Northern Rail's documentation is rubbished on BBC Radio 4

[Hellfire]

Forgive me if this is in the wrong forum but I couldn't decide where else to put it.

I was listening to Law in Action on BBC R4 this afternoon and it had an item on a guy who was threatened with prosecution by Northern Rail. You can hear the full programme here. The segment about the fare is 12 minutes in. The gentleman in question is a solicitor and gives an interesting account of his battle with NR

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05xxjgl

Essentially he was taken to court by NR under the RoRA for failing to buy a ticket, having boarded the train at a station with no ticket facilities and then discovering he had left his wallet at home. The programme took a barristers opinion on the way NR handled this and concluded that their letter of prosecution was misleading in that it suggested that a conviction for fare evasion would never be spent and that it could affect the application for a visa to the US.

In a statement NR conceded it's documentation was incorrect and promised to change it. The barrister was also quite scathing about the NR offer to drop the prosecution on payment of £100 which seems to be their standard offer....it must have increased as it was £80 in the past.

Shouldn't this have been, at most, a byelaw offence?

 

[najaB]

Shouldn't this have been, at most, a byelaw offence?

Depends on if they believed that the wallet had been forgotten or 'forgotten'.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Surely anyone in the legal profession would know that at most Northern would get a polite talking too and asked to change their letters. Hardly seems worth spending time over.

I wouldn't overly trust the opinion of a 'professional' who can forget their wallet and not have any form of payment on them. A rather essential requirement in life.

 

[furlong]

The barrister was also quite scathing about the NR offer to drop the prosecution on payment of £100

The passenger, not the barrister, I think.

Shouldn't this have been, at most, a byelaw offence?

Difficult to use the byelaw offense if there were no ticketing facilities where he began his journey.

 

[Starmill]

Surely anyone in the legal profession would know that at most Northern would get a polite talking too and asked to change their letters. Hardly seems worth spending time over.

I wouldn't overly trust the opinion of a 'professional' who can forget their wallet and not have any form of payment on them. A rather essential requirement in life.

Never made any mistakes, have you?

 

[yorkie]

Northern making false statements? Not surprised; that's the Alex Hynes way.

Northern rail using threats of prosecutions to generate cash? Yep, that sounds like the Alex Hynes way too.

Northern deliberately intimidating people? Oh yes, that's the way Alex Hynes seems to like it.

It's fantastic that Northern failed to win this case, though I agree that most people would not be able to achieve such a good outcome.

Northern won't want to actually lose a case in court, so they are likely to withdraw when they sense defeat, to avoid embarrassment and any potential possibility of any sort of 'precedent' being set or implied. So their withdrawal is also, of no surprise to me.

Shouldn't this have been, at most, a byelaw offence?

A byelaw offence cannot be committed as there are no facilities at Mirfield.

But Northern won't change course, they will continue to get their £80 (or £100 or whatever) off many many more people, some may well be deserving of persecution, but for certain, some are not!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I was simply pleased that the piece was included for broadcast.

I hope that it has helped to bring several of the interesting issues to a wider audience, and to an audience which might then engage with those issues constructively. Railway Law has been slow to evolve recently, and Northern Rail (and to a lesser extent, TfL) have been bold enough to try to push the envelope of our Victorian inheritance. While several on here have been vociferous in objecting to their policies and procedures (often with understandable reason, whether based on principle or experience), I do recognise that somethings have to change, and Northern have tried to make changes, within the limited scope available.

I'm glad the issues have been aired to the legal profession by this route - the legal 'trade press' doesn't seem to find Railway Law interestion - probably because it doesn't change.

Northern making false statements? Not surprised; that's the Alex Hynes way.

Northern rail using threats of prosecutions to generate cash? Yep, that sounds like the Alex Hynes way too.

Northern deliberately . . . . .
. . . . .

I'd written the above before reading you post.

I guess you (and your anti-Northern Rail campaign) was in my mind when I referred to "several on here have been vociferous in objecting to their policies and procedures (often with understandable reason, whether based on principle or experience". The reason I don''t join you in your campaign is that I cannot believe that innuendo, personal criticisms, and idelogical complaints will change anything. And certainly not for the better (for both the industry and for passengers - both groups being challenged by government policy).

I beleive government policies can be changed, and in the meantime, that Railway Law can be changed.
But they don't follow from criticisms of individuals - criticisms which confuse the person with what they say.
Lets work WITH the structure and with the people that we have to bring about changes, people who are keen to make changes (as Northern has demonstrably been willing to do), and to make changes that are needed to make railway law appropriate for the UK in the 21st C.

 

[yorkie]

I don't have an anti-Northern Rail campaign, though interestingly I've been accused by some people of having a pro-Northern Rail campaign so I guess it evens out!

I remain unsurprised by the claims made in the programme, and I remain of the view it's Alex Hynes' way. I can't think of any other Train Company who is acting anywhere near as threatening toward their customers boarding at stations with inadequate facilities or no facilities. The number of issues reported here (which is just the 'tip of the iceberg') since the Summer of 2013 has been huge, and the person in charge is ultimately responsible.

If it wasn't his way of working, why has there been such a proliferation of such incidents since he took over?

I agree it would be best if Government would intervene. Decriminalisation should occur. But it would require huge intervention to prevent Northern acting in the way they are doing. That just isn't going to happen, as much as I wish it would.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Never made any mistakes, have you?

Never boarded a train without means of paying for my journey. I always check before boarding a train that I have a card or sufficient cash for the trip.

I wouldn't order things at a shop or order at a restaurant without ensuring I could pay them at the end of it either.

 

[yorkie]

I wouldn't order things at a shop or order at a restaurant without ensuring I could pay them at the end of it either.

Shop or restaurant analogies don't really work. I've known people realise they didn't have means to pay with the chosen method of payment by the restaurant and make amicable arrangements without being asked for an extra £97 or so. If there were similar laws for restaurants (which would never happen!) then maybe the analogy would work and maybe some would treat their customers in a similar way, though I doubt it.

 

[jon0844]

Does anyone know if GTR is as active with the unofficial £80 'fines' as FCC was?

Although Northern Rail gets a lot of mentions on here, it is/was by no means the only TOC trying to take alternative action to make more money than taking people to court.

 

[Antman]

Never boarded a train without means of paying for my journey. I always check before boarding a train that I have a card or sufficient cash for the trip.

I wouldn't order things at a shop or order at a restaurant without ensuring I could pay them at the end of it either.

If only we could all be as perfect as you, I filled my car up with fuel recently before realising I had no means of payment, they were fine and said it happens all the time, they took some details and I paid later

 

[Hellfire]

I'm glad the issues have been aired to the legal profession by this route - the legal 'trade press' doesn't seem to find Railway Law interestion - probably because it doesn't change.

Lets work WITH the structure and with the people that we have to bring about changes, people who are keen to make changes (as Northern has demonstrably been willing to do), and to make changes that are needed to make railway law appropriate for the UK in the 21st C.

Completely agree with this but I don't see any government seeing this as a priority. Maybe something for Passenger Focus to concentrate on.

I think the complexity of railway ticketing and the fact that individual TOCs have varying policies on how they enforce this sort of thing is badly in need of a major overhaul. Some areas have penalty fares, some don't for instance. Surely the system for dealing with any eventuality regarding tickets, or lack of them, should be common across the network.

I'm not a "Northern hater" and they may, as you suggest, be trying to reform the system but it has to be said, judging from many posts on these forums, that they prefer the use of blunt instruments to a more subtle approach.

In this particular instance, the passenger made what seems to be a genuine error, something that could happen to any of us. Having given his details I would have expected Northern to offer him the facility to pay the fare rather than rush to prosecution threats with the alternative of a £100 payment.

I appreciate there are those on these forums who will rush to suggest that this might create a loophole for anyone to avoid paying in the hope they won't get caught but, a good system should be able to cater for genuine errors.

 

[Ritson]

Interesting piece.
They haven't smended their online documents yet though-it still says that a Rail conviction will never become spent.
http://www.northernrail.org/pdfs/Summons_Info_sheet.pdf

Q. Will I get a Criminal Record?
A. Yes, if you are convicted of the offence, you would have a criminal record registered in your name. It will never
become spent and will always have to be declared.

 

[Camden]

Never boarded a train without means of paying for my journey. I always check before boarding a train that I have a card or sufficient cash for the trip.

I wouldn't order things at a shop or order at a restaurant without ensuring I could pay them at the end of it either.

I would politely suggest that for most people picking up your wallet or purse (which contains your methods of payment) is a routine habitual act, rather than something which they tick off their to-do checklist. And subsequently going into a shop, restaurant or sitting down on a train (non-ticket selling station, of course) and not consciously thinking that payment will be an issue also a knock on habitual act from that, rather than pre-checking, once more, they have the means on them.

In short, forgetting payment means is like forgetting keys or anything else - it will happen to most people in their lives at least once, and if you do make a conscious check for means of payment beforehand (rather than reaching for where your wallet normally is, and feeling a sinking realisation of error) then I feel you are not like most people. If you wouldn't trust the judgement of someone who would absent-mindedly forget their wallet and get themselves into such situation, then I feel that would mean you wouldn't be able to trust the judgement of most people (which includes 'professionals').

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wouldn't order things at a shop or order at a restaurant without ensuring I could pay them at the end of it either.

With those cases there's usually a workaround, though, such as leaving another item of value there as a deposit while going to obtain the money.

In the end some people are more forgetful than others.

As for Northern I still take the view that they should roll out ticket machines and proper Penalty Fares under the relevant Act on their network, or at least the urban parts of it. No more of this nonsense then.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Interesting piece.
They haven't smended their online documents yet though-it still says that a Rail conviction will never become spent.
http://www.northernrail.org/pdfs/Summons_Info_sheet.pdf

The bit about Australia and the US is true, though - it indeed "may" affect a visa application. It is a crime of "moral turpitude", as the US likes to talk of, isn't it?

As it will become spent after 5 years (?) that line is odd, though. Should it perhaps have said it would appear on an enhanced CRB even when spent?

 

[Haywain]

As it will become spent after 5 years (?) that line is odd, though. Should it perhaps have said it would appear on an enhanced CRB even when spent?

Whilst it will become spent, the line that it "will always have to be declared" is fairly accurate even aside from CRB checks. The vast majority of insurance proposal forms ask something along the lines of "have you ever been convicted of a crime of dishonesty?" Insurance companies can take a dim view of people failing to be truthful about such things, but you generally only find out when making a significant claim.

 

[Fare-Cop]

I cannot believe that innuendo, personal criticisms, and idelogical complaints will change anything. And certainly not for the better (for both the industry and for passengers - both groups being challenged by government policy).

Exactly, the old saying "sticks & stones.......but names will never hurt me!" is spot-on

I beleive government policies can be changed, and in the meantime, that Railway Law can be changed.
But they don't follow from criticisms of individuals - criticisms which confuse the person with what they say.
Lets work WITH the structure and with the people that we have to bring about changes, people who are keen to make changes (as Northern has demonstrably been willing to do), and to make changes that are needed to make railway law appropriate for the UK in the 21st C.

Common sense as always....and that should be the basis of good law too

 

[SussexMan]

Whilst it will become spent, the line that it "will always have to be declared" is fairly accurate even aside from CRB checks. The vast majority of insurance proposal forms ask something along the lines of "have you ever been convicted of a crime of dishonesty?" Insurance companies can take a dim view of people failing to be truthful about such things, but you generally only find out when making a significant claim.

Sorry but this is incorrect. If an offence is spent you do not have to declare it to an insurance company. If they ask for details about convictions you only have to declare unspent convictions. Not telling an insurance company about a conviction that is spent cannot affect your policy or subsequent claim.

The whole purpose of a conviction being spent is that it is now in the past, you've been punished and other than a few specific situations, it has to be declared to no one.

 

[nlogax]

Sorry but this is incorrect. [..]

The whole purpose of a conviction being spent is that it is now in the past, you've been punished and other than a few specific situations, it has to be declared to no one.

If we're specifically talking about visa waiver (ie ESTA) access to the US, the question is put thus;

"Have you ever been arrested or convicted for a crime that resulted in serious damage to property, or serious harm to another person or government authority?" (emphasis mine..this is the long standing 'moral turpitude' question that's recently been reworded on ESTA applications)

Regardless of a conviction being spent, it -is- a requirement that any such convictions are disclosed during such an application.

Further reading:
https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/esta/WebHelp/ESTA_Screen-Level_Online_Help_1.htm#ata2
http://www.usvisalawyers.co.uk/article13.htm

 

[spongsdad]

Returning to the initial subject of this thread, and having heard the programme for myself, my impression was that Northern Rail had been somewhat dilatory, slipshod and vindictive in bringing a prosecution. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that if TOCs want to use the courts as a lever for collecting revenue and as a deterrent to fare dodgers, they need to stay on the moral high ground by obeying the law themselves and not bending the rules to suit themselves by disseminating information which at best is misleading and at worst is downright untrue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

"Have you ever been arrested or convicted for a crime that resulted in serious damage to property, or serious harm to another person or government authority?" (emphasis mine..this is the long standing 'moral turpitude' question that's recently been reworded on ESTA applications)

Is that what it now says? That's very much reduced from what it was; "moral turpitude" in my view was fairly open and would include most crimes of dishonesty, certainly any kind of devious fare dodging (i.e. things like falsifying tickets, jumping barriers etc, rather than the simple casual "I'll pay if I'm asked" approach which is certainly not acceptable but isn't quite as questionable).

 

[najaB]

Is that what it now says? That's very much reduced from what it was; "moral turpitude" in my view was fairly open and would include most crimes of dishonesty, certainly any kind of devious fare dodging (i.e. things like falsifying tickets, jumping barriers etc, rather than the simple casual "I'll pay if I'm asked" approach which is certainly not acceptable but isn't quite as questionable).

It's worth pointing out that being arrested - even if no charges are brought - is enough to make one ineligible for the Visa Waiver Program. So I wouldn't be surprised if they want to know about spent convictions.

 

[island]

And visa waiver applications are made under US law, which means the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is irrelevant.

 

[Flamingo]

And visa waiver applications are made under US law, which means the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is irrelevant.

Would the US Embasy have access to the UK police computer, though? (In a way they could admit, anyway!)

 

[najaB]

Would the US Embasy have access to the UK police computer, though? (In a way they could admit, anyway!)

It wouldn't matter as spent convictions don't show up on the PNC. They have other ways to find out...

 

[Bletchleyite]

They have other ways to find out...

I'm not convinced they do, or at least not that would be used to find out if someone had been done for something as minor as fare dodging (which doesn't seem to come under the new wording anyway). However, if the crime was a blocker and wasn't declared, if it later was found for any reason I would think deportation and a complete ban from travel to the US would be the likely outcome.

 

[furlong]

However, if the crime was a blocker and wasn't declared, if it later was found for any reason I would think deportation and a complete ban from travel to the US would be the likely outcome.

Or if more data is shared officially in future.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I'm not convinced they do, or at least not that would be used to find out if someone had been done for something as minor as fare dodging (which doesn't seem to come under the new wording anyway). However, if the crime was a blocker and wasn't declared, if it later was found for any reason I would think deportation and a complete ban from travel to the US would be the likely outcome.

Could you please tell us where you get this 'information' from? It is at complete odds with my knowledge and experience of investigation, so I hop you can see why I am so eager to find out where I have been going so very wrong.
Thank you.

 

[island]

Would the US Embasy have access to the UK police computer, though? (In a way they could admit, anyway!)

They have ways and means.

In many cases a seemingly serious issue properly declared and acknowledged will result in it being disregarded, but trying to cover it up and being caught will be treated more seriously as evidence of dishonesty.