I paid for my journey before hand, yet am being prosecuted !!!!

[Urge38]

How funny, I have only just joined this forum, and only a few topics down, the same scenario (ish) has happened to me in part ( see topic heading "

How do you check the I.D of any rail employee checking your tickets?​

I have had part off this scenario happen to me!!!

I had tapped in at the start of my Journey, the card registered me tapping in successfully (no issues there)

half way along my journey, I was asked to tap my card on a reader, I said NO

The person asking me had NO ID, there tag is nothing more than a train service Logo, His said Thameslink, it does NOT provide me with the details of the person asking me to hand over my credit card or my details,

I did however provide my name and address as I am obliged to if asked, I completed my journey and tapped out at the end of my trip, My credit card that is resisted with TFL shows the entry time, and the completion time and the correct fare paid,

there is absolutely no fair evasion in this instant

The train compony still want to pursue this matter further having provided them with the paid journey details (transaction number, times etc etc)

I am legally obliged to have a paid for my journey, which I did, I am obliged to show them my train ticket which I could not as I paid with a credit card, I am obliged to give them my correct details which I did,

if I was not happy for safety reasons, to tap my credit card on a credit card reader that I could not verify, have I committed a offence ???? having now provided a proof of payment

 

[74A]

Unfortunately not. You did not hand over you card when requested. It is part of accepting contactless card you must do so on request.

If you did not think they were genuine why did you give them your name and address ?

Showing details of a journey later does not prove it was you making thr journey at the time. You need to answer their letter giving an explanation of what you did.

 

[Doppelganger]

How funny, I have only just joined this forum, and only a few topics down, the same scenario (ish) has happened to me in part ( see topic heading "

How do you check the I.D of any rail employee checking your tickets?​

I have had part off this scenario happen to me!!!

I had tapped in at the start of my Journey, the card registered me tapping in successfully (no issues there)

half way along my journey, I was asked to tap my card on a reader, I said NO

The person asking me had NO ID, there tag is nothing more than a train service Logo, His said Thameslink, it does NOT provide me with the details of the person asking me to hand over my credit card or my details,

I did however provide my name and address as I am obliged to if asked, I completed my journey and tapped out at the end of my trip, My credit card that is resisted with TFL shows the entry time, and the completion time and the correct fare paid,

there is absolutely no fair evasion in this instant

The train compony still want to pursue this matter further having provided them with the paid journey details (transaction number, times etc etc)

I am legally obliged to have a paid for my journey, which I did, I am obliged to show them my train ticket which I could not as I paid with a credit card, I am obliged to give them my correct details which I did,

if I was not happy for safety reasons, to tap my credit card on a credit card reader that I could not verify, have I committed a offence ???? having now provided a proof of payment

I'd put a complaint in to Thameslink and suggest maybe there are some rogue inspectors on the network.

All employees should have official documentation and if they don't they should be called out for it. I would have refused to give any personal details until satisfied that the employee was a genuine railway worker.

 

[Urge38]

Ive just done a quick search on google,

in the few minuets I have been looking, I Cant understand the prosecution,

I have committed no crime as I have not evaded the fair

it is not a offence to not provide your ticket, so what can they prosecute me for when not showing a ticket is not a crime and has no need for a court

 

[AlterEgo]

Ive just done a quick search on google,

in the few minuets I have been looking, I Cant understand the prosecution,

I have committed no crime as I have not evaded the fair

it is not a offence to not provide your ticket, so what can they prosecute me for when not showing a ticket is not a crime and has no need for a court

https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/railway-byelaws.pdf

18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas
(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.
(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.
(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if:
16

(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey; or
(ii) there was a notice at the station where he began his journey permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket; or
(iii) an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.

 

[Hadders]

Unfortunately you are legally required to hand over a ticket for inspection when asked to do so by an authorised employee as noted by @AlterEgo. You commit a criminal offence if you fail to do so. How do you think the railway is supposed to check that everyone has a valid ticket if there're not allowed to check them on the train.

I do agree that authorised members of staff should carry suitable ID and in my experience they do. If you are suspicious about whether or not a ticket inspector is genuine then you could have:

- Logged a call with the British Transport Police
- Logged a call with Thameslink customer services

Had you done either of these at the time then it would provide a good defence to the position you now find yourself in.

If you are uncomfortable with having your payment card scanned then you might want to consider using a different format of ticket. For example an Oyster card, traditional paper ticket or even a pre-payment debit card.

 

[richw]

A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.

How does he know it was an authorised person as the person refused to show company ID?

 

[Darandio]

How does he know it was an authorised person as the person refused to show company ID?

Nowhere in the opening post does it state the person refused. It doesn't even state they were asked to show any.

 

[skyhigh]

Nowhere in the opening post does it state the person refused. It doesn't even state they were asked to show any.

That is the important point. Did they refuse to show ID, or did the OP just not ask to see it? If the latter, the OP is almost unarguably in the wrong.

 

[Bald Rick]

I simply don’t get why some people deliberately get themselves into such situations.

 

[AlterEgo]

I simply don’t get why some people deliberately get themselves into such situations.

People enjoy being difficult. Play silly games and win silly prizes.

The OP will now only have the option of trying to convince a bench of magistrates that they had reasonable cause to believe the uniformed person on the train with a name badge - who they then gave their address to! - wasn’t an authorised person. Regardless of the ins and outs I wouldn’t fancy my chances.

 

[MikeWh]

Unfortunately not. You did not hand over you card when requested. It is part of accepting contactless card you must do so on request.

This is not quite true. The relevant clause from https://content.tfl.gov.uk/contactless-conditions-of-use.pdf says:

4.2 You must be prepared to show your contactless payment card on every
journey you make with it. You must let an authorised member of staff or a police
officer inspect your contactless payment card at any time during your journey if
asked to do so. You may be asked to touch your card on their portable card reader
as part of their inspection. By touching your card on the portable card reader, you
are confirming that it is the card you intend to travel with and that you consent to the
fare being charged to your card account.

It does not say that you must hand the card over, just show it to them. They will then usually hold the reader over the card or ask you to touch the reader with the card.

 

[Doppelganger]

Nowhere in the opening post does it state the person refused. It doesn't even state they were asked to show any.

The person asking me had NO ID, there tag is nothing more than a train service Logo

Just this bit

 

[Chriso]

In future if you are not happy to have your contactless bank card scanned may I suggest you buy an Oyster card.

 

[DanNCL]

I think the key point here is at no point did the inspector demonstrate to the extent that they can reasonably be expected to that they were authorised. It’s for the inspector to prove that they’re authorised, not for the customer to prove that they aren’t.

I would make a formal complaint to Govia Thameslink Railway, including with full details of where and when this happened. They should be able to track down the person involved, and check CCTV to see exactly what happened for themselves. If the inspector was using a body camera the footage from that should be useable too. It wouldn’t guarantee that you’re in the clear but it could potentially help.

It is good practice for revenue protection staff to have their staff ID badge somewhere visible at all times, for example on a lanyard, but there isn’t a requirement for them to do this.

Unfortunately not. You did not hand over you card when requested. It is part of accepting contactless card you must do so on request.

Not strictly true. If a member of staff cannot demonstrate that they’re an authorised member of staff then there’s no requirement to show them anything.

It would be reasonable to ask to see valid staff ID as it isn’t unheard of for people to wear uniforms (sometimes fake, sometimes real) to make themselves look like legitimate staff when they aren’t. It’s happened quite a few times on the Tyne & Wear Metro.

Showing details of a journey later does not prove it was you making thr journey at the time. You need to answer their letter giving an explanation of what you did.

With a named card, which a contactless card is, it’s for the train operator to prove that it wasn’t the named person using it, not for the named person to prove it was them using it.

 

[skyhigh]

I think the key point here is at no point did the inspector demonstrate to the extent that they can reasonably be expected to that they were authorised. It’s for the inspector to prove that they’re authorised, not for the customer to prove that they aren’t.

That's making a few jumps in logic. We only have what the original post says. We don't know if the OP asked for ID or even gave a reason why they wouldn't present their card. If they just said "I'm not showing you my card", why would the inspector think "oh they're questioning if I'm genuine"

It is good practice for revenue protection staff to have their staff ID badge somewhere visible at all times, for example on a lanyard, but there isn’t a requirement for them to do this.

If the OP didn't ask for ID, as you say there's no requirement to have it visible at all times.

I did however provide my name and address as I am obliged to if asked

This is the bit that really sticks out to me - you are required to provide your name and address if asked by an authorised person. So the OP thought they were an authorised person, but also that they weren't. Good luck arguing that one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is not quite true. The relevant clause from https://content.tfl.gov.uk/contactless-conditions-of-use.pdf says:

It does not say that you must hand the card over, just show it to them. They will then usually hold the reader over the card or ask you to touch the reader with the card.

That's irrelevant. As this is a National Rail journey, the Railway Byelaws apply. The OP wilfully breached this one (though it's strict liability so the "wilful" isn't so important):

18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas​

1. in any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel
2. a person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person
3. no person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if:
   1. there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey or
   2. there was a notice at the station where he began his journey permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket or
   3. an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket

Slam dunk prosecution with no viable defence whatsoever.

If you get sent a settlement pay it, but like @AlterEgo I suspect you're going to need to convince a Magistrate, which I doubt you'll have much luck with. Prepare for your stubbornness to cost you a few hundred quid, and as others have said if you're that precious about your contactless card get an Oyster or use paper tickets.

 

[JonnyG]

Is it common for Thameslink inspectors to check tickets on their own? I recall an inspection on a morning commuter train between London Bridge and Blackfriars a few years ago. After the "inspector" had checked bank cards, etc there were mutterings as to whether he was genuine. He was by himself and though in uniform hadn't any visible ID, plus his interpersonal skills were pretty poor - mumbling and lacking eye contact. On reflection I wondered if he was genuine myself!

 

[swt_passenger]

With a named card, which a contactless card is, it’s for the train operator to prove that it wasn’t the named person using it, not for the named person to prove it was them using it.

AIUI if a contactless bank card is being used the purpose of an on train check is to record the card number electronically to check that the contactless card was already touched in. They’re not normally checking the name on it.

 

[tspaul26]

https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/railway-byelaws.pdf

18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas
(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.
(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.
(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if:
16

(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey; or
(ii) there was a notice at the station where he began his journey permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket; or
(iii) an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.

There is also section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1889:

(1) 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; and in case of default shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

For this purpose, to “deliver up” means to hand it over.

It is a question of fact as to whether a person (a) was an officer or servant of the company and (b) made the request. The accused’s belief as to whether or not the person is in fact an officer or servant is neither here nor there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is also section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1889:

For this purpose, to “deliver up” means to hand it over.

It is a question of fact as to whether a person (a) was an officer or servant of the company and (b) made the request. The accused’s belief as to whether or not the person is in fact an officer or servant is neither here nor there.

We have had this one recently where Merseyrail attempted to wrongfully prosecute on this basis and gave up in the end. To have a defence to this charge, the passenger has to do only one of the three things. As they gave their name and address, no offence has been committed under RoRA.

Byelaw 18 is the thing the OP has contravened.

 

[ChewChewTrain]

Could the OP please clarify what reason they gave for not producing their card? Does “had no ID” mean that the inspector refused to produce ID upon request, or that they simply weren’t wearing any that was visible?

The train company, by pursuing this, would appear to believe that there is more to the matter (e.g. that the OP was travelling with someone else, sitting separately, and using the same card to double up through any barriers). Obviously I’m not accusing the OP of doing this, but they need to consider how this looks to the train company, since someone who was doing that would quite possibly use the “I didn’t think the inspector was genuine” excuse if challenged.

 

[Gloster]

Thinking back to when I was bound by the old red BR 87109, I am fairly sure that in Section A or B there was a clause stating that any member of staff was required to identify themself when requested by a passenger. Is there nothing like this in current rule books or the like? Or is it all one way: the passenger, sorry, customer must by law give their name and address, but a member staff does not have to even show any form of railway ID?

I know that this is not directly related to the OP’s situation, but the thread has skirted around it.

 

[MCSHF007]

Could the OP please clarify what reason they gave for not producing their card? Does “had no ID” mean that the inspector refused to produce ID upon request, or that they simply weren’t wearing any that was visible?

The train company, by pursuing this, would appear to believe that there is more to the matter (e.g. that the OP was travelling with someone else, sitting separately, and using the same card to double up through any barriers). Obviously I’m not accusing the OP of doing this, but they need to consider how this looks to the train company, since someone who was doing that would quite possibly use the “I didn’t think the inspector was genuine” excuse if challenged.

Seonded.

 

[Dai Corner]

It is a question of fact as to whether a person (a) was an officer or servant of the company and (b) made the request. The accused’s belief as to whether or not the person is in fact an officer or servant is neither here nor there.

The fact that the train operator has contacted the OP to pursue the matter surely indicates that the person he gave his name and address to is an 'officer or servant of the company'.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Cowing a little late to this, but on the basis of the original post, I’m not quite sure what the prosecution is for. Could you (the original poster) please share a picture of what correspondence you have received? Make sure to blank out your name and address and so on!

 

[DanNCL]

There's certainly a learning point for all train operators here that it should become policy for revenue staff to have ID visible at all times for the exact reason that it makes incidents like this much less likely to occur. I think this is especially important in areas that accept contactless cards for travel, as people are naturally going to be more protective of their bank card than they are of a paper ticket.

That's making a few jumps in logic. We only have what the original post says. We don't know if the OP asked for ID or even gave a reason why they wouldn't present their card. If they just said "I'm not showing you my card", why would the inspector think "oh they're questioning if I'm genuine"

They should be trained to recognise that might be a reason for people initially not showing their ticket. Whether they actually are or not is another matter.

If the OP didn't ask for ID, as you say there's no requirement to have it visible at all times.

Yes, I think we could do with clarification from the OP as to whether they asked to see ID or not. If they did and the inspector refused then the OP may have a reasonable chance of success in this. If they didn't ask to see any ID then they have little-no chance of success in this.

I should probably mention to the OP here that it is essential that the correct version of events is given to the train operator. Only tell them that you asked to see ID if you are 100% certain that you did. They are likely to check the footage on the inspector's body camera to verify what you tell them and any discrepencies between what you tell them and what they see on the body camera, even if inadvertent, would significantly reduce your chances of getting a positive outcome in this matter.

AIUI if a contactless bank card is being used the purpose of an on train check is to record the card number electronically to check that the contactless card was already touched in. They’re not normally checking the name on it.

Correct but surely they must be able to get the name of the cardholder from the bank in such an investigation? It sounds like an incredibly easy to manipulate system if they can't.

 

[tspaul26]

We have had this one recently where Merseyrail attempted to wrongfully prosecute on this basis and gave up in the end. To have a defence to this charge, the passenger has to do only one of the three things. As they gave their name and address, no offence has been committed under RoRA.

I am aware of no reported case which has interpreted section 5(1) in this manner, unless you are able to elaborate?

The closest fact pattern of which I am aware - where the passenger did not produce a valid ticket on request, but did give his name and address - is Huffam. The conviction was quashed on appeal, but not because the passenger had provided his name and address.

This is to be compared with, say, sections 5(2) and 5(3)(c) where the statutory requirements are cumulative.

 

[MikeWh]

That's irrelevant.

No it isn't. You cannot hand over a ticket when using PAYG because there is no such thing. The file I quoted covers use of contactless cards and devices on all modes that accept them (yes, including riverboats and the dangleway). It might be worth your while reading the document.

 

[BJames]

I am aware of no reported case which has interpreted section 5(1) in this manner, unless you are able to elaborate?

The closest fact pattern of which I am aware - where the passenger did not produce a valid ticket on request, but did give his name and address - is Huffam. The conviction was quashed on appeal, but not because the passenger had provided his name and address.

This is to be compared with, say, sections 5(2) and 5(3)(c) where the statutory requirements are cumulative.

I believe @Bletchleyite is referring to this recent case: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/merseyrail-prosecution.229114/ (see posts #24/#25 initially) - it was an interesting case to read and a positive outcome for the passenger.