I am truly scared.....

[some bloke]

Perhaps a defence against Byelaw 18(1) is under 18(3)(ii):
"there was a notice at the station where he began his journey permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket";
"“notice” means a notice given by or on behalf of an Operator"
- unless TfW/TIL want to argue that the station operator, WMT, may have failed to provide copies of its charter at Wellington station.

I think it is reasonable to take the WMT charter as meaning that if you wait 10 minutes in a queue, you are allowed to board without a valid ticket, and not required to seek a conductor on the train. The idea that it could be "beyond reasonable doubt" that Ian intended to avoid a fare, because he didn't buy a ticket before boarding or look for a conductor, does not seem tenable to me. The machine issue is irrelevant if a passenger could reasonably interpret the charter as meaning they could board without a valid ticket when ticket office queuing times were exceeded.

TIL's letters claiming that you have to look for a conductor appear to conflict with the station operator's charter.

It is not clear why the contractor asked the second and third questions below, if he had been correctly trained on information offered to passengers at stations operated by WMT, through the charter.

"I said "Why did you not buy the correct ticket before travelling?"
He said "Because I was waiting at the ticket office for 10 minutes, person was complaining at office. Boarded the train, no guard seen. Was going to pay at Shrewsbury".

I said " I put it to you that, if I had not spoken to you here, you would not have paid the correct fare, do you agree?"
He said "No, I would have paid'.

I said "Do you agree that it is your responsibility to purchase your ticket before you board the train?"
He said "Yes of course"."

 

[Llanigraham]

"I said "Why did you not buy the correct ticket before travelling?"
He said "Because I was waiting at the ticket office for 10 minutes, person was complaining at office. Boarded the train, no guard seen. Was going to pay at Shrewsbury".

I said " I put it to you that, if I had not spoken to you here, you would not have paid the correct fare, do you agree?"
He said "No, I would have paid'.

I said "Do you agree that it is your responsibility to purchase your ticket before you board the train?"
He said "Yes of course"."

And again you are ignoring the fact, as admitted by the OP at the start of this thread, that he knew there was a ticket machine available on the other platform but chose not to use it because of his bike.
Slam, dunk!
He ignored a perfectly reasonable buying oppurtunity before he got on the train!

 

[gray1404]

Exactly, I picked up that the inspectors questioning was not suitable for the situation. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of the process.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Once a summons has been issued and if the company has rejected any out of court settlement, is not what we may THINK here, but what a Court may decide after hearing evidence from BOTH sides.

I repeat that we have to take the OPs version of events at face value because we cannot see all of the evidence upon which the prosecution may rely. We should remember that the summons is to a first hearing at which the traveller will be asked to enter a plea and if that remains 'not guilty', then a date will be set for a full trial to take place.

Hoping to find a witness for an event that occured 6 months ago is clutching at straws, and as bad as expecting the CCTV to still be available.

Llanigraham is exactly right, station CCTV is not retained beyond 30 days unless requested and pro-actively marked to retain for evidential purposes. Furthermore, it is extremely rare for footage to be of any value in these cases. I recall one case where a defendant insisted that he had gone to a ticket office and had bought a ticket 'but lost it'. A check of the station CCTV did indeed show the man go to the ticket office window, collect something from the clerk on duty and walk away with it in his hand. The ticket office staff member was later asked 'What ticket did he buy?' the Clerk replied 'He didn't, I thought he'd already got one because he just asked for one of the new pocket timetables'. Needless to say, a statement was taken from the booking clerk in that case.

The prosecution may have checked timings in this case, but as Llanigraham said in another post, no request to retain & release such a record was made and they don't have to use it anyway.

And as has been pointed out several times now, and admitted by the OP, there was a ticket machine available that he could have used, but declined to do so.

That is very relevant. If a traveller says he waited 10 minutes with only one traveller with a slow enquiry in front of him at the ticket office and there is another, separate facility that takes cash & card payments, which that traveller could have used but didn't do so and then travelled without a ticket, the Magistrates would have to consider was that reasonable?

The Court may first consider is there any offence? The answer is Yes, the traveller could have bought a ticket, but chose not to do so contrary to National Railway Byelaw 18.1 (2005). The exception referred to under Byelaw 18.3 in relation to a notice is clear and only relevant if there is no facility, or no working facility. Neither of which apply in the OPs case.

The prosecutor may well suggest that opportunist fare evasion is rife on that route and inspectors were deployed to deal with this.

This obsession with referring to the passenger charter is not helpful in my opinion. As others have made perfectly clear, the charter is a voluntary set of aims, not legally binding and does not in any sense overrule the Byelaw liabilities, which is what a Court would be asked to consider.

 

[some bloke]

Ian, I apologise if I've missed them, but otherwise would you like to upload the letters you sent?

The summons came from TIL rather than TfW. So you might benefit by ensuring TfW have been informed about your case - even if only to make sure they can be held responsible. As @najaB noted earlier, the train company may give more sensible answers than TIL. Also, decisions about prosecution may be influenced by more than strictly legal considerations.

You could also seek a reaction from WMT, who operate Wellington station, about the fact that you are being prosecuted on behalf of TfW despite this in the WMT Passengers' Charter:

"In specific situations where queueing times are not being achieved at a station, you can buy either a ticket en route or at your destination."

So how long are you supposed to queue before abandoning the wait and dashing over to a machine? I would have thought up to five minutes before your train is due, after which if there is no obvious sign of the customer/s in front of you finishing their business, then you think about heading for the machine.

However if said machine is on the opposite platform, (and may have a queue of its own), even without a bike it would be a bit of a challenge to go up and over, make your purchase (especially as not all machines are the same interface), and back up and over the bridge. Also it depends how close the bridge is to the booking office. Not everyone is young and sprightly, the OP may well be, but as a general rule you can't expect everyone to be able to do the "correct" thing in these circumstances.

Agreed. And "whether someone acted reasonably" is a different question from "whether there is reasonable doubt that they intended to avoid a fare".

 

[some bloke]

The exception referred to under Byelaw 18.3 in relation to a notice is...only relevant if there is no facility, or no working facility.

Byelaw 18(3) says there's no breach if (i) there were no working facilities or (ii) there was a notice allowing travel without a valid ticket.

Perhaps a hypothetical appeal court would say the charter isn't a notice (it's not magistrates' job to decide such matters with the result that a precedent is set). @Ian Whitehouse, you might argue politely to the effect that:

Unless the magistrates have good reason to be sure what the byelaw means (ie sure that the charter isn't a "notice"), they shouldn't say you are guilty under that byelaw beyond reasonable doubt.

You might if appropriate put a similar argument to TIL and/or TfW before the court hearing.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Byelaw 18(3) says there's no breach if (i) there were no working facilities or (ii) there was a notice allowing travel without a valid ticket.

Perhaps a hypothetical appeal court would say the charter isn't a notice (it's not magistrates' job to decide such matters with the result that a precedent is set). @Ian Whitehouse, you might argue politely to the effect that:

Unless the magistrates have good reason to be sure what the byelaw means (ie sure that the charter isn't a "notice"), they shouldn't say you are guilty under that byelaw beyond reasonable doubt.

You might if appropriate put a similar argument to TIL and/or TfW before the court hearing.

View attachment 72919

The prosecutor will rightly say:

There were working facilities available 'when and at the station where he began his journey' he decided not to use them.

 

[some bloke]

The prosecutor will rightly say:

There were working facilities available 'when and at the station where he began his journey' he decided not to use them.

If there's a notice permitting ticketless travel, doesn't the byelaw allow that?

 

[Fare-Cop]

No, it seems that some people are reading into this their highly individual interpretation of what Byelaw 18.3 actually means.

National Railway Byelaw 18.3 (2005) covers the following:
If there are NO facilities to buy a ticket,
or, if the facilities provided are genuinely not working,
or if there is an official sign authorising a traveller to board without a ticket because facilities are temporarily/permanently unavailable,

That is what the Byelaw exemptions cover. There has to be a sign specifically authorising that exemption.

For example, at a staffed ticket office the only ticket clerk on duty may have had to answer an urgent call of nature and has put a handwritten sign inside the window saying 'Get tickets on train, back in 5 minutes'. This would constitute an official sign in these circumstances.

A voluntary charter aim, published in an online document or, in a general leaflet referring to a will to avoid excessive queueing times, is not a sign authorising that specific Byelaw exemption at that time and at that place.

From the OPs description of the incident, the TOC did not fail in its obligation to provide a working facility at that time and place.

By the OPs own admission there was a queue of 1 person albeit a slow enquiry at the ticket office (near the entrance to platform 2). The OP knew there was an alternative and working facility, the self-service ticket machine (TVM) on platform 1. This did not have any queue and it was the OPs personal decision not to go and use that facility, which lead him to board a train without a valid ticket contrary to the Byelaw in force. A little research shows that the distance from the ticket office at the entrance to platform 2 at Wellington (Shropshire) over the footbridge to the TVM on platform 1 is roughly 38 yards.

I don't think I will add anything other now.

 

[Ian Whitehouse]

No, it seems that some people are reading into this their highly individual interpretation of what Byelaw 18.3 actually means.

National Railway Byelaw 18.3 (2005) covers the following:
If there are NO facilities to buy a ticket,
or, if the facilities provided are genuinely not working,
or if there is an official sign authorising a traveller to board without a ticket because facilities are temporarily/permanently unavailable,

That is what the Byelaw exemptions cover. There has to be a sign specifically authorising that exemption.

For example, at a staffed ticket office the only ticket clerk on duty may have had to answer an urgent call of nature and has put a handwritten sign inside the window saying 'Get tickets on train, back in 5 minutes'. This would constitute an official sign in these circumstances.

A voluntary charter aim, published in an online document or, in a general leaflet referring to a will to avoid excessive queueing times, is not a sign authorising that specific Byelaw exemption at that time and at that place.

From the OPs description of the incident, the TOC did not fail in its obligation to provide a working facility at that time and place.

By the OPs own admission there was a queue of 1 person albeit a slow enquiry at the ticket office (near the entrance to platform 2). The OP knew there was an alternative and working facility, the self-service ticket machine (TVM) on platform 1. This did not have any queue and it was the OPs personal decision not to go and use that facility, which lead him to board a train without a valid ticket contrary to the Byelaw in force. A little research shows that the distance from the ticket office at the entrance to platform 2 at Wellington (Shropshire) over the footbridge to the TVM on platform 1 is roughly 38 yards.

I don't think I will add anything other now.

Fare Cop is correct - there was a working facility on the opposite platform and therefore TOC did not fail in its obligation to provide facilities to purchase. The reason I chose not to go over to the other platform was that I had already waited 5 minutes to see if the complainant was going to be sorted and also it would mean lugging a bike up and down 4 flights of stairs to get to the machine and then doing the same to get back to my platform. I would suggest that there would not be many people who would have done that (and no, I didn't have a bike lock so I couldn't leave it to do so without the risk of it being stolen).

Whatever the reason, technically I was in breach of the byelaw - I accept that and I am not challenging it. I just accept that I am a victim of circumstance and some poor fortune in this instance, will take the hit and move on.

I would also like to thank all of you for your inputs (even though I may have disagreed with a couple of you!) as they have all been useful and helpful to me in this matter.

 

[aye2beeviasea]

No, it seems that some people are reading into this their highly individual interpretation of what Byelaw 18.3 actually means.

National Railway Byelaw 18.3 (2005) covers the following:
If there are NO facilities to buy a ticket,
or, if the facilities provided are genuinely not working,
or if there is an official sign authorising a traveller to board without a ticket because facilities are temporarily/permanently unavailable,

The words I've bolded do not appear in the byelaw as screengrabbed by some bloke

 

[Haywain]

The words I've bolded do not appear in the byelaw as screengrabbed by some bloke

Fare-Cop did not say the words do appear in the byelaw, he was providing an explanation.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Fare-Cop did not say the words do appear in the byelaw, he was providing an explanation.

Yes, thank you Haywain, I'm sorry if it was not clear enough for some - I didn't simply quote the Byelaw, I thought I had qualified my comment clearly enough by saying Byelaw 18.3 'covers the following'

I was obviously not clear enough for some and so to anyone who is confused, please accept my apology.

 

[aye2beeviasea]

So what is the basis for that interpretation? The byelaws don't include any guidance that narrows down the meaning of 18(3) in that way. It has an interpretation of 'notice' which is pretty wide, and that's it. There's nothing about when 18(3)(ii) is relevant. So is there e.g. a Supreme Court precedent that states what Fare-Cop says? Otherwise the only thing to go by is the wording of the byelaw itself which very specifically doesn't say what Fare-Cop's interpretation says.

I should add that I have no expetise on railway byelaws but am used to reading primary and secondary legislation, and the byelaws are pretty clearly worded.

 

[gray1404]

Looking ahead to the date issued on the summons, what are your intentions? Do you intend on entering a guilty or not guilty pea?

Either way, do you (or your representative) wish to speak to the Prosecutor on the day of the hearing, but before the case is called, to see if it is possible to reach on out of Court settlement? If so, you still have the option on entering a "not guilty" or guilty plea on the day.

I do not know what your earnings are but if you are earning BELOW average earnings then it is best making the sure the Court is aware of this. Otherwise an fine imposed on you will assume average earnings and could be higher then what it otherwise would be.

 

[Bevan Price]

OT with respect to this particular situation, but surely the person in the ticket office was probably able to see passengers waiting to buy tickets for an imminently due train. Would it not have been sensible for them to politely ask the lady to wait a minute or two whilst they sold tickets to intending passengers?

 

[trainophile]

Also OT but it would make more sense to have the machine in the ticket office.

 

[Llanigraham]

Also OT but it would make more sense to have the machine in the ticket office.

Not always. If the office is small and cramped, as some are, it is better to have the machine in an open area.

 

[Fare-Cop]

I do not know what your earnings are but if you are earning BELOW average earnings then it is best making the sure the Court is aware of this. Otherwise an fine imposed on you will assume average earnings and could be higher then what it otherwise would be.

Gray1404 is right here, but when you received your Summons you should have also received in the pack of papers a copy of a Form MC100.

Commonly known as a 'Declaration of Means Form', that is a printed sheet, which requires you to enter your income, outgoings and any other liabilities so that the Magistrates can be made aware (if you are convicted) of your ability to pay any penalty that they may be considering. It's a good idea to get those calculations listed beforehand.

 

[Realfish]

Gray1404 is right here, but when you received your Summons you should have also received in the pack of papers a copy of a Form MC100.

Commonly known as a 'Declaration of Means Form', that is a printed sheet, which requires you to enter your income, outgoings and any other liabilities so that the Magistrates can be made aware (if you are convicted) of your ability to pay any penalty that they may be considering. It's a good idea to get those calculations listed beforehand.

I note from the court papers - post #99 - that the hearing is today (10:00), unless the OP has pleaded not guilty. Hopefully we will hear back.

I did see that he is facing three charges; a bylaw offence of using abusive and offensive language; a bylaw offence of travelling without a ticket; and finally a RoR offence of travelling without paying his fare and with intent to avoid. Surely they cannot convict on both the bylaw and RoR ticketing offences (?), or are TIL going for belt and braces hearing, going for the lesser charge if the RoR offence fails? Is this usual?

 

[Haywain]

Not always. If the office is small and cramped, as some are, it is better to have the machine in an open area.

And would probably result in it being inaccessible when the ticket office is closed.

 

[Ian Whitehouse]

Hi all

I thought I would update you of proceedings today. As the previous poster noted, it was my court appearance today and following proper legal advice I decided to approach the prosecutor prior to the case being heard. I offered to plead guilty on the 2 x bylaw charges of travelling without a ticket and abusive language, the reason being that, even though there were many mitigating circumstances, I was in breach of those bylaws and I totally acknowledge that. I asked if I was to plead guilty to these, they would consider dropping the intent to travel without paying charge (that was never the case for me plus this also carried a criminal conviction).

He agreed to this and was extremely pleasant, helpful and supportive about the whole thing - for the first time in this process, I actually had human contact and also one that appeared to approach it rationally. I was very happy at this and sat waiting to go into court. About 30 minutes later, he asked to see me again and at this point I thought "Oh No! He has changed his mind!". However, this was not the case - he had re-looked at my files and evidence (I had proof of spending over £800.00 in the 6 months preceding this incident on train fares with most spent at Wellington Station plus evidence of purchasing the ticket on the day) and stated that he was very happy to settle out of court to save everyone's time.

We agreed on £450.00 for charges/administration costs which was less than what I would have had to pay if I pleaded guilty in the courtroom. As you can probably gather, I am so relieved that this is finally over. The prosecutor was extremely helpful and listened to me and the evidence and I got an impression that he felt this should have been sorted way before it had got to this stage. I don't have the energy or the will to be angry towards TIL or their inspectors but I do feel that their standby is always guilty before innocence and treat customers who may have genuinely made errors with no rational thinking or listening. I offered to settle this out of court in August with a robotic response refusing the offer which has led to severe stress and exacerbating the severe depression I was suffering from at the time which I am upset I was put through.

However, all's well that ends well in the end and I move forward. Thank you all (especially a couple of you - you know who I mean!) for all of your inputs, advice, help and support. You have helped me be as prepared as I ever could be for this and I doubt I would have had this outcome if I hadn't read your responses and thoughts.

All the best to you all for the rest of the year!

 

[30907]

Thank you for letting us know. A pretty reasonable outcome, if a long time coming.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Glad it worked out for you

 

[joke2711]

Not being an expert on such matters can I ask whether it is fair to decline an "out of court settlement" at the beginning of the process only to offer one at the end of the process when we all know that the ToC will not benefit from a criminal conviction in the same way as they would from any settlement?

 

[Realfish]

I'm glad that this has been concluded to your satisfaction.

 

[HSP 2]

Something here that's bugging me...





What kind of nurse spends "thousands of pounds" "travelling around the country" by train "every single week" "for business"?

I'm not saying I don't believe the story or trying to put a fly in the ointment, I'm just genuinely intrigued. I know a few nurses and all of them are too busy working their socks off (in the same location or NHS trust) for nowhere near enough money to travel all around the country on business. This must be a cushier nursing number than the nurses I know are on!

Please reread your quote it's not thousands of pounds a week "it's thousands of pounds a year.

 

[farleigh]

Glad it has ended (reasonably) well for you. What a ridiculous system it is.

 

[gray1404]

Thanks for reporting back and I am glad that you managed to get an Out of Court Settlement. I started to worry when I read you'd only asked to settle out of court for one of the charges. Why not request all 3 I was thinking! I am so glad the Barrister came back and gave you an offer in return for dropping all of the charges.

Out of interest, did he require payment straight away or did he give you instruction on how to pay the settlement and how long do you have to?

So glad you got the outcome you wanted! Now that this is behind you, you are welcome to make formal complaint about the way you were treated to both Transport for Wales (as you encountered their agent) and West Midland Trains as the operator of the station you used. You can appeal these to the Rail Ombudsman /Transport Focus if you are unhappy. Of course, I realise you might just want to put the whole thing behind you now and move forward.

 

[najaB]

However, all's well that ends well in the end and I move forward. Thank you all (especially a couple of you - you know who I mean!) for all of your inputs, advice, help and support. You have helped me be as prepared as I ever could be for this and I doubt I would have had this outcome if I hadn't read your responses and thoughts.

I'm glad to hear that you managed to achieve a settlement. Thank you for letting us know.