel vouchers or other goodwill gesture I guess. I guess it says a lot for our ticketing system when even the staff get it wrong! I'm pleased that FCC have recognised the cock up.

 

[yorkie]

I'd state that I am aware of previous incidents of this nature, and am concerned that appropriate steps were not taken to ensure a repeat. What steps are you now taking to ensure that no-one else is falsely accused of holding an invalid ticket, and what assurances can you provide me that this will not happen to me, or anyone else, in future?

 

[Ferret]

I'd state that I am aware of previous incidents of this nature, and am concerned that appropriate steps were not taken to ensure a repeat. What steps are you now taking to ensure that no-one else is falsely accused of holding an invalid ticket, and what assurances can you provide me that this will not happen to me, or anyone else, in future?

Nice questions, and ones that they could only answer if they put together a proper ticket training course for staff! It's a radical concept I know......

 

[Chapeltom]

Excellent result and well done.

 

[jon0844]

Great news. However, they still have a member of staff willing to argue the validity of two tickets and later attempt to prosecute by saying you only had one.

I hope they will deal with that, or other people are bound to be affected.

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm a bit worried that the above 5 posts have misread the timescales here.

I think the email text duncanp is quoting in post #46 above might be the same email he mentions in the very first post of this thread, ie FCC's original admission there was no problem with the combination.

Perhaps he could clarify the date of the email and that it predates the latest letter that he's received?

 

[duncanp]

Lest there be any misunderstanding, it was on 23rd JULY that I received the e-mail stating:-

As I have contacted our Fares and Pricing Manager to confirm that your tickets were correct, he has advised me that he will get your Penalty Fare Notice withdrawn immediately

So imagine my surprise when on 6th AUGUST I received the "Notice Of Intention To Prosecute" letter.

So there must be a bit of incompetence at FCC (no surprise there then) in that Customer Services are not talking to Prosecutions.

Alternatively G***n has deliberately falsified the facts of the case when he realised his mistakes, both with regard to the Zone 3/4 boundary and the validity of my tickets under Condition 19(a) of the NRCoC.

I have written to FCC Prosecutions enclosing a copy of the St Albans to Zones 4 -6 ticket, and the current position is that I am awaiting their reply.

I have also complained vigorously the FCC Customer Services and I am also awaiting their reply.



There is also CCTV at St Albans, and a computerised record is created when a paper season ticket is put through the barrier. I shall demand that these are produced as evidence if the case goes to court.

Of course the CCTV may show that I did have the ticket with me. As there are automatic ticket barriers at St Albans, how else was I supposed to have got on to the platform?

The last piece of evidence in my favour is that I was travelling to St Albans for work purposes, and the season tickets were paid for by my employer. I can produce evidence and witnesses to this effect. So even if I had forgotten the St Albans to Zone 4-6 ticket, I could have just bought a single ticket from St Albans to Hendon and claimed it on expenses.

I can also produce character witnesses, including a former magistrate and a vicar, to speak in my favour.

Considering the evidence, I do expect FCC Prosecutions to drop the case as in order to secure a conviction, it will be necessary for G***n (and his colleague who was with him) to perjure themselves in court. Whatever they have told their own bosses, they will know what the truth was, and they will be aware of the implications of lying in court.

I will demand an apology though, and also a (small) amount of compensation for the time, inconvenience and stress this has caused.

 

[LexyBoy]

The key question in my mind is this: where does the burden of proof lie when the customer claims one thing and the TOC another?

My feeling is that FCC will drop this when faced with the evidence that duncanp holds a valid combination of tickets and has obviously been travelling using these tickets for some time (given the confirmation email)

There is also CCTV at St Albans, and a computerised record is created when a paper season ticket is put through the barrier. I shall demand that these are produced as evidence if the case goes to court.

I don't believe this is the case - the time, date and location (?) of the most recent pass through a barrier is recorded on the ticket, but this is overwritten each time the ticket is used.

 

[Robsignals]

The key question in my mind is this: where does the burden of proof lie when the customer claims one thing and the TOC another?

My feeling is that FCC will drop this when faced with the evidence that duncanp holds a valid combination of tickets and has obviously been travelling using these tickets for some time (given the confirmation email)



I don't believe this is the case - the time, date and location (?) of the most recent pass through a barrier is recorded on the ticket, but this is overwritten each time the ticket is used.

CCTV recording is unlikely to be kept more than 7 days unless there was an assault or damage incident at the time, it's not intended for this situation.

 

[b0b]

The key question in my mind is this: where does the burden of proof lie when the customer claims one thing and the TOC another?

I would imagine the written statement at the time of the incident from a trained person carries most of the burden of proof required by FCC.

 

[snail]

I would imagine the written statement at the time of the incident from a trained person carries most of the burden of proof required by FCC.

To me, that is the worrying part about this kind of allegation. In jonmorris' case it was a clearcut misinterpretation of the rules, here the OP's version of events is very similar but the FCC RPI is claiming there was only one ticket.

I'm very much prepared to take the OP's account at face value but just how do you prove you travelled on that season ticket on that day? It's ok to talk about CCTV and barriers but we know there are ways round these things, and regular travellers do forget tickets from time to time. We also know TOCs are very good at standing up for their own staff in preference to customers when they want to.

 

[Robsignals]

To me, that is the worrying part about this kind of allegation. In jonmorris' case it was a clearcut misinterpretation of the rules, here the OP's version of events is very similar but the FCC RPI is claiming there was only one ticket.

I'm very much prepared to take the OP's account at face value but just how do you prove you travelled on that season ticket on that day? It's ok to talk about CCTV and barriers but we know there are ways round these things, and regular travellers do forget tickets from time to time. We also know TOCs are very good at standing up for their own staff in preference to customers when they want to.

I would hope normal 'presumption of innocence' applies and it would be for FCC to prove their case 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

 

[Ferret]

Well done swt-passenger, and I'm just off to get my coat.

So, have you contacted FCC Duncan to put this one to bed?

 

[duncanp]

If the CCTV records are only kept for 7 days that suits me fine.
This means that FCC will be unable to prove that the barriers (both on Platform 1 and Platform 4) were open at the time I entered the station.

I know that there are ways round barriers (such as tailgaiting or buying a single ticket to the next station) but as the offence of which I am accused is a criminal one the presumption of innocence applies, and it is up to FCC to prove the following beyond all reasonable doubt:-

(a) That I used such a method to enter the station
(b) That I failed to show a valid ticket when required

The fact that I will be able to produce a valid ticket in court will at least introduce sufficient doubt into the case as to make a conviction very unlikely.