Help! Prosecution letter's arrived

[Mojo]

You are kidding me!?

For a start the time issue and worry of going to court is something the OP is likely to have/want. In addition to the day in court I imagine there will be a lot of preparatory work involved, taking even more time. That's once you've even found a suitable solicitor.

This would waste time and money of both parties. The OP hasn't had the time to explain his argument to London Midland at all; he was stopped by an inspector and neither person obviously fully understood the rules. I suspect LM haven't looked into this case either, or understood what their website says.

 

[strange6]

As Flamingo said, let him go to court then. I wonder what the result would be...

A costly one judging by what I have read.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

A costly one judging by what I have read.

If the OP wins, he doesn't pay his costs (generally speaking). If the OP looses, then not only is he in the wrong with regards to the ticket, but he pays his costs and LM's costs (again, generally speaking).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For a start the time issue and worry of going to court is something the OP is likely to have/want. In addition to the day in court I imagine there will be a lot of preparatory work involved, taking even more time. That's once you've even found a suitable solicitor.

If you want a solid result that can be used as precedent, then you go to court. I believe that Yorkie would rather more people went to court! If you want a limp-wristed apology and a "gesture of goodwill" from LM that they can easily deny and hide, and continue as they were then you go the way you are advising. I know which I'd rather choose if it came to a dispute over the rules.

This would waste time and money of both parties. The OP hasn't had the time to explain his argument to London Midland at all; he was stopped by an inspector and neither person obviously fully understood the rules. I suspect LM haven't looked into this case either, or understood what their website says.

Then all the more reason to go to court, if as you are implying, you could prove negligence on their behalf.

 

[strange6]

If the OP wins, he doesn't pay his costs (generally speaking). If the OP looses, then not only is he in the wrong with regards to the ticket, but he pays his costs and LM's costs (again, generally speaking).

Yes, but I don't think it's worth the chance for a mere 20 quid. Like somebody else said before, I think it's best he pay it and then complain officially.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Yes, but I don't think it's worth the chance for a mere 20 quid. Like somebody else said before, I think it's best he pay it and then complain officially.

And what happens then? LM say sorry, and do nothing to solve the perceived problem. Perhaps if people stopped officially complaining and started actually getting justice (either for the passenger or for the TOC) then we may go some way to see fairer rules for both sides.

 

[Mojo]

I have to say that I strongly doubt that a court appearance in a random magistrates court won't make the headlines, nor will it act as anything binding for any other courts. The letter invites you to make an appeal to London Midland company, and I suggest that doing so would make any possible court case progress a lot easier!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I have to say that I strongly doubt that a court appearance in a random magistrates court won't make the headlines, nor will it act as anything binding for any other courts. The letter invites you to make an appeal to London Midland company, and I suggest that doing so would make any possible court case progress a lot easier!

It will act as persuasive precedent for higher courts, and if you take a civil case to court over a point of the rules and law then it will most probably be heard in a court that does create precedent. As I said, if people want limp wristed apologies and travel vouchers then deal with things through the TOCs. If you want a proper, binding decision that will go some way to creating a fairer system then go through the courts. And if the passenger wins then I can certainly see that on BBC Watchdog, and in national newspapers.

 

[strange6]

And what happens then? LM say sorry, and do nothing to solve the perceived problem. Perhaps if people stopped officially complaining and started actually getting justice (either for the passenger or for the TOC) then we may go some way to see fairer rules for both sides.

Yeah but if what I believe is correct in that the taxpayer pays for all TOC prosecution costs, this is a never ending vicious circle and they'll always try it on. Always best to make sure you have the correct tickets in the first place and you never give them the opportunity!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Yeah but if what I believe is correct in that the taxpayer pays for all TOC prosecution costs, this is a never ending vicious circle and they'll always try it on

That is incorrect. There have indeed been a few cases where the taxpayer has paid, but that is by no means representative of the system. The magistrates or judges decide about funding and costs.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Always best to make sure you have the correct tickets in the first place and you never give them the opportunity!

Best advice on here I think!

 

[strange6]

That is incorrect. There have indeed been a few cases where the taxpayer has paid, but that is by no means representative of the system. The magistrates or judges decide about funding and costs.

All the same, I wouldn't like to take that chance, mate.

 

[sheff1]

What justice? Your ticket wasn't valid, although it is a very understandable mistake given the similarity of the station names.

That is a very confident assertion, considering that the original thread established that both NRE & the LM booking site confirmed that the ticket was valid.

What evidence have you now unearthed that overules NRE (the "defintive source" of information) ?

 

[yorkie]

Always best to make sure you have the correct tickets in the first place and you never give them the opportunity!

By checking the LM website, you can see if LM will accept the ticket, right?

Err... d'oh!

I'd love to see the OP fight this, especially as people are doubting us. That's all the more reason for us to ensure we win this case.

 

[A0wen]

Do you have a source for this? National Rail says that for Seasons, a Travelcard covers travel to BZ6 "by the route shown on your ticket" [link], whilst "Day Travelcard prices include the return fare to London plus travel in Zones 1-6" [link].

I have to say, I'd always understood it to be the cost of the fare to the starting point to the first station within the Travelcard zone, then the cost of the Travelcard. So on the GN route travelling from say, Knebworth it would be a Knebworth - Hadley Wood return PLUS the Travelcard.

Which, I assume, is one of the reasons that the LM rep pulled up the OP - because to get to Watford he'd have been outside the Travelcard zone for Z1-6 travelcard - I think it's Kenton that's the first "in zone" station? Which, of course, LM don't stop at.

The nearest station in zone 6 to Reading is West Drayton (Hayes & Harlington & Slough RPs), but travel is also permitted via Staines, which isn't on a permitted route between Reading and West Drayton.

Slightly different case there though - at Reading you have ONE station where you can get directly to TWO London termini via different routes, which happen to be totally separate. Cambridge would be another one, but I assume the Travelcard costing is done on one route, but the assumption is that customers will travel on whichever route is more convenient.

St Albans is a different case in that respect as they are two different stations on two separate routes. A bit like Hertford or Southend, but those have 'group station' arrangements, which apparently St Albans does not.

 

[Royston Vasey]

That is a very confident assertion, considering that the original thread established that both NRE & the LM booking site confirmed that the ticket was valid.

What evidence have you now unearthed that overules NRE (the "defintive source" of information) ?

You have more faith in NRE than I do, it has been proven on here a number of times that database errors do exist. And without a printout from NRE, you can understand an RPI resorting to his or her training and the routing guide. One assumes that someone at LM has examined this case and decided the OP was not correct and decided to send this letter. We cannot assume (tempting though it may be) that both the RPI and the person "in the office" are both idiots, there must be a justification for this. I would agree with the thrust of your point that the advertising of validity, either way, needs to be more explicit. If LM get no revenue, if it is invalid and they therefore do not want to accept the SAC ticket, then they do need to state this on the ticket or elsewhere and ensure that NRE and their booking engine are both correct.

I am also taking a much more practical view than some - advising a member of the public to take a small matter like this to court defies practicality. It would be nice to have it proven, yes, but I for one live in the real world.

Pay, appeal/complain, wait for a definitive response and let us all know would be my advice.

 

[MikeWh]

There are some interesting arguements being expressed on this thread. For me, the attached image portrays the reason why LM will not win this case. I have asked for a ticket for tomorrow to travel from St Albans to Euston via Watford Junction. I have said that I have a Network Card and I have selected journeys departing at 0948 and returning from Euston at 1741. The ticket that I have selected is the same ticket that the OP had a fortnight or so ago. Notice that the website is London Midland, the same company who is trying to charge the OP for travelling without a valid ticket. Would anyone like to put forward a convincing arguement as to why LM would take this to court when faced with this image?

 

[FGWman]

The problem i see is that as the Network Railcard gives a minimum fare of £13 you can not tell from the screen shot which travelcard you will get. Is it the one from St Albans at £13 or the one from St Albans Abbey at £13.

 

[CliveJones]

Well it says to walk to and from the Abby.

So could the ticket come out (if you bought it) with Abbey on it?

 

[MikeWh]

If you take off the Network Card then the fare charged is the £15 from St Albans rather than the £14.70 from St Albans Abbey. As an aside, the LM site will sell you a St Albans Abbey to zones 1-6 travelcard with an itinerary walking to St Albans then taking FCC to St Pancras. So it works both ways.

 

[barrykas]

Relevant extract from "The Manual" re: 'Out-Boundary' Travelcards

‘Out-boundary’ Day Travelcards additionally include one return journey from the origin station to Boundary Zone 6.

Though that doesn't shed any light as to how you should undertake a Routeing Guide check for a given journey, given "Boundary Zone <x>" has no Routeing Points!

Answers on a postcard...

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

If you take off the Network Card then the fare charged is the £15 from St Albans rather than the £14.70 from St Albans Abbey. As an aside, the LM site will sell you a St Albans Abbey to zones 1-6 travelcard with an itinerary walking to St Albans then taking FCC to St Pancras. So it works both ways.

As a further aside, certain TIS will quite happily let you sell things like Zone U1234 to London Zones 1-2 at the Zone 1-2 Day Travelcard rate...It doesn't make it a valid ticket though.

As it happens, St Albans - Abbey - Watford - Hatch End fails the mileage check compared to St Albans - Elstree anyway, at 11 miles vs 7.5.

Cheers,

Barry

 

[1V53]

I think it's bad advice to take this to court. The best thing to do is write a letter (which is being drafted, but this is for the benefit of everyone else) and request an apology/compensation and for LM to drop the matter.

You are kidding me!?

For a start the time issue and worry of going to court is something the OP is likely to have/want.

I have to say that I strongly doubt that a court appearance in a random magistrates court won't make the headlines...

Catching up on this thread and I'm struggling to make sense of these posts, sorry Mojo but you have three cases where you seem to get your negatives and positives muddled! Presume in the first one it ISN'T for the benefit of everyone else, in the second surely it is NOT something he wants and the double negative in the last implies you think it WILL make the headlines?! Confusing reading!

 

[Mojo]

I have no idea what you're trying to say there! It doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I have no idea what you're trying to say there! It doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

You did use a double negative in your last post - implying that it would make the headlines and would create precedent. And in a previous post you also implied that the OP wanted the cost and stress of going to court.

 

[sunday]

Surely if LM are advertising the ticket as valid then the onus is on them to accept it and then correct the information they are providing to passengers? Pretty certain there is a consumer protection issue here if they are continuing to pursue payment in spite of the fact that this issue has been caused by a lack of clarity or cohesion on their part. No other industry would get away with retrospectively realising they had made a mistake and trying to change to price after accepting payment.

 

[DJ737]

G'day

I've gone into bat for the OP from down here, although LM are very busy with correspondence according to the automated email response I have recieved.

Stay tuned, may have more by 05:00 (20:00 BST) when I get up.

Cheers
DJ737
Melbourne, Australia

 

[WelshBluebird]

I can't believe some of the posts on here. I understand many people here work on the railways, so will more than likely support the industry POV.
However, this is exactly the problem with the british railways.
If a ticket is advertised as valid for a journey (which the persons ticket was), then it should be valid. It shouldn't matter what the routing guide says, or what a guard thinks. The ticket was sold as valid. Thus LM should take ALL responsibility for this and to ask the OP to pay for a new ticket and admin costs is just disgraceful.

Of course, I am coming from a passenger point of view.
But think of it. You see a bottle of coke in a shop for £1. You buy it (thus the shop is accepting that you paid the right price etc etc), yet as you leave the shop you are accused of shoplifting. That is the same thing as here really. There is nothing else the OP could have done to check his ticket was valid. LM was saying it was (on the website), so why should the OP have doubted that?

edit: Basically exactly what MikeWh and sunday have said. If LM sell the ticket as valid, then they should accept the ticket as valid. To not do so is surely at the very least false advertising??

 

[Ferret]

If it's a clear error in the LM/NRE computer systems then it's an internal railway matter for the companies to sort between themselves. I suspect that LM have reached the same conclusion as many on here that as per the routeing guide (which is the definitive source of information as per the actual contract), the ticket isn't valid, but they haven't even thought of checking their own website to see what it comes up with when you do a journey enquiry. I'd expect a reasonably worded letter to their department would result in a climbdown quite honestly, and a promise to ensure that the systems are updated to reflect this.

 

[Mojo]

You did use a double negative in your last post - implying that it would make the headlines and would create precedent. And in a previous post you also implied that the OP wanted the cost and stress of going to court.

Aside from that, which was clearly a mistake (and it seems that it was read by many to be what I intended it to say), I cannot see where I said that. The very first sentence I said in this thread was ''I think it's bad advice to take this to court.''

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Aside from that, which was clearly a mistake (and it seems that it was read by many to be what I intended it to say), I cannot see where I said that. The very first sentence I said in this thread was ''I think it's bad advice to take this to court.''

I realised it was a mistake Mojo, hence why I didn't mention anything originally until you said you didn't understand what 1V53 meant. Don't shoot the messenger!

 

[1V53]

I have no idea what you're trying to say there! It doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

Well maybe you just don't understand the difference between saying "I do think" and "I don't think" and how they have opposite meanings, or how saying "I don't think you won't want..." is a double negative, the meaning then being "I do think you want...."

Once is an oversight but three times in three posts is different! Saying one thing then suggesting you meant another doesn't help clarity any! Anyway have explained, let's move on.

I work for the railway but I am with the op on this one. Seems incredibly petty to me.