first capital connect intention to prosecute

[michael769]

(Rush & Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council [1989] AC 1280, 1300)
"That the rule rests, at least in part, upon public policy is clear from many authorities, and the convenient starting point of the inquiry is the nature of the underlying policy. It is that parties should be encouraged as far as possible to settle their disputes without resort to litigation and should not be discouraged by the knowledge that anything that is said in the course of such negotiations … may be used to their prejudice in the course of the proceedings."

Civil and criminal law are independent and work differently in most respects - rulings in civil cases do not generally bind criminal courts. There is certainly no expectation that criminal prosecutors offer settlements - if you consider where this would lead (out of court settlements in murder cases) it should be apparent how unreasonable it would be.

If the OP decided to speak on his own behalf, my advice is to keep it short and to the point (ideally no more than 5 minutes 10 at a push), stick to the facts, and detail those factors under his control that make him less culpable than the average fare dodger. Say away from trying to turn the blame on the ToC playing the blame game inevitably weakens your argument - and makes it look like you have nothing more positive to say.

 

[Monty]

(Rush & Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council [1989] AC 1280, 1300) "That the rule rests, at least in part, upon public policy is clear from many authorities, and the convenient starting point of the inquiry is the nature of the underlying policy. It is that parties should be encouraged as far as possible to settle their disputes without resort to litigation and should not be discouraged by the knowledge that anything that is said in the course of such negotiations … may be used to their prejudice in the course of the proceedings."

It doesn't say they must though does it?

True - hopefully FCC will be penalised for wasting court time.

I don't see how they are wasting the courts time, they are prosecuting a passenger for an offence. If I was the RPI on the day in question and I was presented with an out of date ticket with a discount which requires a passenger to travel in a group when they are not, issuing a PFN would not be the appropriate course of action (in my professional opinion). I would submit an MG11 report and let the TOC decide what action to take.

I'd just like to state what I've said above in no way relates to the OP, I've just used it as an example where I may submit an MG11 report rather than issue a penalty for an alledged Byelaw 18 offence.

 

[Nick W]

Civil and criminal law are independent and work differently in most respects - rulings in civil cases do not generally bind criminal courts. There is certainly no expectation that criminal prosecutors offer settlements - if you consider where this would lead (out of court settlements in murder cases) it should be apparent how unreasonable it would be.

Personally I would have thought that it would take a resurrection to settle a murder case.

If the OP decided to speak on his own behalf, my advice is to keep it short and to the point (ideally no more than 5 minutes 10 at a push), stick to the facts, and detail those factors under his control that make him less culpable than the average fare dodger. Say away from trying to turn the blame on the ToC playing the blame game inevitably weakens your argument - and makes it look like you have nothing more positive to say.

I would disagree. In my opnion, the magistrate should know that the OP genuinely did not know and was not made aware the terms and conditions. The magistrate should also know that penalty fare is considered by FCC in their official publication to be the right response.

 

[Ferret]

Nick W, in case you are forgetting the salient facts - the OP asked for a group ticket by name. Are you seriously expecting a Magistrate to accept that having asked for that product by name that he wasn't aware that he had to travel as part of a group to use a group ticket - before we even start on the concept of using a day return ticket? Seriously, it's all well and good wanting to see FCC beaten up in Court, but it's not your money at stake here - it's the OP's, and frankly you are being irresponsible.

 

[Monty]

I would disagree. In my opnion, the magistrate should know that the OP genuinely did not know and was not made aware the terms and conditions. The magistrate should also know that penalty fare is considered by FCC in their official publication to be the right response.

Who says it's the right response for that specific incident? At the end of the day you (the passenger) has to to convince the inspector not the TOC or Magistrates that a honest mistake has been made, it may will be the RPI in this case wasn't convinced enough to issue that elusive penalty fare.

 

[Wath Yard]

I would disagree. In my opnion, the magistrate should know that the OP genuinely did not know and was not made aware the terms and conditions. The magistrate should also know that penalty fare is considered by FCC in their official publication to be the right response.

Day returns have Day Return printed on them and the date they are valid. People don't need the fact tomorrow isn't today explained to them by a TOC.

 

[Nick W]

Day returns have Day Return printed on them and the date they are valid. People don't need the fact tomorrow isn't today explained to them by a TOC.

Not only is that patronising but that's wrong! It's valid until 4:30am. The OP thought the cut off point was 6:30am.

Are you seriously expecting a Magistrate to accept that having asked for that product by name that he wasn't aware that he had to travel as part of a group to use a group ticket

Easily---they may have seen an advert about it or seen it on the website without looking at the terms and conditions.

 

[Ferret]

Easily---they may have seen an advert about it or seen it on the website without looking at the terms and conditions.

Tell me, are you actually being serious?

 

[Flamingo]

Nick, a lesson I learned many years ago was when one is in a hole, stop digging

 

[Wath Yard]

To know that they are valid until 04:30 shows a knowledge of the ticketing system, and proves a certain amount of research has been performed. A normal person who just buys a Day Return ticket would assume they had to return that day, therefore just picking a time tomorrow that suits you as the validity isn't going to convince anybody that it is an innocent mistake. Sticking it to the man is fine if you are the one being accused, but very irresponsible if you are advising someone else.

 

[Nick W]

Tell me, are you actually being serious?

We got group save in sixth form to go on a school trip. My maths teacher suggested I departed from the group to get a non-stop train to my eventual destination. If a person that educated (UCL Maths degree) can be unaware of the terms and conditions but aware of the name of the ticket then yes, I am serious.

Regarding the "day" ticket issue, I made that mistake when I was 14. I learnt from it.

But perhaps my maths teacher and I are unbelievably stupid and the rest of the world is either more clever or criminal.

To know that they are valid until 04:30 shows a knowledge of the ticketing system, and proves a certain amount of research has been performed.

True, the OP didn't know the correct time---a little knowledge can be so dangerous.

A normal person who just buys a Day Return ticket would assume they had to return that day, therefore just picking a time tomorrow that suits you as the validity isn't going to convince anybody that it is an innocent mistake.

Or they may assume that if they ask for a return and don't get told "I will sell you a day return", they can return any time. Again as a 14 year old I asked for a return ticket knowing I was coming back three days later and was given a day return. I assumed that I could use it three days later. Fortunately we had a customer friendly TOC. The guard politely told me that it was invalid and that I would "unfortunately" have to buy a new ticket, which I did. No need for a court case.

 

[Ferret]

Nick, I've had two teachers turn up with a school party of 30 students with advance tickets clearly marked 'booked train only' and 'valid only with reservations'. They had reservations alright - for 4 hours later than my train. Teachers I'm afraid are not always particularly bright...whether they are able to regurgitate facts in exam conditions or not. Welcome to the real world!

 

[Ediswan]

A normal person who just buys a Day Return ticket would assume they had to return that day,

Long before I bothered to read any terms and conditions, I was aware that 'day return' tickets were good for the 'last train', even when that was well after midnight. It seemed to be common knowledge. So I would say that 'normal' people do know that the 'day' does not end at midnight.

The vague understanding was that 'the last train before the gap of several hours in the timetable' was allowed. Most timetables have such a gap, which covers 0430.

 

[Nick W]

Nick, I've had two teachers turn up with a school party of 30 students with advance tickets clearly marked 'booked train only' and 'valid only with reservations'. They had reservations alright - for 4 hours later than my train. Teachers I'm afraid are not always particularly bright...whether they are able to regurgitate facts in exam conditions or not. Welcome to the real world!

What happened in the end? Sounds like a difficult scenario!

I am glad we now agree that it's possible for people to get the terms and conditions wrong through an honest mistake/stupidity. I am convinced that the OP did just this. I am now confused as to why there was ever a disagreement between us?

 

[Ferret]

What happened in the end? Sounds like a difficult scenario!

I am glad we now agree that it's possible for people to get the terms and conditions wrong through an honest mistake/stupidity. I am convinced that the OP did just this. I am now confused as to why there was ever a disagreement between us?

What happened was that I pointed out that the party of 30 were occupying reserved seats for many passengers joining at the next station (where I was getting off to hand over to a colleague). I suggested that left the teachers with two options - purchase new tickets and be prepared to stand with said students for the entire journey, or leave the train with me and wait 4 hours until your booked train. To show goodwill, I'd overlook the fact that they were all travelling without valid tickets until that next station, and therefore not charge them what would still have been 32 x £12ish. There was then a discussion about risk assessments, and how it wasn't safe for 30 students to be in a railway station waiting room (I kid you not). My colleague, and relief at the next station then became involved and rather unkindly but entirely accurately suggested that given they were teachers and responsible for 30 other people, perhaps they should be a little more responsible, and set a good example to their students by respecting the word of somebody in authority! The upshot was they got off and waited for 4 hours in a station waiting room!

Anyway, I digress. Of course it is possible to not understand terms and conditions - but those that don't must take responsibility. Perhaps a Byelaw 18 prosecution for a misunderstanding is over the top, perhaps it isn't. The problems start when the 'misunderstanding' stretches credulity! Would a reasonable person having booked tickets for a booked train and with the key restriction printed on the ticket really not realise what they were doing, or were they trying it on? My colleague was firmly of the opinion that it was the latter, hence them not getting to travel with her! Similarly, did our OP and friends really misunderstand the word 'group' or were they trying it on? Of course, we weren't present at the original incident, and we don't know what it says in the MG11. What seems to be fact is that Byelaw 18 was breached, and FCC are entitled to prosecute that offence. I must endorse your advice to the OP that they should attend Court. But when attempting to introduce mitigation, that's far better done by a qualified lawyer with knowledge of railway ticketing law.

 

[SussexMan]

Yes, for ScotRail anyway, and you can have less than (but not more than) the specified group number travelling.

I don't think anyone has picked up on this comment. I could see many situations where a "group" purchases a GroupSave ticket but then finds that not all of the group can travel . e.g. buy a GroupSave for four people but then one gets ill or something. So what are the rules and how clear are they. I can see that the concept of the group sticking together being obvious (it is a "group" ticket) but I could see many people thinking, "we bought a ticket for four but there are now only three so that's fine as we have effectively paid more than we are using".

All members of the group must travel together on both the outward and return journey.

ScotRail Website

GroupSave fares are based on all people travelling together at all times and cannot split from the group to travel separately. Failure to do so could result in a penalty fare.

FCC Website

 

[Flamingo]

If a group have the "spare"ticket with them, I'll usually stamp it as well and that's the end of it. If somebody has split from the group, then I'll excess them.

 

[Fare-Cop]

If a group have the "spare"ticket with them, I'll usually stamp it as well and that's the end of it. If somebody has split from the group, then I'll excess them.

Not a strict interpretation of the rules, but good commonsense in action I'd say

 

[Flamingo]

Most of the time I find that it's two or three people there and one missing. The group ticket is the equivelant of two fares, and a group three and group four are the same price, so if they can show the extra ticket is not being used, we've had the correct amount of money out of them, so it's just an arguement over how many pieces of paper they have.

Pick your battles is one thing I've learned over the years!

 

[VauxhallandI]

Seems like a logical course of action.

If had bought one for four of us to travel to the football and someone missed the train I would find it a little harsh to be have to buy three new top dollar tickets.

What's the maths here, Where does it become a con to buy a Forman ticket and have less travelling?

 

[Flamingo]

The con with the football trains, in my experience, is when the four split up after the game...

 

[VauxhallandI]

The con with the football trains, in my experience, is when the four split up after the game...

We are all together.

Where are the others going?

 

[Flamingo]

Well, the usual reply to where are the others is "In the pub still"...

 

[island]

The con with the football trains, in my experience, is when the four split up after the game...

What about when FGW has suspended GroupSave for the day?

 

[Flamingo]

TBH, on the days/trains where that applies, either revenue are out and about, and it's their problem, or the train is so busy and the passengers so volitile that tickets are the least of my worries!

 

[VauxhallandI]

Well, the usual reply to where are the others is "In the pub still"...

Ha I see.

Not happened to us, we a small but merry band. You wouldn't want to be left alone in Nuneaton or Workington!

In that scenario the left behind person has to buy a new ticket and the other three could travel on the four man tick?

This is the Mathis bit I need to understand, the discount isn't more than a one man price reduction is it?

 

[Flamingo]

It can vary (for exa?ple the ATW "small group") but with FGW, a 3 or 4 group ticket is the same price as two "ordinary" fares.

 

[island]

It can vary (for exa?ple the ATW "small group") but with FGW, a 3 or 4 group ticket is the same price as two "ordinary" fares.

Sometimes due to odd rounding a group of 3 is very slightly cheaper than 2 or 4. For example, London Terminals to Swindon SVR, as you will know, is £53.50. Two would be £107. Three, on the other hand, cost £35.30 each, or £105.90.

So if you're feeling really you could say that a group of 2 travelling with all 3 of a GPS-3 set has underpaid!

 

[Flamingo]

, moi?