Fined by Merseyrail as I had “come too far” without a ticket. Should I fight it?

[Titfield]

Given all the debate on here, it will be very interesting to hear the outcome.

It will be the magistrates who will be deciding whether or not the defence advanced by the OP has sufficient merit to successfully defend the charge.

 

[Tetchytyke]

What I have done is try to point out to the OP that their defence almost certainly isn't as clear cut as people like you are trying to make it out to be

For the Byelaws it is.

“No person shall be in breach…if there were no facilities in working order…at the station where he began his journey”.

That’s as slam dunk as you get a defence. No ambiguity in that clause whatsoever.

They could try prosecuting with intent to avoid payment under 5(3) RoRA, but I think they would struggle on the facts of the case.

I just hope they don’t pull their usual trick of attempting to use 5(2) RoRA even though the OP provided them with his name. If the OP receives a court summons he needs to watch out for that.

It’s also worth noting the Penalty Fares rules on Merseyrail also state that “if an authorised collector encounters a passenger who boarded at the relevant station (with a closed ticket office/broken TVM), they sell the ticket as requested including discounted, but not including quota linked tickets and do not issue a Penalty Fare”.

So again, approaching an Authorised Collector to buy a ticket is in keeping with Merseyrail rules.

 

[Llanigraham]

The picture upthread really is rather poor, so here's a screengrab from Google Maps:

View attachment 151954​

As someone who has never been to that station, on seing that sign I would understand that tickets could be found STRAIGHT ahead and on that level.
If they were downstairs then the white arrow would be pointing down at 45 degrees, as the bottom one is.

 

[wilbers]

It’s been a while since I was there but I think blackburn is similar




So the arrows for the ticket office are the same as for one exit but different to the other, but I’d say it’s pretty clear the arrows pointing downwards are for the stairs and therefore it’s clear the ticket office isn’t in that direction.

It would be better though if the arrows for the ticket office were more like this, ie “out and along” not “straight ahead”

That would work, even more so if those arrows were more to the edge of the sign than the one we now know points down the stairs; on the sign all arrows are vertically aligned with each other. As it is currently designed the sign is ambiguous, and as such shouldn't be a surprise for gateline staff to get someone there looking for the ticket office.

 

[Bertie the bus]

For the Byelaws it is.

“No person shall be in breach…if there were no facilities in working order…at the station where he began his journey”.

That’s as slam dunk as you get a defence. No ambiguity in that clause whatsoever.

They could try prosecuting with intent to avoid payment under 5(3) RoRA, but I think they would struggle on the facts of the case.

I just hope they don’t pull their usual trick of attempting to use 5(2) RoRA even though the OP provided them with his name. If the OP receives a court summons he needs to watch out for that.

It’s also worth noting the Penalty Fares rules on Merseyrail also state that “if an authorised collector encounters a passenger who boarded at the relevant station (with a closed ticket office/broken TVM), they sell the ticket as requested including discounted, but not including quota linked tickets and do not issue a Penalty Fare”.

So again, approaching an Authorised Collector to buy a ticket is in keeping with Merseyrail rules.

There is no doubt at all it would have applied had they encountered an RPI on their travels

It would be very interesting to find out whether that still applies after the journey has been completed, the destination station does have an open ticket office and the passenger still doesn’t have a ticket as happened here.

Whether the OP wishes to test that out is entirely their decision.

 

[AdamWW]

Maybe if failing to properly interpret a less than clear directional sign should be a criminal offence then the signs at a closed ticket office should be a bit more explicit, and warn of the importance of playing spot the ticket office at the far end?

My view is that there's a difference between looking at a photo on a screen and saying "Ah yes you can see what it's saying" and walking through a station and correctly intepreting the signs as you go past. I've certainly headed the wrong way plenty of times by not realising what a sign was supposed to be telling me. Fortunately it's never landed me in trouble.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It would be very interesting to find out whether that still applies after the journey has been completed, the destination station does have an open ticket office and the passenger still doesn’t have a ticket as happened here.

Under the Byelaws, yes, it does: the clause 18.3 couldn’t be any clearer. There are no caveats in 18.3. If the ticket office is shut at your origin then you cannot be guilty of an offence under 18.1 or 18.2.

Under 5(3) RoRA - intention to avoid payment- it would come down to the facts of the case. In this case, whether the Magistrates believe failing at a game of ‘spot the ticket office’ amounts to intention to avoid the fare.

But Merseyrail have alleged a breach of the Byelaw 18.2, not RoRA.

The OP should politely but robustly defend their position. If Merseyrail indicate they won’t back down then it’s for the OP to decide what their risk appetite is, but then you also get the Echo involved.

As an aside, recently at James Street I was unable to buy a ticket due to a defective ticket machine in the office. I requested written proof from the clerk, even though she said I didn’t need it. Merseyrail behaving like this is precisely why I want any interaction with railway staff to be in writing. It shouldn’t be like this. I genuinely don’t understand why it is.

 

[Starmill]

It would be very interesting to find out whether that still applies after the journey has been completed, the destination station does have an open ticket office and the passenger still doesn’t have a ticket as happened here.

Can you explain why it might not apply? You're reading something that's not there. It doesn't apply even if the OP specifically says "ha ha I am a fare evader" and runs for it. They're still not guilty of that specific offence.

 

[FenMan]

This, for me, is the crux of the matter:-

"I made my way to an unfamiliar station."

We're being asked to believe this is the first time a Merseyside resident has ever travelled to watch an Everton match while, unfortunately, not having a correct, or any, ticket to cover their journey.

What the OP says may well be true, but I can see why Merseyrail would think otherwise.

 

[TUC]

I do think for most ordinary people:
a) paying at the first opportunity would mean the first time they encounter staff selling tickets
b) if they had not encountered staff on the way, paying at the destination gateline would be acceptable
c) if gateline staff were not able to sell tickets, they would direct you towards the ticket office

What most people would not expect is to have to hunt out ticket offices at interchange stations. They would also assume the ticket office is at the entrance/exit, not in a waiting room on an island platform.

 

[island]

Under the Byelaws, yes, it does: the clause 18.3 couldn’t be any clearer. There are no caveats in 18.3. If the ticket office is shut at your origin then you cannot be guilty of an offence under 18.1 or 18.2.

Under 5(3) RoRA - intention to avoid payment- it would come down to the facts of the case. In this case, whether the Magistrates believe failing at a game of ‘spot the ticket office’ amounts to intention to avoid the fare.

But Merseyrail have alleged a breach of the Byelaw 18.2, not RoRA.

The OP should politely but robustly defend their position. If Merseyrail indicate they won’t back down then it’s for the OP to decide what their risk appetite is

I think this is an excellent summary of the current position.

 

[SteveM70]

We're being asked to believe this is the first time a Merseyside resident has ever travelled to watch an Everton match by train while, unfortunately, not having a correct, or any, ticket to cover their journey.

I think the OP has already addressed this - doesn't have a season ticket so goes infrequently, generally drives there

 

[Haywain]

We're being asked to believe this is the first time a Merseyside resident has ever travelled to watch an Everton match

I think they were going to Anfield for Liverpool v Chelsea.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Besides, if they’ve previously been able to get a ticket on departure why would they have paid any attention to where the ticket office is on arrival?

All they would know is that on the way out there’s a ticket check, and thus it’s a suitable place to stop, explain why they haven’t got a ticket, and buy one.

 

[AlterEgo]

None of this really matters because @Tetchytyke has summarised the matter neatly thus:

Under the Byelaws, yes, it does: the clause 18.3 couldn’t be any clearer. There are no caveats in 18.3. If the ticket office is shut at your origin then you cannot be guilty of an offence under 18.1 or 18.2.

Under 5(3) RoRA - intention to avoid payment- it would come down to the facts of the case. In this case, whether the Magistrates believe failing at a game of ‘spot the ticket office’ amounts to intention to avoid the fare.

But Merseyrail have alleged a breach of the Byelaw 18.2, not RoRA.

The OP should politely but robustly defend their position. If Merseyrail indicate they won’t back down then it’s for the OP to decide what their risk appetite is, but then you also get the Echo involved.

As an aside, recently at James Street I was unable to buy a ticket due to a defective ticket machine in the office. I requested written proof from the clerk, even though she said I didn’t need it. Merseyrail behaving like this is precisely why I want any interaction with railway staff to be in writing. It shouldn’t be like this. I genuinely don’t understand why it is.

 

[spag23]

At the risk of seeming repetitive (my post #40), the notice at the starting station did not require the OP to go to the destination's ticket office; just to pay at the destination. The gateline staff that the OP approached were at the destination.

 

[Bletchleyite]

At the risk of seeming repetitive (my post #40), the notice at the starting station did not require the OP to go to the destination's ticket office; just to pay at the destination. The gateline staff that the OP approached were at the destination.

And if you want a ticket on arriving without one at Central you do go to the gateline where you are directed to the RPIs, not the booking office. The booking office is only involved if you want a ticket on a Metrocard or to collect a prebooked ticket.

 

[MotCO]

One aspect not really examined is the extent the OP was part of a mass of people all moving in the same direction. If he was the only person on the platform, it may be easy to spot signs. If you were part of a large mass shuffling along, you go with the flow - it would be impossible to go the other way. Also, if the OP was below average height, he would not be able to see anything other than arms and heads around him, let alone signs. If the OP is above average height, that may be slightly different.

 

[robbeech]

With the risk of going around in circles about the destination thing :

I wouldn't call an interchange station the destination. The destination is where you're travelling to, not where you're changing trains. However, where would the limit be drawn? Could you jump on another operator's service at Chester, and then another at Birmingham?

Yes. The railway will use very specific wording in its favour to penalise passengers at every available opportunity. As such it would only be right to use the same. Your destination is your destination even if that’s 7 hours and 5 trains away. Most people would make attempts in the interim so this ruling is not an issue in real world terms.

You aren't expected to miss a connection to purchase, but otherwise it must be at the first opportunity. With 8-12tph from Central to Sandhills, though, the case for not paying at the change point here is a bit weak.

It must be the first opportunity if the ticket office is closed. But if it’s closed and passengers are instructed to pay at their destination then this is not relevant. If the passenger were to attempt to get out at Moorfields to buy a ticket they could have been prosecuted there instead. Merseyrail would have used the “destination” wording against them.

Of course, in this case there was a sign saying "pay at destination" - not "pay at destination or interchange point, whichever comes first" - so it's hard to blame a passenger for proceeding as they were told.

Indeed, Infact had they tried to pay anywhere else they could have been in trouble for not directly following the instructions.

Changing the prosecution would look weird and prejudice would it not? Seems like they'd be chasing a bit too much by failing to prosecute and then changing it to try and make it valid.

Have you been on the railway?



Regardless of all this it is clear that a Byelaw prosecution cannot lawfully proceed here. We just have to see if Merseyrail are willing to do it unlawfully.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It must be the first opportunity if the ticket office is closed. But if it’s closed and passengers are instructed to pay at their destination then this is not relevant. If the passenger were to attempt to get out at Moorfields to buy a ticket they could have been prosecuted there instead. Merseyrail would have used the “destination” wording against them.

Indeed, Infact had they tried to pay anywhere else they could have been in trouble for not directly following the instructions.

I have no time for Merseyrail on this and think they are acting in bad faith (and do generally when it comes to ticketing issues). However they wouldn't do that. What they want is for you to pay rather than walk off.

 

[robbeech]

Perhaps, but they may still have been prosecuted for trying to get through the gateline at Moorfields regardless of their intentions.


Seek out a friendly member of staff who will be happy to help is the attitude the railway tries to give. Staff are apparently there to help, but it appears they are only there to help themselves.