NRCoC 5.2 defence

[DaveHarries]

Greetings,

On 02nd February 2018 I boarded GWR-operated train 1A14 for a journey from Bristol Temple Meads to Swindon in order to undertake a job for my employer there. Whilst on the train I encountered a very polite RPI who informed me that the ticket was not valid because I had not purchased it. Details (mine and my employer's) were taken and, upon request, willingly supplied. The ticket had, in fact, been purchased by a colleague who had used the Swindon to Bristol Temple Meads portion: the return (Bristol Temple Meads to Swindon) portion had been left at the depot for any other driver to use and had been pinned to a board. This has been company practice at least as far back as I can recall and I have been working for the company since September 2009. The ticket had not previously been used as I put it through the gateline at Bristol TM on arrival at the station.

I received this morning a letter from GWR advising me that they intend to fine me £102 on suspicion that I was travelling without a valid ticket (or had not paid my fare) for the train journey in question from Bristol Temple Meads to Swindon on 02nd February.

I have drafted a reply giving my defence and advising them that, because I was undertaking the journey for my employer, the ticket was valid in accordance with NRCoC Section 5, part 5.2, which states that "When a ticket is purchased on behalf of an organisation, business or similar entity, it may be used by any employee of that organisation, business or similar entity."

I intend to mail the letter, along with one from my boss (which he has said he is happy to supply) confirming that I am employed by them and was using the ticket on company business, to GWR within the next day or two and I hope that the two letters combined will sort things out. I ahve also done a copy of the jobsheet for the trip in question and will send that too.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[Gareth Marston]

Glaring point re the defence you want to make (I'll leave others comment on that). Do you have proof that your employer purchased the ticket?

 

[Haywain]

I have drafted a reply giving my defence and advising them that, because I was undertaking the journey for my employer, the ticket was valid in accordance with NRCoC Section 5, part 5.2, which states that "When a ticket is purchased on behalf of an organisation, business or similar entity, it may be used by any employee of that organisation, business or similar entity.

I think it is worth noting that the word employee is used in the singular, not the plural. Rail tickets are not transferable and use of the outward and return portions by different people constitutes a transfer. I think you will struggle with this defence.

 

[221129]

How did the RPI know that it wasn't your ticket?

 

[DaveHarries]

Glaring point re the defence you want to make (I'll leave others comment on that). Do you have proof that your employer purchased the ticket?

Personally, no. But the company would have supplied the funds for the ticket: if you travel by public transport while on company business you are never expected to subsidise costs thereof. If you have to do so initially then you keep the receipt and are reimbursed later upon production thereof. But the wording says "on behalf of an organisation, business or similar entity."

Dave

 

[DaveHarries]

How did the RPI know that it wasn't your ticket?

He asked me if I had purchased it: I decided that honesty was the best policy and replied that I had not. However I have since seen him once again at Bristol TM (this time when I was not at work) and he said he was not aware of 5.2 but now was and that he did not expect anything further to come of it.

Dave

 

[Starmill]

That's very unusual. Nobody has ever asked me who purchased my ticket before. Was there something about the ticket that suggested it might have been purchased by someone else?

 

[221129]

Are you sure there was no name on the ticket or anything like that?

 

[Gareth Marston]

Personally, no. But the company would have supplied the funds for the ticket: if you travel by public transport while on company business you are never expected to subsidise costs thereof. If you have to do so initially then you keep the receipt and are reimbursed later upon production thereof. But the wording says "on behalf of an organisation, business or similar entity."

Dave

It should be very easy for your company to produce the receipt.

 

[Gareth Marston]

That's very unusual. Nobody has ever asked me who purchased my ticket before. Was there something about the ticket that suggested it might have been purchased by someone else?

Some sort of forgery maybe?

 

[Fare-Cop]

I have drafted a reply giving my defence and advising them that, because I was undertaking the journey for my employer, the ticket was valid in accordance with NRCoC Section 5, part 5.2, which states that "When a ticket is purchased on behalf of an organisation, business or similar entity, it may be used by any employee of that organisation, business or similar entity."

I intend to mail the letter, along with one from my boss (which he has said he is happy to supply) confirming that I am employed by them and was using the ticket on company business, to GWR within the next day or two and I hope that the two letters combined will sort things out. I ahve also done a copy of the jobsheet for the trip in question and will send that too.

Cheers,
Dave

I think it will be helpful if you and your employer read and understand this particular extract from National Railway Byelaws (2005)

Byelaw 21.

(2) Subject to Byelaw 21(4), no person shall transfer or receive any unused or partly used ticket, intending that any person shall use it for travelling unless the conditions of use for the ticket specifically permit such transfer.

The reference to Byelaw 21.4 is explained here:

Byelaw 21(4) The sale or transfer by, or the purchase or receipt from, an authorised person in the course of his duties or from an authorised ticket machine is excepted from the provisions of Byelaw 21.

It seems that unless there is a specific condition permitting transfer of the actual ticket type that you held, which does seem very unlikely from your post, GWR are right to proceed with action in this case

Many years ago I was involved in dealing with a similar habit in a particular University College where students did a similar thing with partly used tickets. A number of warnings seemed to have been ignored, that is, until one or two ultimately faced Court action.

 

[Starmill]

I frequently use a ticket with someone else's name on it because it was bought for me by the named person. It's a different name of course to the one printed on my railcard too. Even then if anyone has noticed they have not questioned it.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

These circumstances are remarkably similar to the facts in Great Northern Railway v Harrison (1854) 156 ER 489, with one small exception, and of course 160+ intervening years (not that there has been any other judgements about this issue in all that time that I'm aware of).

Harrison was a journalist covering the York races for a London newspaper. His employer had regularly been obtaining non-transferrable passes/tickets for whoever on the staff would be available on the day to cover these events elsewhere in the country.

The exception in the circumstances was that the Railway Company, by custom and practice, had regularly allowed the reporters of the newspaper, when going to the country races for the purpose of framing their reports, to travel for free on their line using these 'non transferrable' passes, and on this journey, Harrison was acknowledged by a station porter and allowed to board. But the crucial part of the judgement does not require that element of the event to be proved:-

Coleridge J : “The defendants might issue tickets in a form which purported to make them not transferable, and yet they might not unreasonably permit them to be used by other persons belonging to the same departments, which permission would be a convenience to the newspaper proprietors, and might be a matter of indifference to themselves. . . . . if the jury should be of the opinion that this irregular use of tickets, however worded, was with the knowledge and permission of the superintendent of the station . . . . this would be such evidence of a licence as would make it wrong to say that the plaintiff was a trespasser in the carriage. Held that the plaintiff was a traveller by licence of the company.​

Judgement was given, on appeal for Harrison, the journalist and passenger.

In my opinion, and in the absence of other details which might affect that opinion, I would suggest advising your employer to refer to this judgement in their reply.

[Just for clarity, the reason which brought Harrison's incident to Court was not just one of ticket validity, but was an injury claim, following breaking his leg during travel. The Company was seeking to refuse liability for damages on the grounds of the ticket validity. But as the judgement above illustrates, the injury was not a factor in Coleridge J's reasoning.]

 

[DaveHarries]

Some sort of forgery maybe?

Unlikely: I had put the ticket through the gateline at Temple Meads with no problem.

Dave

 

[Fare-Cop]

DaveNewcastle has made a really helpful suggestion there and hopefully, his insight will assist in bringing this to a swift conclusion for the OP.

Whilst my comment regarding the matter of students sharing partly used tickets had evidenced instances of people who were considered to be attempting to avoid fares, the situation for the OP is perhaps more of an 'unofficially assessed acceptable convenience' that has developed through a custom & practice not previously having been challenged.

 

[DaveHarries]

It should be very easy for your company to produce the receipt.

If head office still have it: I believe they get sent there every Friday but whether they keep them that far back or not I have no idea and it is unlikely considering that the ticket would originally have been purchased early January.

Are you sure there was no name on the ticket or anything like that?

Yes. 100% certain. No photocard number on it either and nor was there anything saying: "Only valid with ticket number <number>"

Dave

 

[island]

On the face of it, it does seem that an offence may have been committed. Whilst a ticket may be purchased by an organisation and used by an employee, it cannot be used by two different employees – and a return ticket, though printed as two coupons, is one ticket – but it is also worth referring to DaveNewcastle's post too.

 

[DaveHarries]

On the face of it, it does seem that an offence may have been committed. Whilst a ticket may be purchased by an organisation and used by an employee, it cannot be used by two different employees – and a return ticket, though printed as two coupons, is one ticket – but it is also worth referring to DaveNewcastle's post too.

I suppose there is the potential for some misinterpretation by either side. Simply saying "any employee". If what you suggest is correct then they should say "but not more than one employee". But the NRCoC doesn't say that bit.

The RPI who I spoke to paid a visit to the depot not long after I saw him and spoke to my manager (I saw him again about a week later at Temple Meads and he told me he had dropped in: my boss confirmed likewise) so he will have seen the tickets fixed to the board where we keep them for himself. If what has been done here is illegal and GWR are right then it is a pity that us employees take the flack: with the lot I work for you can bet your bottom dollar that purchasing two singles is the last thing they will give even the remotest consideration to doing.

In view of it being employer policy then, if I am forced to pay up, I would have a good mind to ask said employer for a reimbursement. Problem with said employer is that they don't give two f****

Dave

 

[sheff1]

But the NRCoC doesn't say that bit.

You should note that the NRCoC are no longer current. They were replaced by the National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT) in October 2016. The wording in the NRCoT is subtlety different to the quote in Post #1, i.e. "When a Ticket is purchased on behalf of an organisation, business or similar entity, it may be used by any person employed by that organisation, business or similar entity ....."

 

[yorkie]

It sounds like the original accusation was simply that the customer used a ticket that was purchased by someone else; there is absolutely nothing wrong with that in itself.

But it has subsequently come to light that a transfer of a partly used ticket did take place, which is an offence.

I don't advise slagging off an employer (even if the employer is not named) and if you are a member of a union I would contact them if anything does come of this.

 

[falcon]

I think it will be helpful if you and your employer read and understand this particular extract from National Railway Byelaws (2005)

Byelaw 21.

(2) Subject to Byelaw 21(4), no person shall transfer or receive any unused or partly used ticket, intending that any person shall use it for travelling unless the conditions of use for the ticket specifically permit such transfer.

The reference to Byelaw 21.4 is explained here:

Byelaw 21(4) The sale or transfer by, or the purchase or receipt from, an authorised person in the course of his duties or from an authorised ticket machine is excepted from the provisions of Byelaw 21.

It seems that unless there is a specific condition permitting transfer of the actual ticket type that you held, which does seem very unlikely from your post, GWR are right to proceed with action in this case

Many years ago I was involved in dealing with a similar habit in a particular University College where students did a similar thing with partly used tickets. A number of warnings seemed to have been ignored, that is, until one or two ultimately faced Court action.

Yes I remember that scam. Buy a saver return from Leeds to London that cost a £1 more than the saver single and make the return portion available by way of communal notice board " see so and so for ticket to Leeds". Nearly as bad as the Jailbreak scam.

 

[falcon]

Seems to me the RPI does not know what he is doing. And what is this visiting the company concerned! did he do that in his own time? did he have a witness with him? Sounds like he was acting outside his jurisdiction.
Defence attached.

 

[yorkie]

Seems to me the RPI does not know what he is doing. And what is this visiting the company concerned! did he do that in his own time? did he have a witness with him? Sounds like he was acting outside his jurisdiction.
Defence attached.View attachment 43628 View attachment 43629

Rather than attach a large image, can I suggest a quote of the text? This ensures the forum remains accessible to all, including our blind members/readers and minimises bandwidth usage for mobile users.

Anyway there is absolutely nothing wrong with using a ticket bought by another person but it is not permitted to use a ticket that has been partly used by another person. That's fairly basic stuff!

 

[DaveHarries]

Seems to me the RPI does not know what he is doing. And what is this visiting the company concerned! did he do that in his own time? did he have a witness with him? Sounds like he was acting outside his jurisdiction.
Defence attached.View attachment 43628 View attachment 43629

Thanks Falcon for posting those and for showing 5.2 which I base the defence on. The company I work for has its HQ elsewhere in the UK: I am only working from one of their depots.

I don't advise slagging off an employer (even if the employer is not named) and if you are a member of a union I would contact them if anything does come of this.

Valid point re saying what I think of the lot I work for but that is a case if saying things how they are: I will edit the post though. I am not a member of a union though. I did have a colleague who was a rep but he, ironically, now works for GWR (!!!) albeit not as an RPI.

Dave

 

[LAX54]

so we are saying a ticket can be used by 'any person', not any 'two people' ?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I think exactly what you said to the RPI will matter considerably here. If you only said that someone else had bought the ticket, then that that does not seem evidence of an offence in itself - people buy tickets on behalf of others all the time, and it is perfectly legal. But if you admitted that someone else had used the ticket beforehand, that would seem to be evidence of an offence.

I am nowhere near as knowledgeable as some of the other members on this forum, but I would have thought that this would be a primary consideration in your approach/response to the offered settlement.

 

[Haywain]

so we are saying a ticket can be used by 'any person', not any 'two people' ?

Yes, we are saying exactly that.

 

[najaB]

so we are saying a ticket can be used by 'any person', not any 'two people' ?

That's the way I read it.

 

[_toommm_]

so we are saying a ticket can be used by 'any person', not any 'two people' ?

Person is in the singular form - it doesn't say 'any people' or the more archaic 'persons'

 

[Fawkes Cat]

OP - please could you clarify

1) your employer is a railway company?
2) the ticket was paid for by your employer?
3) the ticket was provided to you by your employer?

It seems to me that if the answer to all three of these questions is 'yes' then it probably should be your management dealing with this rather than you. If nothing else, while TOCs are (meant to be) profit-making and so shouldn't pass up opportunities to bring in revenue, my understanding as an outsider is that there is (of necessity) a fair degree of give and take between TOCs, other railway companies and so on. GWR's approach feels like a fairly good way of poisoning the relationship between them and your company. Your company may want to consider the implications of this charge on you for the whole company - and since you were acting under your employer's direction, it's their decision (not yours) which is being challenged. (And also, if my assumptions are right (and without wanting you to break confidences by saying who you work for) it seems to be one operating company in a group pursuing a worker for another operating company in the same group.)

But if I have understood things properly, the weak point is that you just collected the ticket from where it was pinned on a board (in somewhere like the mess room?). If so, that suggests an unofficial arrangement that your employer could deny knowing about. I think there is some mileage in arguing that the NCOT reference to 'any person' includes multiple persons rather than just one individual, but it goes against usual custom and practice as applied to 'ordinary' customers - namely that anyone can buy a ticket, but only one human being can use it (so your mate can't finish off a trip where you ended early, and neither can they use your unused return portion).