Northern Rail Court Summons

[Boonaldo]

Asking for reasoning behind a request for a nsme and address isnt not complying, i asked why and explained the events to him, explained that i should be given reasomable chance to pay.
His witness statement doesnt say i didnt comply. It says he had occassuon to speak to a passenger who gave his name as xxxxxxxx.
Doesnt say i refused

 

[furlong]

If the appeal rejection notice did not comply, then you might argue that that means the appeals system the company has does not comply with the Regulations and therefore no Penalty Fare (within the meaning of the regulations) was ever issued - but this may mean they are no longer barred from prosecuting...

Luckily there is a specific provision that might cover this:

14 (2) Where a penalty fare is charged to a person on behalf of an operator and paragraph (4) applies, the person is not liable to pay the penalty fare.
...
(4) This paragraph applies if—
(a) the operator did not satisfy the appeals requirements at the time the penalty fare was charged; or
(b) there is a time at which the person could appeal under regulation 16, 17 or 18, and at that time the operator does not satisfy the appeals requirements.

(5) An operator “satisfies the appeals requirements” for the purposes of this regulation if the operator has—
(a) made arrangements for—
(i) an Appeal Panel to consider any appeal under regulations 16 and 17 against a penalty fare charged on its behalf, and
...
16 (2) An appeal under this regulation must be made—
(a) in accordance with the Appeal Procedure;
..
“Appeal Procedure” means the procedure specified in Schedule 2;
..
SCHEDULE 2
...
8. Where an Appeal Panel notifies its decision not to allow an appeal under regulation 16 it mustprovide the appellant with a statement that—
(a) the person has the right to appeal against the decision to the relevant Appeal Panel;

It's complicated, but is another argument you might consider - the time in question might be that at which you could appeal under regulation 17, when they did not comply with regulation 16 by failing to tell you that you could make such an appeal.

 

[Boonaldo]

So was that requirement not met?

No, the two pdfs do not say you can appeal further.

 

[some bloke]

Asking for reasoning behind a request for a nsme and address isnt not complying, i asked why and explained the events to him, explained that i should be given reasomable chance to pay.
His witness statement doesnt say i didnt comply. It says he had occassuon to speak to a passenger who gave his name as xxxxxxxx.
Doesnt say i refused

OK - I was responding to you saying you resisted.
Would you like to upload your appeal letter and the decision (with identifying details removed)?

 

[Boonaldo]

OK - I was responding to you saying you resisted.
Would you like to upload your appeal letter and the decision (with identifying details removed)?

Its pdf, i cant remove from pdf.
I couĺd type it out ?

 

[some bloke]

Perhaps a photo? Just in case someone sees anything useful, you might also upload the other paperwork such as their various statements.

As @Puffing Devil said, the priority now is the summons.

 

[some bloke]

Screenshots perhaps, if easier than photo.

 

[cuccir]

Sneaky moved by NR in my opinion; they are barred from bringing a prosecution under the bylaws or Section 5(3) of the RORA as the Penalty Fare was appealed. I think they are aware of this and are trying it on.

There are two points to consider:

1) It's not clear from the post if you gave your name and address to the RPI. I'm assuming that this is the case and that's why you received the Penalty Fare. If so, you've satisfied 5(1) by giving your name and address and the prosecution will fail.

2) Additionally, as mikeg says, there is the issue of intent. Your version of events shows that you tried to pay and were unable to. Again, the prosecution should fail unless they can show evidence to the contrary.

I would write to NR and make the points above, citing, though not producing the evidence that you have and ask them to withdraw the charge otherwise you will be pleading not guilty and taking the matter to trial.

I'd be looking to both telephone and write to the prosecutions department tomorrow to make these two points. Based on what you have said so far, I don't see any evidence of intending to avoid a fare.

 

[some bloke]

Based on what you have said so far, I don't see any evidence of intending to avoid a fare.

It may be useful to bear in mind when replying that although section 5 is titled "Penalty for avoiding payment of fare", 5 (1) doesn't mention intent.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/52-53/57/section/5

 

[Boonaldo]

There's also this point - which may be relevant if this error was a reason for the summons:


It may be useful to bear in mind when replying that 5 (1) doesn't require intent.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/52-53/57/section/5

It may be useful to bear in mind when replying that although section 5 is titled "Penalty for avoiding payment of fare", 5 (1) doesn't mention intent.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/52-53/57/section/5

I thought that surely the fact the witness statements can be proved to be incorrect, must count for something.
Given that the prosecutions unit deal with so many appeals letters etc, surely they have experience of checking for when appeals are actually submitted, given they have actually stated that the appeal arrived at the same time as the debt letter, someone must of checked, meaning they have submitted the statement knowing it was false, or intended to mislead, as the submission date is five days prior to them saying they received it, but my electronic submission date cannot be denied.

 

[gray1404]

Do you have proof of the date and time you submitted your appeal? Something like a confirmation email or screen shot confirmation.

 

[Boonaldo]

Do you have proof of the date and time you submitted your appeal? Something like a confirmation email or screen shot confirmation.

Yes i have that

 

[Puffing Devil]

It may be useful to bear in mind when replying that although section 5 is titled "Penalty for avoiding payment of fare", 5 (1) doesn't mention intent.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/52-53/57/section/5

The concept of intent runs through English law unless there is a presumption of strict liability. This offence requires intent, more on intent here.

Boonaldo- there is no case to answer for the S5(1) prosecution as you did provide your name. Contact NR and make this point, if they are determined to continue the prosecution please let us know their grounds and we can advise further.

 

[Boonaldo]

The concept of intent runs through English law unless there is a presumption of strict liability. This offence requires intent, more on intent here.

Boonaldo- there is no case to answer for the S5(1) prosecution as you did provide your name. Contact NR and make this point, if they are determined to continue the prosecution please let us know their grounds and we can advise further.

I will speak to them today, thank you !!

 

[gray1404]

Try to record any phone calls using an app on your phone if possible. Also get the name of the person you speak to and their location.

 

[Boonaldo]

The concept of intent runs through English law unless there is a presumption of strict liability. This offence requires intent, more on intent here.

Boonaldo- there is no case to answer for the S5(1) prosecution as you did provide your name. Contact NR and make this point, if they are determined to continue the prosecution please let us know their grounds and we can advise further.

Ok one last time before i send...
5.1 is satisfied because i gave my name and address,
I dont have to do all 3 with one fail meaning i can be liable, if any one of the three are met i have satisfied 5.1 and therefore cannot be prosecuted under it ?

 

[some bloke]

You're right about the three conditions. The fact that someone cannot be guilty if they meet any of the three is explained here:

https://global.oup.com/booksites/content/9780199594825/updates/ch_26/

From what you say, they aren't making any claim about you initially refusing, so we might think it would be unlikely, hard or impossible for them to get away with saying that later. You could say

"I cannot understand how I can have breached section 5 (1), as I gave my name and address"

(and perhaps give the link above).

 

[Puffing Devil]

Ok one last time before i send...
5.1 is satisfied because i gave my name and address,
I dont have to do all 3 with one fail meaning i can be liable, if any one of the three are met i have satisfied 5.1 and therefore cannot be prosecuted under it ?

You're right about the three conditions. The fact that someone cannot be guilty if they meet any of the three is explained here:

https://global.oup.com/booksites/content/9780199594825/updates/ch_26/

From what you say, they aren't making any claim about you initially refusing, so we might think it would be unlikely, hard or impossible for them to get away with saying that later. You could say

"I cannot understand how I can have breached section 5 (1), as I gave my name and address"

(and perhaps give the link above).

Exactly what some bloke said. That's a really useful reference he's found as well - it would be good to add it to the forum Q&A.

 

[Boonaldo]

And giving the true name and address .eans they pursue me through CIVIL means.
Im assuming civil means isnt a summons in court under 5.1 isnt the pursuit via civil means.

 

[Puffing Devil]

And giving the true name and address .eans they pursue me through CIVIL means.
Im assuming civil means isnt a summons in court under 5.1 isnt the pursuit via civil means.

Correct - the Penalty Fare is a civil matter and they have already started the process. I'm sure they would have preferred to prosecute you under Section 5(3) or the bylaws, but the penalty fare regulations prevent them doing that. Either their prosecution department is spectacularly unaware of the few pieces of legislation pertinent to their work, or they are trying to pull "a fast one".

If they wanted to take the penalty fare payment to its ultimate conclusion, they could pursue you in the County Court, though that is a civil, not a criminal debt.

 

[furlong]

Exactly what some bloke said. That's a really useful reference he's found as well - it would be good to add it to the forum Q&A.

It is out-of-date with respect to Penalty Fares.

 

[Puffing Devil]

It is out-of-date with respect to Penalty Fares.

Yes, though I think the spirit of the text is correct reading alongside the 2018 regs?

 

[Boonaldo]

They have responded asking me to send eviden

 

[Boonaldo]

Evidence that reasonable efforts were made to purchase a ticket.

 

[some bloke]

You could email:

"Please withdraw this prosecution by the end of today.

"...section 5(1) ...you have a complete defence because you gave your name and address."
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/commentary-and-opinion/virtual-realities/5060076.article

I did give my name and address, evidenced by the fact that I responded. Please let me know by the end of today that you have withdrawn the prosecution.

Thank you."

Then you could call them; if they agree, ask them to put it in writing.

You could also send them evidence they requested, even if only to show willingness to be helpful. But if they've made the obvious error about the name and address condition, evidence isn't needed. Evidence might distract them from seeing that they just need to drop the case.

What you send might depend on

a) how keen you are to try to sort it out in what's left of today (which might need the communications to be simple or just kept to the point about name and address) and possibly

b) how you view your phone/negotiation skills.

 

[furlong]

In terms of 5(1) here, I think the evidence is what you wrote originally "So I get to the destination station and go to the desk and ask for a ticket" - you offered to pay your fare, so there was no need for you to give your name and address under 5(1) as the company should have just taken your fare.

 

[Puffing Devil]

In terms of 5(1) here, I think the evidence is what you wrote originally "So I get to the destination station and go to the desk and ask for a ticket" - you offered to pay your fare, so there was no need for you to give your name and address under 5(1) as the company should have just taken your fare.

The evidence there for them to see - it's the Penalty Fare generated after he gave them his name and address. No need to consider anything else.

 

[some bloke]

If anyone relevant at the Northern prosecution department is reading this, and you've realised this prosecution has to be withdrawn because of the name and address condition, please provide a proper reply rather than saying something like "because you have provided evidence of attempting to pay".

I'm not saying you would do that - it's just in case!

 

[Boonaldo]

I have emailed them and they responded twice now.
1

If anyone relevant at the Northern prosecution department is reading this, and you've realised this prosecution has to be withdrawn because of the name and address condition, please provide a proper reply rather than saying something like "because you have provided evidence of attempting to pay".

I'm not saying you would do that - it's just in case!

Ive had a response back from northern.
They asked for a bit more evidence, which i submitted.
Then they have asked me to pay the fair and the court proceedings will be withdrawn.
They have asked for the price of the ticket, but i wanted a return which is £1 extra, i had to buy a ticket home, which i have proof of. So technically inowe them a pound.
I am going to mention again that the case should be withdrawn anyways as i have satisfied 5.1, and pursuit of a debt is a civil matter, not one for the criminal courts.

 

[furlong]

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.