Help please nr trying to prosecute

[bb21]

A quick question. What if OP said Salwick or Kents Bank or somewhere further away from their departure station to their intended destination. Obviously it'd be equally as silly, price wise but would OP cover themselves legally?

Not relevant, and it is unlikely to be helpful for the OP if we speculate further.

What kind of reply should i give when i give my version of events .. Just stick to facts and apologise or try a sympathy tact?

Wait for the letter to arrive. There is very little you can do before that. Unfortunately it will be a stressful few months, however without knowing Northern Rail's intention how can you plan the next move?

One question from before remains unanswered. Why did you not get a ticket at Preston before boarding the train?

 

[student99]

I know this will sound hard to believe i walked right past it without knowing entered from the side of preston station and didnt see it .. Was my first time using preston station .. My full intention was to get a ticket on the train but sods law the ticket check didnt pass by . And obv cant prove that either can i?

One thing my intent wasnt to avoid a fare.. Will they not understand that by the fact i said bolton not a closer station ? I always travel from bolton sods law it had to be manned that day aswell

 

[Ferret]

It's not necessarily what is asked, but who is doing the asking. Being quizzed by an RPI can be very stressful.

This line of thinking really annoys me - there's always an excuse or a reason why somebody can't take responsibility for their own actions. It's part of the reason why this Country is heading into a decline, and the sooner it stops, the better.

I'm sorry, but a simple question from *one* human being, not an interview situation or anything like that is *not* stressful, and the notion that it somehow excuses fare evasion is quite ridiculous. Probably best for people's blood pressure if that line of argument ended here so far as this thread is concerned.

 

[Tibbs]

What kind of reply should i give when i give my version of events .. Just stick to facts and apologise or try a sympathy tact?

If you write something and post it here I'm sure the guys (with much more experience than me) will critique it and make sure you aren't accedentally incriminate yourself.

Personally I'd include:

You couldn't buy a ticket at the station or on the train (if this is true, delete as appropriate)
You got in the queue fully intending to buy a ticket from your starting station of Preston
You got flustered when talking to the RPI and said the wrong originating station (Bolton) by mistake.
That you're very sorry for the genuine mistake you made and you would like to purchase the correct ticket (if you haven't done so already) and compensate them for the costs they've incurred dealing with the matter so far.

I'm sure others will be along to phrase it better or say what not to say.

 

[DarloRich]

This line of thinking really annoys me - there's always an excuse or a reason why somebody can't take responsibility for their own actions. It's part of the reason why this Country is heading into a decline, and the sooner it stops, the better.

I'm sorry, but a simple question from *one* human being, not an interview situation or anything like that is *not* stressful, and the notion that it somehow excuses fare evasion is quite ridiculous. Probably best for people's blood pressure if that line of argument ended here so far as this thread is concerned.

In fairness just because it isn't stressful for you or I doesn't mean it is not stressful for someone else. People react very differently to officials in uniform than they would to a normal chat. Perhaps more so if they are up to no good

That said i wouldn't suggest it as an excuse, simply that it can and does happen. Just because it doesn't happen to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen or have an impact on other people.

 

[Tibbs]

This line of thinking really annoys me - there's always an excuse or a reason why somebody can't take responsibility for their own actions. It's part of the reason why this Country is heading into a decline, and the sooner it stops, the better.

I'm sorry, but a simple question from *one* human being, not an interview situation or anything like that is *not* stressful, and the notion that it somehow excuses fare evasion is quite ridiculous. Probably best for people's blood pressure if that line of argument ended here so far as this thread is concerned.

But you are in an interview situation when talking to an RPI, just like when talking to a Policeman. What you're saying is being taken down to be used against you, possibly in a court of law. How can you not see that people find that stressful? (and that's not a rhetorical question, I'm curious about this).

Watch this video (it's long but very interesting) for a view on why talking to people in authority should be done with great care.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865

It's American so the law isn't the same, but the principle is exactly the same. If you have less knowledge than the person interviewing you (and when it comes to train law, you can bet your life an average traveller knows less than the RPI doing the quizzing) you're in a very vulnerable position.

 

[MikeWh]

Harsh facts. Your excuses are the same ones almost every fare dodger has used hundreds of times before. It doesn't matter how genuine your situation is, it won't be believed. When the letter arrives it is best to respond honestly and apologetically. Don't go for sympathy, it's more likely to have the opposite effect. If, and only you know this, it was your first transgression on the railways then it is very likely that they will accept an offer to settle out of court, especially if remorse is shown. It can't be guaranteed, but past experience suggests that first offenders usually manage to settle out of court.


PS. I do understand how stressful being interviewed by an RPI must be, especially if it's never happened before. I also understand how it can be possible to say something like the wrong station, IF it genuinely is a one-off journey. It doesn't make it right though, nor is it an excuse, so it's best to just put your hands up and apologise.

 

[DarloRich]

harsh facts. Your excuses are the same ones almost every fare dodger has used hundreds of times before. It doesn't matter how genuine your situation is, it won't be believed. When the letter arrives it is best to respond honestly and apologetically. Don't go for sympathy, it's more likely to have the opposite effect. If, and only you know this, it was your first transgression on the railways then it is very likely that they will accept an offer to settle out of court, especially if remorse is shown. It can't be guaranteed, but past experience suggests that first offenders usually manage to settle out of court.


Ps. I do understand how stressful being interviewed by an rpi must be, especially if it's never happened before. I also understand how it can be possible to say something like the wrong station, if it genuinely is a one-off journey. It doesn't make it right though, nor is it an excuse, so it's best to just put your hands up and apologise.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^this

 

[Ferret]

That's just the point Tibbs - at the point that the wrong answer was given, the OP was just being asked to pay for a ticket. Only after he answered 'Bolton' was he under investigation.

This very poor line of argument really does need leaving here - it's not helpful to the OP because it will not be a plausible defence in Court.

 

[DarloRich]

That's just the point Tibbs - at the point that the wrong answer was given, the OP was just being asked to pay for a ticket. Only after he answered 'Bolton' was he under investigation.

This very poor line of argument really does need leaving here - it's not helpful to the OP because it will not be a plausible defence in Court.

but people dont know or realise that. Particularly if they are chancing it! Anyway it will get a decent laugh in court if it is tried as a defense followed by a quick conviction and a criminal record.

 

[bb21]

You couldn't buy a ticket at the station

This doesn't even come into the equation.

The OP walked into Preston station from the side gate therefore did not see the ticket office for whatever reason. This does not mean he/she couldn't buy a ticket at the origin station.

In fact, if this were offered as an excuse, I could well see Northern establishing facts to the contrary quite easily in the magistrates should it go that far.

 

[Tibbs]

That's just the point Tibbs - at the point that the wrong answer was given, the OP was just being asked to pay for a ticket. Only after he answered 'Bolton' was he under investigation.

This very poor line of argument really does need leaving here - it's not helpful to the OP because it will not be a plausible defence in Court.

I guess my question would be, when the mistake was identified (before the OP left the station property) why was the OP not given the opportunity to rectify the error?

This is my issue with the rail industry, it's guilty until proven innocent.

 

[DarloRich]

I guess my question would be, when the mistake was identified (before the OP left the station property) why was the OP not given the opportunity to rectify the error?

This is my issue with the rail industry, it's guilty until proven innocent.

but if you nick stuff from Tesco they dont catch you and offer you the chance to buy the stuff before calling the police do they?

 

[Ferret]

I guess my question would be, when the mistake was identified (before the OP left the station property) why was the OP not given the opportunity to rectify the error?

This is my issue with the rail industry, it's guilty until proven innocent.

Now we are getting to the nitty gritty. Your real problem is with the Regulation of Railways Act, which does make it clear at what point an offence is committed. So, what you need to do, is spend your evening drafting a letter to your MP, and asking him if he'd consider getting involved in Parliamentary moves to have the relevant Act repealed or amended. I wish you luck - when you've drafted it, perhaps you could post it on here for us all to read?

 

[student99]

So does the truth not matter? I genuinely made a mistake when saying bolton.. I had other things on my mind .. No i was under no pressure at that point.. If i asked you your age and u got it wron is that not a genuine mistake .. Mistakes do happen!

Yeah i totally accept im at fault for it but to go and say im fare evading or even attempting it is wrong

Seriousl anyone who travelled from preston will now that when u enter from that side entrance there are no signs whatsoever saying tickets or anything and if youre travelling from there for the first time what do you expect?

 

[ainsworth74]

So does the truth not matter?

It's only your word and unfortunately your story is the same one that's told dozens (perhaps hundreds) of times every day up and down the country so neither Northern's prosecutions department or the magistrate will be very likely to believe it.

 

[DarloRich]

So does the truth not matter? I genuinely made a mistake when saying bolton.. I had other things on my mind .. No i was under no pressure at that point.. If i asked you your age and u got it wron is that not a genuine mistake .. Mistakes do happen!

Yeah i totally accept im at fault for it but to go and say im fare evading or even attempting it is wrong

Seriousl anyone who travelled from preston will now that when u enter from that side entrance there are no signs whatsoever saying tickets or anything and if youre travelling from there for the first time what do you expect?

Unfortunately none of that matters. You were both fare evading and attempting to fare evade. You admitted it yourself.

Go and see a solicitor ASAP. If you are at university they may well have a Student Law Office or Pro Bono Centre who can assist you. This could turn into a serious problem for you.

Also try and write any letter in English, rather than a random jumble of letters and punctuation marks.

 

[Tibbs]

Now we are getting to the nitty gritty. Your real problem is with the Regulation of Railways Act, which does make it clear at what point an offence is committed. So, what you need to do, is spend your evening drafting a letter to your MP, and asking him if he'd consider getting involved in Parliamentary moves to have the relevant Act repealed or amended. I wish you luck - when you've drafted it, perhaps you could post it on here for us all to read?

No, my problem isn't with the RoRA, it's the way it's enforced, and the complete lack of benefit of the doubt. It's also the fact that the prosecutions are brought privately and so the evidence collection authority, the people who decide to carry out the prosecution and the people who benefit from the prosecution are the same people.

I do, however, have a massive issue with Byelaw 18. To have a strict liability offence for something so minor as being on a train without a ticket is absurd.

 

[reb0118]

This is my issue with the rail industry, it's guilty until proven innocent..........

..........er, no! If you hold a valid ticket for your journey then guilt or innocence does not come in to it. I state to all persons who complain about all the "hassle" I am putting them under that the easy way to avoid hassle in the future is to buy a ticket prior to travelling (where facilities exist, however).

Remember you as a passenger have a legal obligation to purchase a ticket prior to travel or, if that is not possible, at the earliest opportunity - which may be at the end of the journey. If the OP had fulfilled his part of the bargain this scenario would not have developed (unless in the highly unlikely case that the clerk at Preston forgot where he was and issued the ticket from Bolton because he usually worked there & was only helping out at Preston because they were shorthanded! ). The OP would then not have been in the position to "muddle up" his boarding station at the revenue block.

It is well known for certain passengers to lie about where they boarded the train if stopped at a revenue barrier - in most cases they do not state that they boarded at the last stop but pick the stop that (in their mind) seems the most likely that they will get get away with.

In summary if you do not hold a ticket when you should expect to be questioned - if your answers don't ring true expect more questions. Simples

 

[GB]

Seriousl anyone who travelled from preston will now that when u enter from that side entrance there are no signs whatsoever saying tickets or anything and if youre travelling from there for the first time what do you expect?

I'd expect you to use a bit of sense and go and find the ticket office as is YOUR responsibility.

(my bold)

 

[Tibbs]

but if you nick stuff from Tesco they dont catch you and offer you the chance to buy the stuff before calling the police do they?

The answer is, it depends. I got caught leaving a store with a 9 pack of toilet roll hooked over the bag holder of the trolley. I'd forgotten I'd put it there and didn't put it on the converyer with the rest of the shopping. The security guard stopped me on the way out, I explained, apologised and was allowed to pay for it before going on my way. Technically I was guilty of shoplifting, or was I? There must be a demonstration of intent.

Also google Richard Madeley, who was found not guilty in a very high profile case.

 

[6Gman]

I'd expect you to use a bit of sense and go and find (or at least attempt to find) the ticket office as is YOUR responsibility.

(my bold)

And to be fair, Preston is hardly a place you'd expect to be an unmanned station.

 

[Greenback]

Arguing about supermarkets is not appropriate in this thread. It is of no help to the OP at all.

If you wish to start a new thread about the RoRA, Byelaw 18, taking toilet rolls without paying, or anything else unconnected with this topic, please feel free.

Otherwise, please keep the discussion relevant to the topic in hand.

Thank you.

 

[student99]

By actually going to purchase a ticket have i not shown i am not intending to evade a fare.. Simply that i made a mistake.. Ive never been in any trouble before at all .. Why for a matter of a few pounds would i do it? It was simply that i board from bolton so often that the first thing that popped in my mind was bolton.

Look i know im wrong and would agree to pay a reasonable amount but 400 quid seems extortionate

Murderers get off on technicalities .. Food for thought

 

[DarloRich]

By actually going to purchase a ticket have i not shown i am not intending to evade a fare.. Simply that i made a mistake.. Ive never been in any trouble before at all .. Why for a matter of a few pounds would i do it? It was simply that i board from bolton so often that the first thing that popped in my mind was bolton.

Look i know im wrong and would agree to pay a reasonable amount but 400 quid seems extortionate

Murderers get off on technicalities .. Food for thought

ok - dont pay them and go to court. Chances are you will loose and you might get a criminal record. Your call.

 

[student99]

Ur right in hindsight i should have looked for a office but i thought id just get it on the train

 

[Ferret]

No, my problem isn't with the RoRA, it's the way it's enforced, and the complete lack of benefit of the doubt. It's also the fact that the prosecutions are brought privately and so the evidence collection authority, the people who decide to carry out the prosecution and the people who benefit from the prosecution are the same people.

I do, however, have a massive issue with Byelaw 18. To have a strict liability offence for something so minor as being on a train without a ticket is absurd.

Well, like I say, write to your MP about it instead of hijacking a thread in which somebody has asked for help to further your own agenda.

 

[bb21]

By actually going to purchase a ticket have i not shown i am not intending to evade a fare.. Simply that i made a mistake.. Ive never been in any trouble before at all .. Why for a matter of a few pounds would i do it? It was simply that i board from bolton so often that the first thing that popped in my mind was bolton.

Look i know im wrong and would agree to pay a reasonable amount but 400 quid seems extortionate

Murderers get off on technicalities .. Food for thought

I don't think you are understanding the situation as it is rather than what you want to believe.

You asked for a "short" ticket, therefore demonstrating the intent to avoid payment. The fact that you joined the queue is now insignificant, as the prosecution can quite easily argue that you joined the queue because you saw them there.

 

[pemma]

As far as I am aware, I may be wrong, neither FTPE or Northern Rail do Penalty Fares.

You are correct.

I think the confusion might be that TPE enforce the 'buy before your board' policy more strictly than Northern do. Being sold a £30 Anytime ticket instead of a £15 railcard discounted off-peak ticket probably seems the same to some people as a penalty fare.

 

[Ferret]

By actually going to purchase a ticket have i not shown i am not intending to evade a fare.. Simply that i made a mistake.. Ive never been in any trouble before at all .. Why for a matter of a few pounds would i do it? It was simply that i board from bolton so often that the first thing that popped in my mind was bolton.

Look i know im wrong and would agree to pay a reasonable amount but 400 quid seems extortionate

Murderers get off on technicalities .. Food for thought

I'm sure they do, but if you can find an error in Northern Rail's evidence or a technicality you can use when the case reaches Court, then give it a go!

I agree, 400 quid is a lot. However, if you've ever studied Law, you'll be aware that there are four principles in sentencing - and one is that sentences should act as a deterrent to others. £400 fines really should act as a deterrent