Northern Rail: No ticket machine - accused of fare evasion

[ralphchadkirk]

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

I think you'd be laughed out of court if your defence was "it's not called ticket evasion".


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[table38]

I think you'd be laughed out of court if your defence was "it's not called ticket evasion".

Sure, but my point was, Northern would be prosecuting this case in order to cover their loss, which was 10p, with no doubt some long preamble about how much fare evasion costs them.

They would not be bringing the case because "the passenger had no ticket or the wrong ticket".

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Are you suggesting a defence of "I was going to pay less than the correct fare" is adequate to be let off?

 

[Oswyntail]

.... with no doubt some long preamble about how much fare evasion costs them. .....

On which subject they have no reliable data whatsoever, like the rest of the industry. And yet there is the whole structure of "Revenue protection" built on it, including prosecutions based on cases such as this one that may well cost the company more in lost goodwill in public perception than is gained in compensation.

 

[pemma]

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.

But you're saying some tills are open which isn't the same as an unstaffed station with no ticket machine or a ticket machine only taking cards.

 

[table38]

But you're saying some tills are open which isn't the same as an unstaffed station with no ticket machine or a ticket machine only taking cards.

It is a "difficult" analogy I agree... I'm sure I can come up with something...

Oh, I know, what if the self scan's weren't taking cash - which does happen sometimes!

So I go to the security guard on the door. Does he:

(a) direct me to the cigarette counter to pay?
(b) ask me some hypothetical question about what would I have done if he hadn't been there and charge me £80?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

It is a "difficult" analogy I agree... I'm sure I can come up with something...

Oh, I know, what if the self scan's weren't taking cash - which does happen sometimes!

So I go to the security guard on the door. Does he:

(a) direct me to the cigarette counter to pay?
(b) ask me some hypothetical question about what would I have done if he hadn't been there and charge me £80?

No one has charged anyone £80.

How about you walk past the cigarette counter, take a brief look at a working self scan machine and then go see the security guard who happens to be standing at the exit and when asked, tell them that if they weren't there you'd walk off and pay less than the value of the goods when you are next in the shop.

 

[table38]

How about you walk past the cigarette counter, take a brief look at a working self scan machine and then go see the security guard who happens to be standing at the exit and when asked, tell them that if they weren't there you'd walk off and pay less than the value of the goods when you are next in the shop.

As you keep asking hypothetical questions, my hypothetical answer is that maybe Tesco would take a more realistic and pragmatic approach to the heinous loss of 10p and, being more customer focused, and knowing that I could take my business elsewhere, say "that's OK"?

Perhaps with a friendly warning and some customer friendly advice about how to deal with the situation next time?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I simply re-arranged your example into one which might actually have a resemblance to the situation being discussed.

 

[table38]

I simply re-arranged your example into one which might actually have a resemblance to the situation being discussed.

You seem to have omitted the fact that the "working self scan machine" that I took "a brief look at" wouldn't let me pay for what I wanted, which is perhaps why I sought assistance from a member of staff.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

So maybe now you can see why shop analogies don't work.

 

[jon0844]

Comparisons to supermarkets rarely work, as even if the customer is totally and utterly wrong - most retailers will bite their lips and give them the benefit of the doubt.

Not even a case of them adopting an innocent until proven guilty approach, but one of trying to avoid bad publicity.

The railway often fails at this but, to be fair, common sense often prevails when things are escalated through the right channels. Depending on how much time the OP has, things like being able to prove what station she boarded at (so not just using that as a tried-and-tested excuse from a serial fare evader) might be possible, including pulling CCTV footage from the origin station, the train itself and the destination station (if any exists).

I feel for revenue inspectors who know that most people are trying it on, but that still doesn't mean they can instantly jump to conclusions. If you want to mount a sting operation to catch loads of offenders, you'll have to come up with a better plan of attack - to ensure that intent is easily proven.

I'd expect that to be having staff outside the exits (but within railway property which must extend a certain distance beyond the doors?) or to make sure you mount an operation at a station where there's no doubt whatsoever that there are facilities to buy your ticket (i.e. an excess window marked clearly for those approaching it in the other direction). I wonder how G4S actually planned things?

 

[table38]

So maybe now you can see why shop analogies don't work.

Err, so why did you bother with your "re-arranged example"?

Sounds like some furious back-pedaling to me!

 

[hairyhandedfool]

So you can see how stupid the example is.

 

[table38]

So you can see how stupid the example is.

I dunno, from my side of the argument, the analogies seems to be working quite well

 

[hairyhandedfool]

That says more about you than you can possibly know.

 

[Oswyntail]

....
I feel for revenue inspectors who know that most people are trying it on, but that still doesn't mean they can instantly jump to conclusions....

. I believe that that is at the heart of a very interesting problem. The assumption that passengers are dodging itself leads to behaviours that are likely to cause conflict. Some may be, but there will be genuine mistakes misunderstandings and ignorance. I believe it would be more productive - and, ultimately, protect more revenue - to train RPIs and the like on the basis of presumption of co-operation.

 

[table38]

That says more about you than you can possibly know.

Ah, that old chestnut :roll:

I think it does tell me you aren't able to make a reasoned argument!

 

[andykn]

As you keep asking hypothetical questions, my hypothetical answer is that maybe Tesco would take a more realistic and pragmatic approach to the heinous loss of 10p and, being more customer focused, and knowing that I could take my business elsewhere, say "that's OK"?

Perhaps with a friendly warning and some customer friendly advice about how to deal with the situation next time?

Supermarkets have started demanding similar and larger sums of money using specialist agencies.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Ah, that old chestnut :roll:

I think it does tell me you aren't able to make a reasoned argument!

I've been making one, it's just that you are so stuck on the concept that it is somehow 'unfair' that you don't take it on board.

 

[table38]

Supermarkets have started demanding similar and larger sums of money using specialist agencies.

True, but many of these "specialist agencies" are just "Civil Recovery" companies, some of whom use "speculative invoicing" in the same way that the parking companies do.

 

[AlterEgo]

And your point is?

Drawing comparisons with a supermarket is misleading. If I had a penny for every time the railways were compared to airlines or shops I'd be able to retire. We are talking about the railway, governed by byelaws which are at times unhelpful an archaic (and at other times vital and useful). We aren't talking about Asda or Easyjet.

That said, I sympathise with the OP, assuming her account is correct and factual.

 

[TUC]

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.

And I think that's part of the problem. We have a legalistic, rules based approach to ticketing with its own bylaws and offenses, totally inappropriate to a modern customer services environment. By all means have bylaws about safety issues but issues to do with ticketing should be dealt with by normal contractual and theft laws.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

And I think that's part of the problem. We have a legalistic, rules based approach to ticketing with its own bylaws and offenses, totally inappropriate to a modern customer services environment. By all means have bylaws about safety issues but issues to do with ticketing should be dealt with by normal contractual and theft laws.

So you would prefer for people to be prosecuted for theft (a definite criminal record, as well as the fact the current theft law doesn't allow for it) rather than a bylaw breach which doesn't give you a criminal record? In effect, you're arguing for a more stringent punishment?

 

[jon0844]

What's the harm in having a proven fare evader given a criminal record? Make it clearer that this will happen and there might be some deterrent.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

What's the harm in having a proven fare evader given a criminal record? Make it clearer that this will happen and there might be some deterrent.

Because we would still have the same situation with 'technical' breaches, and less discretion as to which offence to charge for. At the moment they have a choice between Byelaws, RRA and the Fraud Act.

 

[TUC]

So you would prefer for people to be prosecuted for theft (a definite criminal record, as well as the fact the current theft law doesn't allow for it) rather than a bylaw breach which doesn't give you a criminal record? In effect, you're arguing for a more stringent punishment?

It would also mean a higher standard of proof in order for rail companies to be able to prosecute which in an odd way would give greater protection for rail users against being innocently caught up in situations.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

It would also mean a higher standard of proof in order for rail companies to be able to prosecute which in an odd way would give greater protection for rail users against being innocently caught up in situations.

No, they are the same standard of proof: beyond reasonable doubt as all criminal prosecutions are.

 

[island]

No, they are the same standard of proof: beyond reasonable doubt as all criminal prosecutions are.

Theft isn't a strict liability offence. Failing to hand over a ticket for inspection is.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Theft isn't a strict liability offence. Failing to hand over a ticket for inspection is.

The standard of proof for criminal prosecutions is beyond all reasonable doubt. Unless you are confusing that with whether intent needs to be proven?