Friend being prosecuted for allegedly attempting to use husband's Season ticket (but did not use it)

[Haywain]

Seems a bit of a rum do. Putting aside the "tickets cannot/are not transferrable rule" - which is obviously there to stop a person buying a railcard discounted ticket and letting an un-entitled person use it - it seems that a person using another person's season ticket presents no threat to revenue. After all, the ticket has been paid for and the railway has got it's income as two people cannot travel at the same time utilising one ticket.

This is clearly nonsense. Season ticket prices are calculated based on an assumption of the amount of use that will be made of them by one person. This is why it is, or was in the past, possible to buy a transferable season ticket at a higher price. To suggest there is no loss of revenue is much the same as saying it isn't necessary to carry a ticket once it has been purchased.

 

[Warwick]

This is clearly nonsense. Season ticket prices are calculated based on an assumption of the amount of use that will be made of them by one person. This is why it is, or was in the past, possible to buy a transferable season ticket at a higher price. To suggest there is no loss of revenue is much the same as saying it isn't necessary to carry a ticket once it has been purchased.

That's why I stated that only one person is using it at one time. Of course it's necessary to carry the ticket, it proves that you are an authorised traveller.

 

[najaB]

That's why I stated that only one person is using it at one time.

I work days, my mate works nights. We share a season ticket, only one of us using at a time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I work days, my mate works nights. We share a season ticket, only one of us using at a time.

Transferrable season tickets should be offered at a higher price, just as putting a second person on your car insurance typically increases the price as the car will be used more.

(Yes, I know there are edge cases where that isn't true, e.g. a child adding a parent as a second driver which brings the cost down as the parent will be driving at least some of the time).

 

[Nick66]

My family use one oyster account for all our oyster cards does that mean my sister is at risk of prosecution for loading a travelcard onto the oyster card because the oyster card is technically in my name.

An online Oyster account is a different thing from registering a card which confused me at first. You *shouldn't* be able to put anything longer than a weekly Travelcard on an unregistered Oyster card but you can if you do it online as I discovered. When I went to have my Gold Card discount added it came up as card not registered and I had to fill in a form.

 

[falcon]

You would clearly be able to see other people, before and after the accused, appearing to purchase and collect tickets from the TVM and walk away with them.

I don't see what relevence the is of collecting tickets from the TVM. The OP has nothing to do with going to ticket TVM's as far as I can see!

Clarification please?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't see what relevence the is of collecting tickets from the TVM. The OP has nothing to do with going to ticket TVM's as far as I can see!

Clarification please?

It was a general point in reply to an earlier reply by another poster regarding the usefulness of CCTV in these cases.

 

[MikeWh]

D'oh, that's what I meant to say - if it's registered or has a product on it (e.g. travelcard). Thanks for the correction.

I'm still not convinced you've got it. You can share a registered Oyster card if it is only being used for PAYG.

 

[Fare-Cop]

"Being prosecuted for allegedly attempting to use husband's Season ticket (but did not use it)"

There are two factors to look at here:

1. As has already been posted, Section 5(3) of The Regulation of Railways Act opens by saying 'If an person travels, or attempts to travel....' so the attempt makes this a prosecutable offence

2. This has been posted many times on here previously, but is relevant again in this case. The Appeal Court (1946) was asked to consider the case of Arthur Browning, who presented his wife's season ticket for his journey. The Appeal Court ruling made clear that ' whilst the railway company may not have lost any money, Mr Browning had not paid HIS fare ' and upheld the conviction.

 

[falcon]

"Being prosecuted for allegedly attempting to use husband's Season ticket (but did not use it)"

There are two factors to look at here:

1. As has already been posted, Section 5(3) of The Regulation of Railways Act opens by saying 'If an person travels, or attempts to travel....' so the attempt makes this a prosecutable offence

2. This has been posted many times on here previously, but is relevant again in this case. The Appeal Court (1946) was asked to consider the case of Arthur Browning, who presented his wife's season ticket for his journey. The Appeal Court ruling made clear that ' whilst the railway company may not have lost any money, Mr Browning had not paid HIS fare ' and upheld the conviction.

The point is not the law here.

It is the definition of 'attempts to travel'. That elemnet of the charge would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction.

I struggle to see how an enquiry 'can I use this ticket' can have enough weight to establish the element of 'attempting to travel'.

Many enquires like this are made every day hundreds of times on the railway.

Take for instance passengers stood on Doncaster platform where there are two open access operators and one TOC that serve London.

All day long staff are asked can I board this Virgin service with this ticket. When the ticket is examined it is for Hull Trains or Grand Central and not valid on a Virgin trains service. The person is then told they cannot as it is valid on a Virgin trains service only.

It would be perverse to suggest that those people are 'Attempting to travel'.

The burdon of proof would lie with the TOC to prove attempting to travel.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The point is not the law here.

It is the definition of 'attempts to travel'. That elemnet of the charge would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction.

I struggle to see how an enquiry 'can I use this ticket' can have enough weight to establish the element of 'attempting to travel'.

Many enquires like this are made every day hundreds of times on the railway.

Take for instance passengers stood on Doncaster platform where there are two open access operators and one TOC that serve London.

All day long staff are asked can I board this Virgin service with this ticket. When the ticket is examined it is for Hull Trains or Grand Central and not valid on a Virgin trains service. The person is then told they cannot as it is valid on a Virgin trains service only.

It would be perverse to suggest that those people are 'Attempting to travel'.

The burdon of proof would lie with the TOC to prove attempting to travel.

Quite, if "can I use this ticket" is deemed evidence of attempting to travel - by virtue of the fact that, if an answer in the positive is given, the interrogator is likely to travel - then many, many people unknowingly commit this offence every day.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Quite, if "can I use this ticket" is deemed evidence of attempting to travel - by virtue of the fact that, if an answer in the positive is given, the interrogator is likely to travel - then many, many people unknowingly commit this offence every day.

It depends where it was asked. If the ticket failed to operate the barrier then the question was asked, there is a clear intent there. If someone went to the barrier, did not insert the ticket and simply asked (and genuinely did not know otherwise, i.e. was not attempting to mislead an Authorised Person into giving authority to travel) I don't see how it could show intent.

 

[najaB]

It depends where it was asked.

Indeed, and I think we'll never find out.

 

[K12r]

It’s well established that an attempt is “ something more than preparitory “. On the information given ( without further speculation or fantasy ), no attempt has been made.

 

[najaB]

On the information given ( without further speculation or fantasy ), no attempt has been made.

I don't see how you can say that so confidently - as @Bletchleyite posted it depends entirely on where OP's friend was when they asked if they could travel.

 

[falcon]

Friend arrives at station and at the barrier walks up to ticket inspector to ask 'can I use this ticket' and everything blows up as she was now detained by collector for fraudulent use of another's ticket

This part of the OP's post is where the problem is:

1. 'Can I use the ticket?'was never asked.So has no bearing in law at all. As it never happened.

2. 'everything blows up' is not an accurate description of what was said or done which is relevant to giving any advice.
The term 'everything blows' can be construed in many ways or can be used as a technique to avoid giving unfavourable detail.

The absence of the OP does not help the OP's friends case.

 

[Haywain]

1. 'Can I use the ticket?'was never asked.So has no bearing in law at all. As it never happened.

Interesting interpretation, but looking back at the original post (unless you are suggesting that she was detained for fraudulent use by the 'collector's' use of ESP?)...

Friend arrives at station and at the barrier walks up to ticket inspector to ask 'can I use this ticket' and everything blows up as she was now detained by collector for fraudulent use of another's ticket and fare evasion.

2. 'everything blows up' is not an accurate description of what was said or done which is relevant to giving any advice.
The term 'everything blows' can be construed in many ways or can be used as a technique to avoid giving unfavourable detail.

The OP's own words. Even if second hand, it is the best description available to us and more accurate than any amount of speculation can provide.

 

[cuccir]

The OP's own words. Even if second hand, it is the best description available to us and more accurate than any amount of speculation can provi

This thread has been almost entirely tedious speculation since post number 9.

 

[IanXC]

In the absence of the OPs return I think we have now discussed as much as we can without further information.

Ginger40 - if you would like to add anything else or seek further advice, please use the report function to let the staff team know.