Fell asleep on train, woken up past the station i was meant depart at, woken up by ticket inspector now facing court summons

[Nippy]

I boarded a train at Brighton, was asleep by Preston Park and woke up at Bedford at 1am. I had had a lot of beer……….

 

[Brissle Girl]

Is another relevant point that the ultimate destination was in fact Peterborough "was on a train a few weeks ago from st neots to Huntington, where i planned to depart from the train and wait for the next train, which my girlfriend would be on" (At least that's how I interpret that description of what was intended, but it's a little confusing.)

 

[grumblingalong]

To be honest, the OP is only going one stop, a journey of 8 minutes - I can see how the inspector might be sceptical someone could fall asleep in this time and overtravel.

Must be those bed like seats on the 700s! I'd be very sceptical about this one too, it doesn't all add up to me so can see why the inspector took the action stated.

 

[AlterEgo]

Is another relevant point that the ultimate destination was in fact Peterborough "was on a train a few weeks ago from st neots to Huntington, where i planned to depart from the train and wait for the next train, which my girlfriend would be on" (At least that's how I interpret that description of what was intended, but it's a little confusing.)

Think we need quite a bit more detail from the OP. Something doesn't add up with what I've read so far.

 

[Egg Centric]

This does seem a little suspicious, yes, unless they had sleep apnoea (or 10 pints).

Having sleep apnoea every evening and 10 pints many evenings, I don't see either as a reason not to be suspicious

I can believe falling asleep in 8 minutes. But falling asleep without waking the entire train up...?

 

[4COR]

To be honest, the OP is only going one stop, a journey of 8 minutes - I can see how the inspector might be sceptical someone could fall asleep in this time and overtravel.

Suspicious, but not impossible, even without beer! I managed to regularly sleep on a 13 minute journey during my commute (but didn't oversleep once - familiarity with the line I guess..). If you have a lack of sleep prior, you would be surprised at the speed and situations in which you can fall asleep...

From first reading, I'm not clear why the PF wasn't just paid with Apple Pay though - lack of understanding of the implication?

 

[kristiang85]

When the night tube first opened, I was a little sozzled and managed to keep falling asleep and missing my stop on the Jubilee. I was like a drunken pendulum, kept waking up at either end of the line every time I got the next train. It took me four hours to get home, by the time I eventually realised that standing up was the best idea...

 

[DorkingMain]

Shouldn't it really be irrelevant which member of staff the OP initially met? Shouldn't they be treated in the same (courteous /helpful/nonjudgmental) way?

This lack of consistency across TOCs seems to be what causes a lot of problems.

RPIs have a much wider ranger of options in terms of penalties vs. guards, who usually only have the option of selling a ticket, asking for UFN or chucking you off. Revenue staff would be able to issue a penalty fare or take details to report someone for prosecution.

 

[nw1]

This does seem a little suspicious, yes, unless they had sleep apnoea (or 10 pints).

It can happen, certainly I have 'blacked out' within 1 min of getting into bed if I have been very tired. I've certainly almost missed my stop on a number of occasions, including one on a bus in San Francisco the same day I flew in.

It does seem unreasonably harsh - if I had been the train staff, and it was late at night, I would have given him the benefit of the doubt. Even a PF for falling asleep on a train is harsh so I can see why the OP is peeved - though, to avoid the risk of escalation, I'd have paid the PF and then sought to claim it back from the railway company.

 

[Titfield]

Shouldn't it really be irrelevant which member of staff the OP initially met? Shouldn't they be treated in the same (courteous /helpful/nonjudgmental) way?

This lack of consistency across TOCs seems to be what causes a lot of problems.

This comment comes up frequently but the reality is you can not have consistency and discretion.

Consistency means that the same (or near same?) situations are treated the same.

Discretion means that near same situations will be treated differently because the situations are different.

 

[Deafdoggie]

This comment comes up frequently but the reality is you can not have consistency and discretion.

Consistency means that the same (or near same?) situations are treated the same.

Discretion means that near same situations will be treated differently because the situations are different.

Surely they could consistently treat everyone with discretion? Or at the very least, everyone genuinely asleep and overshooting their station.

 

[221129]

consistently treat everyone with discretion?

Then it's not discretion.

Or at the very least, everyone genuinely asleep and overshooting their station.

How do you tell the difference between someone genuinely asleep and someone trying it on.

 

[AlterEgo]

Surely they could consistently treat everyone with discretion? Or at the very least, everyone genuinely asleep and overshooting their station.

Discretion means that people will invariably be treated differently. The RPI used their discretion to decide a PF was appropriate in the first instance rather than a simple “back pass”. That’s what discretion means - freedom for them to choose.

 

[Titfield]

This comment comes up frequently but the reality is you can not have consistency and discretion.

Consistency means that the same (or near same?) situations are treated the same.

Discretion means that near same situations will be treated differently because the situations are different.

and to go a step further what often influences whether or not and to what extent discretion is applied is the response to the attitude test.

If someone is polite, explains the issue fully and honestly, possibly even apologetic at the first opportunity then they are more likely to receive discretion than someone who is argumentative or plain arsey and evasive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

and to go a step further what often influences whether or not and to what extent discretion is applied is the response to the attitude test.

If someone is polite, explains the issue fully and honestly, possibly even apologetic at the first opportunity then they are more likely to receive discretion than someone who is argumentative or plain arsey and evasive.

And if the first thing you say is to offer to pay, it sounds more like you're the "pay when challenged" type rather than someone genuinely caught out who is likely to look for a zero-cost fix, as they've already cost themselves their time.

 

[greyman42]

Is it usually possible to exit Peterborough without a valid ticket?

 

[AlterEgo]

Is it usually possible to exit Peterborough without a valid ticket?

No, although the OP claims to have had a “return ticket” to somewhere unspecified from Huntingdon, which I assume he was going to use to travel with his girlfriend.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Speaking of the OP, I notice they haven't come back yet to try and clear up the confusion as to exactly what journey they were making and how the GF's travel plans fitted into it. Until they do, I'm not really sure we can be much help.

 

[Wolfie]

Having sleep apnoea every evening and 10 pints many evenings, I don't see either as a reason not to be suspicious

I can believe falling asleep in 8 minutes. But falling asleep without waking the entire train up...?

You and l both (a CPAP machine is a lifesaver, possibly literally)....

 

[the sniper]

Speaking of the OP, I notice they haven't come back yet to try and clear up the confusion as to exactly what journey they were making and how the GF's travel plans fitted into it. Until they do, I'm not really sure we can be much help.

He might need rousing again.

 

[Egg Centric]

You and l both (a CPAP machine is a lifesaver, possibly literally)....

Yup, in fact this reminds me - pre-covid I was often in the third world where load shedding is a thing and have a secondary CPAP which runs on battery for when I was there (and flights) - I'd actually better test that that poor battery is still working since we're returning to normality!

 

[Mitrosonfire]

I think there would be an assessment of how the person reacts to being told they have overcarried. If the first reaction is to ask to pay the fare that may look worse than asking how to get back to the right place - the first might suggest being caught, the second an honest accidental error.

i was startled, and i was also aware on the method of getting back to my station as i was departing at huntingdon, and would return on the train that would be heading back from Peterborough (the same train, containing my girlfriend) to suprise her (she thought i’d be at st neots) i also am a very honest person and should have known that it would have been potential to overcarry although i’d never do it deliberately. hence the offer of buying the ticket

But you said you did show your ticket? That one's a bit of a gamble over legal technicalities, interpretation, case law etc.

It seems to have been designed to make it easy to catch people who claim to have a ticket that's valid but either won't let the inspector see it or won't let them touch it to mark it as inspected (to deter re-use) etc.

To determine that over-travelling is a breach seems to require making some inferences that could have been stated explicitly but weren't.

The term "valid ticket" is defined in the byelaws but it is not used explicitly in this one.
"ticket" is defined (broadly).
"Verification" is merely a purpose, supplementary to and not the action ("hand over") mandated.

Imagine "I handed over my ticket for verification of validity. Its validity was verified (for the initial part of my journey)."
To find a breach I'd think you need to infer that 'validity' necessarily refers to the definition of 'valid ticket' and that something that would fail to be verified on those terms cannot be handed over for verification by definition.

But independently of that, RORA already makes over-travelling an offence under specified conditions (wilful, intent) so it's really not clear how a mere byelaw is capable of tossing out those conditions by introducing a catch-all more general offence ("not showing a valid ticket anywhere when asked"). Interpreted this way, the byelaw is effectively a convoluted way of usurping the primary legislation and disregarding the checks and balances therein.

One for the lawyers.

So :

You might follow the normal formula suggested on threads like this by apologising and trying to settle out-of-court. From other threads we know that this is often successful - but at a price. You might even discover that you were sent some previous correspondence suggesting a way to settle that went astray. It is rare for the first correspondence to be a summons. Phone the train company to check you received all the correspondence they sent you.

If you're reluctant to settle on their terms (e.g. you don't believe parliament made unintentionally falling asleep like this a criminal offence), you might pay for professional legal advice to help you respond - I would not suggest trying to fight this one in court without a lawyer due to the legal technicalities that might be involved.

i did indeed show the ticket of st neots to huntingdon (at the time unaware of overcarrying due to being asleep) and i wasn’t intending of over carrying, and i’d rather do it out of court due to the possibility of a criminal record

 

[Mitrosonfire]

But you said you did show your ticket? That one's a bit of a gamble over legal technicalities, interpretation, case law etc.

It seems to have been designed to make it easy to catch people who claim to have a ticket that's valid but either won't let the inspector see it or won't let them touch it to mark it as inspected (to deter re-use) etc.

To determine that over-travelling is a breach seems to require making some inferences that could have been stated explicitly but weren't.

The term "valid ticket" is defined in the byelaws but it is not used explicitly in this one.
"ticket" is defined (broadly).
"Verification" is merely a purpose, supplementary to and not the action ("hand over") mandated.

Imagine "I handed over my ticket for verification of validity. Its validity was verified (for the initial part of my journey)."
To find a breach I'd think you need to infer that 'validity' necessarily refers to the definition of 'valid ticket' and that something that would fail to be verified on those terms cannot be handed over for verification by definition.

But independently of that, RORA already makes over-travelling an offence under specified conditions (wilful, intent) so it's really not clear how a mere byelaw is capable of tossing out those conditions by introducing a catch-all more general offence ("not showing a valid ticket anywhere when asked"). Interpreted this way, the byelaw is effectively a convoluted way of usurping the primary legislation and disregarding the checks and balances therein.

One for the lawyers.

So :

You might follow the normal formula suggested on threads like this by apologising and trying to settle out-of-court. From other threads we know that this is often successful - but at a price. You might even discover that you were sent some previous correspondence suggesting a way to settle that went astray. It is rare for the first correspondence to be a summons. Phone the train company to check you received all the correspondence they sent you.

If you're reluctant to settle on their terms (e.g. you don't believe parliament made unintentionally falling asleep like this a criminal offence), you might pay for professional legal advice to help you respond - I would not suggest trying to fight this one in court without a lawyer due to the legal technicalities that might be involved.

i did indeed show the ticket of st neots to huntingdon (at the time unaware of overcarrying due to being asleep) and i wasn’t intending of over carrying, and i’d rather do it out of court due to the possibility of a criminal record

This does seem a little suspicious, yes, unless they had sleep apnoea (or 10 pints).

i got an early train which i wouldn’t have otherwise woken up for due to seeing my girlfriend, i just placed my head against the glass and wasn’t intending in nodding off but next thing i notice is the table infront of me being banged with the inspector asking to see my ticket

 

[Mitrosonfire]

From what has posted by the OP, that appears unlikely.

i never received the sort of receipt thing that gives you the code to pay the fare online, just told about it and roughy a month later i get a summons telling me to plead

Is it usually possible to exit Peterborough without a valid ticket?

not sure as i rarely visit peterborough but the last time i went (intentionally) was around last christmas and barriers were shut, not sure if it has changed since then

No, although the OP claims to have had a “return ticket” to somewhere unspecified from Huntingdon, which I assume he was going to use to travel with his girlfriend.

hi,

yes i had a return ticket, st neots to huntingdon, huntingdon to st neots, my girlfriend was getting a train from nuneaton to peterborough and would be getting on the train that stops at huntingdon in which i’d get on and suprise her

It can happen, certainly I have 'blacked out' within 1 min of getting into bed if I have been very tired. I've certainly almost missed my stop on a number of occasions, including one on a bus in San Francisco the same day I flew in.

It does seem unreasonably harsh - if I had been the train staff, and it was late at night, I would have given him the benefit of the doubt. Even a PF for falling asleep on a train is harsh so I can see why the OP is peeved - though, to avoid the risk of escalation, I'd have paid the PF and then sought to claim it back from the railway company.

i would have paid the penalty fare if i had received the receipt with the code so i could pay online, however i never received that

And if the first thing you say is to offer to pay, it sounds more like you're the "pay when challenged" type rather than someone genuinely caught out who is likely to look for a zero-cost fix, as they've already cost themselves their time.

if i had woken up at peterborough, i’d have brought the specified extended journey ticket, i use the trainline app to purchase my tickets, it was just a genuine mistake and i’m not sure what else i could have done

 

[Fawkes Cat]

i never received the sort of receipt thing that gives you the code to pay the fare online, just told about it and roughy a month later i get a summons telling me to plead


not sure as i rarely visit peterborough but the last time i went (intentionally) was around last christmas and barriers were shut, not sure if it has changed since then


hi,

yes i had a return ticket, st neots to huntingdon, huntingdon to st neots, my girlfriend was getting a train from nuneaton to peterborough and would be getting on the train that stops at huntingdon in which i’d get on and suprise her


i would have paid the penalty fare if i had received the receipt with the code so i could pay online, however i never received that


if i had woken up at peterborough, i’d have brought the specified extended journey ticket, i use the trainline app to purchase my tickets, it was just a genuine mistake and i’m not sure what else i could have done

Thanks for this - it helps us understand what happened.

If you would like our advice, we really need to know what stage of the process you are facing. So I am sorry to repeat myself, but please can you tell us exactly what the letter you have received says? I know you can't show us a picture because your phone's camera is broken, so I am afraid that I am asking you to type the whole thing in to a post.

 

[AlterEgo]

Given the OP has said he held a ticket back to his origin from Huntingdon and told the RPI, it does seem a little harsh he was PF'd. Can't imagine why the RPI didn't just chuckle and backpass him one stop to send him on his way.

OP, please post the whole letter as per @Fawkes Cat's advice above and your next steps will become clearer.

 

[Haywain]

Given the OP has said he held a ticket back to his origin from Huntingdon and told the RPI, it does seem a little harsh he was PF'd. Can't imagine why the RPI didn't just chuckle and backpass him one stop to send him on his way.

I’m inclined to think the fact that it was an eTicket bought through the Trainline app might have influenced this a bit. The Trainline app does seem quite well used for short faring.

 

[AlterEgo]

I’m inclined to think the fact that it was an eTicket bought through the Trainline app might have influenced this a bit. The Trainline app does seem quite well used for short faring.

I must be a bit slow this morning with my cold. On reflection this looks like a classic intent to evade the fare due, either by short faring or doughnutting.

Facts:

- OP boards at a barriered station and is travelling north and happens to have the cheapest, shortest ticket possible that would allow him through the barrier
- Falls asleep in the eight minutes it takes him to travel between St Neots and Huntingdon
- Is caught travelling to a junction station, Peterborough, where he is able to change for plenty of trains which stop at rural, unbarriered stations
- Proffers evidence of another ticket which could be suspiciously viewed as a short fare too, the return
- Does this on the Trainline app which is notorious with short farers
- Offers a thin story - firstly being "up all night to surprise my girlfriend" and the "surprise" is...travelling on a train with her for one stop the next day? (Why would you need to be up all night for this? Doesn't add up, sorry!)

As always, we can't tell whether the OP is giving us the full facts, but in the round I am inclined to be sympathetic with the RPI for thinking it's a load of old cobblers and far more likely to be an attempt to short fare than the rather strange story offered.

The RPI seems to have reported him for the wrong offence though as per @furlong's post, although there is no reason they can't correct this mistake later.

OP: The TOC is likely to look at your Trainline account and see your purchase history. It may be worth thinking about the ramifications of that. If this is an attempt to short fare, it will help you to give us the full facts so we can give the proper advice, as if they decide to authorise a prosecution (especially under the Regulation of Railways Act) it is usually possible to settle out of court and limit your personal losses and escape the risk of a court appearance.

 

[island]

i never received the sort of receipt thing that gives you the code to pay the fare online, just told about it and roughy a month later i get a summons telling me to plead

i would have paid the penalty fare if i had received the receipt with the code so i could pay online, however i never received that

That isn’t how Penalty Fares work. You are required, if the collector so states, to make a minimum payment of the fare for your journey on the spot.

I must be a bit slow this morning with my cold. On reflection this looks like a classic intent to evade the fare due, either by short faring or doughnutting.

Facts:

- OP boards at a barriered station and is travelling north and happens to have the cheapest, shortest ticket possible that would allow him through the barrier
- Falls asleep in the eight minutes it takes him to travel between St Neots and Huntingdon
- Is caught travelling to a junction station, Peterborough, where he is able to change for plenty of trains which stop at rural, unbarriered stations
- Proffers evidence of another ticket which could be suspiciously viewed as a short fare too, the return
- Does this on the Trainline app which is notorious with short farers
- Offers a thin story - firstly being "up all night to surprise my girlfriend" and the "surprise" is...travelling on a train with her for one stop the next day? (Why would you need to be up all night for this? Doesn't add up, sorry!)

As always, we can't tell whether the OP is giving us the full facts, but in the round I am inclined to be sympathetic with the RPI for thinking it's a load of old cobblers and far more likely to be an attempt to short fare than the rather strange story offered.

I agree with this analysis. Particularly the bit about falling asleep on an 8 minute journey.

The RPI seems to have reported him for the wrong offence though as per @furlong's post, although there is no reason they can't correct this mistake later.

I think the offence committed here is the lesser spotted refusing or neglecting to quit the carriage upon arrival at the point to which the fare has been paid, contrary to section 103 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845.

I do not think a byelaw offence has been committed, for the reasons given by 221129 above.

 

[furlong]

That isn’t how Penalty Fares work. You are required, if the collector so states, to make a minimum payment of the fare for your journey on the spot.

Not any more. That requirement got dropped when they rewrote the regulations.