You might be right but that would, in my humble opinion, by an extremely courageous argument to run in a court.Or maybe the promise is a valid ticket, so the byelaw doesn't apply anyway.
You might be right but that would, in my humble opinion, by an extremely courageous argument to run in a court.Or maybe the promise is a valid ticket, so the byelaw doesn't apply anyway.
Maybe - but my thinking is that the argument should be put to the company long before then. As they say it's a ticket that allows you to board and pay at the destination, how can they seriously argue it isn't a valid ticket for travel?You might be right but that would, in my humble opinion, by an extremely courageous argument to run in a court.
Can I suggest that you read post #53, from one of the Forum Admin Team first.Thank you ! I find it hard to articulate what i mean. Will defiantly screenshot this.
And then we have the separate issue of whether, given what they say on the web page, a penalty fare can legitimately be charged where the passenger has obtained a promise to pay. If not, then the "abusive" language may be seen in a different light.
The company might be on shaky ground in claiming there is a case for intent to avoid a fare, because of the recording of the attempt to buy from the conductor.
Depending on what is on the video recordings, perhaps you might be in an unusually strong position to appeal to management, or to the head of the prosecution unit, at an early stage to get the case abandoned and avoid worry.
However, I feel I have to ask, so I'm sorry if these are inappropriate - why did you record the attempt to buy from the conductor, and did you attempt that only after seeing the revenue officers?
I can't see why that would be a problem. Taking a video on railway property isn't in itself obviously against a byelaw.Would the video even be admissable, since they had no permission to record on railway property?
And then we have the separate issue of whether, given what they say on the web page, a penalty fare can legitimately be charged where the passenger has obtained a promise to pay. If not, then the "abusive" language may be seen in a different light.
The company might be on shaky ground in claiming there is a case for intent to avoid a fare, because of the recording of the attempt to buy from the conductor.
Depending on what is on the video recordings, perhaps you might be in an unusually strong position to appeal to management, or to the head of the prosecution unit, at an early stage to get the case abandoned and avoid worry.
However, I feel I have to ask, so I'm sorry if these are inappropriate - why did you record the attempt to buy from the conductor, and did you attempt that only after seeing the revenue officers?
Can I suggest that you read post #53, from one of the Forum Admin Team first.
train guards. Who informed me that even though i had obtained this promise to pay. And also asked the train conductor if i could purchase a ticket. Once i got off the platform. That i still had to pay a penalty fine !
If you didn't ask the conductor until you saw the inspectors, other things being equal it's a less convincing point to make (even if it would have been quicker). Train companies and their agents will generally have a heightened sense for things that might be consistent with trying to avoid a fare, so sometimes innocent explanations are less help.The officers were blocking the path Directly of the train. ...I recorded the incident....I attempted to buy from the conductor. As there was a big que of people. And i thought it would be much faster, than being escorted round by a agent who wasn't particularly in a hurry.
Could you clarify this? Is there anything else that might have given the inspectors suspicion?i am not without fault in this situation.
If you didn't ask the conductor until you saw the inspectors, other things being equal it's a less convincing point to make (even if it would have been quicker). Train companies and their agents will generally have a heightened sense for things that might be consistent with trying to avoid a fare, so sometimes innocent explanations are less help.
Could you clarify this? Is there anything else that might have given the inspectors suspicion?
Although Transport Focus have a policy of only looking at complaints after the train company has dealt with them, perhaps they might be interested in this. They may think it raises a significant general issue.
If you'd prefer to be kept busy, you could go through the videos writing down exactly what was said and anything else relevant - for your next response, and potentially a complaint or other action.
Or maybe the promise is a valid ticket, so the byelaw doesn't apply anyway.
a defence in court, based on such a careful reading of the byelaws and the wording on a TVM.
on the sign at the station and also on his badge it says. "Purchase a ticket, or obtain a promise to pay"
the picture of it saying "You either need to obtain a ticket or a promise to pay" There is no where it says i must purchase a ticket if the office is open.
On a slight tangent I would be interested to know what classes as abusive language. In the 70' or 80's yes probably the f word but when I retired in 2012 from a professional office environment the f word was in common day to day use by both sexes and the c word was not becoming that uncommon.And then we have the separate issue of whether, given what they say on the web page, a penalty fare can legitimately be charged where the passenger has obtained a promise to pay. If not, then the "abusive" language may be seen in a different light.
The company might be on shaky ground in claiming there is a case for intent to avoid a fare, because of the recording of the attempt to buy from the conductor.
Depending on what is on the video recordings, perhaps you might be in an unusually strong position to appeal to management, or to the head of the prosecution unit, at an early stage to get the case abandoned and avoid worry.
However, I feel I have to ask, so I'm sorry if these are inappropriate - why did you record the attempt to buy from the conductor, and did you attempt that only after seeing the revenue officers?
A good starting point might be to consider what you would consider to be acceptable language from the member of staff.On a slight tangent I would be interested to know what classes as abusive language. In the 70' or 80's yes probably the f word but when I retired in 2012 from a professional office environment the f word was in common day to day use by both sexes and the c word was not becoming that uncommon.
Is there actually a legal or TOC list of what is abusive?
I don't think there needs to be - it would depend on the circumstances as the byelaws allow wide interpretation:On a slight tangent I would be interested to know what classes as abusive language. In the 70' or 80's yes probably the f word but when I retired in 2012 from a professional office environment the f word was in common day to day use by both sexes and the c word was not becoming that uncommon.
Is there actually a legal or TOC list of what is abusive?
I'd draw a distinction by arguing that in an office, or other workplace where the only other people there are your co-workers, everyone has a fair idea of what will cause offence and so will know what to avoid. In a more public place, such as a railway station where not everyone involved in a discussion will know everyone else's sensitivities, a reasonable person will restrict their language to that which will not offend other reasonable people. To fail to do so would at least support the idea of the language being used being offensive.On a slight tangent I would be interested to know what classes as abusive language. In the 70' or 80's yes probably the f word but when I retired in 2012 from a professional office environment the f word was in common day to day use by both sexes and the c word was not becoming that uncommon.
Is there actually a legal or TOC list of what is abusive?
Agreed.I would suggest that it is a non-starter to try and suggest that an offence under 6(1) hasn't been committed personally.
the person taking my details. Explained to the women "But we can't issue him a fixed penalty notice, as he has obtained the promise to pay"
I think @Fare-Cop has pretty much nailed this one.
Perhaps there's arguments to be made around byelaw18(3) and whether or not there was a notice which could have acted to give a dispensation from 18(1) or 18(2) but I certainly wouldn't be keen to test them in court as a prosecutor I'm sure would be readily able to make a compelling case against the OP. Perhaps the OP could defend themselves with a well reasoned argument backed up by evidence of the signs at the station and the TVM (as others have said I would also strongly advise getting pictures ASAP). But I certainly would consider it to be gamble.
Meanwhile 6(1) seems to be something of a slam dunk to me if they were to decide to also or alternatively prosecute for that. I can appreciate the point being made that language has moved on but I doubt a magistrate would be persuaded that the f-word is anything other than offensive. Back in 2016 OFCOM did some research into "Attitudes to potentially offensive language and gestures on TV and radio". The full report is here but perhaps most relevant is the table at page 44 (page 47 of the pdf)* which puts the f-word into the category of "Strongest words (highly unacceptable prewatershed but generally acceptable postwatershed)". I would suggest that it is a non-starter to try and suggest that an offence under 6(1) hasn't been committed personally.
*I would expect this to be obvious considering the title but if you do go reading the report it's full of words which could be potentially offensive.
Having read through all of this thread a couple of times and accepting the OPs post at face value, regarding staff behaviour, which I will comment on in a moment, it seems clear to me that breaches of National Railways Byelaw 18 (1) and NR Byelaw 6 (1) could be pursued by the TOC if they choose to do so.
National Railway Byelaws (2005)
Returning to the irregularity, the OP later admits "Something else to add that may be important i should of said from the start - This may count against me. This did not result in me paying for a ticket. As i was over the 30 minutes late. And very upset. I should of gone right > to the ticket office. But i went Left, the quickest route to work." (Post #50)
This sign is only on one platform. There is literally 0 signs about the new obtain a ptp or valid ticket. On the other platform. The amount of people I see travelling everyday without a ticket or ptp is mind boggling.