Forgotten Railcard

[Bonshakerbrown]

I haven't, because I don't qualify for a Railcard. Not sure what the relevance is though - I've never given birth but I'm pretty sure it does happen.

Do you know anyone who has even? I`ll wager the answer is no !! The refund is not set in stone ,it is not in the T&Cs, it is down to the discretion of the TOC!!

 

[najaB]

Do you know anyone who has even?

Yes.
.

 

[Wallsendmag]

Do you know anyone who has even? I`ll wager the answer is no !! The refund is not set in stone ,it is not in the T&Cs, it is down to the discretion of the TOC!!

It was a directive from RDG last year or the year before.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Do you know anyone who has even? I`ll wager the answer is no !! The refund is not set in stone ,it is not in the T&Cs, it is down to the discretion of the TOC!!

If you have a look at the OPs post, you'll see that they have secured a refund/resolution:

Indeed, I'm happy to say that GWR did respond by e mail last night and closed the case! As you say they accepted this as a first time offence with a warning not to forget the card again.

If your attitude here is the same as it was when dealing with passengers, it's no wonder there is continual friction between those who have been doing the job for years and know that they are right despite being in the wrong as new rules and different validities do exist.

Hi thanks .I was an ATE and Ticket Inspector for about 35 years on the Midland Mainline,But now retired so been away for a few years..Its the terms and condition of railcard being issued which the rail card holder signs to abide by! I think the person cannot be prosecuted for this actually incident (of forgetting their railcard) ,it would be very difficult to prove the person had intention to avoid payment.It would be thrown out of court .As long as the ticket holder can prove they have valid railcard at a later date there cannot be any grounds for prosecution unless intention to defraud is proved.For example the ticket holder lied to an Inspector when being questioned under caution or later tried to produce a rail card that belonged to someone else etc etc .That sort of thing.It would be extremely difficult to prove intent to defraud if someone genuinely believed they had a railcard but had left it at home.But a refund because of this would be extremely unlikely!But there nothing to lose by trying.It used to be the case that there was refund charge deducted so it wouldnt be worth it for a small amount ticket.

Hmm it isnt MY rule you have seen! Contact the people who issued it!Maybe they will give you an answer? The refund does NOT appear in appear in the railcards Terms and Conditions! Why does it appear in FAQs?I don`t know you should contact the people who wrote it!

I'm glad that you've retired and are no longer checking tickets. Normally people get a warm welcome on the forum, though normally they don't come in with both guns blazing and a large portion of attitude.

 

[RPI]

Generally for a forgotten railcard we complete a non interview MG11 which gives the customer the opportunity to produce their railcard when written too.

 

[najaB]

Normally people get a warm welcome on the forum, though normally they don't come in with both guns blazing and a large portion of attitude.

He appears to have lost the will to post. It's interesting that, despite being a retired ticket examiner of 35 year's experience, his profile says that he's is 28.

Keeping the thread (vaguely) on topic, it is nice to see that the TOC is implementing the RDG guidance to allow forgiveness for first offences.

 

[Darandio]

He appears to have lost the will to post. It's interesting that, despite being a retired ticket examiner of 35 year's experience, his profile says that he's is 28.

As much as I firmly believe them to be trolling in their posts, stating the birthdate as 01/01/1990 suggests to me that they just selected any old year.

 

[najaB]

Pay up and forget it, the amount is not worth the argument.

The OP has already resolved the issue.

 

[najaB]

As much as I firmly believe them to be trolling in their posts, stating the birthdate as 01/01/1990 suggests to me that they just selected any old year.

That's a good point, and well made.

 

[Busaholic]

If you have a look at the OPs post, you'll see that they have secured a refund/resolution:




If your attitude here is the same as it was when dealing with passengers, it's no wonder there is continual friction between those who have been doing the job for years and know that they are right despite being in the wrong as new rules and different validities do exist.





I'm glad that you've retired and are no longer checking tickets. Normally people get a warm welcome on the forum, though normally they don't come in with both guns blazing and a large portion of attitude.

My antennae are bulging: I'd be prepared to put a large wager, if I could only afford it, on a certain phoniness here.

 

[6Gman]

Drifting off-topic here but if I forget my PT (staff privilege travel) card does the same procedure apply or is it "full fare, you forgot your card"?

 

[nuts & bolts]

Drifting off-topic here but if I forget my PT (staff privilege travel) card does the same procedure apply or is it "full fare, you forgot your card"?

Full fare, you also must produce Photocard alongside the priv.

 

[6Gman]

Full fare, you also must produce Photocard alongside the priv.

Thanks. Thought that was the case.

(I'm spared the photocard as I'm retired status.)

 

[Haywain]

Thanks. Thought that was the case.

(I'm spared the photocard as I'm retired status.)

Worth pointing out that presenting a Priv discounted ticket without a Priv card might well be viewed with some suspicion.

 

[Belperpete]

Unfortunately, if the matter was not regularised there and then through the purchase of a new ticket (or the issuance of a Penalty Fare), there would be no defence to a prosection under Byelaw 18(1) of the Railway Byelaws 2005, which creates a strict liability offence of boarding a train without a valid ticket.

There would be a defence under Byelaw 18(3), as the guard has permitted him to continue his journey without a valid ticket.

The guard would have been well within his/her rights to have treated the passenger as travelling without a valid ticket, and required the OP to pay for a full-fare ticket there and then, but by permitting the OP to continue the journey without a valid ticket the guard has invoked Byelaw 18(3). And quite rightly, when presented with the necessary information, the TOC has decided there are no grounds to prosecute.

I think the main issue here is that the OP was obviously upset by the letter he received. The wording of the letter clearly gave the OP the impression that the TOC were about to prosecute, whereas in fact the TOC were only asking for the OP's version of events, and giving him the opportunity to pay if payment was owed (e.g. if he didn't in fact have a valid railcard at home), before deciding if there were grounds to prosecute. This is not the only case where people have got this impression, and I think these letters could be made clearer. Unfortunately, as they are the first step in the legal process in cases where the TOC does decide to prosecute, they may have to be written in "legalese".

 

[Belperpete]

I'm glad that you've retired and are no longer checking tickets. Normally people get a warm welcome on the forum, though normally they don't come in with both guns blazing and a large portion of attitude.

I would suggest that it is not Boneshakerbrown who is coming in with "a large portion of attitude" here. He was merely giving his thoughts as someone with long experience as a TTI that there were no grounds for the OP to be prosecuted. As he clearly stated up-front that he has been retired for several years, it is therefore not unsurprising that he was unaware of a recent relaxation regarding refunds. I am not surprised that he has "lost the will to post" (as someone else put it) with your kind of reception.

 

[furlong]

There would be a defence under Byelaw 18(3), as the guard has permitted him to continue his journey without a valid ticket.

An 18(1) offence occurs at the time of entering a train - something that happened later wouldn't be considered under 18(3).

 

[najaB]

He was merely giving his thoughts as someone with long experience as a TTI that there were no grounds for the OP to be prosecuted.

This is a discussion forum, and we welcome contributions from everyone. However, the forum rules require that posts be factually correct. Boneshakerbrown as you correctly observed has been out of the loop for a while and appears not to be aware of the changes to the rules a year and a bit ago. Fair enough.

However, he has refused to acknowledge that things have changed despite several posters attempts to fill him in - even going as far as to dispute the information on a .gov.uk website and saying that he is right and everyone else is wrong.

If that's not "a large portion of attitude" I don't know what is.

In this particular sub-forum, because the consequences can be quite severe, we especially ask that posters are able to back up their contributions by reference to recent cases or the current rules, not the rules as they might have applied 20 or 30 years ago.

 

[Puffing Devil]

I would suggest that it is not Boneshakerbrown who is coming in with "a large portion of attitude" here. He was merely giving his thoughts as someone with long experience as a TTI that there were no grounds for the OP to be prosecuted. As he clearly stated up-front that he has been retired for several years, it is therefore not unsurprising that he was unaware of a recent relaxation regarding refunds. I am not surprised that he has "lost the will to post" (as someone else put it) with your kind of reception.

Are you, by any chance, related?

 

[87electric]

It horrifies me that an ex guard with outdated rules in their head is trying to argue a point with those rules for a current passengers
predicament. I'm sure the OP is flabbergasted, as are a few of us.

 

[CharlieBrown]

The fact that the letter names the wrong stations doesn't change the key fact - you didn't have your Railcard.

While I understand that you might be upset, you need to approach this with a rational mind.
Please don't. You'll more than likely lose. A Railcard-discounted ticket is only valid if the Railcard is presented at the same time. The fact that the letter names the wrong stations doesn't change the key fact - you didn't have your Railcard.

You should have been offered the chance to pay for a new ticket at the time, were you?

How on earth can anyone be prosecuted for not having a valid ticket for a journey they did not make? Such procedural errors are bread and butter to the Mr Loopholes of the legal profession

 

[najaB]

How on earth can anyone be prosecuted for not having a valid ticket for a journey they did not make?

Because a Byelaw offence is based on "entering a train for the purpose of traveling… [without] a valid ticket entitling him to travel", it doesn't require the stations to be named.

The OP didn't have a valid ticket for any journey.

 

[Belperpete]

Are you, by any chance, related?

No, I wouldn't even know him if I met him.

 

[Belperpete]

Because a Byelaw offence is based on "entering a train for the purpose of traveling… [without] a valid ticket entitling him to travel", it doesn't require the stations to be named. The OP didn't have a valid ticket for any journey.

I think the point CB was making was that the OP was sent a letter stating that he travelled/attempted to travel from Yatton to Bristol without a valid ticket, when he wasn't travelling from Yatton to Bristol! Obviously a prosecution would fail if they attempted to prosecute him for a journey he didn't actually make!

 

[najaB]

Obviously a prosecution would fail if they attempted to prosecute him for a journey he didn't actually make!

It would not.

 

[Belperpete]

It would not.

Can you please explain how they could successfully prosecute someone for travelling from Yatton to Bristol without a valid ticket when they hadn't made that journey, and therefore hadn't committed that offence. A prosecution has to be made for a specific offence. If someone is taken to court for committing a burglary in London, for example, when the accused was in fact committing a burglary in Exeter, the court can't just sentence him for that instead! The original case would fail, and a new case would be needed.

 

[najaB]

A prosecution has to be made for a specific offence.

Indeed it does. Again, let's refer to Byelaw 18.1:

In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.

Note that there is no reference to a specific journey actually being made, as long as the summons correctly identifies the place and date that the passenger entered the train the rest of the details are irrelevant. The magistrate would ask two questions: "Did you board a train?" and "Did you have a valid ticket?" - the answers would be "Yes" and "No" respectively.

As an aside, the wording normally used is "travelling between" rather that "from X to Y", so even if X and Y are reversed, the charge would still be correct.

 

[Belperpete]

Indeed it does. Again, let's refer to Byelaw 18.1:
Note that there is no reference to a specific journey actually being made, as long as the summons correctly identifies the place and date that the passenger entered the train the rest of the details are irrelevant. The magistrate would ask two questions: "Did you board a train?" and "Did you have a valid ticket?" - the answers would be "Yes" and "No" respectively. As an aside, the wording normally used is "travelling between" rather that "from X to Y", so even if X and Y are reversed, the charge would still be correct.

Sorry, you say that the summons has to correctly identify the place and date that the passenger entered the train. So if the summons identifies him as entering the train at Yatton, when in fact he entered the train at Bristol, then from what you have said the summons would be incorrect. And if they have got the summons wrong, then surely (with a decent defence) the prosecution would fail?

 

[najaB]

Sorry, you say that the summons has to correctly identify the place and date that the passenger entered the train. So if the summons identifies him as entering the train at Yatton, when in fact he entered the train at Bristol, then from what you have said the summons would be incorrect. And if they have got the summons wrong, then surely (with a decent defence) the prosecution would fail?

No summons was issued, so it's impossible to comment.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Sorry, you say that the summons has to correctly identify the place and date that the passenger entered the train. So if the summons identifies him as entering the train at Yatton, when in fact he entered the train at Bristol, then from what you have said the summons would be incorrect. And if they have got the summons wrong, then surely (with a decent defence) the prosecution would fail?

Moot point - minor errors can be corrected in Court. Try spending a day in the public gallery and you'll learn a lot about court procedure.