Northern Rail: No ticket machine - accused of fare evasion

[hairyhandedfool]

Hypothetically, in the same situation, none, in a situation where there are ticket checks being made, most, if not all, will ask to buy a ticket.

The reality is that 'fare evaders' will do whatever they can to look like a 'genuine passenger' if they are caught without a ticket, and that if people were given the choice, at the end of the journey, of whether they will pay or not, most won't.

 

[table38]

The reality is that 'fare evaders' will do whatever they can to look like a 'genuine passenger' if they are caught without a ticket, and that if people were given the choice, at the end of the journey, of whether they will pay or not, most won't.

I disagree. If your random sample of 100 is representative, most will be commuters who will rely on making that trip regulaly. I think they would pay rather than risk it.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

You have a right to your own opinion of course, but, speaking from experience, most passengers who haven't paid by the time they alight their last train are unlikely to buy a ticket unless there is staff to 'catch them'.

 

[185]

In table38's video it demonstrates that with the door swung open, the booking office is totally obscured. As signage is aimed at those entering the station, it is fair to say that Northern cannot use the 'reasonably signposted' excuse either.

Unusually, I'm with the customer on this one. If next door on Merseyside the PTE can provide proper booking offices at all stations from first train to last train, then why can't TfGM (GMPTE) too? Are they just hoping that the Hadfield line will become Metrolink too?

 

[junglejames]

It's the age old question of how you differentiate a "genuine passenger" from a "fare evader". Fare evaders will do their best to come across as a "genuine passenger" if they believe they will be caught travelling without a ticket.

Or its a simple case of how you view people.
Innocent until proven guilty, or guilty until proven innocent. Im pretty sure the accepted way of viewing people, is the former. Shame the same cant be said for Northern.

Looking at it through the eyes of an over zealous RPI is fine, until you realise that 99% of passengers would do exactly what the OP did. Having not seen the ticket office, but seen a ticket machine and a member of staff, once the ticket machine proved fruitless, you would head to the member of staff. Its the most natural thing in the world. Hence it is stupid to assume only fare evaders do that, because its not the case. This is why we treat people as innocent until proven guilty.

Asking someone the questions they ask, to try and ascertain guilt is stupid as well, and proves nothing. You are asking someone to imagine a different set of events, and expect them to know what they would have done. Quite often its not possible to know what you would have done for sure, because you havent had to face such a scenario.
Also remember that as far as the OP was concerned, the ticket office had gone, and as the RPI never pointed it out to her before asking his questions, it is quite easy to assume it didnt exist (most people would assume the RPI would have pointed it out if it did exist). So she is now expected to answer a question regarding a totally different sequence of events, and without enough information to enable a proper answer. Please tell me how her answers can prove anything? It cant.

Obviously the RPI and Northern are assuming she saw the ticket office. But you shouldnt make assumptions like this. There is one line I always remember from the bible I follow (its not really a bible). It states- " Do not make assumptions based on scanty information". This is exactly what the RPI has initially done. Made an assumption based on nothing but scanty information.

There are at least 3 very major flaws to Northerns argument. So major, it makes the rule they are following, look absolutely rediculous. How walking past a ticket office can be deemed enough evidence to prove she never intended to buy a ticket, is absolutely beyond me. For anybody to be convicted based on such evidence, and the answers to some unfair questions, just goes to make a mockery of our legal system. Unfortunately, as we all know, this is deemed to be ample evidence. God help us, thats all i can say.

Regarding te suggestion of selling the story to the Daily Mail. The headline suggested isnt a lie. Its 100% true. She wanted to buy a ticket from a member of staff, and got charged £80 for the privilege.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Asking someone a couple of questions to try and ascertain guilt is stupid as well, and proves nothing.

I couldn't help but laugh at that sentence.

 

[junglejames]

You have a right to your own opinion of course, but, speaking from experience, most passengers who haven't paid by the time they alight their last train are unlikely to buy a ticket unless there is staff to 'catch them'.

The trouble in this situation is, you havent actually got anybody catching fare evaders. The staff are catching people who they think would be a fare evader. You need to be standing outside the station building to catch fare evaders.

If you finish your meal at a restaurant, then go to the member of staff standing at the entrance, asking to pay for your meal, or asking where to pay for your meal, would that member of staff assume you were trying to leave without paying? Or would they take your payment or direct you to where to pay? One things for sure, Im convinced you wouldnt be charged £80 just for the privilege of speaking to that member of staff.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

You need to be standing outside the station building to catch fare evaders.

That's incorrect.

 

[junglejames]

I couldn't help but laugh at that sentence.

Yes your right, taking that sentence on its own as it is, does make it sound rather stupid. Oops!
I think you knew what I was getting at though. Asking questions about a different scenario.
I shall edit my original post
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's incorrect.

But how can you be deemed fare evading, if you havent left the station, and the destination station was your first opportunity to buy a ticket?

Now if there was a nice sign pointing to the ticket office, then ok, but there wasnt. Therefore if you miss the ticket office, you will head to the very visible member of staff, standing in the station. If you dont walk past him, then you aren't fare evading. So he isnt really catching fare evaders.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

But how can you be deemed fare evading, if you havent left the station, and the destination station was your first opportunity to buy a ticket?

Leaving the station may or may not have anything to do with fare evasion. It can be committed in a variety of ways, with only one of which being not taking an opportunity to pay (walking past a ticket office or leaving the station depending on the layout).

To say that 'you need to be outside to catch fare evaders' is incorrect.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Quite often its not possible to know what you would have done for sure, because you havent had to face such a scenario...... So she is now expected to answer a question regarding a totally different sequence of events, and without enough information to enable a proper answer. Please tell me how her answers can prove anything? It cant....

"Would you have bought a ticket if I wasn't here?" is hardly a taxing question that requires intricate or predetermined scenarios to have been imagined or played out in the past. it is a simple yes/no question to which we are lead to believe (by the op) that she said....

....I would in any case have paid on the return journey and it is almost exactly the same price.

So if he wasn't there she would have paid less than the actual fare due (admission of guilt).

....There are at least 3 very major flaws to Northerns argument. So major, it makes the rule they are following, look absolutely rediculous....

I can't wait to hear them.

....How walking past a ticket office can be deemed enough evidence to prove she never intended to buy a ticket, is absolutely beyond me....

As all of the evidence? Maybe not. As part of the evidence? Yes. Add the afore mentioned admission of guilt to 'she claims to have travelled a short distance from an unmanned station' (not an uncommon story) and 'she has used the station before, but doesn't know where the ticket office is'. The last two may well only be coincidence and true, but it doesn't look good.

....For anybody to be convicted based on such evidence, and the answers to some unfair questions....

Unfair? Which ones were unfair?

....Regarding te suggestion of selling the story to the Daily Mail. The headline suggested isnt a lie. Its 100% true. She wanted to buy a ticket from a member of staff, and got charged £80 for the privilege.

She hasn't been charged £80, she has been given the opportunity to settle out of court, she has the option to pay it or not.

The trouble in this situation is, you havent actually got anybody catching fare evaders. The staff are catching people who they think would be a fare evader. You need to be standing outside the station building to catch fare evaders....

Rubbish, someone having walked past an opportunity to pay is the perfect time to check for fare evaders regardless of whether they are outside or not.

....If you finish your meal at a restaurant, then go to the member of staff standing at the entrance, asking to pay for your meal, or asking where to pay for your meal, would that member of staff assume you were trying to leave without paying? Or would they take your payment or direct you to where to pay? One things for sure, Im convinced you wouldnt be charged £80 just for the privilege of speaking to that member of staff.

If I was in the restaurant and walked passed a till to get to the exit and found a member of staff at the door, would you not think it strange that I then asked where to pay for the meal?

....But how can you be deemed fare evading, if you havent left the station, and the destination station was your first opportunity to buy a ticket?...

We are not talking about someone who has just stepped of the train, we are talking about someone who has walked past an open ticket office and not used the provided ticket machine that they walked up to (even if the reason for the latter may have some merit).

Can anyone show the view of the ticket office that someone standing at the ticket machine would have?

....Now if there was a nice sign pointing to the ticket office, then ok, but there wasnt. Therefore if you miss the ticket office, you will head to the very visible member of staff, standing in the station. If you dont walk past him, then you aren't fare evading. So he isnt really catching fare evaders.

Maybe so, but do you think that a fare evader, having seen someone checking tickets, would do any different? Better to pay a fare than get a criminal record.

 

[TUC]

Unfortunately, only in the public transport industry would you get such frankly brutal, suspecious, customer unfriendly attitudes as have been displayed in some of the posts above. Let me take a comparable situation. A customer is in Tesco late in the evening when not many checkout staff are on duty. A customer waits at the checkouts but no one appears so they walk past the checkout and go to customer services to pay there. Would anyone say to them 'you've passed the checkout, therefore you have to prove you're not stealing?' Of course not because they haven't left the store.The most that might happen is that they get asked to go back to the checkout and customer services arrange for a member of staff to attend to them.

Quite apart from the fact that the customer hasn't left the store, there is no way that Tesco would want to lose the goodwill of a customer by being difficult and pedantic. Yet goodwill and a duty to treat customers well seem to matter little in some of the posts above. It really does convey the impression of a legalistic, old fashioned industry where customers need to learn the rules and know their place.

 

[IanXC]

I'm trying to think of another small station where the ticket office isn't about the first thing you see when you walk in the main entrance.

(Discounting large stations such as Manchester Piccadilly, stations with multiple entrance/exits (like, err, Manchester Piccadilly), or stations with no Ticket Office, etc. Oh and those Merseyrail stations where the Ticket Office is disguised as a shop)

Given we are all human, and we all make mistakes, I'm also trying to think of another organisation which exploits this and charges you £80

Try Driffield, approach from Beverley Road and you see the station, accessed via the level crossing, and to the left of the station building the red BR type sign - which looks like its signing the car park.

Have a look on street view - as you approach the left hand platform from the level crossing there is a sign explaining which platform is for which direction. Now if you then proceed onto the left hand platform (platform 2) there is a sign pointing out the "Way Out" which is via the ticket office, however there is no mention of where the ticket office is. The signage is all designed assuming you will approach the station from the car park.

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/sjp/DRF/plan.html?rtnloc=DRF

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=riv...&panoid=ZF9XTevSqHuX6amn3mWJQw&cbp=12,45,,0,0

 

[table38]

Thanks, but it fails the "multiple entrances/exits" condition

But would someone leaving the station from the Beverly-bound platform with no ticket be accused of "walking past an open ticket office" I wonder?

 

[MichaelAMW]

Unfortunately, only in the public transport industry would you get such frankly brutal, suspecious, customer unfriendly attitudes as have been displayed in some of the posts above. Let me take a comparable situation. A customer is in Tesco late in the evening when not many checkout staff are on duty. A customer waits at the checkouts but no one appears so they walk past the checkout and go to customer services to pay there. Would anyone say to them 'you've passed the checkout, therefore you have to prove you're not stealing?' Of course not because they haven't left the store.The most that might happen is that they get asked to go back to the checkout and customer services arrange for a member of staff to attend to them.

Quite apart from the fact that the customer hasn't left the store, there is no way that Tesco would want to lose the goodwill of a customer by being difficult and pedantic. Yet goodwill and a duty to treat customers well seem to matter little in some of the posts above. It really does convey the impression of a legalistic, old fashioned industry where customers need to learn the rules and know their place.

I'm with you here! I am particularly annoyed by the number of people who seem to think that doing something a fare evader might do, even though such actions are equally characteristic of an innocent person such as our OP, means it's tough luck that they decide to treat her badly.

As for this nonsense about walking past an open ticket office, that is neither here nor there. Yes, ignoring an open ticket office has been used for evidence before but it's not definitive, and she demonstrated her intent to pay by going to the ticket machine and by asking someone. I feel it's a great injustice to try to catch someone out on the basis of what she might have done had your man not been there: in the reality of the situation that actually existed, rather than in his hypothesis, she attempted to buy a ticket from him and to pay the correct fare.

 

[jon0844]

Seems this thread is one of a long line of similar situations that, if nothing else, proves that a lot of people are now working on a clear case of guilty until proved innocent.

Sadly, the solution appears to be all too common - pay the out of court settlement for an easy life. Which will hardly discourage the practice in the future - any more than RPIs incorrectly giving PFs to people and saying 'just pay now and you can appeal later' and convincing someone to incorrectly accept a PF and then either have to waste time appealing (and possibly lose) or simply not bother - another 'win' for the TOC.

And then the other day I am on a train where an RPI asks a person without a ticket why he doesn't have one and he says it was because the gates were open, and is given a PF and not prosecuted! So it might also come down to the mood of the person on the day!

I would say though, given the potential hassle, I think paying the £80 and then going to the media is a good option - much as I hate the likes of the Daily Mail.

 

[34D]

You need to be standing outside the station building to catch fare evaders.

Don't believe this is true, however I don't believe RPIs have any jurisdiction away from railway property (yes - I'm sure that some stations have an area outside the door which is still railway property, and then the public highway boundary is later.

I would say though, given the potential hassle, I think paying the £80 and then going to the media is a good option - much as I hate the likes of the Daily Mail.

But don't forget that the OP is a travel writer. A well written article, making reference to the various pieces of arcane legislation, could well highlight the issue of these draconian regulations to the right people. I would recommend in particular taking great notice of the many cogent and well-planned postings of dave newcastle and yorkie in this and various similar topics.

Obviously I have no idea of the skill/seniority/professional status of lucyhelen and as I keep an open mind, she could be anywhere from editor of The Times to someone who reviews hotels on tripadvisor. If she is a fairly low level writer at present, then a well-written piece submitted speculatively to the nationals could do wonders for her own career aswell.

 

[jon0844]

To prove intent in court, I'd have expected to be caught having left the building where there was no longer any opportunity to buy a ticket. Being stopped by an RPI at the doorway might suggest intent, but if you've asked said staff member to sell you a ticket then proving intent is surely now difficult.

It's your word against theirs, but unless you admit intent then innocent until proven guilty should apply.

Thus, perhaps G4S shouldn't have been positioned where they were if that was what they were tying to do. While a fare evader might try the same trick (asking to buy a ticket now they know there's no way out), you can't know the difference. In fact, if a fare evader knew not to incriminate themselves (by basically lying) they'd likely get away with it. I do hope G4S aren't simply trying to catch people out to get easy prosecutions.

 

[IanXC]

Thanks, but it fails the "multiple entrances/exits" condition

But would someone leaving the station from the Beverly-bound platform with no ticket be accused of "walking past an open ticket office" I wonder?

Ah I hadnt quite read your small print correctly (hopefully theres not a penalty to pay for that!).

Someone leaving platform 2 would have walked past a TVM, so that opens another can of worms!

In reality its highly unlikely to crop up at this location as the stops are reasonably well spaced on the Yorkshire Coast Line, and many services have an RPI in addition to a Guard.

 

[junglejames]

You are assuming everybody knows where the ticket office is, and will always see it. It is unfair to deem someone to be fare evading if they walk past a ticket office. It may not have been seen. Walking past this place to pay is hardly evidence of fare evading at all.
Its possible to not see it, but to see the member of staff. Most people would think a member of staff was there to help them so you go up to them. How the hell is that any sort of evidence to back up fare evasion? It isnt. Now if you had a sign above the RPI saying they are not there to help, but there to catch you out, then fine, you have given them warning. But as it is, walking past the ticket office to go to the member of staff is in a lot of cases (especially this one) no proof whatsoever.
Also, yes the questions are unfair. The way he never pointed to any ticket office makes one think there is no ticket office, so now how do you answer the question? Also, if he hadnt of been there, the person may not know if they would have gone straight to where the member of staff is. Remember the OP only went up to them because they saw them there.

Your responses see you falling into the same trap as the RPIs. Making some unfair assumptions based on scanty information. Assuming everybody knows the workings of the railway. Assuming everybody knows the differences between different TOCs and stations. Assuming everybody knows what the RPIs are standing there for.

The assumptions themselves are large enough flaws in the argument. In a fair world, nothing here would be enough proof to convict the OP.
Did the OP know for sure where the ticket office was, and did she see it? They are assuming she did.
Did the OP realise the member of staff was not to be approached unless they had a ticket? Of course not, she assumed he was there to help.

"Would you have bought a ticket if I wasn't here?" is hardly a taxing question that requires intricate or predetermined scenarios to have been imagined or played out in the past. it is a simple yes/no question to which we are lead to believe (by the op) that she said....



So if he wasn't there she would have paid less than the actual fare due (admission of guilt).



I can't wait to hear them.



As all of the evidence? Maybe not. As part of the evidence? Yes. Add the afore mentioned admission of guilt to 'she claims to have travelled a short distance from an unmanned station' (not an uncommon story) and 'she has used the station before, but doesn't know where the ticket office is'. The last two may well only be coincidence and true, but it doesn't look good.



Unfair? Which ones were unfair?



She hasn't been charged £80, she has been given the opportunity to settle out of court, she has the option to pay it or not.



Rubbish, someone having walked past an opportunity to pay is the perfect time to check for fare evaders regardless of whether they are outside or not.



If I was in the restaurant and walked passed a till to get to the exit and found a member of staff at the door, would you not think it strange that I then asked where to pay for the meal?



We are not talking about someone who has just stepped of the train, we are talking about someone who has walked past an open ticket office and not used the provided ticket machine that they walked up to (even if the reason for the latter may have some merit).

Can anyone show the view of the ticket office that someone standing at the ticket machine would have?



Maybe so, but do you think that a fare evader, having seen someone checking tickets, would do any different? Better to pay a fare than get a criminal record.

 

[Fare-Cop]

As always on these forums, we only ever hear one side of the story. The version that is declared by the traveller.

Now before someone jumps down my throat as will inevitably happen, I am not saying that the OP is being untruthful.

However, it seems that the majority of contributors are quite prepared to give the OP's version of events support without first hand knowledge of what happened, but are not prepared to give the same consideration to what might have been evident from the RPI perspective.

Obviously, the RPI cannot give an account on here so that isn't going to alter anything and I am not saying that we should agree the RPI was right without seeing further evidence. I don't have any connection with G4S or Northern.

Nonetheless, the OP has not been charged, but has been given an opportunity of an administrative disposal, which on the face of it, given her own explanation that she did sign an incriminating admission and the layout of available facilities, does look to be a good option.

Regardless of all argument on here, the only way that is going to be resolved is to either

i) pay the £80.00 and take up a complaint with Northern Rail afterwards, or
ii) reject their offer saying 'no thanks, I'll take my chances with your summons'.

Perhaps if the latter option is chosen, we will see which point of view the Magistrates agree with.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

You are assuming everybody knows where the ticket office is, and will always see it. It is unfair to deem someone to be fare evading if they walk past a ticket office. It may not have been seen. Walking past this place to pay is hardly evidence of fare evading at all.... How the hell is that any sort of evidence to back up fare evasion? It isnt....
Also, yes the questions are unfair. The way he never pointed to any ticket office makes one think there is no ticket office, so now how do you answer the question? Also, if he hadnt of been there, the person may not know if they would have gone straight to where the member of staff is. Remember the OP only went up to them because they saw them there.

Your responses see you falling into the same trap as the RPIs. Making some unfair assumptions based on scanty information....

You are working off of the same information as me, but when I use it, it is scant information? I'm not assuming anything, I'm trying to point out how Northern may see things, so people can understand where they are coming from. I'm not trying to say the Op is a fare evader,but how, if she isn't, she could come across as one. You seem to be biased against the railway and can't see the neutral view or the view from the other side.

Do you really think "what would you have done if I wasn't here?" is an unfair question? Do you really believe it is such a taxing question to answer?

The Op has stated that the RPI did point out the ticket office, although I don't believe it is entirely clear at exactly what point this was done.

The OP has said:

• She had walked past an open ticket office (which she claims not to have seen)
• She went to a ticket machine but didn't use it (to be fair I understand why she didn't)
• She claims to have only travelled a short distance from an unmanned station (a common ploy used by fare evaders)
• When asked what she would have done if the RPI wasn't their she said she would have bought a ticket on the return journey (because the price is almost the same).

Now the first three on their own are debatable points and not on their own evidence of wrong doing imo, but when added together with the last, it doesn't look good. We also don't know all the questions asked (perhaps you were there and can enlighten us?), she may have incriminated herself more in other questions without knowing it, we just don't know.

.... In a fair world, nothing here would be enough proof to convict the OP....

In a fair world, we wouldn't have fare evaders and ticket offices would have been replaced by honesty boxes, but we don't have a fair world and we do have fare evaders, and the train companies have to identify and stop those who aren't paying (unless you believe it is fair that 'genuine passengers' should pay for the those who don't).

 

[blue sabre]

Unfortunately, only in the public transport industry would you get such frankly brutal, suspecious, customer unfriendly attitudes as have been displayed in some of the posts above. Let me take a comparable situation. A customer is in Tesco late in the evening when not many checkout staff are on duty. A customer waits at the checkouts but no one appears so they walk past the checkout and go to customer services to pay there. Would anyone say to them 'you've passed the checkout, therefore you have to prove you're not stealing?' Of course not because they haven't left the store.The most that might happen is that they get asked to go back to the checkout and customer services arrange for a member of staff to attend to them.

Quite apart from the fact that the customer hasn't left the store, there is no way that Tesco would want to lose the goodwill of a customer by being difficult and pedantic. Yet goodwill and a duty to treat customers well seem to matter little in some of the posts above. It really does convey the impression of a legalistic, old fashioned industry where customers need to learn the rules and know their place.

Things though you don't break any laws/bylaws doing that in Tesco. From what I understand from this thread there was a technical breach of the bylaws.
It sounds harsh, and I think maybe an explanation of what the consequences of the situation could have been and then directing her to the ticket office would have been the more sensible approach. Then again, I'm no RPI so who knows.

 

[pemma]

I think comparing supermarkets to train operators is a poor comparison. Tesco never let customers collect food in baskets/trolleys and then have all the tills closed and certainly don't have notices saying you can start eating the food before you pay. While rail operators can have ticket offices closed and say you can buy after starting your journey in such circumstances.

 

[table38]

I think comparing supermarkets to train operators is a poor comparison. Tesco never let customers collect food in baskets/trolleys and then have all the tills closed...

The one in Stalybridge does! When it's quiet, you have to use the self-scan or go to the cigarette counter - even with a trolley-load as I discovered once.

 

[EM2]

So what are the options to the "What would you have done if I wasn't here?" question?
The OP couldn't find a ticket office (and may well have assumed it was closed), couldn't buy the ticket required from the TVM, and if there was no member of staff available, what are they supposed to do?
To me, that question sounds like a classic 'damned if you do, damned if you don't'.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

So what are the options to the "What would you have done if I wasn't here?" question?
The OP couldn't find a ticket office (and may well have assumed it was closed), couldn't buy the ticket required from the TVM, and if there was no member of staff available, what are they supposed to do?
To me, that question sounds like a classic 'damned if you do, damned if you don't'.

I can't speak for the op of course, but based on her account I think my response would have been.

"I would have had a look around for the ticket office that I remember being here, that's why I asked you where it was, but if I couldn't find it I'd have bought a return ticket from the machine" [Pointing at the ticket machine].

It would be worth pointing out here that by 'a return' I do of course mean a ticket for travel in the wrong direction and whilst it may not be by the book it is indicating I intended to pay as best as I could given the options known to be available.

The question is there to see if you will admit to intending to leave without paying. The op basically admitted that she wouldn't have paid for the outward journey at all (or at the very least gave that impression) if the RPI wasn't there.

 

[table38]

The question is there to see if you will admit to intending to leave without paying. The op basically admitted that she wouldn't have paid for the outward journey at all (or at the very least gave that impression) if the RPI wasn't there.

It may be worth pointing out (again) that difference in the fare was only 10p, and in one case, a passenger was acquitted for "evading" five times as much.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

The price of a single may well be 10p less than the return, but the single is not a return.

 

[table38]

The price of a single may well be 10p less than the return, but the single is not a return.

I'm not sure that argument would impress the magistrate, given that the intended prosecution is being done in the name of fare evasion, not ticket evasion