Help - Notice of intention to prosecute

[SussexMan]

If a case like this did go to court then what options do the magistrates actually have? I understand that the legal advice to them would be that the person has broken the bye-laws but what about the remedy? Is there a schedule for the fines that can/must be imposed? Could the magistrates impose a fine equivalent to the Penalty Fare that would/should have been paid. Could they impose no fine and record an "absolute discharge"?

Is there any knowledge out there of cases that have gone to court? Any magistrates on the forum?

 

[34D]

Unfortunately a Route: Grt Ang Trns Only ticket being used on FCC is not "off route", despite being used on a permitted route which happens to be forbidden due to a ticket restriction.

Can you back this up, please.

To the op - do you know what GRT ANG ONLY means? Without guessing? Is it perhaps a confusing code?

 

[island]

Can you back this up, please.

NRCoC section 10.

 

[34D]

NRCoC section 10.

Point taken. But GRT ANG TRN ONLY is not a TOC.

Besides, the FCC route to Kings cross used to be "west anglia great northern" until recently.

Anglia only could imply trains in the Anglia region only.

 

[LexyBoy]

I don't think that's a useable argument really. Certainly it's confusing - and as I said earlier I firmly believe that such tickets should be subject to the same excess fare procedures as other tickets since it's so easy for a genuine mistake to be made- but the restrictions should be explained at the point of sale.

 

[Ferret]

I don't think that's a useable argument really. Certainly it's confusing - and as I said earlier I firmly believe that such tickets should be subject to the same excess fare procedures as other tickets since it's so easy for a genuine mistake to be made- but the restrictions should be explained at the point of sale.

The Virgin ticket vending machines do make it clear that the ticket being purchased is valid on Virgin Trains Only. Not that this stops people attempting to claim they didn't know. I wonder whether this is the same situation on the Cambridge-London flow, and whether they intend having a purge of prosecutions to ram the point home.

 

[Daz28]

Could they impose no fine and record an "absolute discharge"?

Yes. Options are

1) Not Guilty
2) Guilty, Absolute Discharge
3) Guilty, Conditional Discharge
4) Guilty, Fine

Optionally, costs and/or compensation can be awarded against all three guilty outcomes.

In this case, I can't see that there would be any compensation, since the railway industry has already received more than was necessary.

 

[Ferret]

In this case, I can't see that there would be any compensation, since the railway industry has already received more than was necessary.

Wrong - FCC have received no money for carrying the OP on her journey. If this reaches Court and results in a Byelaw 18, the OP will at the very least have to pay for the journey she made. The Court will not be interested in an argument about 'the railway industry' - your line of argument is akin to saying that a defendant nicked a chicken from Asda, but paid Tesco 5 pounds too much on his last visit so the supermarket industry hasn't lost out in any way.

As unfortunate as this is, the OP does need to deal with this, and I'd say negotiating with FCC may be the way forward. Perhaps explaining that she was confused by the ticket restriction, and promising not to repeat the error, FCC may accept payment of whatever the penalty Fare was and an administration fee. I honestly think that is the most favourable outcome that is possible.

 

[Monty]

I'd just like to say sorry to Sudjules for not replying sooner, I'm currently at work and I'll write a full response when I am home. However if you follow Ferret's advice you are on the right track.

 

[Daz28]

Wrong - FCC have received no money for carrying the OP on her journey. If this reaches Court and results in a Byelaw 18, the OP will at the very least have to pay for the journey she made. The Court will not be interested in an argument about 'the railway industry' - your line of argument is akin to saying that a defendant nicked a chicken from Asda, but paid Tesco 5 pounds too much on his last visit so the supermarket industry hasn't lost out in any way.

Rubbish, my argument is nothing like your example.

The OP has paid their money at the railway station. How that money is distributed by ATOC using Orcats or whatever should have no bearing.

The railway industry seems to be the only place where the usual legal principle that your contract is with the person who takes your money does not seem to apply.

If the original ticket is deemed to be invalid, then they are due a refund.

 

[Ferret]

Rubbish, my argument is nothing like your example.

The OP has paid their money at the railway station. How that money is distributed by ATOC using Orcats or whatever should have no bearing.

The railway industry seems to be the only place where the usual legal principle that your contract is with the person who takes your money does not seem to apply.

If the original ticket is deemed to be invalid, then they are due a refund.

Ok then, stand by your advice, let the OP take it to Court, and knock on your door afterwards when having followed your advice, they've ended up with a large fine. Will you still be so sure I'm talking rubbish then? I speak from experience here by the way - our RPIs have prosecuted people on other TOCs tickets and, to the surprise of nobody, the case was won, with the appropriate fine handed down too.

 

[cuccir]

I think the issue of revenue is appropriate for understanding the TOC's motivation in prosecuting, but it should be noted that it's not the revenue, per se, which effects the legality - it's the fact the ticket said GRT ANG TRNS ONLY. I've no idea whether or not the revenue would be a relevant factor in any court case.

This thread might inform the original poster a little bit - here, a passenger has presuaded FCC to drop a case, although I'd emphasise that their situation was different. Still, an apologetic letter offering to pay the penalty fare plus an admin fee, alongside an attempt to contact the FCC Head of Prosecutions to see if the case could be dropped, might result in a positive outcome.

 

[Ferret]

Thanks Cuccir, I concur with your view on what is possible here through negotiation. I don't for a minute think FCC will drop the case completely because they still haven't had any of the money owed to them, whereas the poster in that thread had only committed a very technical breach of condition 19, and FCC were still benefitting from the season tickets held by that individual.

I urge the OP to ignore the ill-informed opinions of one individual in this thread.

 

[soil]

Ok then, stand by your advice, let the OP take it to Court, and knock on your door afterwards when having followed your advice, they've ended up with a large fine. Will you still be so sure I'm talking rubbish then? I speak from experience here by the way - our RPIs have prosecuted people on other TOCs tickets and, to the surprise of nobody, the case was won, with the appropriate fine handed down too.

I'd be contacting the Daily Mail, personally speaking. If no interest I'd look to negotiate with FCC.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Rubbish, my argument is nothing like your example.

The OP has paid their money at the railway station. How that money is distributed by ATOC using Orcats or whatever should have no bearing.

Just for clarity, the remark which I have quoted appears to be an opinion by the poster of what they believe or expect might happen, perhaps what they would wish might happen - 'an argument' as they put it.
It is certainly not based on experience of 'arguing' Railway Prosecutions in Law and nor does it assist the OP in determining a beneficial strategy for resolving their situation.

 

[jon0844]

I think it's time to rename this forum 'FCC Prosecution Advice & Other Rail Related Chat'.

 

[Ferret]

I'd be contacting the Daily Mail, personally speaking. If no interest I'd look to negotiate with FCC.

Why would the Daily Mail be interested? The salient point is that the OP did not have a valid ticket for the journey being made. The OP travelled with FCC, but did not hold a ticket entitling travel with that company. The sum that the OP has paid (to Greater Anglia) is totally irrelevant.

Now, I'm getting a little fed up with some of the nonsense that masquerades as 'advice' that's appearing in some of these prosecution threads. It would be helpful if those with little or no knowledge in this area desisted from wading in with comments that are of either no help, or are downright dangerous to whichever poster's specific situation.

 

[jon0844]

I think the Daily Mail would be interested for the 'victim' element of a confusing ticket (with said photos of the victim looking glum, a photo of the confusing ticket and then a photo of the home of FCC's CEO to show how rich he is). Likewise, The Guardian would probably lap a story like this up for the same reason. HOWEVER, the order was wrong in the post above. Approach FCC first and THEN the media, not the other way around.

The shortened writing to fit on the limited space on the ticket is confusing, and we now have a similar issue here as with the 'Southern Only' tickets that can't exclude Gatwick Express as there's no room to do so!

I won't repeat my comments about changes to the ticket layout (extra line of text) as that thread has already been linked to.

What I do think the media should be investigating is how FCC is now actively seeking to take just about anyone to court (especially using the catch-all byelaw 18) and I'm hearing stories of them approaching people to offer them an out of court settlement, suggesting they're trying to avoid taking things to court and merely make a lot more money than from a £20 PF. If true, they might as well scrap the penalty fare scheme as they're clearly going to want to train more people to be trained to do MG11s and expand the 'fraud teams'.

Possibly something for a new thread dedicated to FCC and its actions (and intentions)?

 

[Ferret]

Well, the flip side of this I suppose is that FCC did offer the option of paying the PF in this instance, and the OP declined to do so. FCC may then argue that they have no other option but to instigate a Byelaw 18 prosecution as a means of getting the revenue owed to them. Playing devil's advocate of course here, but FCC are a wronged party - Greater Anglia sold a ticket to the OP, the OP (accidentally) boarded FCC's train despite not having a valid ticket to do so, and has declined thus far to pay the fare owed to FCC. These indisputable facts should not be overlooked.

Now, I have to say that a Prosecution if this went that far is out of proportion to what the circumstances dictate. I fully expect FCC to accept that the circumstances dictate that a small settlement including payment of the fare should be sufficient to put the matter to bed.

If there is a clarity issue with Anglia's ticket machines, then complaints about that should be addressed to them. Of course, this is why I detest McNumpty's idea of shutting booking offices, but that also is an issue for another thread.

Still, by now, I hope the OP has digested the contents of this thread and is attempting to contact FCC to resolve this unfortunate matter. Having seen previous outcomes, including the chap who was collared for a breach of condition 19, it seems the Head of Prosecutions at FCC is not an unreasonable person, and will hopefully be perfectly inclined to reach a settlement.

 

[lyndhurst25]

Well, the flip side of this I suppose is that FCC did offer the option of paying the PF in this instance, and the OP declined to do so. <snip>

We don't know what exactly was said between the OP and the RPI. Maybe the PF wouldn't have been "declined" if the RPI had informed the OP that:

1) He didn't have to pay the full PF on the spot, just the price of a new ticket, with the rest paid later on.
2) That there is an appeals process if he thought that the PF was issued unfairly.
3) That if he didn't at least part-pay pay the PF immediately then the case would be referred on for Bylaw 18 prosecution and the possible consequences of that.

What a information a RPI divulges when issuing a PF will have an influence on whether or not the passenger is likely to accept or decline the PF. I don't know if FCC RPIs have a "script" of what to say when issuing PFs but it would be interesting to know exactly what was said.

I suggest a new thread "Abuse of Bylaw 18 by TOCs".

 

[jon0844]

I don't think there's any evidence of a script. Obviously they would have guidance during training, but some RPIs are very keen to just issue a PF by effectively tricking someone into accepting one 'Just take the PF and you have 28 days to appeal it', which usually means someone will accept the PF to speed things up - without ever questioning if a PF is actually appropriate (and in some cases, although not this one, 'legal').

In many cases, it's already clear that an appeal would never succeed as the acceptance of the PF would make an appeal impossible. But the RPI just wants to issue one, and can make it quite clear that you either argue and wait ages - or accept a PF and get going in minutes.

Still, I must say that in this case a PF was offered and refused - so it's not a case of FCC just going straight for the court action. However, they have roving fraud teams that don't issue PFs at all. Meet one of those, and it's going to be a totally different story.

 

[BestWestern]

Why would the Daily Mail be interested? The salient point is that the OP did not have a valid ticket for the journey being made. The OP travelled with FCC, but did not hold a ticket entitling travel with that company. The sum that the OP has paid (to Greater Anglia) is totally irrelevant.

Now, I'm getting a little fed up with some of the nonsense that masquerades as 'advice' that's appearing in some of these prosecution threads. It would be helpful if those with little or no knowledge in this area desisted from wading in with comments that are of either no help, or are downright dangerous to whichever poster's specific situation.

I have a feeling that the press may be more interested than you think, particularly as many papers have been indulging in a good bit of rail bashing of late. The finer details of ticket regulation are of little interest to the papers, what they would pick up on in this case is that a passenger pays X amount for a ticket from A to B, boards a train making that journey, and is ultimately threatened with prosecution because they should have bought a cheaper ticket. The lunacy of the situation speaks for itself, and it is that which any reporter is likely to pick up on. The fact that there is one ticket for one TOC and another ticket for somebody else, at different prices for the same journey out of the same station, does not make the situation any more forgivable; rather, it just underlines the struggle that many potential passengers face with what should be a basic element of rail travel.

I don't generally condone the often inaccurate and sometimes completely wrong reporting which the press like to peddle when it comes to the railways, however there are some cases of such shoddy treatment of clearly innocent passengers that it really does need to be highlighted, as the only possible method of making the company concerned reconsider their attitude.

 

[Flamingo]

Digressing slightly, there seems to be lots of conspiracy theories about FCC and their current approach to Revenue. I know that this is not across all First Group (despite FGW having beefed up it's revenue side a bit lately), I'm wondering if fare evasion had become so rife on their patch that they are now taking a zero tolerance approach to redress the balance?

I know in FGW land certain areas have been targeted (eg Filton Abbey Woods) as tickets were seen as an optional extra, is something like that going on with FCC?

 

[Ferret]

We don't know what exactly was said between the OP and the RPI.

What a information a RPI divulges when issuing a PF will have an influence on whether or not the passenger is likely to accept or decline the PF. I don't know if FCC RPIs have a "script" of what to say when issuing PFs but it would be interesting to know exactly what was said.

Alas we never will know! To my mind, a PF shouldn't aplly here, merely just sell a valid SDS/SDR but of course this opinion is irrelevant too!

I suggest a new thread "Abuse of Bylaw 18 by TOCs".

Right ho! Easy counter to that - they wouldn't have to even consider byelaw 18 if people bought tickets that were valid for travel.

 

[BestWestern]

Right ho! Easy counter to that - they wouldn't have to even consider byelaw 18 if people bought tickets that were valid for travel.

...which many people, as in this case, are quite willing to do if only it didn't require a revenue training course to be able to understand the system :roll:

How many other retailers or service providers take their customers to Court for inadvertently paying too much??!

 

[Ferret]

I have a feeling that the press may be more interested than you think, particularly as many papers have been indulging in a good bit of rail bashing of late. The finer details of ticket regulation are of little interest to the papers, what they would pick up on in this case is that a passenger pays X amount for a ticket from A to B, boards a train making that journey, and is ultimately threatened with prosecution because they should have bought a cheaper ticket. The lunacy of the situation speaks for itself, and it is that which any reporter is likely to pick up on. The fact that there is one ticket for one TOC and another ticket for somebody else, at different prices for the same journey out of the same station, does not make the situation any more forgivable; rather, it just underlines the struggle that many potential passengers face with what should be a basic element of rail travel.

I don't generally condone the often inaccurate and sometimes completely wrong reporting which the press like to peddle when it comes to the railways, however there are some cases of such shoddy treatment of clearly innocent passengers that it really does need to be highlighted, as the only possible method of making the company concerned reconsider their attitude.

You are overlooking the simple indisputable fact that FCC are the wronged party in this. Going to the Daily Fail may just ensure that FCC dig their heels in, and go through with what is a lawful Byelaw 18 Prosecution. Now, you may think that's unfair - no problem, but your ire would be better directed at Greater Anglia, rather than jumping on an anti-FCC bandwagon when they are just attempting to protect the lawful revenue that is owed to them.


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

...which many people, as in this case, are quite willing to do if only it didn't require a revenue training course to be able to understand the system :roll:

How many other retailers or service providers take their customers to Court for inadvertently paying too much??!

For crying out loud, are you capable of reading what is written?! As far as FCC are concerned, the OP has paid nothing. That's the whole problem. Can I respectfully suggest that unless you have anything sensible to add, you refrain from adding any more guff to this thread? The OP came here for advice on how to deal with this unfortunate situation, not to be a part of some agenda that you and one or two others have. You really would do well to remember that.

 

[BestWestern]

You are overlooking the simple indisputable fact that FCC are the wronged party in this. Going to the Daily Fail may just ensure that FCC dig their heels in, and go through with what is a lawful Byelaw 18 Prosecution. Now, you may think that's unfair - no problem, but your ire would be better directed at Greater Anglia, rather than jumping on an anti-FCC bandwagon when they are just attempting to protect the lawful revenue that is owed to them.

I don't disagree that FCC have a right to carry out these actions, but what is so evident here is the complete lack of any moral compass to guide them. How difficult would it be, for example, to simply offer passengers in this scenario an explanation of their error and ensure that they are correctly advised for future journeys? Record the passengers' details, and if they are caught for a second time then fair enough, PF them or whatever. But for somebody who has quite obviously made an honest error for the first time, this is heavy handed and totally unacceptable.

It is always easy for those of us with knowledge of the system to take the view that "it wasn't valid so it's tough", but we must remember that railways are intended for use by general travellers, not just staff and enthusiasts. The systems which operate within the railway should be user-friendly towards everybody, not just those with 'inside knowledge'. The TOCs concerned in this case have completely failed to meet that requirement.

 

[jon0844]

Digressing slightly, there seems to be lots of conspiracy theories about FCC and their current approach to Revenue.

I know in FGW land certain areas have been targeted (eg Filton Abbey Woods) as tickets were seen as an optional extra, is something like that going on with FCC?

Besides what has been written here, I've had PMs revealing a lot of interesting things (staff and those at the receiving end), and had conversations with staff on the ground that have also given me a lot of insider information (which has then been confirmed, or also stated without me prompting, later on by others). I found out quite a bit about the fraud team, which I mentioned on here some time ago as having been formed and expanded.

I won't say much more (like giving precise details), but hope that people will not just assume I'm speculating when giving some seemingly vague summaries.

I'm not against FCC being tough on fare evaders. In fact, I'd be the first to say to take people to court instead of dishing out pointless PFs (for when someone admits to having no intention to buy a ticket quite brazenly) but my opinion is that besides the genuine prosecutions, and genuine PFs, there has been a drop in discretion for situations where a PF isn't really necessary (or indeed ANY action) and now FCC is actively seeking to go down the court route, not to take it to court but to entice people to make an offer to keep it out of court. Payments that far exceed the actual loss or costs to the company.

I will keep investigating, but there's no reason to assume that what FCC does in any way reflects on what other First Group companies are doing. Certainly the policing required for a completely DOO route would differ from your own situation on an Intercity train, and without knowing how high up the chain of command these decisions are being made, it's even harder to predict if it is happening elsewhere.

One thing that's nearly always in common is that many TOCs near the end of their franchise seem to go for a much tougher approach to revenue.

 

[BestWestern]

I'm not against FCC being tough on fare evaders. In fact, I'd be the first to say to take people to court instead of dishing out pointless PFs (for when someone admits to having no intention to buy a ticket quite brazenly) but my opinion is that besides the genuine prosecutions, and genuine PFs, there has been a drop in discretion for situations where a PF isn't really necessary (or indeed ANY action) and now FCC is actively seeking to go down the court route, not to take it to court but to entice people to make an offer to keep it out of court. Payments that far exceed the actual loss or costs to the company.

My thoughts also

 

[Ferret]

It is always easy for those of us with knowledge of the system to take the view that "it wasn't valid so it's tough", but we must remember that railways are intended for use by general travellers, not just staff and enthusiasts. The systems which operate within the railway should be user-friendly towards everybody, not just those with 'inside knowledge'. The TOCs concerned in this case have completely failed to meet that requirement.

That's the thing - once the facts are presented in Court by a skilled prosecutor, the Magistrate has no option to take the 'it wasn't valid so tough' stance, and deal with the matter accordingly.

I've not seen GA's TVMs, but if they are anything like Virgin's, they'll make it clear that the tickets are only for use on trains operated by Greater Anglia. Now, somebody in a rush might well miss that - less so of course if it's drummed into them vocally by a human rather than a TVM flashing a message up prior to purchase. After all, a human will specify the next available train by time - a machine probably will not! Hence my comments about McNumpty and his stupid cretinous report. I repeat - FCC have to protect their revenue, and they are owed money here. To my mind, GA should be forced to refund that original ticket, but that is a separate fight.