Merseyrail / Trainline disconnect

[furlong]

I think this is the approach to take, as it concentrates on the key reason why Merseyrail is not entitled to prosecute.

I would agree that that is a simple and straightforward next step.

 

[John R]

I would be inclined to write something as simple as:-

Thank you for your latest email. In the event that you choose to prosecute, I shall rely on the NRCoT for my defence, in particular paragraph 9.5.2, which is clear that the appropriate action to have taken would be to have issued me an excess fare for travelling on a different route to that specified for my “via Runcorn” ticket. I remain willing to pay the appropriate excess to resolve the matter.

 

[WesternLancer]

I would be inclined to write something as simple as:-

Thank you for your latest email. In the event that you choose to prosecute, I shall rely on the NRCoT for my defence, in particular paragraph 9.5.2, which is clear that the appropriate action to have taken would be to have issued me an excess fare for travelling on a different route to that specified for my “via Runcorn” ticket. I remain willing to pay the appropriate excess to resolve the matter.

This is good for clarity of the likely person reading it. Who seems to not to be familiar with the basic ticketing rules.

 

[John Palmer]

Have Merseyrail confirmed which law they are even prosecuting under?

Mersey rail have not confirmed the legislation creating the offence they accuse the OP of committing. It is a matter of pure speculation whether Merseyrail regards an offence as having been committed under its Byelaw 18, or under Section 5 Regulation of Railways Act 1889, or under some other legislation altogether. Each of these is different, and consequently knowledge of which legislation is in play is an essential prerequisite to any assessment of whether the necessary ingredients of an offence can be established. That is why the failure to identify the legislation creating the offence alleged is so serious a breach of Part 7.3(1) Criminal Procedure Rules 2020, why I cannot see any rational basis on which the OP can at present enter any plea other than one of 'not guilty', and why she cannot have a fair trial if that breach is allowed to stand.

Taken at face value Merseyrail's statement “The ticket from Chester to Liverpool Lime Street that was produced is valid via Runcorn only and via any Merseyrail train.” would seem to leave the company with no prospect of succeeding in a prosecution based on nothing more than alleged failure to produce a ticket. That appears to be an acknowledgment, from which Merseyrail cannot now resile, that the OP did produce a ticket.

I note Merseyrail's statement that “Your case is now awaiting a court hearing due to non-payment.” Am I correct in thinking that Merseyrail will, in fact, have received such payment in full, in the shape of the fare paid for the 'via Runcorn' ticket coupled with the supplementary payment of the excess fare due under NRCoT 9.5 which the OP indicated she would be forwarding to Merseyrail in the draft letter to that company she shared here? Can the OP please confirm that she did send payment of that excess fare, no mention of which is made in Merseyrail's reply?

I am sorry to have to say that Merseyrail's conduct of the Sarah Hodgson case (https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/merseyrail-prosecution.229114/) strongly suggests that the company will not be deflected from prosecution of the OP, as it appears to remain wedded to the specious belief that failure to produce a ticket its officials regard as valid entitles it, without more, to prosecute. It does no harm for the OP to persist in her attempts to have the case reviewed on the basis that she produced a ticket for her journey that was conditionally valid subject to payment of an excess which she has, I hope, now paid. I fear, however, that those attempts will fail, and that she will continue to have deal with prosecution of a charge against her the nature of which remains obscure.

 

[furlong]

I am sorry to have to say that Merseyrail's conduct of the Sarah Hodgson case (https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/merseyrail-prosecution.229114/) strongly suggests that the company will not be deflected from prosecution of the OP, as it appears to remain wedded to the specious belief that failure to produce a ticket its officials regard as valid entitles it, without more, to prosecute. It does no harm for the OP to persist in her attempts to have the case reviewed on the basis that she produced a ticket for her journey that was conditionally valid subject to payment of an excess which she has, I hope, now paid. I fear, however, that those attempts will fail, and that she will continue to have deal with prosecution of a charge against her the nature of which remains obscure.

And to save the OP time reading the whole thread, it's worth pointing out that Sarah's case was eventually discontinued, as shown in this post: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/merseyrail-prosecution.229114/post-5775560

(And I understand that her efforts to obtain appropriate redress are continuing to this day.)

 

[some bloke]

I fear, however, that those attempts will fail, and that she will continue to have deal with prosecution of a charge against her the nature of which remains obscure.

She can, and it seems "must", tell the court about the problem "at once".

It seems to me reasonable to interpret 1.2 as meaning the defendant has a duty to tell the court of relevant failures by the prosecution.

And can inform other relevant people.

Given the timescale, if a simple summary is put at the start (or the summary used as a short letter with the detail in an appendix) it could be cc'd to the head of prosecutions, the head of Merseyrail, the Mayor, and maybe a selection of organisations interested in for example consumer matters, news, and/or railway oversight.

..............

In the event that you choose to prosecute, I shall rely on the NRCoT for my defence

I think it's more effective to directly request or suggest that they engage with the point or points made.

They should realise that it could look worse in court if they failed to do so.

 

[John R]

She can, and it seems "must", tell the court about the problem "at once".

And can inform other relevant people.

..............

I think it's more effective to directly request or suggest that they engage with the point or points made.

They should realise that it could look worse in court if they failed to do so.

They have already raised that point, to no avail. But I am agnostic as to how a second attempt at highlighting its relevance is made.

 

[MTDar82]

I enclosed a £1 postal order with the letter. I also have the via Birkenhead ticket for £8 something which was printed at the other end which I realise everyone deems irrelevant but the fact is they have now had double the price of the original fare plus excess off me.

The ticket from Chester to Liverpool Lime Street that was produced is valid via Runcorn only and via any Merseyrail train.”

This is the sentence that doesn't make sense to me. ERGO, I produced a valid ticket.

 

[SuspectUsual]

This is the sentence that doesn't make sense to me. ERGO, I produced a valid ticket.

Is it just a typo, and should be as amended below?

The ticket from Chester to Liverpool Lime Street that was produced is valid via Runcorn only and NOT via any Merseyrail train.”

 

[Fawkes Cat]

The ticket from Chester to Liverpool Lime Street that was produced is valid via Runcorn only and via any Merseyrail train.”

This is the sentence that doesn't make sense to me. ERGO, I produced a valid ticket.

I am not sure if this is the issue, but I think we have to assume that there is a typo in what Merseyrail sent out and it should read

The ticket from Chester to Liverpool Lime Street that was produced is valid via Runcorn only and NOT via any Merseyrail train.”

I don't think it would be good advice to try to rely on a (fairly obvious) typo to overturn Merseyrail's position; it's certainly good evidence that they're not paying proper attention to their weaknesses in this case, but it's no more than that.

 

[AlterEgo]

I still think we are assuming Merseyrail are using the word "produce" to mean produced on the train, and not via email. It's not entirely clear here whether it is an admission of producing it on the train or not.

 

[MTDar82]

I did produce it on the train. I showed it to the first inspector. Which I understand them to be acknowledging in this sentence, even though it's been abandonned halfway through:

We can see from our system when requested to provide our team with a valid ticket or pass for your journey, you were unable to do so. As you produced both a trainline collection code that is not a valid ticket for a journey on our network until it has been printed.

 

[AlterEgo]

I did produce it on the train. I showed it to the first inspector. Which I understand them to be acknowledging in this sentence, even though it's been abandonned halfway through:

Thanks - that's important clarity and I agree this is an acknowledgement this was produced on the train. Good stuff.

 

[MTDar82]

Thank you as ever for all of your responses. I am just going to work but have drafted the following response:

---

Please could I draw your attention to the content of my letter, which states that under National Rail Condition of Travel 9.5, the only proper course of action for the ticket via Runcorn is to charge an excess fare.

Where you: 9.5.2 are using a route for which your Ticket is not valid; ... you will be charged the difference between the fare that you have paid and the lowest price Ticket that is valid for the train you are using.

Additionally, the Strategic Rail Authority Penalty Fares Policy document available on penaltyservices.co.uk refers to the ticket I produced:

• Ticket routing. A passenger who has a ticket for the journey they are making, but who is using a route on which their ticket is not valid, may not be charged a penalty fare. The National Rail Conditions of Carriage allow the passenger to pay an excess fare to travel on a different route from that shown on their ticket.

I was therefore incorrectly issued the penalty fare where an excess fare was applicable. To cover the excess fare for travelling on a different route to that specified for my ticket via Runcorn , I have provided the postal order.

 

[WesternLancer]

Thank you as ever for all of your responses. I am just going to work but have drafted the following response:

---

Please could I draw your attention to the content of my letter, which states that under National Rail Condition of Travel 9.5, the only proper course of action for the ticket via Runcorn is to charge an excess fare.

Where you: 9.5.2 are using a route for which your Ticket is not valid; ... you will be charged the difference between the fare that you have paid and the lowest price Ticket that is valid for the train you are using.

Additionally, the Strategic Rail Authority Penalty Fares Policy document available on penaltyservices.co.uk refers to the ticket I produced:

• Ticket routing. A passenger who has a ticket for the journey they are making, but who is using a route on which their ticket is not valid, may not be charged a penalty fare. The National Rail Conditions of Carriage allow the passenger to pay an excess fare to travel on a different route from that shown on their ticket.

I was therefore incorrectly issued the penalty fare where an excess fare was applicable. To cover the excess fare for travelling on a different route to that specified for my ticket via Runcorn , I have provided the postal order.

is it worth adding at the end 'this is why I believe the prosecution should be withdrawn' or some such wording? (experts who have commented in detail on this thread ought to say if this is appropriate to add to the draft I think)

 

[some bloke]

A suggestion:

..........................................

I propose that you withdraw the prosecution because of this point in my letter of xx September:

Under National Rail Condition of Travel 9.5, the only proper course of action for the ticket via Runcorn is to charge an excess fare, which I have now paid.

I refer you to that letter, and the note below.

Thank you.


Kind regards,

........................

Note

The National Rail Conditions of Travel state:

"Where you: 9.5.2 are using a route for which your Ticket is not valid; ... you will be charged the difference between the fare that you have paid and the lowest price Ticket that is valid for the train you are using."

Additionally, the Strategic Rail Authority Penalty Fares Policy document available on penaltyservices.co.uk refers to the ticket I produced:

"• Ticket routing. A passenger who has a ticket for the journey they are making, but who is using a route on which their ticket is not valid, may not be charged a penalty fare. The National Rail Conditions of Carriage allow the passenger to pay an excess fare to travel on a different route from that shown on their ticket."

I was therefore incorrectly issued the penalty fare where an excess fare was applicable.

To cover the excess fare for travelling on a different route to that specified for my ticket via Runcorn, I have provided the postal order.

 

[Hadders]

Thank you as ever for all of your responses. I am just going to work but have drafted the following response:

---

Please could I draw your attention to the content of my letter, which states that under National Rail Condition of Travel 9.5, the only proper course of action for the ticket via Runcorn is to charge an excess fare.

Where you: 9.5.2 are using a route for which your Ticket is not valid; ... you will be charged the difference between the fare that you have paid and the lowest price Ticket that is valid for the train you are using.

Additionally, the Strategic Rail Authority Penalty Fares Policy document available on penaltyservices.co.uk refers to the ticket I produced:

• Ticket routing. A passenger who has a ticket for the journey they are making, but who is using a route on which their ticket is not valid, may not be charged a penalty fare. The National Rail Conditions of Carriage allow the passenger to pay an excess fare to travel on a different route from that shown on their ticket.

I was therefore incorrectly issued the penalty fare where an excess fare was applicable. To cover the excess fare for travelling on a different route to that specified for my ticket via Runcorn , I have provided the postal order.

I think this is ok to send but you might want to mention that Merseyrail is listed in Appendix A of the National Rail Conditions of Travel as a Train Company to which the conditions apply. Merseyrail sometimes like to claim the NRCoT doesn't apply to them.

 

[MTDar82]

Yes, I had specified that in the letter. I have just received the following response, which is incredibly frustrating. Minus Dear xx and a name at the bottom, this is the entire content:


You have been issued with a Penalty Fare Notice due to the fact you were not in possession of a valid ticket for the journey you were making.

You also produced a reservation code from a third-party ticket retailor that had not been printed prior to you boarding the train.

The notice was issued to you correctly and in line with company policy.

Due to non-payment your case has been booked into a Magistrates court, Merseyrail again would strongly suggest that you enter a plea for the pack you have received.

Merseyrail will not withdraw this case.

 

[AlterEgo]

It is worth noting that non-payment of a penalty fare is not an offence. They have to substantiate an offence which happened during your travel.

 

[MTDar82]

Oh yes... I had read 'non-payment' as '..of the fare'. I have responded to ask that a more senior person explain why they are not in breach of NRCoT 9.5.2 which is their company policy as they are listed in Appendix A.

 

[some bloke]

Sounds like you are aware what to do.

Stay calm and remember the (?made-up) story about the US Navy ship which kept sending orders to steer out of its way until the other radio operator pointed out they were talking to a lighthouse.

Imagine this is court and you are telling a judge about Merseyrail's irrelevant answers.

When writing to them, bear in mind that the simpler your communications the easier it may be to explain to a court.

For example you can point out that they are replying about the wrong ticket.

 

[furlong]

This is where you can escalate from the top down. You can express the problem very succinctly now in terms that are easy for anyone to understand, so you write to the top of the organisation showing it is obvious to anyone that the organisation is doing something blatantly stupid and ask for it to be addressed. You are able to pull in others at this point too, such as Merseyrail's supervising authority, Transport Focus, your MP, the DfT, the press etc. (Going back a few years, ATOC used to be effective in situations like this, so asking for fares/NRCoT experts at its successor raildeliverygroup.com to explain the validity to Merseyrail, might be worth a punt.)

You need a one or two paragraph summary followed by the minimum necessary supporting evidence with an offer to provide the complete evidence on request.

 

[some bloke]

This is where you can escalate from the top down. You can express the problem very succinctly now in terms that are easy for anyone to understand, so you write to the top of the organisation showing it is obvious to anyone that the organisation is doing something blatantly stupid and ask for it to be addressed. You are able to pull in others at this point too, such as Merseyrail's supervising authority, Transport Focus, your MP, the DfT, the press etc.

You need a one or two paragraph summary followed by the minimum necessary supporting evidence with an offer to provide the complete evidence on request.

Yes.

In the summary you can quote "you will be charged the difference".

You could write that you explained twice, and they twice ignored the point in their purported replies.

One option is to link to one or more posts in this thread.

It's worth mentioning/linking to the background of previous error, for example:

Train company prosecutions

www.gov.uk

Another way of expressing the point is,

"Since Merseyrail is committed through Condition of Travel 9.5 to charge only an excess fare, its accusation that I 'avoided' a fare of £5.75 is necessarily false, as is its claim that a Penalty Fare was correctly charged."

 

[furlong]

The summary needs to be laser-focussed on the two essential points
- the serious procedural errors with the SJPN that may lead to the company's embarrassment in court and in the media in view of the increased scrutiny of these matters at this time
- that the company seems to be incapable of understanding its own contract which stated the passenger was merely liable to pay a change of route excess - no penalty, no criminal offences

 

[John Palmer]

It is pointless for the OP to continue corresponding with Merseyrail's prosecution department. I doubt that attempting to engage the attention of Merseyrail's senior management or any higher authority will resolve matters before time runs out for responding to the Single Justice Procedure Notice. I do not recall when that deadline falls due, but it is vital that the OP files a response to the SJPN before that deadline is reached, in order to avoid the case being decided in her absence.

As I hope I have made clear, I do not see what rational response to the SJPN can be made other than a plea of 'not guilty'. The nature of the offence charged cannot be ascertained due to Merseyrail's breach of the Criminal Procedure Rules, and until the basis in law of the charge has been established it remains impossible to say whether any offence has been committed.

From memory, I think the OP was called upon to send her SJPN response to a Single Justice processing centre, from which her case will presumably be allocated to the magistrates court that will deal with it thereafter. Although there is a risk of it being disregarded by the processing centre, I recommend her to return her SJPN response with a letter along the following lines:

“The Single Justice Procedure Notice sent to me sets out a charge that does not identify the legislation that creates the offence of which I am accused, contrary to Part 7.3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2020. I am entering a plea of 'not guilty' on the footing that I am consequently unable to identify the basis in law of the charge brought against me and do not know what case I have to meet.

“I am bringing this omission to the Court's attention in accordance with overriding objective of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2020 and, specifically, my duty to do so as set out in Part 1.2(1)(c) thereof. I await hearing from the Court as to how it proposes to deal with the contravention of CPR Part 7.3(1).”

In the event of such a letter being overlooked by the SJ processing centre, the OP will need to retain a copy with a view to producing it to the Court at the very first hearing of her case.

Bearing in mind that Sarah Hodgson's prosecution was withdrawn without explanation before her case went to trial, and Merseyrail's repeated exhortations to the OP to respond to the SJPN in the present case, I see no likelihood of change in its prosecution department's intransigence until it is put on notice by a 'not guilty' plea that it will have to prove its case. Sooner or later the advocate who will be called upon to do so will have to decide how Merseyrail is to go about this, and I suspect that at that juncture there may be a more sober assessment of the difficulties it will face. That may lead to a climb down as in the Hodgson case.

 

[some bloke]

If I understand correctly, the SJP deadline is 8 October and you can submit the response online.

Asking for the "excess" argument to be reviewed by a senior person, as you have done, seems to me to be a sensible decision.

If that doesn't work, It may still be that you can, through brief emails, give strong hints that they need to check with their lawyers and/or revenue protection staff, who should know better.

Writing those emails might be fairly easy, since in an instance where they don't respond to a point, you can quote from your earlier messages.

Perhaps one approach could be:

"Please confirm

a) whether it is the position of Merseyrail's legal team and revenue protection department that the excess fare it is mandated to charge by Condition of Travel 9.5 somehow did not apply to the via Runcorn ticket, and if so

b) how."

there's still the possibility they might attempt to find a way to substitute 18(1) ....So I do think there's merit in focussing on the substantive issue here (the contractual liability to pay the excess) as that would eliminate all proceedings.

Agreed.

If/when you inform the court of the procedural error, you can attach/include the email in which you informed Merseyrail of it.

That email would show the court (without you needing to spell it out) that Merseyrail also failed in their duty to inform the court after you told them.

Basically, it seems to me worth trying to get them to agree to give up in the next ten days through putting the "excess" argument in various ways, perhaps to various people.

 

[MTDar82]

An update: I received a third response stating that I did not produce a valid ticket, the penalty fare was issued in line with company policy and "To appeal this notice further this should be done via the court plea you have received."
I have drafted a not guilty plea including on the wording provided by @John Palmer above in #145, however when I went online to look at the process, I have found that the wording of the offence is as follows (and does not match the paperwork I received through the post):

Fail to hand over ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person
On [date, name] failed to hand over their ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.
Contrary to byelaws 18.2 and 24.1 of the Merseyrail Railway Byelaws 2014.

This obviously states the legislation, so does this cover them for procedural error, or is it still relevant that it's not on the paperwork and I've only just seen it?

 

[Pushpit]

This is surreal, their own paperwork contradicts the offence.

 

[gray1404]

I would reply to Merseyrail asking that they escalate your correspondence to a Manager.

I would also return the form by post.

Their militant and bloody minded attitude is typical of the organisation and is what gives Liverpool a bad name. And yes I'm from Liverpool and live here!

 

[MTDar82]

I would reply to Merseyrail asking that they escalate your correspondence to a Manager.

I would also return the form by post.

Their militant and bloody minded attitude is typical of the organisation and is what gives Liverpool a bad name. And yes I'm from Liverpool and live here!

I did that. The third response was ostensibly from someone else but from the same generic email address and signed by the same person as the other two

(But also, lucky you. Not even this rigmarole can extinguish my deep deep love of the place.)