NRCoC 5.2 defence

[talldave]

So how is the TOC going to prove that the OP didn't use the OUT portion of the ticket?

And although off topic, I'm still curious to know how a GWR customer finds out how long an Off Peak Return is valid for? Preferably before purchase?

 

[SA_900]

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Don't they have to prove someone else used the OUT portion? Which seems nigh on impossible.

The OP admitted it to the RPI, didn't he?

But FWIW, I think the best thing here is going to be to cough up the settlement requested (as if this has been going on for many months or even years, they could well seek thousands or even tens of thousands in Court) and refuse to partake in this exchange of tickets in work in future. And if the employer has a problem with that, find a new one.

 

[richw]

Arguably, business purchased ticket, business used outbound leg, business used inbound leg. Ticket hasn’t been transferred from the purchasing organisation.

Dictionary definition of ticket is “a piece of paper or card that gives the holder a certain right, especially to enter a place, travel by public transport, or participate in an event”

‘A’ being singular. A return booking gives 2 seperate pieces of card.

As each leg has a seperate piece of card, the piece of card hasn’t been transferred. Employee A used one piece of card, Employee B used the other.
The transfer of a ticket by dictionary difference would be a ticket held from A to C, employee 1 used it from A to B and employee 2 used it for B to C.
If both legs were all on one piece of card that would be a whole different thing.

 

[AlterEgo]

Amidst all this theoretical discussion, I have been wondering about what attracted the attention of the RPI to this in the first place. As the OP was travelling on a relatively early train, was the ticket being used an Off Peak Return issued for travel on that day (ie. dated 2nd February)? That could raise a suspicion if a period return was being used for a very short (timewise) trip where a cheaper Day Return ticket is also available.

Specific intelligence on the OP’s employer and their alleged habitual misuse of tickets, a number of us suggest.

There’s no other way this could be detected or even suspected.

 

[najaB]

Dictionary definition of ticket is “a piece of paper or card that gives the holder a certain right, especially to enter a place, travel by public transport, or participate in an event”

Nice try, but in this case it's a two-part ticket.

 

[rs101]

Nice try, but in this case it's a two-part ticket.

Is it? My return tickets didn't say anything about that. They simply say "coupon X of 2" - nothing about part 1 or 2.

 

[falcon]

I probably side with posters who argue that a return ticket can only be used by a single person. However, if the return halves were pinned on the office notice board for any colleague to use, is it not possible that you can pick up the return half of a ticket you yourself have used? Therefore that would not be contrary to the NRCoT. So should the reponsibility be placed on the railways to prove that you yourself did not use both halves of the same ticket, which is almost impossible to prove?

Regardless of the "any person" defence.

Unless the OP has already said he has not made an outward journy. If he has not then the purden of proof would lie with the TOC.

 

[falcon]

This is nonsense, with all due respect. A return ticket is one ticket with two portions.

It’s like saying my employment contract, which is 10 pages long, is a document, but if I hold one page up then that’s also a document in the same way. It isn’t.

Your argument revolves around the fact that a ticket entitles you to make a “journey” (singular). Journey is not a defined term and is applied in a variety of contexts in the NRCoT.

The NRCoT is quite clear that the ticket is not transferable and it would be obvious to any court in this case why it would not be, given the fares avoided by the OP’s employer.

The NRCoT also uses the term “ticket” in the context we all recognise it to be, consistently throughout the document.

No,no. The NRCOT are not "quite clear" at all. You have forgot the original ambiguity like many others on this thread. The sec 5, 5.2 and it is 5.2 that is causing this debate (or should be) the term "any person" is used as aposed to " 'a' person employed by" or " any 'one'person employed by". That is the defence in this case not all this philosophical debate and analysis over irrellevent issues of amongst others what constitutes a ticket. If the issue of what constituted a ticket was relevent we would be debating it over just about every other ticket issue.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

When compared to other consumer products and services we come across, perhaps it is a little odd. Though I am inclined to agree with AlterEgo that non-transferrable agreements are more prevalent than you might expect.

BUT, consider for a moment the consequences of 'liberalisation' of the transferability of a rail ticket - We would see Season tickets appearing in offices and clubs and households where the 'benefit' of a reduced price offered to one regular traveller is being exploited by several travellers; The extra cost of 0.10p for a return would be widely traded on station concourses with impunity; The 'carnet' ticket would be traded in schools, offices, shops, other institutions and on the streets; The cheap promotional 'Advance' tickets would be bought and sold by ticket touts outside major stations on the day of travel; etc., etc.

OR, MORE PROBABLY :-
all these discounted ticket types for multiple travel by a contracted passenger which provide significant savings in cost for that passenger, would be withdrawn.

Interestingly, some bus companies now allow multi journey tickets (day, week or longer) to be transferred between random individuals, the only restriction being 'not at the same time'. Those major bus groups also operate rail franchises. Although not of immediate benefit to the OP, perhaps the issue of transferability needs to be reconsidered? To use your example, I could travel to an 'office or club' and leave the bus ticket at reception, someone else may legitimately use it to use go somewhere and come back again, then I could pick up that same ticket and use it to go home. In my example the bus company, or in the OP's case the rail company, have priced the ticket on the basis of a certain amount of use (OP's case A to B then B back to A) not on it being a specific individual on both legs of the journey. Note that I fully accept that the rules do say what they say at the present time.

 

[najaB]

You have forgot the original ambiguity like many others on this thread. The sec 5, 5.2 and it is 5.2 that is causing this debate (or should be) the term "any person" is used as aposed to " 'a' person employed by" or " any 'one'person employed by".

That 'ambiguity' really doesn't matter - it still remains that a ticket can only be used by a (or any) person.

 

[maniacmartin]

That 'ambiguity' really doesn't matter - it still remains that a ticket can only be used by a (or any) person.

Puting your personal interpretation in bold doesn't remove the ambiguity.

 

[Manxmaninexile]

Hi

I'm new but have followed this forum for a couple of years.

I'm assuming the OP's employer is a limited company and therefore a "legal person" in it's own right. If the employer has bought the return ticket and two separate employees have used the outward and return portions for business purposes, is this two different persons or is it the "same person" ie the employer? Does the legislation refer to "individuals" (ie separate human beings) or to "persons".

Apologies if this is an academic question - I think another poster has tried to raise it from what I've read but I've seen no answer. Apologies too. if this post is not helpful to the OP (it's not necessarily a defence I would want to run personally!).

FWIW I agree with other posters that the employer should sort this out - the OP should pay up and get reimbursed by their employer!

 

[falcon]

That 'ambiguity' really doesn't matter - it still remains that a ticket can only be used by a (or any) person.

Sorry but you accept that it is ambiguos and then say it does not matter! The fact that it is ambiguos and is a defence because the law requires that contract be clear in order to prosecute people if they are breached.

 

[falcon]

Hi

I'm new but have followed this forum for a couple of years.

I'm assuming the OP's employer is a limited company and therefore a "legal person" in it's own right. If the employer has bought the return ticket and two separate employees have used the outward and return portions for business purposes, is this two different persons or is it the "same person" ie the employer? Does the legislation refer to "individuals" (ie separate human beings) or to "persons".

Apologies if this is an academic question - I think another poster has tried to raise it from what I've read but I've seen no answer. Apologies too. if this post is not helpful to the OP (it's not necessarily a defence I would want to run personally!).

FWIW I agree with other posters that the employer should sort this out - the OP should pay up and get reimbursed by their employer!

That is a good point and the reason I say that is because one has to ask why does sec 5.2 exist when sec 5.1 properly covers the transfer of tickets anyway.
It must have been drafted with an intention of some sort, and was that intention to remove the limitations in certain circumstances that are place on the transfer of tickets under sec 5.1.

From a moral point of view, yes the employer should sort this out. But legally the TOC will go for the individual travelling.

 

[etr221]

I'm rather with manxmaninexile on this: the ticket was purchased on behalf of the company (employer) for use by 'any person employed by that organisation', and it was provided to and being used by such a person (as such, and not by the OP as an individual), and so valid in accordance with NRCoT 5.2. And that is a permitting condition, for the purpose of Byelaw 21.
(If the OP has not already sent his letter to GWT, I would endeavour not to say anything about the use of the outward half of the ticket (or who actually purchased it): the line is 'ticket was purchased on behalf of my employer, and I was using it as their employee, so I had a valid ticket in accordance with NRCoT 5.2')

And as the individual parts of a two part return are separately acceptable as valid tickets (and the one illustrated above says 'this ticket'), arguing that they are together 'the ticket' contradicts this.

 

[AlterEgo]

For those struggling to wade through the concept of transferring tickets (and I admit this is not clear cut), consider that the rules say that an Off Peak Return is not valid on the outward portion without a valid unstamped return portion “of the same ticket”.

 

[Dai Corner]

For those struggling to wade through the concept of transferring tickets (and I admit this is not clear cut), consider that the rules say that an Off Peak Return is not valid on the outward portion without a valid unstamped return portion “of the same ticket”.

This might be better discussed in the following thread. It's not relevant to the OP, who was travelling on a return portion.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/effect-of-nrcot-section-5-2.161739/

 

[AlterEgo]

This might be better discussed in the following thread. It's not relevant to the OP, who was travelling on a return portion.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/effect-of-nrcot-section-5-2.161739/

No, I’m intending to show that the railway does not intend for a ticket to be used by two separate people in the way that some people are suggesting is okay as part of the OP’s potential defence. It’s not a side discussion.

 

[Dai Corner]

No, I’m intending to show that the railway does not intend for a ticket to be used by two separate people in the way that some people are suggesting is okay as part of the OP’s potential defence. It’s not a side discussion.

Ah right. Sorry.

I don't think anybody's addressed the point several have made that it's going to be impossible to prove whether the outward portion was used by the OP or by somebody else. If the burden of proof lies with the railway to prove the latter that seems a good defence.

 

[Haywain]

it's going to be impossible to prove whether the outward portion was used by the OP or by somebody else.

If the OP told the RPI that it had been used by someone else it will be pretty easy.

 

[najaB]

Sorry but you accept that it is ambiguos and then say it does not matter!

It's not ambiguous (hence the quotes), but even if it was, the fact still remains that tickets aren't transferable mid-use.

 

[AlterEgo]

Ah right. Sorry.

I don't think anybody's addressed the point several have made that it's going to be impossible to prove whether the outward portion was used by the OP or by somebody else. If the burden of proof lies with the railway to prove the latter that seems a good defence.

I agree this is also a fundamental part of a potential defence. Unusually, there appear to be a few avenues of opportunities here to mount a defence. I’m more hopeful than I was at the outset that the OP might get a result here.

 

[richw]

For those struggling to wade through the concept of transferring tickets (and I admit this is not clear cut), consider that the rules say that an Off Peak Return is not valid on the outward portion without a valid unstamped return portion “of the same ticket”.

How do I retain my outward ticket to make the return portion valid when barriers keep them?

 

[AlterEgo]

How do I retain my outward ticket to make the return portion valid when barriers keep them?

You do not need to retain the outward portion for the return journey - have a read of what I wrote again