Lost ticket and unpaid fare notice (Leeds-London on EC)

[Greenback]

"Did the guard sell them a ticket? If so, they were treated by the guard in an identical way to the OP, ie no ticket was presented and a ticket was sold, presumably at the Anytime rate.

The passengers you refer to were not charged a PF but neither was the OP in this case. Guards on SWT services cannot issue PFs."

They had no tickets at all (or presented no tickets to the gateline attendant). A couple of trains has just arrived so the attendants were busy letting people come and go. He drew their attention to the Penalty Fares notice on the side of the kiosk on The Mayflower Theatre side whilst letting people come and gotr and then told them they needed to buy a ticket before travelling in future and opened the gate and let them through. No tickets were sold at the time.

"The quality of gateline staff is inconsistent. Some are absolutely brilliant, friendly, and knowledgeable. Some less so unfortunately."

Seems this is also the case with a fair few number of rail staff and then leaving customers in the lurch making statements to which they are not entitled.

A few threads on here and what I saw at Southampton Central station this evening really does indicate how rubbish our ticketing system is and our Train Operating Companies.

I have a good mind to report the matter to South West Trains and asking them when I would be allowed to travel without a ticket but could almost write their fob off response myself.

What do you suggest should happen in these sorts of cases? Prosecution of those without a ticket?

I'd suggest rereading the thread, there is a lot of patronising replies. Some of your replies may come across as abrupt, despite the info your providing being correct, I think you should consider how you word them, as I suspect this may be what has upset the OP, who came here for advice and has received unnecessary responses. The lady who lost her gold card has been accused of fraud by some. I'm pretty sure making such accusations are illegal to make without grounds to, or evidence to support.
These things can make this forum very unwelcoming to a newbie.

The Op did indeed come here for advice. Unfortunately, despite being given accurate and constructive advice, they did not like it and things became exasperated from that point.

As Yorkie has said, if anyone feels that posts have made unfair accusations, they should be reported to the moderators. I would certianly report any post that directly accused someone of fraud, but to the best of my knowledge I haven't seen any that said that. (I haven't read every single post ine very thread).

 

[cumfy]

the inspector said if I appealed against it, with evidence of payment (I paid online), it'd be alright

I think you have a case.
If he had not, as you believe, misinformed you, you could have disembarked and chosen to travel no further.

He therefore effectively deprived you of that opportunity, and the consequent loss you suffered is caused by that misinformation.

Unfortunately it will be his word against yours.
He will undoubtedly claim he said something subtley different!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Taking your case at its highest you could claim the ToC were guilty of fraud by deception.

If you felt he deliberately mislead you to the outcome of your appeal (as you suggest), he would in effect be defrauding (or attempting to defraud) you by that deception.

 

[jon0844]

These are the sorts of thing to mention in order for the TOC to think 'erm, let's drop this one' and say no more.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think you have a case.

Not at all, in a legal sense. It's up to the OP to prove he was misled, not for East Coast to prove he wasn't. This is, I'm afraid, not possible.

If you felt he deliberately mislead you to the outcome of your appeal (as you suggest), he would in effect be defrauding (or attempting to defraud) you by that deception.

The guard cannot commit fraud, as a fraud is essentially a crime where a party misleads another to create a gain for themselves.

I am not sure the guard had anything to gain himself, so that is unsound.

There really is no hope for the OP in challenging this on a legal basis, otherwise we'd have heard about it by now. The most sensible (and productive) advice has already been given.

 

[All Line Rover]

Print@Home is the way forward for InterCity travel.

I completely disagree! Why do you - and a number of other people on here - go on and on about "Print@Home?"

• Not everyone has internet access.
• Not everyone buys their ticket online.
• Not everyone has a printer (even if they've got internet access).
• Not everyone has a usable printer. (Even if they've got a printer, the ink cartridges or toner might be empty!)
• Not everyone has a credit/debit card (e.g. children).

Print@Home may well be "the future," but I can't see it becoming established for at least another decade or two. If it ever became mainstream, it would have to be implemented in a radically different manner. The current version of "Print@Home" causes more problems than it cures.

 

[Greenback]

Not at all, in a legal sense. It's up to the OP to prove he was misled, not for East Coast to prove he wasn't. This is, I'm afraid, not possible.

Agreed.

The guard cannot commit fraud, as a fraud is essentially a crime where a party misleads another to create a gain for themselves.

I am not sure the guard had anything to gain himself, so that is unsound.

It could be argued that the guard could be gaining commission for themselves, but I agree that this argument is a bit dodgy to say the least.

There really is no hope for the OP in challenging this on a legal basis, otherwise we'd have heard about it by now. The most sensible (and productive) advice has already been given.

Indeed. I think it is rather dangerous to offer the OP false hope.

 

[Ferret]

I completely agree Greenback. I'd rather this forum was credible - and one thing we are not is miracle workers!

 

[cumfy]

Not at all, in a legal sense. It's up to the OP to prove he was misled, not for East Coast to prove he wasn't. This is, I'm afraid, not possible.

It would be for a court to decide on the balance of probability in a civil case.

The guard cannot commit fraud, as a fraud is essentially a crime where a party misleads another to create a gain for themselves.

Guards are not immune from the law!
He may simply have wished to placate the OP, and deal with other customers. A white lie perhaps. Tell that to the court.

There really is no hope for the OP in challenging this on a legal basis, otherwise we'd have heard about it by now.

Have you ever heard of the term logical non sequitur ?

Perhaps you might like to address the real issue:

If he had not, as you believe, misinformed you, you could have disembarked and chosen to travel no further.

 

[Greenback]

The real issue, cumfy, is that the OP lost their ticket somewhere and was unable to produce it as required by the NRCoC. This might be seen as unfair, there may be better ways of doing things than using paper tickets, but all of that is rathe rirrlevant in the circumstances.

What you are suggesting, is, if I my say so, only going to elad to situations where there is more confrontation on trains where passengers are not able to produce a ticket. There is absolutely nothing wrong in trying to placate a passenger, nor is there anything wrong in the guard offering an opinion. No guard will be able to remember exactly what words were used to one passenger on one train almost six months ago, and I very much doubt that the OP can either.

However you dress it up, more accurate and more appropriate advice has already been given. The OP may not have liked it, but it is far better that they hear it rather than being encouraged to embark on a course of litigation that is unlikely to succeed.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

However you dress it up, more accurate and more appropriate advice has already been given. The OP may not have liked it, but it is far better that they hear it rather than being encouraged to embark on a course of litigation that is unlikely to succeed.

I agree.
In fact, I strongly refute the suggestions that the OP may receive any comfort from civil remedies pursuing an allegation of fraud and/or deception, whether against an employee or the Company.

I don't believe that either of those lines of thought appear to have any merit and I'm sorry to say that I don't even feel they require any further analysis.

 

[cumfy]

I agree.
I don't believe that either of those lines of thought appear to have any merit and I'm sorry to say that I don't even feel they require any further analysis.

further analysis ?

The problem is no one will even attempt analysis!

The OP's case is that the guard's misinformation about the appeal deprived the OP of the opportunity to minimise his loss by ending his journey at the next station. The guard/ToC are responsible for this in the eyes of OP.

No one responds directly to this.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Basically, the guard shouldn't have lied.

But many on this thread are insinuating that he should.

 

[Ferret]

further analysis ?

The problem is no one will even attempt analysis!

The OP's case is that the guard's misinformation about the appeal deprived the OP of the opportunity to minimise his loss by ending his journey at the next station. The guard/ToC are responsible for this in the eyes of OP.

No one responds directly to this.

No need to - the OP signed a UFN for the fare to Kings Cross. That is evidence of a civil debt. Giving him false hope that he can somehow get out of that with what seems to be a frivolous Court action as suggested is just silly.

 

[cumfy]

No need to - the OP signed a UFN for the fare to Kings Cross.

On the basis that his proof of ticket purchase would negate the UFN.

 

[AlterEgo]

Basically, the guard shouldn't have lied.

But many on this thread are insinuating that he should.

Many?

Nope.

We must assume the OP is telling the truth. The guard was wrong to tell the OP his UFN would be waived. I can understand why he may have done that, but that doesn't make it right.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The OP's case is that the guard's misinformation about the appeal deprived the OP of the opportunity to minimise his loss by ending his journey at the next station.

The claim of 'misinformation' is yours and is not shared. The 'information' was, in all probability quite correrct (the OP could have used that 'information' constructively but simply did nothing for a month).

The guard/ToC are responsible for this in the eyes of OP.

The 'responsibility' which has been explained is one for the traveller, and they failed.
The failure of the Guard and or Company that you refer to is lacking in any evidence, is lacking in justification and lacking in grounds which might suggest a glimmer of hope if pursued.

Basically, the guard shouldn't have lied.

There is no evidence of a lie. There is no evidence of even a mistake. Yhe Guard's advice might have been more accurate if the OP had dealt with the matter n a timely fashion rather than wait until it is too late and then post on here a very one-sided story.

But many on this thread are insinuating that he should.

There is no evidence that anyone on this thread has insinuated that the Guard should lie.

There. I really think you should drop this one cumfy. There are battles worth fighting and arguments worth pursuing against all odds. And this just isn't one of them.

 

[MikeWh]

It's unfortunate that this thread has been resurrected after nearly a week. I fear that the OP has possibly long gone and will quite possibly never read this renewed discussion. Mind you, I agree with others that it may well be best if he doesn't.

 

[cumfy]

There. I really think you should drop this one cumfy. There are battles worth fighting and arguments worth pursuing against all odds. And this just isn't one of them.

You're still posting -- It takes 2 to tango.

I have stated the logic of the case a few times now.

People can make of it what they will.

 

[Ferret]

We have made of it what we will! It wouldn't work! All of us on here are willing to help anyone who comes here - I'm a railway employee with some knowledge and DaveNewcastle has some serious knowledge. I don't see any merit in your argument, and neither does he. I wish the OP the very best, but he hasn't helped himself, and it may well be he just has to learn his lesson the hard way. Shame

 

[Clyde]

Hello, I thought I'd come back here and let you know how the matter was resolved.

I took on board the sage advice given on here and reluctantly conceded that I probably didn't have a leg to stand on, but instead of writing back to them graciously admitting defeat, I reacted to the letter in the usual way I respond to a crisis: total inaction. A month passed by and I received a letter from East Coast announcing their intention to prosecute me, but they enclosed a form for me to respond/appeal before they went ahead, so I filled in a desperate entreaty for them not to prosecute me, including again a copy of the confirmation email that I'd bought the ticket. I won't go into details, but I think it ended 'please please please please do not take this any further, as I don't need this right now, nor can I afford it', or something equally plaintive.

Their response was to ask for proof that I travelled on the 21st of September, as I had sent them confirmation for a ticket for travel on the 22nd September. They claimed that the Unpaid Fare Notice had been issued on the 21st, so I had travelled a day earlier than I should have. I frantically checked my texts and phone calls and even checked my posts online (on another forum), cursing my rotten luck, on the 22nd and confirmed that I wasn't mistaken, they were. I responded, informing them of this.

They sent me another letter, again claiming that I'd travelled on the 21st, but they were willing to bring the fare down from £150ish to £105 'as a goodwill gesture'. They gave a number to call to pay it, so I rang it and explained again that I'd travelled on the 22nd and that their inspector must have written down the wrong date on the chit. They asked me to confirm this by email and that they'd be able to check this easily as they could look at the staff rosters for the day and that no inspector works two days in a row on the same train.

They got back to me the next day to say that the Unpaid Fare Notice had been issued incorrectly and as such had been cancelled.

Result! I have to thank incompetence (my own, and to a limited extent, members of the train staff) for getting me in the situation, and incompetence for getting me out of it.

Viva incompetence!

(Thanks again for the wisdom and practical advice dispensed on this thread. I shall be more careful in future.)

 

[benk1342]

I think it's unreasonable all the same. £135! They can whistle for it. If they don't cancel my fare, I'll offer them the money I paid for my ticket originall at £2 a week, but they're not getting £135 off me. I don't have it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
thanks for everyone's advice btw.
I'm very cross about this though!

Fair enough but be aware that if they take you to court over it and you lose it will be far, far more than £135 --- and you'll have a judgment against you, which is never good, and which will accrue interest. But if you simply don't have the money you don't have the money. If it's true that they will never get £135 out of you then they would be wise to settle with you for less, but you can't force them to do it.

I know this situation sucks, but as I've said on here before these are the risks that we bear in exchange for the benefits of a fast, anonymous ticketing system. I would much rather bear the risk of having to replace a lost ticket at my own expense than have to show my ID and provide my name every time I want to buy a train ticket.

We buy our train tickets knowing that if we lose them, we are going to be the ones that bear the cost --- that's what we sign up for when we buy the tickets. If you don't like these terms, as you said you are free not to do business with the rail industry and take coaches instead.

 

[Clyde]

I suggest you read to the end of the thread.

 

[benk1342]

I suggest you read to the end of the thread.

Ha! Sorry about that --- I was running out the door. That will teach me I guess.

 

[LexyBoy]

Lucky boy

 

[LondonJohn]

I am really pleased about the outcome of this for you. It was the correct outcome by default and I hope that your luck starts to change for the better.

 

[cumfy]

Glad everything turned out well.

However I do wonder if they deliberately left the date error in, so they could elegantly withdraw on a technicality if things got choppy for them.

ie just hoping you would capitulate in the early stages but knowing they could at any stage withdraw the action should it become convenient for them to do so.

 

[GadgetMan]

However I do wonder if they deliberately left the date error in, so they could elegantly withdraw on a technicality if things got choppy for them.

Doubt it. Sounds like a basic error by the guard.

We all sometimes make mistakes, in the case of UFNs this works to the advantage of passengers as most mistakes on a UFN make it impossible to enforce/prosecute.