ForTheLoveOf
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 6,416
Mod Note: Posts #1 - #9 originally in this thread.
In a case such as this I would be surprised if the TOC even tried to go for RoRA, as it would certainly be something that could be defended against with good legal representation. Whereas a Byelaw prosecution isn't (assuming there were functional ticketing facilities available).
That difference may weigh into the OP's decision over whether or not to accept the settlement, given that a Byelaws conviction would not lead to a criminal record - if they are of particularly limited means they may opt not to go for it, in the hope that they would be fined, and made to pay costs, which add up to less than what GA are asking for now. That does, however, seem quite unlikely to me given the costs requested are 'just' £80 rather than, say, £180 or £280 (even though I highly doubt that GA have incurred costs anywhere even approaching £80 for handling this specific case).
That being said, in almost all personal contexts here it would be worthwhile accepting the settlement.
There is no suggestion in any of the previous messages that the passenger intended to avoid payment of the fare merely because they did not have the means to pay it on them at the time. If a TOC is relying on that as their sole argument for a RoRA prosecution, they are on shaky ground. It's not as if the OP lied about what happened; it is perfectly possible for an honest person to forget their wallet (although, if there was a history of this happening that would be more likely to suggest intent).As you chose to join a train without a ticket and had no means to purchase one, the correct course of action was to report for consideration of prosecution. A penalty fare is issued normally to a passenger who makes a mistake. You intentionally tried to skip paying your fare. I disagree with ForTheLoveOf to the extent he suggests this is a byelaw 18 matter; this seems to me like travelling without paying your fare and with intent to avoid payment thereof, contrary to section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.
You now need to pay the sum requested promptly to avoid the matter escalating further and ending up with a criminal record.
If you do choose to complain about or contest the matter afterward that is of course your right, but I do not see any grounds for any such complaint.
In a case such as this I would be surprised if the TOC even tried to go for RoRA, as it would certainly be something that could be defended against with good legal representation. Whereas a Byelaw prosecution isn't (assuming there were functional ticketing facilities available).
That difference may weigh into the OP's decision over whether or not to accept the settlement, given that a Byelaws conviction would not lead to a criminal record - if they are of particularly limited means they may opt not to go for it, in the hope that they would be fined, and made to pay costs, which add up to less than what GA are asking for now. That does, however, seem quite unlikely to me given the costs requested are 'just' £80 rather than, say, £180 or £280 (even though I highly doubt that GA have incurred costs anywhere even approaching £80 for handling this specific case).
That being said, in almost all personal contexts here it would be worthwhile accepting the settlement.