Northern Rail fare dodge letter

[LateThanNever]

Apparently yes, but without a shred of proof it's impossible for you to decide whether they were given this permission or not, it's already been pointed out that it's one of the most used excuses. They also decided that the queues were too long at the ticket office and possibly the ticket machines, without a shred of proof. There are many facts stacked against them.

Your incessant posting of 'advice', also seen in other threads is somewhat of a crusade and is becoming tiresome Trying to give false hope is doing nobody any favours whatsoever. It's also got no comeback on you , and it's the financial wellbeing of someone else you are playing with, not yours. The sooner you realise this, the better.

Of course I realise this. I'm not trying to give false hope. This letter that is sent out is an invitation to the 'prosecuted' passenger to put their point of view and is basically a form of negotiation. I'm trying to suggest points in that negotiation that may be beneficial to the 'prosecuted' passenger. The prosecutions department will want to see their paymasters make a profit to justify their own existence. Going to court and loosing the case is the worst outcome for them. So instilling doubts in the evidence of the case would suggest they might lose money.
Otherwise you just roll over and pay up whatever is demanded. But is that why people ask for assistance?

Even the prosecution letter contains a factual error when it states that "offences of this nature are recordable and should you be convicted you will receive a criminal record." All the less excusable as it refers to the Railway Byelaws both above and below this statement. But fast and loose with the facts appears not to matter. They seem really to be a profit centre.

 

[bb21]

Going to court and loosing the case is the worst outcome for them. So instilling doubts in the evidence of the case would suggest they might lose money.

That would be true if you are indeed able to do that, however with a Byelaw prosecution, that would not be the case. They probably hear hundreds of people claim each day that they were given permission while unable to prove it. They would have had plenty of experience how to deal with such unsubstantiated claims.

So all this approach will result in is getting their backs up.

With the way the legislation currently stands, it is not the passenger who calls the shots in such a case, so an aggressive approach is counter-productive imo.

Otherwise you just roll over and pay up whatever is demanded. But is that why people ask for assistance?

Unfortunately the choices are between paying what they want and going to court. The latter option is open to everyone but how many would want to go down that avenue?

Even the prosecution letter contains a factual error when it states that "offences of this nature are recordable and should you be convicted you will receive a criminal record." All the less excusable as it refers to the Railway Byelaws both above and below this statement. But fast and loose with the facts appears not to matter. They seem really to be a profit centre.

The passenger is free to do their own research on the matter and that appears to be what the OP did, so she would be aware that there is no risk of a criminal record if the case goes to court under the Byelaws.

The "profit centre" accusation may have some truth in it, but that hardly helps the OP with her case. There are plenty of other threads discussing the morality and legality of Northern's scheme.

 

[jon0844]

Apparently yes, but without a shred of proof it's impossible for you to decide whether they were given this permission or not, it's already been pointed out that it's one of the most used excuses.

I am sure it is, but I have personally witnessed staff giving permissions that I can only think to myself is madness for the passenger - precisely because the passenger will have no easy way to prove that permission was given later on.

It would perhaps be useful if the railway introduced a system whereby permission being granted was done so in writing, perhaps with a pass issued by a member of staff. Rather a permit to travel, but only given by a member of staff, not a machine, and where staff could write on it what permission was given.

Otherwise passengers should ask for something in writing, but no doubt will be refused!

 

[Llanigraham]

But the OP was given permission to travel without a ticket. To end up threatened with prosecution in the circumstances would make me very unhappy with their service!

No, the OP says they were given permission, but is unable to prove that, doesn't know who by, and has nothing in writing to prove it. And as this comment has been used innumerable times by others found at fault, then it isn't believed.

Tough, but life's a bitch and then you're dead.

Now if the OP had bought a ticket at the first opportunity none of this problem would have occurred.

 

[455driver]

But the OP was given permission to travel without a ticket.

Were they?
Prove it!

To end up threatened with prosecution in the circumstances would make me very unhappy with their service!

If you dont like their service then dont use it!
Nobody is forced to use a rail companies train.
When you do use the rail companies train you enter into a contract, part of that contract is how and when you will pay for using the service, if you dont like the terms then dont use them!

 

[afyutr]

The overwhelming message from a lot of these threads is "because the majority (of those caught) probably fare dodge and try it on, the honest person in a unique situation will be tarred with the same brush unless they can prove otherwise". Considering myself one of the honest ones (I await to be told this sounds suspicious) this approach is hugely frustrating.

I've missed trains (2tph ones) in the past due to queues at TVMs, mainly due to the slowness of them at quieter stations. I haven't got on as I know I'll be branded 'presumed guilty' rather than 'wanted to make his meeting and came to find me to buy a ticket'.

I guess you need a couple of time stamped photos on a phone of the queue 5/8/whatever mins apart, and a video of the individual (if it's staffed) allowing you to travel to be sure. Even then if you didn't know about the TVM at entrance Z by the underpass you might get tripped up.

Maybe if I were to work in the industry my view would change when I see how many people actually skip fares!

The advice to the OP has surely got to be if you have no evidence of being allowed on and the ticket queues, unfortunately you have nothing to go on, galling as this may be.

 

[Clip]

I am sure it is, but I have personally witnessed staff giving permissions that I can only think to myself is madness for the passenger - precisely because the passenger will have no easy way to prove that permission was given later on.

It would perhaps be useful if the railway introduced a system whereby permission being granted was done so in writing, perhaps with a pass issued by a member of staff. Rather a permit to travel, but only given by a member of staff, not a machine, and where staff could write on it what permission was given.

Otherwise passengers should ask for something in writing, but no doubt will be refused!

We used this system at a previous TOC I worked for until I noticed that for some reasona box was ordered that I didnt approve of and it was found in another member of staffs posesion who had been doling them out willy nilly to all and sundry which more than likely included their friends.

Its a decent system but is also open to abuse. But again I see that certain posts on this thread are yet again trying for an 'out' for the OP :roll:

@afyutr I see this lots of times when out and about with some of the RPI guys when Im trvelling between stations and you would be surprised at how often it is used - especially by people who join at stations that I know for sure did not have a member of staff on them at the time they claimed.

 

[Merseysider]

The overwhelming message from a lot of these threads is "because the majority (of those caught) probably fare dodge and try it on, the honest person in a unique situation will be tarred with the same brush unless they can prove otherwise". Considering myself one of the honest ones (I await to be told this sounds suspicious) this approach is hugely frustrating.

I've missed trains (2tph ones) in the past due to queues at TVMs, mainly due to the slowness of them at quieter stations. I haven't got on as I know I'll be branded 'presumed guilty' rather than 'wanted to make his meeting and came to find me to buy a ticket'.

I guess you need a couple of time stamped photos on a phone of the queue 5/8/whatever mins apart, and a video of the individual (if it's staffed) allowing you to travel to be sure. Even then if you didn't know about the TVM at entrance Z by the underpass you might get tripped up.

Maybe if I were to work in the industry my view would change when I see how many people actually skip fares!

The advice to the OP has surely got to be if you have no evidence of being allowed on and the ticket queues, unfortunately you have nothing to go on, galling as this may be.

An excellent post. The attitude of suspicion; "the OP is probably lying about something/not telling the full story" comes from experience, a lot of threads in the Disputes section have been the case. I imagine it can't be nice for anyone to be accused of telling untruths (in this case about being given permission to board) but it's the approach Northern will take. You have to be cruel to be kind I guess.

 

[greyville]

Yes, but it is proving (3)iii that is the problem! Otherwise anyone could just say "the man on the platform said I could travel" and get away with ticketless travel!

That misses the point.

'The man on the platform said I could travel....so long as I got a ticket at the next reasonable opportunity.'

If you're then caught outside the station without a ticket, that doesn't count.

My experience of the court system is that the onus is on the prosecutor to proof the case beyond all reasonable doubt - not for the accused to prove they are innocent.

In this case, if my friend had done this several times, no magistrate would believe her, but this is a one off. Why is the onus on her to proof innocence?

 

[Darandio]

Why is the onus on her to proof innocence?

Because if you strip away the whole 'I was given permission to travel', which could possibly become irrelevant anyway, the OP's friend passed up the opportunity to buy a ticket before boarding, which is a requirement. They not only did this once, but twice, as there was both** an open ticket office and ticket machine facilities.

**It's not made clear whether the assessment of a 5 minute queue was for both of these.

 

[greyville]

Just a final thought. I've written a reply letter on behalf of my friend and she is due to send it out.

Obviously, I'd like to run it past you, but am not sure if here is a 'safe' place to do so, as NR people might read it.

Would you instead advice PMing it to someone in the know?

 

[Clip]

That misses the point.

'The man on the platform said I could travel....so long as I got a ticket at the next reasonable opportunity.'

If you're then caught outside the station without a ticket, that doesn't count.

My experience of the court system is that the onus is on the prosecutor to proof the case beyond all reasonable doubt - not for the accused to prove they are innocent.

In this case, if my friend had done this several times, no magistrate would believe her, but this is a one off. Why is the onus on her to proof innocence?

And they can do - your friend,when requested, did not produce a valid ticket for their journey. Thats beyond all reasonable doubt.

The question of defence of 'The man on the platform told me' is surely what the defendant miust be able to prove as a valid defence is it not?

 

[greyville]

And they can do - your friend,when requested, did not produce a valid ticket for their journey. Thats beyond all reasonable doubt.

The question of defence of 'The man on the platform told me' is surely what the defendant must be able to prove as a valid defence is it not?

Let's simplify things.

The allegation is that my friend intentionally avoided paying the fare.

To prove that beyond all reasonable doubt, surely they would have had to wait until she had left the station or that it was doubtless that she had passed all ticketing points AND members of staff (who routinely sell tickets from portable machines at the station)?

Some guy saying 'it was my interpretation that she wasn't going to pay' is not fact. It's his perception of her actions.

 

[Clip]

Ok I will simplify them further for you to understand:-

Your friend boarded a train without a ticket and had passed 2 opportunities to do so.

Thats a fact. No doubt about it. Would you agree?

If so then they have proven already beyond reasonable doubt that your friend did not pay to travel.

Its really that simple i am afraid and no amount of twisting it one way or another is going to change that. Is that hard to grasp?

 

[Elecman]

I refer to my earlier posts 38 and 40 from reading the postings it appears the lady did not actually leave the station but was heading for the ramp on plat 3/4 at which there is an opportunity to buy a ticket from either Virgin staff or Northern Staff

 

[bb21]

That misses the point.

'The man on the platform said I could travel....so long as I got a ticket at the next reasonable opportunity.'

If you're then caught outside the station without a ticket, that doesn't count.

My experience of the court system is that the onus is on the prosecutor to proof the case beyond all reasonable doubt - not for the accused to prove they are innocent.

In this case, if my friend had done this several times, no magistrate would believe her, but this is a one off. Why is the onus on her to proof innocence?

They can prove that your friend was in contravention of the railway regulations. It is your friend who insisted on mitigation, hence it is her who has to prove it.

Let's simplify things.

The allegation is that my friend intentionally avoided paying the fare.

To prove that beyond all reasonable doubt, surely they would have had to wait until she had left the station or that it was doubtless that she had passed all ticketing points AND members of staff (who routinely sell tickets from portable machines at the station)?

Some guy saying 'it was my interpretation that she wasn't going to pay' is not fact. It's his perception of her actions.

Not quite. I don't see any mention of "intent" in that letter.

While they put an emphasis on the Regulation of Railways Act, there is also the mention of Railway Byelaws and the term they used is "an alleged contravention of Railway Regulatons". This suggests to be that they are also considering the possibility of a charge under the Byelaws, for which no intent needs to be proven.

 

[Greenback]

I agree that the OP's friend has not been accused of intentionally avoiding the fare. I believe that a more serious type of prosecution would have been the result if intent was the case.

Personally, I'd never just rely on a member of staff's word. I'd want a name if i couldn't get anything in writing, though that in itself doesn't prove anything one way or the other. Usually I'd elect to miss the train and buy a ticket.

 

[greyville]

Ok I will simplify them further for you to understand:-

Your friend boarded a train without a ticket and had passed 2 opportunities to do so.

Thats a fact. No doubt about it. Would you agree?

If so then they have proven already beyond reasonable doubt that your friend did not pay to travel.

Its really that simple i am afraid and no amount of twisting it one way or another is going to change that. Is that hard to grasp?

There was no need of you to get shirty.

bb21 was kind enough to clarify for me that it is not as simple as an accusation of intention to avoid a fare, which addresses my point.

 

[Clip]

I refer to my earlier posts 38 and 40 from reading the postings it appears the lady did not actually leave the station but was heading for the ramp on plat 3/4 at which there is an opportunity to buy a ticket from either Virgin staff or Northern Staff

And they got stopped by an RPI who asked to see their ticket and they didnt have one and the RPI is pefectly allowed to follow down the route of action as they did as they admitted they came from a station that had ticket issuing facilities which were both open and available to use - so all of that is just waffle im afraid.

There was no need of you to get shirty.

bb21 was kind enough to clarify for me that it is not as simple as an accusation of intention to avoid a fare, which addresses my point.

I wasnt being shirty with you, I was simplifying things for you even further than you had expressed.

 

[wijit]

The op's friend could send a "Subject Access Request (SAR)", stating the times from and to, and location that he/she was and obtain a copy of the cctv themselves. A cheque for £10 should accompany such a letter and it should be done very quickly, as if it were to be used in any defence, or even just to provide reasonable doubt a magistrate is unlikely to delay proceedings.
This would also have to be used in conjunction with other supporting evidence ie; proof of time of arrival at Chorley. However, a good reason for having to catch that particular train would be quite essential too.

 

[DelayRepay]

Given how long it normally takes Northern to send their letters, the CCTV recording probably no longer exists, if it ever existed in the first place.

In any case the best it will show is the OP's friend talking to a member of staff. You might be able to tell from gestures the context of the conversation, but the footage alone won't prove anything. The member of staff could have been saying "It is against the law for you to travel without a ticket. I can't physically stop you but if you get on I will warn the RPIs at the other end and you could be prosecuted"...

I do sympathise with the OP's friend but I do think they're being sent on a bit of a wild goose chase here which will cause unnecessary additional effort, stress and expense. Life sucks but the best option, I feel, would be to try to keep this out of court.

Once they've settled it, and no longer face court, they could try complaining about the length of queues.

 

[Clip]

How long did the OP wait at their origin station?

And this is the crux of the real issue here because as stated in the OP

The facts are
- she arrived at Chorley station at peak time and found the queue longer than five minutes

How did she know the queue was longer than 5 minutes? Did she wait for 5 minutes then get on the train or just decide 'Oh well theres a few people there, it will take longer than 5 minutes so ill get on the train'.

Also queueing time is NOT set in stone. For all she knew the others in the queue may have just wanted a nice and easy single - she will never know because she took it upon herself to decide that 5 mins was enough so then she allegedly went off to the train and asked a man on a platform with the rest.

 

[Darandio]

And was the queue at the ticket office window, machines, or both? This isn't completely clear.

How many machines are there at the station?

 

[Tibbs]

They can prove that your friend was in contravention of the railway regulations. It is your friend who insisted on mitigation, hence it is her who has to prove it.



Not quite. I don't see any mention of "intent" in that letter.

While they put an emphasis on the Regulation of Railways Act, there is also the mention of Railway Byelaws and the term they used is "an alleged contravention of Railway Regulatons". This suggests to be that they are also considering the possibility of a charge under the Byelaws, for which no intent needs to be proven.

I need to dig it out, but I'm pretty sure a company (debt collection iirc) got a pretty hard spanking in court for quoting legislation that they couldn't (wouldn't) use. The 'form letter' excuse was trotted out, but was swatted down pretty quickly.

Something about intimidation, I think. Northern quote RoRA on all their correspondence, whether it's applicable or not. That's not an accident, it's purely there to put the fear into whomever they're writing to.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Yes, everything that is bad at Northern is down to Serco only.

The word on the ground is that Abellio are really good and Serco really aren't. But Serco are 50% owners of the franchise, so we can blame our friendly neighbourhood fraudsters for at least 50% of the rubbish at Northern Rail.

The Penalty Fares rules have obligations about ticket queue lengths. Funny how Northern don't want to use the Penalty Fares rules, isn't it.

None of this helps the OP though. "The man on the platform" excuse is as old as the hills. I suspect their best choice is to pay the £80 Serco Tax and complain afterwards to Passenger Focus, who seem to be deciding against Northern with a surprising regularity.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I need to dig it out, but I'm pretty sure a company (debt collection iirc) got a pretty hard spanking in court for quoting legislation that they couldn't (wouldn't) use. The 'form letter' excuse was trotted out, but was swatted down pretty quickly.

Debt collection agencies went through a phase of making threats they couldn't carry out, threatening bailiffs and loss of job and all sorts of lovely things. They didn't say anywhere that this would only be an option only if a County Court Judgment was passed and only if the debtor didn't pay the CCJ. Some sent letters on blue paper, because court forms at the time were printed on blue paper.

Wonga and the Students Loan Company had debt collectors who pretended to be solicitors, and that's what they got into trouble for.

Northern are behaving extremely unethically- as you'd expect from Serco- but they're not misrepresenting their powers. They can prosecute under RoRa or the Byelaws if you don't pay the £80 Serco Tax.

The best solution, if you don't have a great argument to stand up in court, is to cough up and complain afterwards to Passenger Focus. Passenger Focus recently found against Northern because of their RPI's behaviour at Preston. Might be useful for the OP.

Northern Rail’s unfair Penalty Notice

Mr D boarded the 3.55pm train to Preston from Ansdell with the intention of buying a ticket on board. When he tried to purchase his ticket from the conductor he discovered that the ticket machine was unable to print tickets. The conductor told him to buy a ticket on his return journey at 9pm. When he was leaving Preston station he was approached by two revenue protection officers who recorded his details after threatening to call the police if he didn’t provide them.

This seemed unfair as he was following the instructions he had been given by the conductor. On his way back to Ansdell he purchased a ticket at Preston station at 8.58pm – so he had done as he had been told to do. Additionally, Ansdell is an unstaffed station so he wasn’t initially able to buy a ticket prior to boarding the train.

In hindsight, he admitted that he could have bought a ticket as soon as he got off the train at Preston on the first leg of his journey, but he did not do so because of what he had been told to do by the conductor. It had not occurred to him that he might be penalised.

Passenger Focus asked Northern to refund the Fixed Penalty Notice he had paid as it was not fair that this passenger was penalised due to a failure in Northern’s equipment and communication between staff members. None of this was the passenger’s fault and it was clear that he had no intention of defrauding Northern.

Northern refunded the £86.80 Fixed Penalty Notice and Mr D was very pleased with this result.

http://www.passengerfocus.org.uk/help/archive-case-studies

 

[sarniasiren]

At Chorley at peak times there is often in addition to the counters a person selling tickets at the door giving entrance to the platform.They may not have been working that day?
I think we are told the journey has been completed a lot of times and that the person is aware of staff selling tickets with machines. This takes place on the bridge between platform 1 and 2 and if familar with this as I think thay would be if a regular traveller could have purchased a ticket from the staff there.

For some reason the passenger goes back on themselves and uses the subway. Another poster says the ticket office was open, which surely was noticeable again if I understand they are familar with the layout.

We dont have the other sides version of events but, it seems possible that the the person in question may have been leaving the station at the side entrance?

 

[LateThanNever]

The word on the ground is that Abellio are really good and Serco really aren't. But Serco are 50% owners of the franchise, so we can blame our friendly neighbourhood fraudsters for at least 50% of the rubbish at Northern Rail.

The Penalty Fares rules have obligations about ticket queue lengths. Funny how Northern don't want to use the Penalty Fares rules, isn't it.

None of this helps the OP though. "The man on the platform" excuse is as old as the hills. I suspect their best choice is to pay the £80 Serco Tax and complain afterwards to Passenger Focus, who seem to be deciding against Northern with a surprising regularity.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Debt collection agencies went through a phase of making threats they couldn't carry out, threatening bailiffs and loss of job and all sorts of lovely things. They didn't say anywhere that this would only be an option only if a County Court Judgment was passed and only if the debtor didn't pay the CCJ. Some sent letters on blue paper, because court forms at the time were printed on blue paper.

Wonga and the Students Loan Company had debt collectors who pretended to be solicitors, and that's what they got into trouble for.

Northern are behaving extremely unethically- as you'd expect from Serco- but they're not misrepresenting their powers. They can prosecute under RoRa or the Byelaws if you don't pay the £80 Serco Tax.

The best solution, if you don't have a great argument to stand up in court, is to cough up and complain afterwards to Passenger Focus. Passenger Focus recently found against Northern because of their RPI's behaviour at Preston. Might be useful for the OP.



http://www.passengerfocus.org.uk/help/archive-case-studies

May I unequivocally endorse your strategy - especially as at the moment there is not much else!

 

[30907]

We dont have the other sides version of events but, it seems possible that the the person in question may have been leaving the station at the side entrance?

I had the same query but early in this thread it was stated that she used the subway to 3/4 and then headed towards the main exit. Post is about no.6.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I had the same query but early in this thread it was stated that she used the subway to 3/4 and then headed towards the main exit. Post is about no.6.

Exactly!

I have been wondering what is the point of the almost 100 posts since then, they certainly aren't compatible with the forum rules in Guidance for those giving advice, here: Sticky: Please read before posting in Disputes & Prosecutions.
Perhaps those posting know how their posts might be relevant and helpful to greyville.

 

[LateThanNever]

Exactly!

I have been wondering what is the point of the almost 100 posts since then, they certainly aren't compatible with the forum rules in Guidance for those giving advice, here: Sticky: Please read before posting in Disputes & Prosecutions.
Perhaps those posting know how their posts might be relevant and helpful to greyville.

Surely - unless I'm mistaken- she said she'd been given permission to travel by an authorised employee!