• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Northern Rail: No ticket machine - accused of fare evasion

Status
Not open for further replies.

LucyHelen

Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8
I only managed to walk past the ticket office because I was looking straight ahead to where it used to be, and saw the ticket machine, which I headed towards. The member of staff registered that I was trying to use the machine and approached him when it didn't offer the fare I was trying to buy - how can it be an offence to walk past an office and towards a ticket machine, and then try to buy a ticket from said machine?? And I wasn't interviewed under caution. Thanks everyone for your advice, I think Northern have behaved disgustingly here and on principle I am loathe to pay this...
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Paul Kelly

Verified Rep - BR Fares
Joined
16 Apr 2010
Messages
4,130
Location
Reading
I suspect the real issue here is nothing to do with where the ticket office is, but that you admitted (maybe were tricked into admitting, but that's unfortunately irrelevant) that if you hadn't encountered the Revenue Protection Inspector at the exit you would have only bought the single fare back from Glossop to Broadbottom. This can be interpreted as intent to make the Broadbottom to Glossop journey without paying the correct fare. A very unfortunate situation of course, but it seems that you may have accidentally incriminated yourself and thus Northern will have a very good case if it were to go to court.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,979
Location
0036
It is disappointing, but I agree with the foregoing posters that the OP has fallen into the "trap" question by accidentally admitting she would not have paid the full fare due, even though she was seeking to pay it. If a UK criminal record would affect her life in any way, she would be well advised to pay Northern their £80 to drop the matter.
 

Chapeltom

Established Member
Joined
23 Feb 2010
Messages
1,316
Location
Tainan, Taiwan.
Having read the 5 pages this morning, I think it is a very unfortunate situation but it is one of those things. Anyone unfamiliar with a station getting caught out like this is very unlucky and I think its very harsh punishing a fairly honest mistake. But I think Northern have to crack down on fare evasion as there are chancers who will attempt to avoid their fare and plead ignorance of a ticket office, these are the people Northern want to catch, its a shame someone who seemingly had good intentions gets caught out.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,047
OK, I'm going to stick my head above the parapet here and give my view on the OPs situation. First off, in view of the desire to sort this out quickly and without later consequences, I must say that the offer of £80 to settle out of court is one that almost seems too good to be true. I've not seen any other stories where out of court settlements have been reached for less than £100, so if speed/simplicity really is the driving factor then I'd grab that option with both hands.

However, I've studied the images on the NRE website and the ones on the Paul Bigland photo site and I can only feel a lot of sympathy for the OP. If she was a regular visitor to Glossop when the ticket office was next to the main entrance and this was her first visit since it moved then I think I'd have struggled in the same situation. The new ticket office seems to be set back from the main corridor a little and about half way along. In contrast, the ticket machine is in the main corridor and could quite easily be the first thing the OP saw. At this point she has already unwittingly walked past the new ticket office, and then sees a staff member next to the main entrance. It is quite absurd that asking that person about buying a ticket should result in the present situation.

At this point I must also say that I understand the railway point of view that fare evasion is a serious problem. However, every system should have safeguards because £80 is an awful lot more than £1.70 and could cause significant hardship to a lot of people in these days of austerity.

I have to repeat though that the £80 offer to make this go away completely is a good one. It's not fair (if the OP is telling the truth) but the problem will go away completely. If I was in this situation then I'd pay the settlement, then write to the customer relations department at Northern and explain how unfair I thought the whole episode was. I'd ask for the amount over £1.70 to be refunded. If that didn't work then I'd take my story to the local press or radio station, or even the Daily Mail.

I've also got a similar tale where a station has been remodeled and caused me confusion. As a boy I often went between Waterloo East and Waterloo mainline accross the pedestrian crossing and up the ramp. I also have vivid memories of watching the royal wedding honeymoon departure from that point back in 1981. For various reasons I didn't visit Waterloo for many years after that time until my job took me to Woking in about 1995. The first time I went to Woking I ended up going via Clapham Junction, so it was only on the way back that I arrived at Waterloo mainline. Memories came flooding back and I went out of the concourse level entrance that I'd always used only to find that the ramp had gone! Puzzled, I went back into the main station and then saw the new escalators up to the pedestrian bridge. I'd actually walked past that on my way out of the station without realising that it was where I needed to go. Sometimes familiarity and autopilot can overcome numerous signs saying things have changed.

This seems eminently sound and well-considered advice. Make the threat of prosecution go away and then go after the company full bore - getting an MP involved is always a good way to go! Currently they have control of the situation, once you cannot be prosecuted you have free rein.....
 

MichaelAMW

Member
Joined
18 Jun 2010
Messages
1,011
I am utterly mystified when I read all the posts that are telling the OP that being charged £80, in the face of asking an official for a ticket, is somehow a "good" outcome. This stinks to high heaven and all of you - unless you have become more interested in the technicalities that the human dimension - know that. I am also rather mystified as to why anyone thinks it is OK to justify Northern's response by saying that any behaviour *consistent* with being a fare dodger somehow justifies assuming she in fact was, e.g. someone said that a fare dodger seeing the machine would go over and fiddle about with it, so that seemed to mean it was appropriate to assume anyone at the machine was a fare dodger.

She only made her remark about subsequenntly buying a ticket back to her origin when presented with the scenario of having no way to buy her ticket at Glossop. I realise that there was a ticket office but she wasn't apparently being asked the question on that basis - he was trying to see what was her intent, which was rather obviously to buy a ticket.

Any normal decent person would have just pointed over her shoulder at the ticket office. As for even hypothetical references to the notion of a "pretty girl" trying it on with the RPI, that is uncalled for if you have no evidence for it.
 

PauloDavesi

Member
Joined
14 Dec 2011
Messages
149
Michael, sadly many here have no graspe of common sense and assume that everyone is trying to defraud the railway, irrespective of the facts. Furthermore, there are many who dislike the fact that people support an innocent passenger who has been treated in a totally unacceptable manner by a bullying inefficient company.

It's very simple, passengers are customers and they should be treated with respect, not as criminals, especially in this case where the customer made every reasonable effort to pay for a ticket.

I hope the OP makes full use of her media outlets to expose Northern as the arrogant customer unfriendly organisation they are. If this is how Northern treat customers, it has to be considered if they are a "fit & proper" organisation to receive subsidies from the taxpayer.
 

WestCoast

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,574
Location
Glasgow
I am sure I won't be alone in saying that Northern must to be more proactive and provide clearer and more consistent ticketing facilities. It's a constant issue with them, just look at the enormous queues to buy tickets from G4S contractors at places like Manchester Piccadilly. All these stations, and most of them are not exactly Berney Arms, without ticket offices or TVMs (and the new TVMs are set to card-only is quite frankly poor. Yes, TVMs and offices are expensive to provide, but they are an overhead that should be accounted for at stations with significant usage.

I use Northern everyday and generally I find them to be fine, but ticketing is certainly not a strength.
 

Paul Kelly

Verified Rep - BR Fares
Joined
16 Apr 2010
Messages
4,130
Location
Reading
@MichaelAMW, what would your advice to the OP be then, given the circumstances? To let it go to court, with all the additional stress and high likelihood of getting a criminal record that that entails?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It's very cathartic to rant about how devious the G4S RPIs are, and how unfair the whole situation is, but is that really any practical help for the situation the OP finds herself in?
 

cuccir

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
3,659
I am utterly mystified when I read all the posts that are telling the OP that being charged £80, in the face of asking an official for a ticket, is somehow a "good" outcome. This stinks to high heaven and all of you - unless you have become more interested in the technicalities that the human dimension - know that. I am also rather mystified as to why anyone thinks it is OK to justify Northern's response by saying that any behaviour *consistent* with being a fare dodger somehow justifies assuming she in fact was, e.g. someone said that a fare dodger seeing the machine would go over and fiddle about with it, so that seemed to mean it was appropriate to assume anyone at the machine was a fare dodger.

She only made her remark about subsequenntly buying a ticket back to her origin when presented with the scenario of having no way to buy her ticket at Glossop. I realise that there was a ticket office but she wasn't apparently being asked the question on that basis - he was trying to see what was her intent, which was rather obviously to buy a ticket.

Any normal decent person would have just pointed over her shoulder at the ticket office. As for even hypothetical references to the notion of a "pretty girl" trying it on with the RPI, that is uncalled for if you have no evidence for it.

There's a difference between saying something is OK, and advising that paying £80 is the easiest way to get rid of the problem. If she wants to contact a lawyer/try and persuade Northern to do the right thing then she can, but she should be aware that in that direction there is more work, more time, more hassle, and the possibility of losing, as well as of course the possibility of winning. Only the OP can know which situation she'd prefer.
 

RJ

Established Member
Joined
25 Jun 2005
Messages
8,383
Location
Back office
This seems eminently sound and well-considered advice. Make the threat of prosecution go away and then go after the company full bore

I've made a similar point on this forum several times which has been met with harsh criticism from other posters. Only with PFNs/UFNs where I suggest paying up then appealing later instead of trying to argue (without success) and letting it get to the stage where it's passed to the prosecutions department.

Therefore it's rather endearing to see references to the stress of the judicial process best being avoided, contrary to the former consensus that it was best to let things get to court to see the TOC brought down in shame.

I am utterly mystified when I read all the posts that are telling the OP that being charged £80, in the face of asking an official for a ticket, is somehow a "good" outcome. This stinks to high heaven and all of you - unless you have become more interested in the technicalities that the human dimension - know that.

You have hit the nail on the head. The smart people will be interested in the technicalities because those are the things which are most likely to hold up in court.
 
Last edited:

snail

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2011
Messages
1,848
Location
t'North
@MichaelAMW, what would your advice to the OP be then, given the circumstances? To let it go to court, with all the additional stress and high likelihood of getting a criminal record that that entails?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It's very cathartic to rant about how devious the G4S RPIs are, and how unfair the whole situation is, but is that really any practical help for the situation the OP finds herself in?
Well said (here and from RJ immediately above). There is a place for technical discussion and a place for ranting about [insert TOC here]'s behaviour.

However, if someone asks for advice when a technical offence has been committed then the best advice should be given. Simply shaking your head and saying it shouldn't be is not going to get the OP out of a court case. It needs a lot more than that.
 

MarkyMarkD

Member
Joined
1 Dec 2009
Messages
504
Location
Cliftonville, Margate, Kent
I am utterly mystified when I read all the posts that are telling the OP that being charged £80, in the face of asking an official for a ticket, is somehow a "good" outcome. This stinks to high heaven and all of you - unless you have become more interested in the technicalities that the human dimension - know that. I am also rather mystified as to why anyone thinks it is OK to justify Northern's response by saying that any behaviour *consistent* with being a fare dodger somehow justifies assuming she in fact was, e.g. someone said that a fare dodger seeing the machine would go over and fiddle about with it, so that seemed to mean it was appropriate to assume anyone at the machine was a fare dodger.

She only made her remark about subsequenntly buying a ticket back to her origin when presented with the scenario of having no way to buy her ticket at Glossop. I realise that there was a ticket office but she wasn't apparently being asked the question on that basis - he was trying to see what was her intent, which was rather obviously to buy a ticket.

Any normal decent person would have just pointed over her shoulder at the ticket office. As for even hypothetical references to the notion of a "pretty girl" trying it on with the RPI, that is uncalled for if you have no evidence for it.

I think you're missing what people are saying. If you want lots of "aren't TOCs awful" posts, then I suggest you go to moneysavingexpert.com where you can be guaranteed that 90%+ of posts are (a) no help at all and (b) just full of consumer-centric platitudes.

If TOCs choose to put a revenue block on a station, by putting staff at the exit, they do so on the basis that they are experiencing fare dodging at that station. Reaching the revenue block without a ticket is the the first point in building up the evidence the TOC needs that you didn't intend to buy a ticket. Standard questions like "if I had not been here, would you have bought a ticket for your journey" are designed to solicit a response which indicates or puts doubt on intention to fare dodge.

Unfortunately, the OP failed this question by admitting that she would have just bought a single ticket if there had been no-one stopping her at the exit.

Clearly the correct response to have given would be "I would have looked a lot harder for the ticket office which didn't appear to be where I thought it would be".

Whilst it might stick in the gullet to pay £80, in the hope (and no more than that) that it might be recoverable following a complaint/appeal, it is (for most people) far more significant to run the risk of prosecution which could have significant consequences.

Honestly, what do you think people say when stopped at a revenue block?

1. "It's a fair cop, I wasn't intending to buy a ticket".
2. "I bought a ticket but I lost it".
3. "Oops - obviously I need to buy a ticket".

1&2 are obviously going to lead to some form of penalty. 3 is honestly not a lot better and that is why it leads to the follow up question which determined whether action is taken or not.

Your objection to this advice seems to boils down to "they should have given her the benefit of the doubt". Well in that case, they might as well not bother. On the one in a hundred occasions there is a revenue block, they'll get the value of one ticket. And on the 99 in a hundred occasions there is not, they'll get nothing, because there is no deterrent for fare evasion.
 

Clip

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,822
Michael, sadly many here have no graspe of common sense and assume that everyone is trying to defraud the railway, irrespective of the facts. Furthermore, there are many who dislike the fact that people support an innocent passenger who has been treated in a totally unacceptable manner by a bullying inefficient company.

It's very simple, passengers are customers and they should be treated with respect, not as criminals, especially in this case where the customer made every reasonable effort to pay for a ticket.

I hope the OP makes full use of her media outlets to expose Northern as the arrogant customer unfriendly organisation they are. If this is how Northern treat customers, it has to be considered if they are a "fit & proper" organisation to receive subsidies from the taxpayer.


Or to try and put a bit of balance you could say that Northern are merely treating everyone without a ticket the same and are not being biased towards anyone which if known could lead to them having more trouble in the future when prosecuting someone else.

In as much as - "well they got away with it and here's the proof(produces letter) and my reason was the same" and then its a downward spiral.










*Puts helmet on*
 

WestCoast

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,574
Location
Glasgow
1. "It's a fair cop, I wasn't intending to buy a ticket".
2. "I bought a ticket but I lost it".
3. "Oops - obviously I need to buy a ticket".

1&2 are obviously going to lead to some form of penalty. 3 is honestly not a lot better and that is why it leads to the follow up question which determined whether action is taken or not.
Reaching the revenue block without a ticket is the the first point in building up the evidence the TOC needs that you didn't intend to buy a ticket. Standard questions like "if I had not been here, would you have bought a ticket for your journey" are designed to solicit a response which indicates or puts doubt on intention to fare dodge.

Yeah, but there was no previous opportunity to buy a ticket at the origin or on the train, and the ticket office may not have been obvious at the destination. So, 1 and 2 cannot apply in this situation. It's a very different game with Northern compared to other regions (ticketing policies are so different), yet the same legislation is applied across the network.
If TOCs choose to put a revenue block on a station, by putting staff at the exit, they do so on the basis that they are experiencing fare dodging at that station.

Not always. Northern have G4S contractors selling tickets at many stations (because ticket offices en route are either closed or non-existent and guards can't get around to selling tickets to everyone), which is what passengers are used to on these lines. At Manchester Piccadilly, there are often queues to buy tickets when leaving the Glossop/Hadfield trains. If Northern are going to be undertaking more prosecutions of this nature, they should be notifying passengers of their obligations before leaving the destination station.

In this case, however, it was probably the mention of buying a single ticket that resulted in action being taken. I'd say pay the £80, but I think a complaint is also in order.
 
Last edited:

MarkyMarkD

Member
Joined
1 Dec 2009
Messages
504
Location
Cliftonville, Margate, Kent
I realise that Northern's inconsistent practices don't help anybody, but the point with the OP is that she doesn't say she was expecting to pay at the exit of the station. She was expecting to pay at the ticket office, and had done so on previous occasions. But she couldn't find the ticket office and (in her defence) made the innocent mistake of walking to the exit of the station where she could see a member of staff.

If this member of staff was a numpty - and he may be - he wouldn write up the case in a way which meant that the prosecutions team wouldn't pursue it. But if he is anywhere near good at his job he will say something like:

"I saw Ms OP walking towards the exit of the station without a ticket. She said to me 'I need to buy a ticket', so in order to ascertain her intent, I asked her whether she would have purchased a ticket if I had not been there. She responded that she would not, and she would simply have purchased a single ticket for her return journey".

IMHO any TOC's prosecution team would pursue a case like that, and they would expect to win in court.

I don't think I'm putting words into the OP's mouth there - I think I am fairly setting out what she has said. And that means that if it reaches court, when asked whether she uttered those words, she cannot honestly say otherwise, and that is IMHO sufficient to prove intent.


---

So, I would ask the OP in considering how to proceed:

If there had been nobody at the exit, would you have:

- simply purchased a single ticket for your return journey (as you said); or
- spent more time looking around the station for the ticket office which had moved location since you were last in Glossop?

If the honest answer is the first (and I think it is), then Northern's approach is honestly correct and you should simply accept you made a foolish mistake.

If you would honestly (despite what you said) have gone back into the station, found the ticket office, and paid for your ticket, and think you can convince Northern of this rather than them pursuing the case, then you may wish to refuse to pay the £80 and take your chances with their prosecutions team and then (probably) the court.
 

Paul Kelly

Verified Rep - BR Fares
Joined
16 Apr 2010
Messages
4,130
Location
Reading
I've made a similar point on this forum several times which has been met with harsh criticism from other posters. Only with PFNs/UFNs where I suggest paying up then appealing later instead of trying to argue (without success) and letting it get to the stage where it's passed to the prosecutions department.

Therefore it's rather endearing to see references to the stress of the judicial process best being avoided, contrary to the former consensus that it was best to let things get to court to see the TOC brought down in shame.

I see what you're getting at, but I think this is different - this case has already been passed to the prosecutions department, and there is evidence that the "victim" has accidentally incriminated themselves and that the TOC may have a valid case.

The advice to "stand your ground" is more confined to cases where it appears the victim is 100% in the right not only morally, but also according to all relevant rules/regulations, and that TOC staff are ignorant of or not fully conversant with those rules/regulations.

I'd say pay the £80, but I think a complaint is also in order.
I agree.
 

tony_mac

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2009
Messages
3,626
Location
Liverpool
- simply purchased a single ticket for your return journey (as you said); or
I don't think she has specified 'single', although may have done at the time.

In similar circumstances, with nobody about, I have just bought a return ticket (the wrong way round) and assumed that it was the correct fare.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
In similar circumstances, with nobody about, I have just bought a return ticket (the wrong way round) and assumed that it was the correct fare.

Out of interest did you do that just before your journey return? I imagine an outbound ticket for a normal off peak/anytime return printed 5 hours ago being used could be treated as suspect.
 

tony_mac

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2009
Messages
3,626
Location
Liverpool
Out of interest did you do that just before your journey return? I imagine an outbound ticket for a normal off peak/anytime return printed 5 hours ago being used could be treated as suspect.

No; I have often bought tickets some hours before using them. (Particularly if they are from a different station, but also so that I can avoid the possibility of a queue later on).
 

MichaelAMW

Member
Joined
18 Jun 2010
Messages
1,011
To those who have replied negatively to my remark earlier, I am sorry but I was just trying to provide a bit of humanity in the situation. However, do not accuse me of "ranting" please - that verb is used for a disproportionate response, which I was not making, even if you might think I wasn't being particularly helpful.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If this member of staff was a numpty - and he may be - he wouldn write up the case in a way which meant that the prosecutions team wouldn't pursue it. But if he is anywhere near good at his job he will say something like:

"I saw Ms OP walking towards the exit of the station without a ticket. She said to me 'I need to buy a ticket', so in order to ascertain her intent, I asked her whether she would have purchased a ticket if I had not been there. She responded that she would not, and she would simply have purchased a single ticket for her return journey".

But based on what the OP said that would be a lie: he didn't simply passively observe her walking towards the exit; she went to him and offered to pay. I realise you're speculating but you raise very well the subtlety of it all: in comparing with the relevant case law mentioned earlier, she may indeed have walked past an open ticket office but she went to what most people would think of as a suitable alternative, rather than walking out into the street.

(I realise I have snipped a lot of useful other stuff about how a court appearence might proceed.)
 

MarkyMarkD

Member
Joined
1 Dec 2009
Messages
504
Location
Cliftonville, Margate, Kent
But "she went to him and offered to pay" because that was the only way out of the station! I don't think that adds anything to her case, TBH. Like I said, what else could she possibly have said which wasn't ridiculous and even more self-incriminating?

And that is why TOCs train their staff to ask incriminating (or at least, testing) questions - to weed out those who are innocent and those who really don't get it.

Of course, the practical outcome is that the wily fare dodger will sometimes get away with it, whilst the innocent-ish one might not. (Because the wily fare dodger will know how to answer, and an innocent-ish one will not).
 

neilmc

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2011
Messages
1,028
I'm sorry, I don't know what to advise in terms of paying the "fine", it might save a lot of nasty unpleasantness, even though it seems a tyrannical piece of customer fraud.

What I will say is that this is typical of lazy venal TOCs who can't be bothered putting in any ticket machines at smaller stations, whose guards can't be bothered (or maybe haven't time) to go through the train selling tickets, then hope to recoup all those lost £1.70s with whopping great fines for the unwary in circumstances like these.

I think you should take this to the Manchester Evening News and hope they make Northern grovel, most people won't get the technicalities like the forum members here do but I'm pretty sure where the public's sympathies will lie, like with the professor who was charged £155 for travelling short.
 

SussexMan

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2010
Messages
476
But if he is anywhere near good at his job he will say something like:

"I saw Ms OP walking towards the exit of the station without a ticket. She said to me 'I need to buy a ticket', so in order to ascertain her intent, I asked her whether she would have purchased a ticket if I had not been there. She responded that she would not, and she would simply have purchased a single ticket for her return journey".

Well the RPI would then be fabricating a story which you seem to suggest is being good at his job. She didn't say she wouldn't buy a ticket. She said "she had tried to buy a ticket at the machine, she asked to purchase one from the member of staff, and then if there had been no opportunity to purchase the ticket she would have bought a single on her return and she knew that was almost the same price". That is VERY different.


...I was asked if I would have paid the fare if they had not been present and I said that I was trying to buy a ticket from him and, if there had been no chance to do so, I would in any case have paid on the return journey and it is almost exactly the same price.

Looking at the OPs post, how can "intent" really be proved? If she had no intent to buy a ticket why would she try to buy one from the ticket machine? If she had no intent, why would she ask the member of staff if she could buy one from him?

Her reply above (with my emphasis) was that if there was no option to buy the ticket, she would have had to buy a single. She knew that a single was almost the same price as the return and therefore didn't see that Northern were losing out. She had already tried to buy a return at the ticket machine and knew that wasn't possible so what sort of ticket was she going to buy when she got back to the station for her return journey? One assumes she didn't even know there was a ticket office at the station because the RPI had to point it out to her.

I can see the rationale for paying the £80 and then making a big thing of it -one assumes she has contacts as a travel writer but we also hear regular stories on here about people being overcharged by a small amount of money but saying "it's the principle".

TOCs have a responsibility to have a system which catches fare-evaders not people who want to buy a ticket. The onus is on them to have a method which allows that. One also wonders whether Northern know that they might struggle to win, hence their low offer of £80?
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
I can see the rationale for paying the £80 and then making a big thing of it -one assumes she has contacts as a travel writer but we also hear regular stories on here about people being overcharged by a small amount of money but saying "it's the principle".

TOCs have a responsibility to have a system which catches fare-evaders not people who want to buy a ticket. The onus is on them to have a method which allows that. One also wonders whether Northern know that they might struggle to win, hence their low offer of £80?

I agree with you. Assuming that the OP has given an honest account of what has happened, and I have no reason to doubt it, then I think it is appalling that in these circumstances a prosecution has even been contemplated.

The fact is that there were no facilities to buy a ticket at the origin station, and no opportunity to buy on the train. The OP, not being a regular traveller, then sought help from a member of staff, and ended up with a prosecution.

Technically, the TOC may be quite entitled to prosecute; under the current byelaws a technical offence has been committed. But that does not make a prosecution either morally justified or desirable, in my view.

If it happened to me, I do not think I would pay £80.
 

MarkyMarkD

Member
Joined
1 Dec 2009
Messages
504
Location
Cliftonville, Margate, Kent
Well the RPI would then be fabricating a story which you seem to suggest is being good at his job. She didn't say she wouldn't buy a ticket. She said "she had tried to buy a ticket at the machine, she asked to purchase one from the member of staff, and then if there had been no opportunity to purchase the ticket she would have bought a single on her return and she knew that was almost the same price". That is VERY different.
With respect, you don't know that is what she said to the RPI. She said that she told the RPI that if there hadn't been an opportunity to buy a ticket - and bear in mind, she'd walked past an open ticket office - she would have bought a signle on her return.

He wouldn't have asked "what would you have done if there wasn't an opportunity to buy a ticket" because there WAS such an opportunity - the open ticket office. He would have asked "what would you have done if I had not been standing here". To answer that with "I would have bought a single ticket" is NOT the right answer. And to think it IS the right answer because "it's only 10p less" is "not getting it".

Looking at the OPs post, how can "intent" really be proved? If she had no intent to buy a ticket why would she try to buy one from the ticket machine?
As a delaying tactice whilst deciding what to do? With a cynical RPI's perspective I really don't see what this proves.

If she had no intent, why would she ask the member of staff if she could buy one from him?
Because there was nothing else credible she could say to the RPI.

Her reply above (with my emphasis) was that if there was no option to buy the ticket, she would have had to buy a single.
Even if this is exactly the words the OP said (and I doubt it, because it wouldn't answer the question the RPI would have asked), it really doesn't help. There WAS an option to buy the ticket. Even if there was not, buying a single ticket is NOT the right answer because it involves paying the wrong fare.
She knew that a single was almost the same price as the return and therefore didn't see that Northern were losing out.
As others have posted, the fact it's 10p is totally irrelevant. The fact she would willingly have walked out of the station having paid nothing, at that stage, means the fare evaded was £1.70 not 10p.

She had already tried to buy a return at the ticket machine and knew that wasn't possible so what sort of ticket was she going to buy when she got back to the station for her return journey?
Not really relevant. [/quote]One assumes she didn't even know there was a ticket office at the station because the RPI had to point it out to her.[/quote]She says she has used the station before and knew there was a ticket office. The fact that it's moved doesn't mean one can assume she thought it no longer existed.

I can see the rationale for paying the £80 and then making a big thing of it -one assumes she has contacts as a travel writer but we also hear regular stories on here about people being overcharged by a small amount of money but saying "it's the principle".

TOCs have a responsibility to have a system which catches fare-evaders not people who want to buy a ticket. The onus is on them to have a method which allows that. One also wonders whether Northern know that they might struggle to win, hence their low offer of £80?
I agree totally. Living where I do, I find the concept of ticket machine-less stations ridiculous and the inconsistent way that Northern seem to run things - with many stations with no ticket facilities, with other stations selling tickets at the gateline, etc. - must lead to many customers like the OP being caught out inadvertently.

I do, honestly, feel reasonably confident that a well explained complaint to Northern would reap results, but still think that paying first is the safest option to avoid a risk of a legal conviction.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The fact is that there were no facilities to buy a ticket at the origin station, and no opportunity to buy on the train. The OP, not being a regular traveller, then sought help from a member of staff, and ended up with a prosecution.
I think if I had wanted to pay my fare, and been unable to do so at my origin station or on the train, I'd have looked quite hard for the ticket office upon arrival, not walked past one which was immediately to my left hand side en route from platform to ticket machine (and then station exit).
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,923
I think if I had wanted to pay my fare, and been unable to do so at my origin station or on the train, I'd have looked quite hard for the ticket office upon arrival, not walked past one which was immediately to my left hand side en route from platform to ticket machine (and then station exit).

Even if you thought you knew where the ticket office was and so was heading in that direction?
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
I think if I had wanted to pay my fare, and been unable to do so at my origin station or on the train, I'd have looked quite hard for the ticket office upon arrival, not walked past one which was immediately to my left hand side en route from platform to ticket machine (and then station exit).

Perhaps so, and perhaps I would have done the same, but I suspect that we are probably more familiar with the rules on ticketing than someone like the OP.
 

MarkyMarkD

Member
Joined
1 Dec 2009
Messages
504
Location
Cliftonville, Margate, Kent
I know, it's easy to be wise when it wasn't you and when you are (perhaps) more familiar with rail travel in the UK - although I have no familiarity with travelling between unmanned stations as every station I use routinely is manned (most of the time) and has ticket machines which work (the rest of the time).

I wish LucyHelen well with what is a very difficult decision to make.
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
I know, it's easy to be wise when it wasn't you and when you are (perhaps) more familiar with rail travel in the UK - although I have no familiarity with travelling between unmanned stations as every station I use routinely is manned (most of the time) and has ticket machines which work (the rest of the time).

I wish LucyHelen well with what is a very difficult decision to make.

As do I. Perhaps my perception is slightly different due to the fact that I live in an area with a lot of unstaffed stations, or ones with part time ticket offices. Sadly the TVM's, where they exist, are not the most reliable in my experience, and both myself and my other half have been unable to purchase before travel, and not had the opportunity to buy on board. The thought that we might be prosecuted in such circumstances is horrific!

That said, I am not aware of any instances where ATW has followed this course of action, thank heavens!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top