I'm getting uncomfortable reading the disputes forum now - they are making me lose confidence in traveling with Advance tickets.

[dosxuk]

Why would they lie?

Often they don't, they just omit details that would harm their case if all evidence was heard.

In the case of the poster who boarded the wrong train at Newark - they initially complained that nobody told them not to board that train (how platform staff were expected to know this goes unanswered). It wasn't until later they admitted they only arrived at the station at the time it was due to depart, checked it was going to their destination and just got on. No attempt was made to confirm that it was the correct train, either through the platform signage, train PIS displays or by talking to a member of staff. Can you think of any reason why they would choose to neglect to mention that in their opening post?

 

[johncrossley]

Often they don't, they just omit details that would harm their case if all evidence was heard.

In the case of the poster who boarded the wrong train at Newark - they initially complained that nobody told them not to board that train (how platform staff were expected to know this goes unanswered). It wasn't until later they admitted they only arrived at the station at the time it was due to depart, checked it was going to their destination and just got on. No attempt was made to confirm that it was the correct train, either through the platform signage, train PIS displays or by talking to a member of staff. Can you think of any reason why they would choose to neglect to mention that in their opening post?

Note these points:

I have been charged with an offence... but I feel that I did not commit it!

On the 22nd of July 2022 I took an LNER train at Newark North Gate bound for York at 16:46 for which I had purchased a ticket using that company's app. On the train, an inspector asked me for my ticket, to which I complied, showing them that he had bought a ticket for 16:46 from Newark North...

www.railforums.co.uk

Did the passenger gain an advantage? No.
Were they trying to pull a fast one? No.
Did LNER lose any revenue because of the passenger's actions? No.

So any reasonable human being would say that LNER's actions are inappropriately harsh.

 

[dosxuk]

So any reasonable human being would say that LNER's actions are inappropriately harsh.

Equally, any reasonable human would accept that they made a mistake, buy a new ticket, and then approach customer services with the aim to get a refund, either of the unused ticket or the newly purchased ticket, as a good-will gesture.

The threat of prosecution and a criminal record has only come about because the passenger in that case is adamant they did nothing wrong (the facts, even as they put them, disagree), and have refused to engage in sorting it outside of the threat of prosecution. That things have escalated to this stage is no accident on the part of the passenger, it's not something they've just somehow found themselves having to deal with through no fault of their own.

Unfortunately for some, in a world where rules exist, sometimes those rules get enforced - if they didn't, there would be no point in the rule existing.

 

[najaB]

So any reasonable human being would say that LNER's actions are inappropriately harsh.

Note that, according to the letter, they were initially issued with a UFN - which is no more than an invoice for the amount due. Had they paid that UFN then the matter would have been resolved. It was only their refusal to pay the UFN that resulted in the case heading down the prosecution route.

Based on previous experience, it's entirely likely that had they paid the UFN and then made a complaint to customer services they may well have received a RTV by way of 'compensation' for the inconvenience.

 

[johncrossley]

Equally, any reasonable human would accept that they made a mistake, buy a new ticket, and then approach customer services with the aim to get a refund, either of the unused ticket or the newly purchased ticket, as a good-will gesture.

The threat of prosecution and a criminal record has only come about because the passenger in that case is adamant they did nothing wrong (the facts, even as they put them, disagree), and have refused to engage in sorting it outside of the threat of prosecution. That things have escalated to this stage is no accident on the part of the passenger, it's not something they've just somehow found themselves having to deal with through no fault of their own.

Unfortunately for some, in a world where rules exist, sometimes those rules get enforced - if they didn't, there would be no point in the rule existing.

The UFN was appealed because common sense tells you that it was inappropriate.

 

[Horizon22]

Obviously you don't know how many are put off the railways who don't post on forums.

You also have the reverse - people who wouldn't travel by train unless a cheaper advance option existed. You are simplying a matter which has a lot of different factors.

 

[najaB]

The UFN was appealed because common sense tells you that it was inappropriate.

Common sense is not the law. There were no valid legal grounds on which to base a successful appeal.

As note above, however, there might well have been a customer service grounds on which to provide some compensation or relief.

 

[redreni]

Equally, any reasonable human would accept that they made a mistake, buy a new ticket, and then approach customer services with the aim to get a refund, either of the unused ticket or the newly purchased ticket, as a good-will gesture.

The threat of prosecution and a criminal record has only come about because the passenger in that case is adamant they did nothing wrong (the facts, even as they put them, disagree), and have refused to engage in sorting it outside of the threat of prosecution. That things have escalated to this stage is no accident on the part of the passenger, it's not something they've just somehow found themselves having to deal with through no fault of their own.

Unfortunately for some, in a world where rules exist, sometimes those rules get enforced - if they didn't, there would be no point in the rule existing.

There is no point in the rule existing. We could have reasonable walk-up fares like the rest of Europe.

 

[mangyiscute]

I was on an avanti train yesterday from glasgow, the 15:55 was cancelled so there were announcements "if you were booked on the 15:55 then take the 15:35 instead". A woman near me had a ticket from Paisley timed at 15:55 form there and then on the 16:34 from Glasgow down south, and was clearly confused by the announcement (I don't think english was her first language) and thought she could take the train since her ticket said 15:55 on it. Luckily, the ticket inspector used common sense and let her off - the one thing I think should be improved is giving passengers like this a better explanation of what they did wrong, so that they don't make the same mistake again, since I don't think this passenger realised what she did wrong as it wasn't really explained to her so there's a good chance that she might do the same again and not get so lucky

 

[johncrossley]

Common sense is not the law. There were no valid legal grounds on which to base a successful appeal.

As note above, however, there might well have been a customer service grounds on which to provide some compensation or relief.

Legality is not the point. The thread is about the situations where legally an offence has been committed, but the response from the industry is not customer friendly, to say the least.

 

[AlterEgo]

Note these points:

I have been charged with an offence... but I feel that I did not commit it!

On the 22nd of July 2022 I took an LNER train at Newark North Gate bound for York at 16:46 for which I had purchased a ticket using that company's app. On the train, an inspector asked me for my ticket, to which I complied, showing them that he had bought a ticket for 16:46 from Newark North...

www.railforums.co.uk

So any reasonable human being would say that LNER's actions are inappropriately harsh.

Just to clarify you’re not contesting that the poster there omitted key details.

Posters in the D+P forum are regularly vague or deliberately opaque about what actually happened, meaning it can often be difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions about their encounter. That’s why it’s important that advice given there is dispassionate and focuses on paperwork and facts.

 

[Essan]

I will admit that being a member of this forum over recent years has made me much more aware of potential issues - and thus be more careful when travelling by train. In the past, if using an advance ticket and I missed a connection I simply boarded the next available service without giving it any thought (and despite this happening a few times, I never had any problems - though in all cases it was likely a service provided by the same TOC). These days I know to check the validity of my ticket on a different service to the one originally booked. On the other hand, being a member of this forum also means I know how to check things, as well as being much more aware of my rights etc.

On a separate note - with regards comparisons to car travel, if there's a accident on the motorway (or just heavy traffic) and you consequentially arrive at your destination 2 hours later than expected, do you get a refund of your whole travel costs?

 

[Watershed]

None of the three examples in this thread I see as cases where the railway is morally in the wrong.

Obviously you're entitled to your opinion, but I am astounded that you have read those threads and concluded that the railway is morally in the right given the circumstances described. In none of the cases did the passenger attempt to avoid any fare, and in all three cases the situation only even came about as a result of failings on the part of the railway.

How much more could the railway have gotten away with before you would accept that it was in the wrong?

Passengers were on the wrong trains due to their own decisions, not because of accidents outside their control. People need to take responsibility when they make mistakes - and sometimes those mistakes can be costly - not just expect suppliers to bend over backwards to make things right for them or try and find loopholes to make it the suppliers problem.

Mistakes? Loopholes? Frankly I have no idea what you are on about. They all acted in a reasonable manner and yet now find themselves facing prosecution or an inflated extortion settlement.

Even the closest to being morally wrong, the case of the passenger boarding a train without checking as it was at the right time, they were given the opportunity to buy a new ticket / pay a penalty on board (which they could then have had their original ticket refunded, or complained to customer services and likely got a refund of), only to start arguing that their ticket was valid and it was the train company that was unable to comply. It's only after several opportunities to sort the matter out that it is progressing to the possibility of a criminal record.

Except we have established that the Advance ticket terms actually did entitle that passenger to take the train they caught. So LNER were bang out of order in their demands.

Even if this hadn't been the case, how could it possibly be considered a proportionate response to prosecute someone in a situation like this? At worst, it justified 'words of advice'.

Equally, any reasonable human would accept that they made a mistake, buy a new ticket, and then approach customer services with the aim to get a refund, either of the unused ticket or the newly purchased ticket, as a good-will gesture.

The threat of prosecution and a criminal record has only come about because the passenger in that case is adamant they did nothing wrong

The threat of prosecution and a criminal record has only come about as a result of LNER acting in breach of contract.

the facts, even as they put them, disagree

They don't. The facts show that the OP there was in the right.

and have refused to engage in sorting it outside of the threat of prosecution. That things have escalated to this stage is no accident on the part of the passenger, it's not something they've just somehow found themselves having to deal with through no fault of their own.

So it's their fault that the train was late? It's amazing how readily some people victim-blame...

Unfortunately for some, in a world where rules exist, sometimes those rules get enforced - if they didn't, there would be no point in the rule existing.

Even if the OP had been in the wrong, why couldn't LNER resolve the matter in the same way as any other financial dispute between two parties, namely by bringing a civil claim?

Why do LNER deserve the right to be 'judge, jury and executioner' by bringing a prosecution in a biased system that the passenger has no realistic prospect of defending themselves against - yet if you owe money to your internet supplier or a builder, they can only pursue the matter civilly?

 

[6Gman]

If a criminal record is no big deal, why are passengers threatened with one?

I didn't say it was "no big deal" - though that is a very loose term.

I said that describing it as life-ending was absurd.

It is used because it is an option to tackle people who haven't paid for a service provided.

Wrong approach. You just put off travellers that way. Penalties need to be appropriate to the level of the crime. A criminal record is too harsh a penalty.

So are you arguing that a criminal convciction is inappropriate for all ticketing offences?

 

[Ken H]

I didn't say it was "no big deal" - though that is a very loose term.

I said that describing it as life-ending was absurd.

It is used because it is an option to tackle people who haven't paid for a service provided.

But for most other non-railway service providers, they would take such a claim through the civil courts, not a criminal court.

 

[Llanigraham]

On a separate note - with regards comparisons to car travel, if there's a accident on the motorway (or just heavy traffic) and you consequentially arrive at your destination 2 hours later than expected, do you get a refund of your whole travel costs?

Of course not, because there is no legislation to cover it, and that legislation would be impossible to draft.

 

[johncrossley]

So are you arguing that a criminal convciction is inappropriate for all ticketing offences?

Certainly for the ones discussed here. Other people have mentioned on here that the new higher Penalty Fare is strict enough.

 

[the sniper]

Why is the railway so special it needs the criminal law to be a factor? I can buy from my butcher, super market, DIY shop, and also from my ISP, energy supplier, mobile phone provider ets with little risk of a penalty charge or a criminal charge.

Don't walk out of a shop without paying for something by mistake (or not) and get caught. Or drive off from a petrol station without paying.

 

[redreni]

Don't walk out of a shop without paying for something by mistake (or not) and get caught. Or drive off from a petrol station without paying.

Of course you shouldn't do that, but if the shopkeeper feels you've done so, he can't decide to prosecute you. Even if the shop is owned by a big company, the company can't decide to prosecute you. So the question remains what's special about the cowboys who run the TOCs?

 

[skyhigh]

but if the shopkeeper feels you've done so, he can't decide to prosecute you. Even if the shop is owned by a big company, the company can't decide to prosecute you.

I'd have a look at the subject of private prosecutions if I were you. They can decide to prosecute you, if they wish.

 

[tspaul26]

Of course you shouldn't do that, but if the shopkeeper feels you've done so, he can't decide to prosecute you. Even if the shop is owned by a big company, the company can't decide to prosecute you. So the question remains what's special about the cowboys who run the TOCs?

Yes, he can, and yes, it can.

 

[najaB]

Even if the shop is owned by a big company, the company can't decide to prosecute you.

While it is unlikely, private prosecutions are allowed in England.

 

[Ken H]

I'd have a look at the subject of private prosecutions if I were you. They can decide to prosecute you, if they wish.

A lot of private prosecutions in England are taken on by the Crown Prosecution Service. The people who started the private prosecution have no say in that. Many (most?) of them are then dumped as 'not in the public interest'.

 

[pedr]

The shopkeeper must prove dishonesty, though - a far higher burden than the one the railway has to obtain by-law convictions. And even RoRA cases can be proved on the basis of erroneous belief, in some circumstances, while dishonesty (in theory) considers the knowledge and understanding of the accused.

It isn’t actually theft to accidentally choose the wrong type of orange on a self-checkout and pay less than the correct price. It is a crime to buy a more expensive but invalid ticket from a TVM and then get on board.

 

[tspaul26]

A lot of private prosecutions in England are taken on by the Crown Prosecution Service. The people who started the private prosecution have no say in that. Many (most?) of them are then dumped as 'not in the public interest'.

This is incorrect. There are thousands of private prosecutions in England every year.

In 2019, the most recent year for which figures have been published, only 32 were taken over by the DPP, of which 29 were discontinued.

In other words, the vast majority of private prosecutions do not lead to a DPP intervention and the high rate of discontinuance is not surprising either i.e. the reason for proceedings being taken over is precisely so that the DPP can discontinue them, although this is by no means a universal outcome as the figures demonstrate.

 

[redreni]

I'd have a look at the subject of private prosecutions if I were you. They can decide to prosecute you, if they wish.

I've done so and I've learned some things I didn't know. Thanks for the pointer. I hadn't appreciated TOCs use the same right of private prosecution that is technically available to you or me, albeit they have an understanding with CPS that their prosecutions won't normally be taken over.

The point remains that the only way you're remotely likely to get prosecuted for walking out of a shop without paying is if the Police charge you and the CPS decide to prosecute you, which is not how it works with the railways, and it's not immediately obvious to me why anyone would think that's a good idea?

 

[Essan]

Of course not, because there is no legislation to cover it, and that legislation would be impossible to draft.

True. But the point is, it's an advantage of rail travel over road travel.

 

[AlterEgo]

Just to clarify you’re not contesting that the poster there omitted key details.

Posters in the D+P forum are regularly vague or deliberately opaque about what actually happened, meaning it can often be difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions about their encounter. That’s why it’s important that advice given there is dispassionate and focuses on paperwork and facts.

Like clockwork, just a few hours later!

Almost nothing in the original post of any D+P thread is worth taking at face value.

I ordered later because i told my friend he did not respond me when I asked I ordered Immediately sent them prove this ia all the matter I am sorry for lies

 

[43066]

Recently there are 3 threads in the disputes forum which concern me very much:

Threat of prosecution after boarding a delayed LNER train at the booked time:

I have been charged with an offence... but I feel that I did not commit it!

I don't want to give the OP false hope but it may be worth reading through this guidance: CPS guidance for private prosecutions In particular: When to take over a private prosecution in order to stop it A private prosecution should be taken over and stopped if, upon review of the case...

www.railforums.co.uk

Prosecution after boarding a later train after consecutive trains were cancelled:

(Update: Prosecution letter has been received) Ticket irregularity report issued by TPE after the worst group company cancelled 8 consecutive trains

A friend of mine bought a ticket for a journey on 20 Jan 02:20-03:31 from Leeds to Manchester Piccadilly (1st class advance single route Ap TPE only). Decided to treat himself for a more comfortable 1st class journey home after night out but it turned out to be a nightmare. His booked train was...

www.railforums.co.uk

Police called after accidentally boarding a wrong train following a delay:

Lumo Revenue Enforcement on Strike Day

New to the Forum, I'm wondering if anyone else has had a similar experience to mine. Before the announcement of the Wed 1st Feb strike, I'd bought a ticket from National Rail TrainSplit to travel on that day on the 10.27 Newcastle to Kings Cross train. This was cancelled and I'd been informed...

www.railforums.co.uk

Regarding the LNER case, I actually attempted to do so when I was at York and got confused by the information display, when there were trains to London running minutes between each other and the whole line was delayed by a few minutes. In that case, I saw the board, went to the platform of the train labelled with my time, but at that time the train appeared on another platform, I then ran there however the train was already dispatched and I was afraid that I missed the train. Then the staff told me that that's not my train and I had to return to the original platform. A few minutes later my train came.

All the above cases are destroying my confidence in buying Advance tickets for travelling by train.

I would like to ask:

Does anyone know a case, where a passenger is prosecuted after boarding another train on the same line / to the same destination following a delay / cancellation / missed connection of the booked train, and made to the court?

If so I would like to read about it.

What a strange thread.

If you want the ability to travel on any train, by an anytime ticket. If you choose to pay less and buy an advance, the onus is on you to ensure you’re on the correct train. It really isn’t rocket science and the vast majority of people manage to buy the right ticket and get onto the right train without any dramas.

The disputes forum is almost exclusively populated by people who have tried it on and got caught. If you’re honest and use common sense in the event of disruption (eg check with staff before boarding a train other than the one you’re booked on) the risk of encountering issues is absolutely negligible.

The point remains that the only way you're remotely likely to get prosecuted for walking out of a shop without paying is if the Police charge you and the CPS decide to prosecute you, which is not how it works with the railways, and it's not immediately obvious to me why anyone would think that's a good idea?

The only way you’re remotely likely to get prosecuted by the railways is if you engage in clearly dishonest activity such as using someone else’s freedom pass, or committing many acts of fare evasion. The vast majority of fare irregularities that are picked up are dealt with by discretion or penalty fares, and only a tiny % are prosecuted.

Unfortunately certain posters clearly believe that the railway shouldn’t have the ability to prosecute people in the first place, and their passion for this view prevents them from looking at the situations objectively.

 

[Haywain]

What a strange thread.

If you want the ability to travel on any train, by an anytime ticket. If you choose to pay less and buy an advance, the onus is on you to ensure you’re on the correct train. It really isn’t rocket science and the vast majority of people manage to buy the right ticket and get onto the right train without any dramas.

The disputes forum is almost exclusively populated by people who have tried it on and got caught. If you’re honest and use common sense in the event of disruption (eg check with staff before boarding a train other than the one you’re booked on) the risk of encountering issues is absolutely negligible.



The only way you’re remotely likely to get prosecuted by the railways is if you engage in clearly dishonest activity such as using someone else’s freedom pass, or committing many acts of fare evasion. The vast majority of fare irregularities that are picked up are dealt with by discretion or penalty fares, and only a tiny % are prosecuted.

Unfortunately certain posters clearly believe that the railway shouldn’t have the ability to prosecute people in the first place, and their passion for this view prevents them from looking at the situations objectively.

As others will no doubt tell you, I regret that elements of your confidence in rail companies are misplaced.