First capital connect fine assistance

[eastdyke]

All this confusion about who is responsible makes me think a 'rail ombudsman' may not be a bad thing. Someone who can deal with this kind of problem independently and consistently and lay down guidelines that everyone can follow. As in other industries, they need only be involved where an appeal or complaint to the TOC has not been resolved to the customer's satisfaction.

I totally agree and said as much in a recent thread.

Of course we do not yet know the final outcome here but the apparent circumstances would seem, if the OP was so inclined, to make a very good example to put before the local MP (Rt Hon Alan Duncan I believe).

 

[PTF62]

A small point.

Surely if the OP was prosecuted and their defense was that they had tried to buy a ticket from the XC ticket seller but were unable to do so, any sensible court would ask the prosecution for evidence that this was not true.

So it is not the OP who would need to prove their version of events, but FCC would need confirmation from XC that it was not true, and obtain a witness statement from the XC ticket seller to that effect.

 

[RPI]

A small point.

Surely if the OP was prosecuted and their defense was that they had tried to buy a ticket from the XC ticket seller but were unable to do so, any sensible court would ask the prosecution for evidence that this was not true.

So it is not the OP who would need to prove their version of events, but FCC would need confirmation from XC that it was not true, and obtain a witness statement from the XC ticket seller to that effect.

The problem is that Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) do not require FCC to prove any intent to avoid payment, the journey in question was from Peterborough to Kings X so it would more than likely be the case that the journey being prosecuted would just be Peterborough-Kings X.

 

[MikeWh]

The problem is that Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) do not require FCC to prove any intent to avoid payment, the journey in question was from Peterborough to Kings X so it would more than likely be the case that the journey being prosecuted would just be Peterborough-Kings X.

I have to disagree here. The journey was from Oakham to London Kings Cross using multiple tickets. Whilst the RPIs at Kings Cross may not have realised the significance of that, I hope that FCC Prosecutions when preparing the case for court would see the potential direction that the magistrate might take and therefore decide that it isn't worth taking that far.

 

[island]

This isn't likely to go to prosecution anyhow as the OP and friends sensibly paid the SDS fare.

 

[yorkie]

The evidence submitted to us by the OP is that the OP tried to buy the tickets for the journey at the first available opportunity, but due to lack of knowledge by staff, this was not possible, but the OP again tried at the next available reasonable opportunity.

There is no requirement to do anything more than what the OP reports to have done.

 

[RJ]

I'm not going to lie. If this exact same situation happened to me, I wouldn't let it rest until I got all of my money back bar the £9 fare, plus all notices struck off. I would not advise leaving it at just paying the £29.

I would advise paying the remainder of the PF. Then going in with the defence, as the OP acted legitimately on the day. I'm experienced with fending off TOCs who try and uphold these stupid notices against me and don't mind providing assistance. I have to warn however that it's not a quick or straightforward process, depends on whether you're happy to pay the £58, or pay £9 and have your moral victory. I know which I'd rather do.

I think you all should be fighting harder than that and I do not think the OP should be used as a test bed to see the outcome of any legal action taken.

 

[222007]

Sounds like the correct train, we boarded at 07:44 at Oakham, even had a really good chat with the ticket inspector on that train, she double checked times for us and also said we'd be fine gettin tickets on that train, she could sell them to us as she wasn't FCC and couldn't apply the groupsave etc so through her would of been £30-£40...

My home station is oakham. Please feel free to PM me. I actually work along this line (birmingham - stansted) . The CrossCountry member of staff definately COULD have sold you the ticket.

 

[RJ]

It's not genius work - insert G into the discount field, select the correct discount, ensuring that 4 passengers are selected.

Very poor show from the guard there.

 

[222007]

RJ the training new recruits receive is very poor and things like this are not taught. I had one of our new guys unaware on the code needed for a west midlands all zone pass untill i told him something which along our line is bread and butter

 

[bb21]

RJ the training new recruits receive is very poor

That is part of the reasons I am sure.

It also depends on how often said ticket is requested. I was told at Edinburgh booking office last month by a clerk that during 15 years of working there, he had never sold a Freedom of North West Rover. Credit to him, it took him 10 minutes to find it on the TIS.

 

[142094]

I wouldn't be surprised if some staff are given only a day's training on Advantix and perhaps a few days on general ticketing. 95% of the time the tickets are going they sell are going to be straight-forward A-B, perhaps a few rovers and that's about it.

 

[Ferret]

142094 - you have to work out much of it for yourself. But crucially, you're taught how to apply discounts, and that discount is really easy to find.

 

[RPI]

Avantix training with FGW is 5 days now! i had 10 mins training on the SPORTIS when i started lol.

 

[RJ]

142094 - you have to work out much of it for yourself. But crucially, you're taught how to apply discounts, and that discount is really easy to find.

Indeed - a little bit of initiative/trial and error would have worked wonders - applying a Groupsave discount follows the same process as applying a railcard discount!

 

[Stigy]

The OP and companions have apparently already paid the full Single fare for the journey in "part payment of the PF", and RPIs on this forum and elsewhere have said that there is no possibility of prosecution in these circumstances, and minimal possibility of being pursued civilly, particularly when there may be an arguable case that the PF was not validly issued.

Are you accusing RPI and Stigy of posting false advice in the other thread at:
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=69065, and, if so, on what grounds do you claim that their advice is incorrect?

The "strategy" promoted by the Evening Standard to avoid paying PFs (which I do not advocate or endorse), can, of course be easily thwarted, since RPIs are never under any obligation to offer a PF (and may instead report for prosecution), and, if a PF is indeed offered, are under no obligation to accept part payment (and, if a nil-paid or underpaid PF, as defined here as less than the Anytime Single, can then cancel and prosecute for non-payment).

Having said that, in this specific circumstance, I too would not advice an "ignore" strategy, certainly not at this stage; indeed, there may well be grounds for the OP to get the PF cancelled claim a partial refund of the money already paid, being the difference between the correct fare* and the higher fare actually paid).

*Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the PF was incorrectly issued and that the OP was entitled under all the circumstances to pay a lower fare, which is not entirely clear.

For the sake of under £20 I'd be inclined to simply pay the outstanding amount for want of an easy life.

Having said that, I've been thinking about what I initially said. Basically if the full fare has been paid as part of the PF, then this, you'd imagine, would be viewed as resolved by the Magistrates as no fare is outstanding and therefore being resolved (which is how I looked at it initially!). Having said that, due to the Strict Liability nature of the Railway Byelaws, the payment, and at what point, if any, it is received, is surely irrelevant? At the end of the day, you board a train without a valid ticket, and you're in breach of the Byelaws from the word go, as the offence has already been committed. Lets not forget, that when other Byelaws are breached, there's no cost involved at all, so we shouldn't dwell on this fact. If it did go to court, there just wouldn't be any compensation awarded to the TOC.

To be fair, there's many many possible loopholes in Railway law, but I wouldn't rely on what the Evening Standard says, as there's far too many inaccuracies in that article (assuming it's the same one I saw a few years ago?). I would also not like to be a TOC in this instance, trying to prosecute a person, as it would be far easier to prosecute a nil-paid PF than a part paid one.

 

[RPI]

In the eyes of the law the byelaw offence has been disposed of by payment of the full single fare as part payment and the only way the balance can be enforced is through the civil courts but as I pointed out before, FCC are totally within their rights to cancel to PF and refund any monies paid and then prosecute for the original offence, the PF rules allow this and it isn't beyond FCC to do this!