Northern Rail Court Summons

[Fawkes Cat]

It's better to just stick to the relevant facts though - suppress the emotion and avoid saying more than is necessary (like a comment about criminal/civil). I.e. send them the proof of what you already paid and offer the extra pound.

What @furlong said. You might also decide that it's worth paying the full fare in dispute (is it £8.50? I know you did tell us, but can't find it just now (EDIT - no, it's £8.20)) to bring the matter to a definite end: you might think it worth making a small concession to make the threat of court action go away.

 

[gray1404]

`Given the small sums involved I would pay whatever they are asking at this moment in time. It really is pathetic that they have to nerve to ask for the fare, given it really should be clear to them that you did provide your name and address. I would do this and get confirmation from both Northern and the Court that the case has been withdrawn.

Then I would make a formal complaint to Northern seeking both a refund of the additional fare paid and compensation for their errors. You would be able to complain, ask a Manager to review your complaint if you remain unhappy and also take the matter to the Rail Ombudsman.

Come the end of December, six months after the date of travel, Northern will be out of time to do anything. They only have 6 month to commence proceedings with the court for legal proceedings.

 

[some bloke]

If I understand correctly, you were still liable for the £20 penalty fare. The fact that they are dropping their demand for it (and for their erroneously demanded £15) may indicate that they are now fully aware of one or more basic errors in hassling you, for things you had basically already done. They may realise that going to court would only result in embarrassment for them.

If after your emails they still thought there had been some merit in the prosecution, would they have dropped the demand for £20?

Perhaps the appeal date error was made by the appeals service rather than Northern. But to start a prosecution when it should be obvious to the prosecution department that the person cannot be guilty, with all the potential for worry, might seem to need more explanation (later).

 

[Puffing Devil]

`Given the small sums involved I would pay whatever they are asking at this moment in time. It really is pathetic that they have to nerve to ask for the fare, given it really should be clear to them that you did provide your name and address. I would do this and get confirmation from both Northern and the Court that the case has been withdrawn.

Then I would make a formal complaint to Northern seeking both a refund of the additional fare paid and compensation for their errors. You would be able to complain, ask a Manager to review your complaint if you remain unhappy and also take the matter to the Rail Ombudsman.

Agree with everyone - I'd pay the £8.20, even though it sticks in the throat. Reading back, there were technically machines available at the station and you should have bought a ticket before travel.

£8.20 is less than the penalty fare and most likely less than you earn in an hour; you may want to think about the value of your time.

 

[some bloke]

If you want to pursue this later, it may be worth posting more of the correspondence/statements here, in case people spot things that are relevant.

For example, the precise wording of this might be useful - or at least interesting:

they have asked me to pay the fair and the court proceedings will be withdrawn.

 

[Boonaldo]

I will reply to them this morning and say that "seeing as your machine was at fault when i tried to buy my original return ticket costing 9.20 and i had to buy a ticket home costing 8.20 " To restore me back to my original position prior to the unnecessary action brought against me, technically i only owe a pound.
However, to bring your unreasonable conduct to a close, i will pay the 8.20 fare.
Please confirm when the case has been dropped

 

[some bloke]

I'm sorry you're in this position - as I understand it, technically you owe them £20 (if we ignore any potential compensation/goodwill). We might think it shouldn't be this way, but the law is that you must produce a valid ticket unless there are no facilities: paragraphs 5(1) and 6(2)(a).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/366/made

 

[Boonaldo]

I'm sorry you're in this position - as I understand it, technically you owe them £20 (if we ignore any potential compensation/goodwill). We might think it shouldn't be this way, but the law is that you must produce a valid ticket unless there are no facilities: paragraphs 5(1) and 6(2)(a).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/366/made

Again, i refer to the matter of intent.
I intended to pay, i tried to pay. Intent to avoid was not in the mind, intent to pay was.
The reason i couldnt pay is becaue of error on their behalf. Not mine.
I shouldnt be held liable for a penalty fare when the penalty fare arose due to error on their part.
You even said it yourself, unless there are no facilities.
That they decide to put only one ticket machine on this side of the line, when the option for multiple is available, means they deam it sufficient cover for people passing through that side of the station. Hence, facilities were not available.

 

[some bloke]

Again, i refer to the matter of intent.
I intended to pay, i tried to pay. Intent to avoid was not in the mind, intent to pay was.
The reason i couldnt pay is becaue of error on their behalf. Not mine.
I shouldnt be held liable for a penalty fare when the penalty fare arose due to error on their part.
You even said it yourself, unless there are no facilities.
That they decide to put only one ticket machine on this side of the line, when the option for multiple is available, means they deam it sufficient cover for people passing through that side of the station. Hence, facilities were not available.

Unfortunately intent is not necessary for a penalty fare.

The exemption is where there were no facilities at the station. This has been discussed before on this forum, and it is not hard to think of instances where we can think the law, and/or companies' approach to the law, are deficient.

 

[some bloke]

When I say companies' approach to the law may be deficient, what I mean is that they may apply it where we would think discretion is more sensible even if technically someone has breached the regulation.

 

[gray1404]

I would strongly go down the route of being professional and assertive in any contact with Northern. Be that by email, in writing or over the phone. I wouldn't say anything that comes across as being annoyed or could rub anyone up the wrong way.

At the moment their cooperation is needed, rightly or wrongly, for them to drop the charges. Given the low amount of money involved I would be polite with them and pay it to get the charge dropped. I would then get confirmation from the court too that the case has been withdrawn.

Once this has been done and there are no more pending legal charges you can make a formal complaint to Northern, taking the complaint further if needed, and attempt to have them refund any overpayment.

 

[Boonaldo]

Unfortunately intent is not necessary for a penalty fare.

The exemption is where there were no facilities at the station. This has been discussed before on this forum, and it is not hard to think of instances where we can think the law, and/or companies' approach to the law, are deficient.

Intent is enshrined in law
I have displayed intent to the train company and they have wiped the penalty fare.
I have not only intended to pay but actually attempted to. Their machinery was at fault.
They need to prove that i intended to avoid a fare.

I would strongly go down the route of being professional and assertive in any contact with Northern. Be that by email, in writing or over the phone. I wouldn't say anything that comes across as being annoyed or could rub anyone up the wrong way.

At the moment their cooperation is needed, rightly or wrongly, for them to drop the charges. Given the low amount of money involved I would be polite with them and pay it to get the charge dropped. I would then get confirmation from the court too that the case has been withdrawn.

Once this has been done and there are no more pending legal charges you can make a formal complaint to Northern, taking the complaint further if needed, and attempt to have them refund any overpayment.

I have now paid the outstanding fare, so now on with totalling up my costs forndealing with this matter and send them the invoice.

 

[gray1404]

So Northern have now confirmed that they have withdrawn the prosecution? Have they done this in writing also? It is really important that you check with the Court the hearing was listed at that it has also been withdrawn. The last thing you want to Northern intending but not actually withdrawing it and the case still being called.

 

[Boonaldo]

So Northern have now confirmed that they have withdrawn the prosecution? Have they done this in writing also? It is really important that you check with the Court the hearing was listed at that it has also been withdrawn. The last thing you want to Northern intending but not actually withdrawing it and the case still being called.

This bit hasnt been fome yet, emailed them with receipt number and asked thrm to confirm the withdrawal.
Ill check online too to see if its listed.

 

[Boonaldo]

They have just responded that the matter is closed. No further action is required

 

[some bloke]

Intent is enshrined in law...
They need to prove that i intended to avoid a fare.

In case it's relevant to anything you might mention in a complaint:

The concept of intent runs through English law unless there is a presumption of strict liability.

A penalty fare, as with offences under Railway Byelaws, involves the strict liability which @Puffing Devil is talking about and provided a relevant reference for:

https://www.lawteacher.net/modules/criminal-law/committing-an-offence/mens-rea/lecture.php

Here intention doesn't matter, as with speeding. The regulations say a penalty fare can be charged where someone doesn't produce a valid ticket, unless some conditions are met. That - in addition to the relevant Byelaw (see below) - is why this is true in terms of the legal requirements:

there were technically machines available at the station and you should have bought a ticket before travel.

There's no need to trust what we say, because you can read it for yourself (the only PF regulations train companies refer to now are the 2018 ones).

the law is that you must produce a valid ticket unless there are no facilities: paragraphs 5(1) and 6(2)(a).
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/366/made

It's a breach of Byelaw 18 (1) to get on a train without a valid ticket, intending to travel. That's also a strict liability matter.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/railway-byelaws

intent is not necessary for a penalty fare.

 

[Boonaldo]

6.2a would get me off - as I would satisfy both 4 a and b
Also 8.2 and 8.4 - I haven't seen a std notice or a compulsory ticket are notice anywhere - not at the entrance I use as there is more than one entrance

 

[Boonaldo]

also the collector did not have the penalty fares symbol on him - neither did he have his photo id on display - as I videoed him and just paused it then to see if he had any visible identification on him - and under 10.4 a & b he has no power to do anything.

 

[ashkeba]

Reading back, there were technically machines available at the station and you should have bought a ticket before travel.

Does the law really regard it as one station not two if it divided by a railway and there is no footbridge? That seems defective.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Does the law really regard it as one station not two if it divided by a railway and there is no footbridge? That seems defective.

I don't know the location in this case - if there is no way of passing between the platforms and no way of buying a ticket, then there is no opportunity to purchase before travel. The "get out" for the bylaws offence is

there were no facilities in working order for the issue or
validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where,
he began his journey​

You could argue that a trip of 5-10 minutes satisfies this definition - as far as I know, this has not been tested. Unfortunately, queues do not provide a reasonable excuse.

 

[RPI]

also the collector did not have the penalty fares symbol on him - neither did he have his photo id on display - as I videoed him and just paused it then to see if he had any visible identification on him - and under 10.4 a & b he has no power to do anything.

The ID only has to be produced when asked, it doesn't have to be on display.

 

[furlong]

Indeed

10 (3) Where a collector requires a person to do anything under these Regulations, that collector must, if the person concerned so requests, produce the collector’s identification