Help! Prosecution letter's arrived

[Mojo]

My comment ''but this is for the benefit of everyone else'' refers to the statement that a letter was being drafted. I wanted to keep everyone in the loop, after someone above commented on this matter.

In any case, this is semantics, and still doesn't change my opinion that ignoring the letter and going to court is not wise.

 

[1V53]

My comment ''but this is for the benefit of everyone else'' refers to the statement that a letter was being drafted. I wanted to keep everyone in the loop, after someone above commented on this matter.

In any case, this is semantics, and still doesn't change my opinion that ignoring the letter and going to court is not wise.

I see your point but I also see that of others who feel sometimes you need to have your day in court to prove a point, if you feel that proving your innocence over-rides other considerations like cost. Let's face it, if nobody stood up to things like this because of their principles, we'd have an even worse legal system and even less justice than we do now.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I see your point but I also see that of others who feel sometimes you need to have your day in court to prove a point, if you feel that proving your innocence over-rides other considerations like cost. Let's face it, if nobody stood up to things like this because of their principles, we'd have an even worse legal system and even less justice than we do now.

Exactly my point. People on here complain that rules are unfair, and that they would like to see more cases go to court. But, when the chance comes they shy away from it. What are they worried of? Surely if you consider your case to be so watertight that you are demanding an apology then what's to worry about? If you want something changed you actually have to do something to get it changed. Stand up for what you want!

 

[RJ]

If you select St Albans - Watford Junction on the London Midland website, wouldn't it issue a ticket from St Albans Abbey - Watford Junction?

 

[LexyBoy]

It's not fair to push other people into a court appearance for the sake of "setting a precedent". If "one of us" were confident enough and had some experience, then they might be happy to test it out (which would be easy enough to do - just repeat what the OP did and hope to get pulled up). Most people are rather scared of a court appearance, even if they are confident they're in the right, and in any case wouldn't want the hassle.

In any case, it's been made clear that OP is being helped privately.

If you select St Albans - Watford Junction on the London Midland website, it will issue a ticket from St Albans Abbey - Watford Junction. I'm skeptical as to what relevance this has to a Travelcard from SAC?

So did the OP buy this SAC Travelcard from the London Midland website?

The relevance is that LM's website will sell a (£15.00) Travelcard from SAC as valid via WFJ. Where the OP bought his ticket from is irrelevant if LM's website shows it as valid.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Why would they need to be "one of us"? The facts we have been given make it sound very clear cut. A walk in the park really. If it is as simple as we are being led to believe then they have every chance of winning, and actually a solid result rather than some crumpled travel vouchers.

 

[LexyBoy]

Ralph, your earlier posts sounded rather patronising – sort of “well, since OP is so sure of himself he should go to court and we’ll see”. Apologies if I got this wrong. What I meant by “one of us” is that someone who knows at least a reasonable amount about the law surrounding the railways can be confident of what they’re getting into. I doubt I’d want to take this to court (depending on advice I got here and elsewhere), and certainly if I had a similar letter from an industry I know nothing about I’d be scared of a court appearance. I’d feel that I had had justice done if LM apologised and confirmed that they were in the wrong.
---
Also – leaving aside the question of how a Travelcard is routed, and I’m sure this was mentioned before, but in terms of SAC-London routeing, why is WFJ not a permitted route?

 

[Stigy]

This sort of comment really isn't helpful in cases like this. Where action as serious as courts and criminal records are concerned I think that the OP deserves more than skimming through any related evidence.

I don't remember being paid to look through evidence. It was a very valid point I was making, and I do sincerely apologise if I failed to read, in-depth, all 6-pages of the other thread, which I'm sure was probably at least 40% drivel anyway. :roll:

 

[talltim]

With the exception of GAINSBOROUGH, tickets valid to several stations in a group are clearly marked as such, though. For example, MANCHESTER STNS, PENGE STATIONS, BRADFORD YK STNS, LONDON TERMINALS.

But as a passenger buying one ticket, how do you know that? and as Gainsborough is apparently an exception, whats to tell you that St albans isn't also?

 

[MikeWh]

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

Interesting. My favourite example is Sevenoaks to BZ6 where the direct route to Knockholt is about 8 miles shorter than the other permitted route to St Mary Cray, but then the trains for that route are direct so mileage doesn't come into that one, apart from if you change at Swanley for a fast service to Victoria.

Also – leaving aside the question of how a Travelcard is routed, and I’m sure this was mentioned before, but in terms of SAC-London routeing, why is WFJ not a permitted route?

It is!

St Albans to London Anytime Day Single £10.00
Watford Junction to London Anytime Day Single £8.30
Watford Junction is one of three associated routeing points for St Albans, the others being West Hampstead (also appropriate) and Bedford (clearly not appropriate).

Travelcards can be purchased from most stations in the South East England area. Day Travelcard prices include the return fare to London plus travel in Zones 1-6.

I guess that is worded on the basis that in many cases the inbound train may be fast to London, but it clearly gives the interpretation that the ticket is a return to London (so routes to London should apply) plus additional travel once you get there.

 

[talltim]

I guess that is worded on the basis that in many cases the inbound train may be fast to London, but it clearly gives the interpretation that the ticket is a return to London (so routes to London should apply) plus additional travel once you get there.

I assume you mean worded like that as opposed to a return to the edge of zone 6?

 

[MikeWh]

I assume you mean worded like that as opposed to a return to the edge of zone 6?

Yes, I do.

 

[LexyBoy]

It is!

[...]

I guess that is worded on the basis that in many cases the inbound train may be fast to London, but it clearly gives the interpretation that the ticket is a return to London (so routes to London should apply) plus additional travel once you get there.

OK! I thought it wasn't for some reason. In that case the validity of a Travelcard must depend on how valid routes for a zonal ticket are defined.

I see a few options:

1) On valid routes from origin station to London, then anywhere from within the Z6 boundary (the most commonsense interpretation, and what NRE suggests as you point out);
2) On valid routes from origin to the first station within the Zones on a route as in (1) – which I think would limit the routes compared to origin-London, in contradiction of NRE’s advice;
3) On valid routes from origin to any station in the Zones, the validity switching to zonal once the Z6 boundary is crossed. This is what is implied by the NRE page on Travelcard Seasons.

In (1), OP's ticket would be valid anyway, so it's not an error for the LM website to be showing it as such.

In the case of (2), I suppose it could be argued that, in OP’s case, as West Hampstead is a common routeing point, the only permitted route is direct from SAC.

 

[RJ]

I tried SAC - Custom House via WFJ. It gives a journey plan but it comes up with no fares found.

The relevance is that LM's website will sell a (£15.00) Travelcard from SAC as valid via WFJ. Where the OP bought his ticket from is irrelevant if LM's website shows it as valid.

If so then it should be used as a defence.

 

[bb21]

I'm actually amazed looking at the progress of this thread just how many people had not read the original thread carefully before posting rash comments. We established these points in the original thread:

1. The OP did what he was supposed to do before the journey by checking LM's own website and paid what was supposedly the correct fare. Assuming his story was true, he was not over-riding/deviating from permitted routes, or worse, fare-evading.
2. According to the Routeing Guide, the St Albans ticket was not valid at St Albans Abbey, and I stand by that point.
3. LM's site, in contrary, would sell a St Albans - R1256 travelcard and route the passenger via St Albans Abbey, presumably due to an error in the system. Both MikeWh and I produced screen grabs to confirm this fact.
4. The OP therefore is perfectly entitled to travel via Watford Junction and St Albans Abbey as the terms defined by London Midland themselves, although errorneously, was in place at the time of purchasing the original ticket.

My recommendation for the OP is to decline payment and appeal. Why should he have to pay for a mistake on LM's part? If LM wishes to sort the issue out then it is their problem, not the OP's.

I think you should pay it - the penalty could have been a much larger amount, though I would stop short of saying you have been lucky!

Would you pay a penalty if you followed the supposedly correct information given by a TOC to the best of your knowledge?

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

Please read the original thread carefully.

Personally speaking, I would just pay them the 25 quid and be done with it. Not worth the trouble and hastle to take it any further (and you'll probably have to shell out more money in doing so)

True to an extent, but £25 is not a small amount to some people, especially these days. More importantly, as the OP said, it is a matter of principle.

One solution would be to pay and then compalin to get your money back. Go through LM then Passenger focus.

I wouldn't pay. You never know when you'll get your money back.

Why? Surely the court is the fairest way to decide this. Whoever's in the wrong will get their knuckles rapped, whether LM or the OP. And if the OP is so confident to be requesting LM to drop the matter and to be wanting compensation then he needn't be worried about cost, as if he wins he doesn't pay.

True, but going to court would involve paying at least some of the solicitor's fees before the court date. (I might be wrong on this.) Even though you can get it back if you win the case, not everyone can afford to stump up a huge sum of money themselves to start the case off.

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

He did have the correct ticket, or at least he thought so, by following LM's advice.

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.

... which is why the OP needs to appeal and point out explicitly to them that their own website is advising such a journey. If they get no ORCATS revenue for the ticket, then it is for LM to sort out themselves. It is not an excuse to charge an innocent passenger who did what he could to ensure that he was supposedly valid.

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.

Precisely.

Exactly my point. People on here complain that rules are unfair, and that they would like to see more cases go to court. But, when the chance comes they shy away from it. What are they worried of? Surely if you consider your case to be so watertight that you are demanding an apology then what's to worry about? If you want something changed you actually have to do something to get it changed. Stand up for what you want!

See my response above about the fees for one reason why sometimes we all want to do something, but may not be able to. If I have a couple of million pounds stashed away somewhere I would definitely fight this in court if it ever happens to me.

I see your point but I also see that of others who feel sometimes you need to have your day in court to prove a point, if you feel that proving your innocence over-rides other considerations like cost. Let's face it, if nobody stood up to things like this because of their principles, we'd have an even worse legal system and even less justice than we do now.

I agree, as long as one has the resources to do it in court.

 

[yorkie]

I don't remember being paid to look through evidence. It was a very valid point I was making, and I do sincerely apologise if I failed to read, in-depth, all 6-pages of the other thread, which I'm sure was probably at least 40% drivel anyway. :roll:

If someone doesn't have the ability and/or time and/or facts (in your case it is probably simply time that's the issue, but in other cases it is all three) to provide a helpful response in this Fares, Ticketing & Routeing section, the best thing for someone in such a position is to not post. In this section people rely on decent advice (yes we all make mistakes) and if people want to simply reply without reading the thread properly then it's best they resist the temptation to reply.

 

[Class377]

Surely though, he could have just sold you a ticket? From my experience the Abbey line is one where the inspector sells the tickets and 90% of the people I see get on don't have a valid ticket until they buy from him. Watford's in the TC zone so your ticket is valid to there, so surely you could then just buy a new ticket from Watford to SAA?

But that's in the past, for the sake of 25 odd quid I'd just pay it.

 

[Clip]

Surely though, he could have just sold you a ticket? From my experience the Abbey line is one where the inspector sells the tickets and 90% of the people I see get on don't have a valid ticket until they buy from him. Watford's in the TC zone so your ticket is valid to there, so surely you could then just buy a new ticket from Watford to SAA?

But that's in the past, for the sake of 25 odd quid I'd just pay it.

But watford itself is in zone 9 and the TC they had was 1-6.

I must say after reading this thread i would go with a valid complaint that the OP has as if its being sold as valid by LM themselves then they cannot just turn round and say that its not valid.

But i would not advocate someone going to court on this on their own. It would be better if someone who is far more knowledgeable and less fearful of the recriminations from here armed with all the knowledge would do such a thing. People cant get very frightened with a court appearance.

 

[bb21]

Zone 7 actually. However it is irrelevant as I believe Class377 meant Watford Junction, which is outside the zones, rather than Watford LU.

Edit: I misread. Completely forgot that there is also Watford High Street.

 

[Clip]

Zone 7 actually. However it is irrelevant as I believe Class377 meant Watford Junction, which is outside the zones, rather than Watford LU.

Edit: I misread. Completely forgot that there is also Watford High Street.

Oops yeah sorry, though checking and high street is in zone 8.

Just adds to the confusion of the whole scenario really.

 

[Class377]

But watford itself is in zone 9 and the TC they had was 1-6.

I must say after reading this thread i would go with a valid complaint that the OP has as if its being sold as valid by LM themselves then they cannot just turn round and say that its not valid.

But i would not advocate someone going to court on this on their own. It would be better if someone who is far more knowledgeable and less fearful of the recriminations from here armed with all the knowledge would do such a thing. People cant get very frightened with a court appearance.

That seems fair enough - but surely the TC would then apply to Harrow & Wealdstone and the PF should only apply between that and Watford Junction if at all? The guard on the Abbey service should have merely offered to sell a new ticket in my view, as if you get on at SAA and try to travel to WFJ without a valid ticket that's what he does.

If the OP was travelling on a fast from Euston to WFJ though (ie not calling at Harrow & Wealdstone) then that argument is invalid as the Travelcard would not cover travel up to a valid zone station if the train doesn't stop there?

 

[Ferret]

Grrrrrr! Why do people get themselves so confused with PFs? If the OP has been asked to pay 5.30 plus an admin charge or face prosecution, then he has not been penalty fared. It appears that the OP was the subject of a Travel Irregularity Report (TIR), which is a different thing entirely.

 

[LexyBoy]

Grrrrrr! Why do people get themselves so confused with PFs?

Probably because they are deliberately conflated with prosecution by many TOCs, and that someone can receive a penalty fare without receiving a Penalty Fare

 

[radamfi]

I can see why some people would want the OP to pursue this in court and I would have thought he would win given the evidence presented, notably the LM website flaw. I would be curious myself as to the outcome. However maybe not all magistrates would come up with the same conclusion as most of us. If you are unlucky and get an unsympathetic magistrate, would you get a criminal record? Surely that's too big a risk? If the OP pays up now then he definitely won't get a criminal record.

 

[MikeWh]

I can see why some people would want the OP to pursue this in court and I would have thought he would win given the evidence presented, notably the LM website flaw. I would be curious myself as to the outcome. However maybe not all magistrates would come up with the same conclusion as most of us. If you are unlucky and get an unsympathetic magistrate, would you get a criminal record? Surely that's too big a risk? If the OP pays up now then he definitely won't get a criminal record.

And he'll also have lost £25 in all probability. Surely that is two extremes. I agree that court might be a risk, but there is no need at this stage to pay the money. The letter that is being drafted will appeal against the charge. It is likely that the prosecutions department are unaware of what their website does in this respect. Hopefully when they find out they will decide to drop the charge. If they don't then we reconsider our options in the light of the explanation given.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I can see why some people would want the OP to pursue this in court and I would have thought he would win given the evidence presented, notably the LM website flaw. I would be curious myself as to the outcome. However maybe not all magistrates would come up with the same conclusion as most of us. If you are unlucky and get an unsympathetic magistrate, would you get a criminal record? Surely that's too big a risk? If the OP pays up now then he definitely won't get a criminal record.

If that happens then LM were in the right, and the OP wasn't.

 

[radamfi]

And he'll also have lost £25 in all probability. Surely that is two extremes. I agree that court might be a risk, but there is no need at this stage to pay the money. The letter that is being drafted will appeal against the charge. It is likely that the prosecutions department are unaware of what their website does in this respect. Hopefully when they find out they will decide to drop the charge. If they don't then we reconsider our options in the light of the explanation given.

Oh I see. So will the '£25 offer' still be available once the prosecutions department have replied to the letter currently being drafted?

 

[tony_mac]

If you are unlucky and get an unsympathetic magistrate, would you get a criminal record?

A Railway byelaw offence is not recordable, and there is the option of a subsequent re-hearing in the Crown Court. A professional judge is rather more unlikely to make a perverse decision.

 

[cuccir]

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.

Been lurking on this thread without posting, partly because Ferret said this most sensible comment - I think it bears though repeating in light of some of the posts above. I doubt LM are deliberately attempting to screw the OP, and there's no good reason that the guard who came across a passenger with the wrong ticket - as per the routeing guide etc - should know that his company's website is providing bogus information. Equally there's no good reason that the OP should doubt the info he got from LM's website. It sounds like a misunderstanding which should hopefully be resolved with little effort!

 

[Royston Vasey]

But watford itself is in zone 9 and the TC they had was 1-6.

Watford Junction is not in zone 9, which only applies to Amersham and Chesham on the Met.

WFJ is outside zone 8 but effectively its own zone. Of course this doesn't change your point re. a Z1-6 not being valid there.