Help please - Out of Court Settlement letter

[furlong]

The settlement letter clearly states 5(1). A conviction under 5(1) would mean that she did not provide her name and address when first asked for it Read that 'either...or...or' construction for yourself. There are also several old threads on this forum from a few years ago that somebody might be able to dig up where it was discussed and explained.

This is one of those situations where I think you need to try to get on top of all the issues involved in order to write a clear and succinct response to persuade them that this is unlikely to go anywhere and they should back down. If you're not confident yourself, a local solicitor could try to do that for you or perhaps you know someone who's had legal training.

 

[Kato]

Indeed.

I can quite see how the revenue inspector thought she had purchased her ticket home with the intent of avoiding paying her fare to Liverpool if the ticket pictured is that which was presented to him.

Return tickets are issued in two parts, marked 'Outward' and 'Return' in the top right hand corner.

Yes, I can see how that could be the case, but she didn't need a return ticket as she was going to a night club and the trains would not be running.

She did offer the ticket to the inspector as she did not need it but this was refused.

Can you see a way forward that would prevent a Court appearance? I could argue all day how honest she is and that she made a genuine mistake, but that seems irrelevant. Thanks for any advice you can offer.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Might possibly be able to make out an argument that £3.60 was the fare due, and that £3.60 was actually paid, therefore Merseyrail has received payment, albeit the ticket was the wrong way round.

 

[Kato]

The settlement letter clearly states 5(1). A conviction under 5(1) would mean that she did not provide her name and address when first asked for it Read that 'either...or...or' construction for yourself. There are also several old threads on this forum from a few years ago that somebody might be able to dig up where it was discussed and explained.

This is one of those situations where I think you need to try to get on top of all the issues involved in order to write a clear and succinct response to persuade them that this is unlikely to go anywhere and they should back down. If you're not confident yourself, a local solicitor could try to do that for you or perhaps you know someone who's had legal training.

Thank you.
Is it still possible to send a response after the 14 day deadline? That's what I was unsure of.

 

[30907]

There was an opportunity at the ticket office, she queued for it but decided the queue was too long and didn't take that opportunity. Suggesting they didn't provide an opportunity is completely wrong.

Technically true, but why should a layperson (excuse the ecclesiastical language) know that they needed a specific ticket only available at the BO?

 

[Darandio]

Technically true, but why should a layperson (excuse the ecclesiastical language) know that they needed a specific ticket only available at the BO?

I agree with you, most probably wouldn't. But trying to argue there was no opportunity as a defence considering all the facts we know is a non-starter.

 

[Kato]

She was instructed to go to the ticket office and purchase there, and didn't? Yes, there was a queue, but this is not, unfortunately, a valid excuse.

Merseyrail's TVMs are standard Scheidt & Bachmann ones, but I don't think remote issue is enabled.

I believe she would have stayed in the queue if she'd known the ticket machine could not issue the ticket she needed. Unfortunately she didn't find out until she'd bought the "wrong" ticket.

Just seems so harsh to me as I know she intended to pay and has never travelled without a ticket before. It's so hard to prove though and the thought of going to Court is quite scary.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'd be inclined to pay £125 and raise hell elsewhere.

Seems to be a classic example of a railway company being wholly anti-passenger and stripped of their privilege to prosecute people under special laws.

 

[gray1404]

The ticket machines are located within the ticket office. It's not unreasonable to go and see if the TVM could issue the ticket required.

So if the RPI stopped her as soon as she had used the TVM with no opportunity to rejoin the que then Merseyrail don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Kato]

The ticket machines are located within the ticket office. It's not unreasonable to go and see if the TVM could issue the ticket required.

So if the RPI stopped her as soon as she had used the TVM with no opportunity to rejoin the que then Merseyrail don't have a leg to stand on.

I'll check on the timing but no opportunity was given to buy the correct ticket as far as I can remember. But I'll double check. Thanks

I'd be inclined to pay £125 and raise hell elsewhere.

Seems to be a classic example of a railway company being wholly anti-passenger and stripped of their privilege to prosecute people under special laws.

I'm happy to raise hell if there's no other avenue, but is it too late to pay the £125 if the 14 day deadline has passed?

 

[furlong]

I'd be inclined to pay £125 and raise hell elsewhere.

Pay £125 for what? A seemingly worthless indemnity on terms that ought never to have been offered? Not that it would happen, but I'd likely send a polite response asking them to stop, copied to whoever runs the organisation with a cover letter seeking an apology and compensation for the disgraceful way I'd been treated. Beyond that I'd be trying to find any other victims and if I did find any, agitate for an independent investigation.

 

[Hadders]

I would pay the notice as the last thing you need is for this to escalate and your daughter end up at the Magistrates Court. Once the matter has been settled I would then write to Merseyrail Prosecutions department setting out what has happened and ask them to refund what you have paid. We have had reports that local Councillors have had success in escalating issues with Merseyrail in the past so this might be worth considering.

Ordinarily I would say write to them before paying but as time is tight and the deadline has passed I would pay up fist as there is a risk that they could withdraw the offer of a settlement and issue a court summons.

 

[furlong]

but is it too late to pay the £125 if the 14 day deadline has passed?

You would have to ask them. But let me try to explain this again.

The letter refers to 5(1) but only quotes the first part of it. It actually has 3 options in it, not just the one they quoted - notice the word 'either' in the letter which makes no sense without the 'or' which they have omitted. Such a letter should never have been issued IMHO and the fact that it was is worthy of independent external investigation.

Every passenger by a railway shall, on request by an officer or servant of a railway company,
either produce, and if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid,
or pay his fare from the place whence he started,
or give the officer or servant his name and address

Only if none of the 3 options apply should there be a case to answer in court
You've said the first one didn't apply. (No ticket.)
It's unknown whether the second option was offered as it would need to have been. (Pay for the right ticket.)
You say the third option was satisfied. (Gave name and address.)

Here's a related old post on the forum. (There are more.)

So a response to them might quote the whole of 5(1) and point out that the name and address were supplied as the law requires etc.
Or check with a local solicitor (many will offer an initial consultation free of charge) who ought to be able to write a more robust letter - see if they'll do it for less than that £125 and what they think your chances would be.

 

[Bletchleyite]

She didn't need a return, she needed a single from Aigburth to Liverpool but bought one in the wrong direction. The machine doesn't issue those tickets so she should have stayed in the queue to buy one from staff.
Which she would have done if she had known she couldn't use the machine.

So when she realised she couldn't, why did she not then rejoin the queue? Or go back to the inspector and ask if one in the other direction was OK? Might have worked if she had bought that then proactively given it to the inspector so it couldn't be used. Taking it with her meant it could have been used later.

Lessons for the future I guess.

 

[Kato]

So when she realised she couldn't, why did she not then rejoin the queue? Or go back to the inspector and ask if one in the other direction was OK? Might have worked if she had bought that then proactively given it to the inspector so it couldn't be used. Taking it with her meant it could have been used later.

Lessons for the future I guess.

To be honest she felt intimidated, she's only young. She had never used the ticket machine before.
The inspector watched her buy the ticket at the machine - should they have advised her that she couldn't get one there before she mistakenly bought it?
Even after she bought the ticket, had she been advised to go and buy the right one, I'm sure she would. Even if it meant paying twice. She was not given the opportunity to do that before she was asked for her name and address, which she provided.
She did offer the ticket to the inspector but they refused to take it.
Yes, it is a lesson for the future. Shame this can happen to an honest person.

 

[furlong]

The inspector watched her buy the ticket at the machine

which makes this considerably worse for the company

- should they have advised her that she couldn't get one there before she mistakenly bought it?

Of course, if they knew which ticket she needed to buy and that the machine couldn't sell it.

If this is all true and there isn't some key information missing, she should raise a formal complaint (and anticipate disciplinary action).

If you don't have the confidence to deal with this yourselves, get help from a solicitor.

I have witnessed similar situations numerous times at other stations, where someone from the ticket gateline accompanies the person to the machine and shows them how to use it to get the ticket they need. (I've also seen them tell people to buy a single in the wrong direction for the same price when the machine doesn't offer one in the right direction. Strictly incorrect, but pragmatic and not a problem for the passenger as a rail employee told them to do it.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

This seems rather unfair if the member of staff watched her and didn't say anything. Maybe within the rules but certainly not good customer service.

A ticket in the other direction isn't technically valid but if the fare was the same he really could have taken it.

 

[AlterEgo]

The fare isn’t the same. It’s twenty pence short. In my view the staffer who watched her exit the queue to buy a ticket and then pounced on her is guilty of pretty bad faith. This is little more than sharp practice IMO.

 

[furlong]

The fare isn’t the same. It’s twenty pence short.

The original post said she was going to a nightclub and could not return by train because they would not be running at that late hour.

 

[MikeWh]

The fare isn’t the same. It’s twenty pence short.

The single fare is the same in each direction. They didn't need a return which would be 20p more.

 

[Kato]

The fare isn’t the same. It’s twenty pence short. In my view the staffer who watched her exit the queue to buy a ticket and then pounced on her is guilty of pretty bad faith. This is little more than sharp practice IMO.

I've just spoken to her to clarify.

When the inspector told her the ticket wasn't valid she offered to go to the queue and buy the correct one. He said it's too late now, you had your chance.

 

[AlterEgo]

The single fare is the same in each direction. They didn't need a return which would be 20p more.

Ah right, thanks. You’re right.

 

[daikilo]

I've just spoken to her to clarify.

When the inspector told her the ticket wasn't valid she offered to go to the queue and buy the correct one. He said it's too late now, you had your chance.

Whilst I do not have legal training, my interpretation based on the statements you have made and the fact that you still have a now out-of-date hence unusable ticket is that a court would find your daughter innocent of any deliberate wrong-doing, indeed quite the contrary. Unfortunately, I do not know how to submit a plea to the court and avoid the cost of appearing.

Note that for the inspector to say it was too late cannot be sustained as she did not know the machine could not sell her the correct ticket (the inspector did but made no effort to tell her) and she actually did buy a ticket of the correct or higher value and offered it to the inspector as payment.

 

[furlong]

When the inspector told her the ticket wasn't valid she offered to go to the queue and buy the correct one. He said it's too late now, you had your chance.

So that covers the second option in 5(1).
In terms of 5(1) - which is what they are offering her an indemnity against - it shouldn't have been too late.
To invoke 5(1) the "ask" by the inspector has to be that the passenger must select any one of those three options and the passenger refused all three.
Realise that if 5(1) didn't allow all three options, it would be a nonsense, taking no account of the circumstances including whether or not there there had been any opportunity to pay.

 

[Western Sunset]

Whatever the rights and wrongs, it appears to be appalling customer service by the RPI.

 

[ChewChewTrain]

OP: Had your daughter actually started walking out of the station before the undercover inspector spoke to her?

Shouldn’t the inspector have waited for her to do so (or possibly even for her to have left the station altogether) before making contact? What if she’d been buying a separate ticket for the journey back from the machine, and intended to join the queue for the booking office after that? (Apparently, that wasn’t the case, but what if it had been?)

What if she’d been desperate for the loo, or for a drink, and dealt with that before buying her ticket? Is there any legal requirement for her to buy the outstanding ticket before doing anything else, or within a particular time?

I don’t mean to raise silly hypotheticals, but it seems rather unclear as to what precisely was expected of her, and when exactly she committed the alleged offence.

 

[Nova1]

What if she’d been desperate for the loo, or for a drink, and dealt with that before buying her ticket? Is there any legal requirement for her to buy the outstanding ticket before doing anything else, or within a particular time?

The wording is "at your first opportunity", which means if you walk past a ticket machine/ticket office to go to the toilet/shop/whatever then you've ignored your first opportunity.

 

[Kato]

I'd be inclined to pay £125 and raise hell elsewhere.

Seems to be a classic example of a railway company being wholly anti-passenger and stripped of their privilege to prosecute people under special laws.

We have decided to do this, pay the fine and raise hell elsewhere.

Our daughter has just started Uni and is recovering from Covid, that's the main reason. If it was me personally I probably would have challenged it.

I won't let it rest though. Taking everyone's advice on board from here, I will take the matter up with Merseyrail Prosecutions and their management team. I have our local Councillor on board and will meet our MP to try and get her support too.

I will also gather support from others who this has happened to, our two local Facebook groups have 10,000 members so I'll start there.

I will also warn as many people as I can so the same doesn't happen to them.

Thank you everyone who took the time to reply and offer advice, it's much appreciated. I will give you an update of how we get on - if you want me to, that is. Don't want to clog up your forum.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Liverpool Echo love a good "Miseryfail" story - so you might want a chat with them.

 

[Kato]

The Liverpool Echo love a good "Miseryfail" story - so you might want a chat with them.

Will do, thanks. Got Radio Merseyside and Radio 4 You and Yours in mind too.