First Capital connect intend to prosecute

[Tetchytyke]

Presumably your disagreement is that a machine is in working order if it will sell a ticket to the the station name as known by ATOC as oppose to every other organisation.

Since it is well documented that many members of the public have struggled with the same issue, yet the problem has not been alleviated, I'd disagree.

The TOC get your fare if you work the machine, and a penalty fare if you don't.

Of course they're not going to change anything. Where's the incentive?

The customer has breached a contract (unseen as it was). I don't think this is relevant to a criminal prosecution.

Sadly it is, because of that awful byelaw which should never have been implemented in the first place.

It's interesting that even ATOC's Fares Manual guidance recommends avoiding using this byelaw, and using the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 instead, but there you go.

 

[b0b]

What I am saying is, even if I agree with you that the machine was not in working order, the passenger was still obliged to buy some ticket that would allow him/her to commence his/her journey,

and had the OP done this they'd likely still be in the same mess if not a worse one, the RPI would not be likely to believe the "st pancras" story and would have tried to make it seem like a short fare instead.

Pity the OP didn't have time to think this one through (understandably if you' think you're going to miss an international connection) and maybe try to obtain a Kentish Town ticket when they couldn't find St Pancras.

 

[Greenback]

I had a conversation with someone involved in the simplification of the bye-laws enacted some years ago which resulted in the creation of bye-law 18 in its current form. Interestingly enough, he recalled that the SRA at the time were very clear that whilst it gave TOCs a clear statutory ability to pursue someone in non-possession of a ticket, it was not intended to be used as a means by which TOCs could use the threat of prosecution as a means to enforce ticket buying with absolutely no mitigating circumstances allowed.

If the facts of this case are as recalled by the OP, he;
- attempted to buy a ticket at the start of his journey
- being unable to fathom the TVM he tried to buy one at the end of his journey
- he gets told to pay a Penalty Fare
- when he (unsurprisingly) demurs his details are taken for a byelaw 18 Prosecution

Leave aside the interpretation of the rules, does this strike you as a reasonable approach?

I do not think that this is a reasonable approach. I think that given the circumstances (early morning and only a TVM available) and the consequences (missed international connection), I think that a reasonable approach would be for the OP to make payment of the fare they wanted to buy, but were unable to because of the oddity that St Pancras is listed as London St Pancras and so not where the OP expected it to be.

 

[Nick W]

What I am saying is, even if I agree with you that the machine was not in working order, the passenger was still obliged to buy some ticket that would allow him/her to commence his/her journey, and he/she chose not to do so in order to make a certain train, whereas he/she had multiple options, including consulting a staff member via the help point. Byelaw 18 (3) provides that a person does not commit an offence under byelaws 18 (1) and (2) if there were no working facilities for the purchase of any ticket at the station where he started his journey (my emphasis). As the machine would sell at least some tickets [and indeed would sell the one the customer required if the customer had been aware of how to request it], the passenger is in violation of the byelaw.

I suspect the "any" is there to cover "permit to travel" machines, otherwise I'd suggest a scam by which the railway only enables tickets to Wick to purchased. I dispute the fact the the machine was a "working facility" any more than a machine which could sell tickets but all the stations listed were encoded in a caeser cipher.

I'm not sure how breaching the CoC is a violation of the byelaw.

 

[island]

I suspect the "any" is there to cover "permit to travel" machines, otherwise I'd suggest a scam by which the railway only enables tickets to Wick to purchased. I dispute the fact the the machine was a "working facility" any more than a machine which could sell tickets but all the stations listed were encoded in a caeser cipher.

I'm not sure how breaching the CoC is a violation of the byelaw.

Breaching the NRCoC is not breaching a byelaw, but failing to buy a ticket, in my opinion, is. We will have to agree to disagree on whether the machine was in working order.