• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Passenger Obligation To Buy A Ticket

Status
Not open for further replies.

nedchester

Established Member
Joined
28 May 2008
Messages
2,093
THere is no easment to only require you to produce the ticket on Railway property. Many station entrances open onto the publich highway or into shopping malls.

The Legislation requires you to demonstrate that you have a valid ticket. The ticket remains the property of the Railway, and therefore throwing it away or destroying it actaully technically constitutes theft.

A common "defence" is for a fare evader to claim that they have left the ticket or lost it. In Law the requirement is to produce when so requested. It is for the passenger to prove they have paid for the journey NOT for the Railway to do so. A failure to produce has for many, many years been taken as initial "intent" to support a S5 and many successful Prosecutions have proceeded on that basis.

The passenger agrees when using the Railway to the requirement to produce a railway ticket when so asked.

In answer to your question about being asked subsequently, there is a history of people making claims a for injury after train accidents having been prosecuted for fraud after they have been challenged to produce a ticket subsequently and having been unable to do so.

You and I have debated this very subject some months back and yet again you still fail to accept what the Law allows for. You can retain that belief if you wish but it is not the case in reality.

As we have debated before there is the common sense approach that a ticket would be asked for in close vicinity to the station not a long way down the street. Technically though an Inspector could form the view that you had potentially evaded and required you to prove you had a ticket because fare evasion is a criminal offence not a civil offence, therefore it is only subject to the Statute of Limitations in terms of time not in space or distance. Was that to be the case then no arrests could ever take place following robberies, etc.

You should also consider the situation of shop theft, where a person could be apprehended some way from the shop or indeed well away from the shop. Again the offence is criminal and is not constrained by virtue of distance.

That said it is unusual for logistical reasons for a person to be asked for a ticket once they have gone some way away from the Railway property.



That does not allow the identification of fare evaders. The passenger can go to the booking office and pay !

A lot of use of the word 'technically'. I would imagine that everyone is 'technically' guilty of theft as they have thrown their tickets away. In fact I have only done this this afternoon!

Whilst I understand your view about catching people for offences away from railway property, shops etc it is for the BTP/Civil Police to arrest people for offences. I doubt very much that a ticket inspector has any more jurisdictional in the street than another member of the public.

I believe this is the reason as to why these 'after the ticket office' stings are done as people leave the station/in the station car park and not out on the road outside.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

bnm

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2009
Messages
4,996
Ever feel like this sometimes Old Timer? ....



By the way, having been on the wrong side of the law, including a s5 RRA prosecution, I fully concur with all the points you have raised.

All the 'what ifs' and scenarios cannot beat s5 RRA. The cold hard fact is that the onus is on the passenger to pay for their journey. Be that at the start, during, or at the end of their journey. Only legitimate exception I can see is no facilities at either end and no opportunity to buy on board.
 

Old Timer

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
3,703
Location
On a plane somewhere at 35,000
A lot of use of the word 'technically'. I would imagine that everyone is 'technically' guilty of theft as they have thrown their tickets away. In fact I have only done this this afternoon!

Whilst I understand your view about catching people for offences away from railway property, shops etc it is for the BTP/Civil Police to arrest people for offences. I doubt very much that a ticket inspector has any more jurisdictional in the street than another member of the public.

I believe this is the reason as to why these 'after the ticket office' stings are done as people leave the station/in the station car park and not out on the road outside.
Ye Gods !

We have been down this road so many times with you now that I serious think you are either not capable of understanding plain simple fact or you are on a mission to wind up and troll the site ?

Read the 1889 Act, actually no I will paste it for you :

5
Penalty for avoiding payment of fare.

(1)
Every passenger by a railway shall, on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, either produce, and if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or pay his fare from the place whence he started, or give the officer or servant his name and address; and in case of default shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [F1level 1 on the standard scale][F2[F3level 2 on the standard scale]].

(2)
If a passenger having failed either to produce, or if requested to deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or to pay his fare, refuses [F4or fails] on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, to give his name and address, any officer of the company F5. . . may detain him until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law.

(3)
If any person—
(a)
Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or
(b)
Having paid his fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeds by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or
(c)
Having failed to pay his fare, gives in reply to a request by an officer of a railway company a false name or address,

he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [F6level 2 on the standard scale][F2[F7level 3 on the standard scale]], or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, either to a fine not exceeding [F6level 2 on the standard scale][F2[F7level 3 on the standard scale]], or in the discretion of the court to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [F8three months].

(4)
The liability of an offender to punishment under this section shall not prejudice the recovery of any fare payable by him.

[F9(5)
In this section—

(a)
“railway company” includes an operator of a train, and

(b)
“operator”, in relation to a train, means the person having the management of that train for the time being.]

In Law any person may arrest (detain) another who is in the cousrse of committing a criminal offence, has committed a criminal offence or is about to commit a criminal offence. I suggest a chat with the local Citizens Advice Bureau will confirm this.

Shoplifters are arrested by security guards under this very legislation. Railway staff have the power under S5 of the 1889 Act




Ever feel like this sometimes Old Timer? ....

.
Yes I do and right now I am away to bed with a big headache !

Thank you for your support, it is appreciated. I just find it so hard to understand why some people will not accept what is proven, documented fact but instead must persist with their own interpretation of what they think the Law should be :roll:

I wish you goodnight.
 
Last edited:

bnm

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2009
Messages
4,996
Whilst I understand your view about catching people for offences away from railway property, shops etc it is for the BTP/Civil Police to arrest people for offences. I doubt very much that a ticket inspector has any more jurisdictional in the street than another member of the public.

A ticket inspector (officer of the railway) has the right to detain. All there in section 5 of the RRA.

If a passenger having failed either to produce, or if requested to deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or to pay his fare, refuses or fails on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, to give his name and address, any officer of the company may detain him until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law.
 

RJ

Established Member
Joined
25 Jun 2005
Messages
8,383
Location
Back office
Ye Gods !

We have been down this road so many times with you now that I serious think you are either not capable of understanding plain simple fact or you are on a mission to wind up and troll the site ?

Some people are quite simply, anti revenue protection. "Chancers" who willingly offer to pay the correct fare when confronted are mentioned specifically in The Manual. To be honest, I'm more for the idea of reprimanding them, than Nedchester's idea of simply allowing them to buy a ticket.

Then again, I'm a commuter who forks out for a season ticket and carries a valid ticket every time I travel.

Well give them the opportunity to pay as they leave the platform by asking them for their ticket and then charging them the fare. Simples!!

In other words, not bothering to protect revenue as the fare would almost certainly have never been paid had the person not been asked. Excellent idea! (Not.) Other than a troll or fare evader, who would genuinely believe that this is a better way of doing things? Because as someone who's always valid, I really don't see why chancers should be let off so lightly.
 
Last edited:

daikilo

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2010
Messages
1,622
Ye Gods !

We have been down this road so many times with you now that I serious think you are either not capable of understanding plain simple fact or you are on a mission to wind up and troll the site ?

Read the 1889 Act, actually no I will paste it for you :



In Law any person may arrest (detain) another who is in the cousrse of committing a criminal offence, has committed a criminal offence or is about to commit a criminal offence. I suggest a chat with the local Citizens Advice Bureau will confirm this.

Shoplifters are arrested by security guards under this very legislation. Railway staff have the power under S5 of the 1889 Act




Yes I do and right now I am away to bed with a big headache !

Thank you for your support, it is appreciated. I just find it so hard to understand why some people will not accept what is proven, documented fact but instead must persist with their own interpretation of what they think the Law should be :roll:

I wish you goodnight.

Lilly, given your desription you have absolutely nothing to fear. Per yr statements, you travelled and at no point made the slightest attempt to avoid payment of the reference fare.
 

ralphchadkirk

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
5,753
Location
Essex
Lilly, given your desription you have absolutely nothing to fear. Per yr statements, you travelled and at no point made the slightest attempt to avoid payment of the reference fare.

Apart from the bit where she walked past an open ticket office? That is the intent daikilo.

If you're going to give advice make sure you have actually read and understood the Byelaws and the Conditions of Carriage! They are pretty important, the same as the 1889 act.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,982
Location
0036
I trust you understand the difference between don't and can't (or are not given the opportunity to). I remain convinced my logic is true.

Our Lords are attentive to distinguish betwen those who cannot and those who deliberately avoid.

If you were as familiar as you claim with the law in England and Wales, you would presumably know that the House of Lords ceased to have appellate jurisdiction almost two years ago, with the Supreme Court taking over.
 

snail

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2011
Messages
1,848
Location
t'North
Apart from the bit where she walked past an open ticket office? That is the intent daikilo.

If you're going to give advice make sure you have actually read and understood the Byelaws and the Conditions of Carriage! They are pretty important, the same as the 1889 act.
It would also help if he posted his advice in the right thread! :lol:
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,037
Location
No longer here
Lilly, given your desription you have absolutely nothing to fear. Per yr statements, you travelled and at no point made the slightest attempt to avoid payment of the reference fare.

Worst advice I've seen for ages on this forum.

Perhaps you're ignorant of the very many successful prosecutions for this offence, where a person walks past an open booking office, and thus evades the fare. :roll:
 

Ferret

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2009
Messages
4,124
Worst advice I've seen for ages on this forum.

Perhaps you're ignorant of the very many successful prosecutions for this offence, where a person walks past an open booking office, and thus evades the fare. :roll:

He clearly is! Given the choice, I'd much rather listen to those contributors with relevant experience in this field like DaveNewcastle and OT. I'm surprised a moderator hasn't stepped in on this one before now tbh.

For my part, I can confirm that there have been many prosecutions along these lines before. A simple question under caution of 'if I had not stopped you, do you agree that the fare would not have been paid' leaves the offender with the choice of owning up and saying that he agrees, or trying blag his way out of it, and potentially making things worse. I'm afraid that when this evidence is presented at Court, it will take a very skilled advocate to get an acquittal.
 

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,387
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
Apart from the bit where she walked past an open ticket office? That is the intent daikilo.
Exactly!
The "intent" does not have to be a permananet or sustained "intent". Even failing to take the briefest opportunity while passing an open ticket office is construed as "intent" to avoid. that was the clarity given by Widgery in the citation given earlier.
. . . I can confirm that there have been many prosecutions along these lines before. A simple question under caution of 'if I had not stopped you, do you agree that the fare would not have been paid' leaves the offender with the choice of owning up and saying that he agrees, or trying blag his way out of it, and potentially making things worse. I'm afraid that when this evidence is presented at Court, it will take a very skilled advocate to get an acquittal.
Agreed!
That is precisely how Northern Rail and others achieve such a high rate of success. Once they reach Court (if they do) the majority of cases appear to be undefended as there is very little defence available - in most cases.
 

table38

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
1,812
Location
Stalybridge
I'm just interested, but given the layout of Manchester Piccadilly, if you did any of the following, would you be deemed to have "walked past an open ticket office" ?

  • Arrive at Platforms 10-12, leave via the escallators or lift down to the taxi pickup area
  • Arrive at Platforms 10-12, leave via the Sainsburys / WH Smiths corridor to the old main entrance
  • Assuming there are no G4S staff on the overbridge, either of the above when arriving at Platforms 13 and 14, or leaving via the lift in the overbridge waiting area
  • Arrive at Platform 1 and leave via the door Rail Gourmet use into the car park

Some people unfamiliar with Piccadilly might think that, having left the platforms, they are in a shopping centre :)
 

Flamingo

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2010
Messages
6,810
Some people can't handle the fact that in certain circumstances someone might have the authority to tell them what to do.

That is what I think is the subtext of this thread, and the objection that certain posters seem to have, and their arguments about the "legality" of that authority.

When taken to an extreme, it results in loons who believe this http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land
Which inevetibly backfires and leads to cases like this http://www.independent.ie/national-...oath-of-office-in-court-standoff-2845275.html
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
Some people can't handle the fact that in certain circumstances someone might have the authority to tell them what to do.

That is what I think is the subtext of this thread, and the objection that certain posters seem to have, and their arguments about the "legality" of that authority.

When taken to an extreme, it results in loons who believe this http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land
Which inevetibly backfires and leads to cases like this http://www.independent.ie/national-...oath-of-office-in-court-standoff-2845275.html

Yes, there are several of these 'loons' on a certain website that deals with FOI requests. They seem to live in their own little world, bless 'em, which appears to exist only in their heads. The purpose of this world they have created for themselves appears to be solely to allow them to do whatever they like.

I suppose it is a good sign that they are at least attempting to find some kind of justification for their behaviour, yet I despair at the nonsense they spout.

Returning to this thread, I have no dispute at all with the fact that leaving a destination station without making an attempt to purchase a ticket renders a person liable for prosecution. I am, however, interested in talking about specific circumstances. The layout at Manchester Piccadilly is confusing, and maybe it is possible that someone could leave without passing or even seeing the ticket office or travel centre.

I'm also interested in the how far TOC's could take things, as the fuller trains are and the more closely spaced stations are, the more chance there is of guards being unable to check tickets and collect all fares. Will we ever get to the point where there are very few ticket offices open after 1800, and how many people will be effectively travelling without payment? Should they be regarded as fare evaders?
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Agreed!
That is precisely how Northern Rail and others achieve such a high rate of success. Once they reach Court (if they do) the majority of cases appear to be undefended as there is very little defence available - in most cases.

Actually there is a lot of defence available for a good solicitor:

TPE's automated announcements say along the lines of
"If you chose to walk past an open ticket office you will not be able to buy off-peak tickets or railcard discounted tickets on board."

So someone sold a £100 Anytime time instead of a £60 Off Peak ticket could take proceedings against TPE on the basis that they didn't walk past the ticket office when they entered the station.

TPE will point out NRCoC in their defence.

The solicitor will question whether this document is available at their stations or on their trains.

TPE will reply no but it's available online.

The solicitor may say their client doesn't have the Internet at home so can't be expected to consult this online.

The judge could rule either way on that evidence.
 

Ferret

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2009
Messages
4,124
Actually there is a lot of defence available for a good solicitor:

TPE's automated announcements say along the lines of
"If you chose to walk past an open ticket office you will not be able to buy off-peak tickets or railcard discounted tickets on board."

So someone sold a £100 Anytime time instead of a £60 Off Peak ticket could take proceedings against TPE on the basis that they didn't walk past the ticket office when they entered the station.

TPE will point out NRCoC in their defence.

The solicitor will question whether this document is available at their stations or on their trains.

TPE will reply no but it's available online.

The solicitor may say their client doesn't have the Internet at home so can't be expected to consult this online.

The judge could rule either way on that evidence.

I'm sorry, but with all due respect, I do not see what relevance that flawed example has to the matter at hand.
 

Flamingo

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2010
Messages
6,810
I'm also interested in the how far TOC's could take things, as the fuller trains are and the more closely spaced stations are, the more chance there is of guards being unable to check tickets and collect all fares. Will we ever get to the point where there are very few ticket offices open after 1800, and how many people will be effectively travelling without payment? Should they be regarded as fare evaders?

There are two approaches to revenue collection, as far as I can see:
1. Nobody is allowed into the system unless they have a ticket, like airlines and long distance buses work. Not necessarily all reserved seats, but pretty much blanket coverage with barriers and TVM/Ticket offices at all stations.

2. Draconian regulations and punishments for travelling without a ticket, and a real chance of getting caught and being punished, so that the deterrent effect will mean that the vast majority of people will buy a ticket as it is the lesser of two evils.

The UK has got something that is midway between both, and as far as I can see it is the worst of both worlds

Not allowing anybody into the system without a ticket is a nice idea, but would not be economic without closing down hundreds of small stations that allow people into the system, and having barriers from start to end of play at every station that remains. The TOC's are not willing to pay for that, it would be uneconomic, or would result in a huge increase in costs, which would ultimately be paid for by increasing fares

That leaves the deterrence factor. This does not work either, as it is not enforced. As I have often said, the chances of getting caught and ending up in court (as opposed to just paying for a ticket / PF worst case) is very slim. TOC's don't want to have to pay the salary of Revenue Protection staff, and don't want the complaints / bad publicity either. So they pay lip service to the idea of "revenue Protection", and every so often, some people get caught up in the net. This has a bit of a deterrence effect, but not much to the hard-core, as they realise that the odds are with them.

Somebody is balancing up the lost revenue against the cost of collecting it. Every so often, when the pendulum is swinging too far in one direction, then a "sting" is mounted on a certain area, and this will result in a decrease in fare evasion for a while (Filton Abbey Wood earlier this year, as an example).

I think my arguement is that 100% compliance with ticket requirements is not expected, but the regulations have been put in place that they can be utilised. Otherwise, there would be no point in having them at all, just put an honesty box on the train. If people do get caught up in the odd sting, it's no different than getting caught by a mobile speed camera. Some days it's there, some days not, it's a gamble.
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
I agree Flamingo. We need to be more in line with number 2 in your post!

The way it works (if it does work at all) at the moment is that if you are ever caught without a ticket, you might get a PF (not much of a deterrent) and if you get enough PF's you might find further action taken.

Alternatively, you might just eb given the opportunity to pay the fare. No penalty at all there, you are simply going to pay what you shave paid in the first place.

Finally, you might be reported for prosecution, if you are very unlucky. But not to wory, the TOC probably won't proceed, especialyl if you offer them a bit of money to settle. You will probably still save a bit of money if you are a regular evader.

With the draconian regulations and enforcement, alongside increased availability to buy tickets, will mean that most people will be quite happy to buy before they board. This will help to prove intent, and help to seperate the chancers from those people who want to pay but are denied the opportunity.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
I'm sorry, but with all due respect, I do not see what relevance that flawed example has to the matter at hand.

There's nothing flawed about it at all. It says on tickets that in using it you accept NRCoC but there's no indication on the train door that you accept NRCoC if you board the train without a ticket except indirectly on Virgin services. A good solicitor would pick up on this, but in reality so few would be familiar with using the train that they look closely at the exact wording of NRCoC in trying to defend a client and not on what happens at the station or on board.
 

Ferret

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2009
Messages
4,124
There's nothing flawed about it at all. It says on tickets that in using it you accept NRCoC but there's no indication on the train door that you accept NRCoC if you board the train without a ticket except indirectly on Virgin services. A good solicitor would pick up on this, but in reality so few would be familiar with using the train that they look closely at the exact wording of NRCoC in trying to defend a client and not on what happens at the station or on board.

DaveNewc - can I pull acceptance by conduct on this guy here? Brogden v London & Met Railway Co if memory serves?
 

snail

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2011
Messages
1,848
Location
t'North
2. Draconian regulations and punishments for travelling without a ticket, and a real chance of getting caught and being punished, so that the deterrent effect will mean that the vast majority of people will buy a ticket as it is the lesser of two evils.
This approach appears to work on some smaller systems, e.g. Metrolink in Manchester. The 'standard fare' is £100, reduced to £50 on prompt payment, so is a good enough deterrent for most people. I don't use the trams that regularly, but when I do most people I see arriving at a tram stop will head straight for the ticket machine.
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,837
Actually there is a lot of defence available for a good solicitor:

TPE's automated announcements say along the lines of
"If you chose to walk past an open ticket office you will not be able to buy off-peak tickets or railcard discounted tickets on board."

So someone sold a £100 Anytime time instead of a £60 Off Peak ticket could take proceedings against TPE on the basis that they didn't walk past the ticket office when they entered the station.

TPE will point out NRCoC in their defence.

The solicitor will question whether this document is available at their stations or on their trains.

TPE will reply no but it's available online.....

Actually it is available at any manned station. Ticket office staff are infact told that where a passenger has no internet access, or requests a copy for immediate use, they should print it off for the passenger.
 

Flamingo

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2010
Messages
6,810
There's nothing flawed about it at all. It says on tickets that in using it you accept NRCoC but there's no indication on the train door that you accept NRCoC if you board the train without a ticket except indirectly on Virgin services. A good solicitor would pick up on this, but in reality so few would be familiar with using the train that they look closely at the exact wording of NRCoC in trying to defend a client and not on what happens at the station or on board.

I had somebody trying to argue that with me yesterday - off-peak ticket on peak train, they said I needed to prove to them that they had been told at time of purchase what the conditions were before they would pay. I had announced before departure it was a peak train.

They paid, when told if they did not agree with the CoC that they could leave the train at the next station, apply for a refund, and make alternative travel arrangements.

Apparently, I have "an attitude problem" and "don't know the meaning of customer service".

As regards your "good solicitor" line, the railway bylaws have been around for well over 100 years, and I'm sure that plenty of good legal minds have looked at them. And yet, the TOC's still get convictions on them (100% success rate in some cases, I believe).
 
Last edited:

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
The common, though incorrect, definition of customer service is of course to provide anything the customer demands, regardless of the effect on the provider.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
DaveNewc - can I pull acceptance by conduct on this guy here? Brogden v London & Met Railway Co if memory serves?

You'll find that I'm someone who always pays my fare.

Imagine if Ryanair had an 'Buy on Board' policy (as long as you produced a valid passport prior to boarding) and they printed on tickets that for T&Cs on your conditions of carriage refer to our website and if you breach these we can drop you off part way - there would be widespread uproar. Yet that's close to how National Rail operates in this country.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As regards your "good solicitor" line, the railway bylaws have been around for well over 100 years, and I'm sure that plenty of good legal minds have looked at them.

That's partly was I was getting at. The solicitors and the like will know exactly what the actual rules are BUT they will have absolutely no idea how well these are promoted at stations.

A person may usually use the car but got the train because their car broke down and then walked on to the platform without noticing the ticket office. They may claim there was no sign on the station indicating the existence of a booking office. The solicitor can't go and visit the station three weeks after the incident to validate this because a new sign may have been erected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top