Passenger Obligation To Buy A Ticket

[hairyhandedfool]

I have seen cases (not railway specific) where it has been proved that signs have been erected after the incident, I don't think that argument holds much water.

 

[island]

I wonder if a New York style of zero-tolerance would work.

No. All NY subway stations are gated; the problem there was double-gating and passback of season tickets.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

No. All NY subway stations are gated; the problem there was double-gating and passback of season tickets.

Not New York transit style of ZT, I meant more the general idea of no discretion, no leniency. If someone's done the crime, then they do the full amount of the time.

 

[Flamingo]

Not New York transit style of ZT, I meant more the general idea of no discretion, no leniency. If someone's done the crime, then they do the full amount of the time.

The TOC's don't want the delay minutes, expense and general bad publicity of such a policy.

Plus, getting staff to enforce it is difficult when they are running DOO or single guard per train. I would not enforce zero tolerance if I'm on my own on a HST with only a whistle for back-up. I get enough complaints come in from people I have excessed up, with their three best friends claiming I was bullying and rude, and it being my word against theirs. I'd want a "helmet-cam" at least. http://www.actioncameras.co.uk/Helmet_Cameras

 

[ralphchadkirk]

The TOC's don't want the delay minutes, expense and general bad publicity of such a policy.

If such a scheme did come in, the TOCs would have to be forced to co-operate. A good advertising campaign could certainly reduce the effects of bad publicity as well.

Plus, getting staff to enforce it is difficult when they are running DOO or single guard per train. I would not enforce zero tolerance if I'm on my own on a HST with only a whistle for back-up. I get enough complaints come in from people I have excessed up, with their three best friends claiming I was bullying and rude, and it being my word against theirs. I'd want a "helmet-cam" at least. http://www.actioncameras.co.uk/Helmet_Cameras

That would be the biggest hurdle to overcome. I would not want rail staff placed in any degree of danger, therefore, it would have to be done with the BTP. Sadly, there would never be enough money to increase the size of the BTP to cope with it.

 

[Flamingo]

If such a scheme did come in, the TOCs would have to be forced to co-operate. A good advertising campaign could certainly reduce the effects of bad publicity as well.

Such a scheme would only come in if implemented BY the TOC's, so it's falling at the first hurdle!

TOC's don't want the bad publicity, you can see the Daily Mail story now:
"Mrs Scroggins, 88, was yesterday fined £250 at Tumbeidge Wells Magistrates Court for failing to carry her Senior Railcard. Mrs Scroggins was also charged with breach of the peace, for screaming "You'll never take me alive copper" and attempting to hit British Transport Police officers as they carried her off the train after a 40 minute stand-off during which Mrs Scorggins (pictured left, with her cat Tiddles) held the ATE hostage with a knitting needle"

 

[island]

Thankfully you can't be charged with a breach of the peace in England and Wales

However, the problem is well-established.

 

[Flamingo]

Thankfully you can't be charged with a breach of the peace in England and Wales

However, the problem is well-established.

It is a Daily Mail story (allegedly)! Of course it would be incorrect in at least one main detail!

 

[exile]

There have been references in this thread to the Conditions of Carriage - but all they mention is the necessity to buy a ticket before boarding. Nothing about what to do if there is no opportunity to buy before boarding or on board. And nothing about seeking out the guard or to go to a ticket office at the destination (if there is one there).

The legislation on these matters only indicates you can be prosecuted for (a) not giving your name and address (and only then if you don't pay up on being asked) or (b) travelling without intending to pay.

The business about not seeking out the guard or walking past a ticket office is evidence (though not proof) of lack of intent to pay and a court has to decide whether such lack of intent is proven.

The Piccadilly case gave rise to a debate on how assiduously you should seek to buy a ticket when the TOC fails to provide working ticket machines, ticket offices or guards who are able or willing to issue tickets. Should you knock on the guard's door if, say, after 30 minutes he's shown no sign of emerging?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

The NRCoC says you should buy a ticket to cover part of your journey, or have authority to travel, and pay the appropriate fare "as soon as is reasonably practicable". This has been mentioned in this thread.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

(Apologies for not responding sooner, though I see others have, perhaps perfectly adequately)

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.

Such a Defence based on a Cross-Examination of the Prosecution in the manner you've described would fail.
As others have posted, and quite clearly by Old Timer I think, this is a Criminal Offence - lack of knowledge of the applicable Law is an inadequate defence. I wonder if you had been contemplating Civil Contract matters?

Nevertheless, there are avenues of Defence which an astute Law Firm would explore, starting perhaps, with the technicalities of the paperwork and the circumstances of the Statement(s).

The judge could rule either way on that evidence.

Routine Fare Evasion matters are actually brought to Magistrates Courts where they may, exceptionally, be heard by a District Judge, but in my experience are always heard by a Bench of Magistrates advised by a Clerk. The Clerk will ensure that the Magistrates' Judgement is consistent with the Law and with any Cases cited as authorities - and not swayed by a Defendant's lack of Internet access!

There are challenges to some TOCs' policies which may be more robust if pursued thoroughly, though these are unlikely to concern a Routine Fare Evader, with, perhaps, the exception of the voucher system which Northern Rail employ to detect persons 'claiming' to have boarded at a station where 'vouchers' were being issued but who are unable to produce a 'voucher' when asked (though I would expect most Evaders to incriminate themselves quite promptly in those cases). There is also less certainty in travel where the Defendant demonstrably attempted to pay before detection but was frustrated by some matter not of their own making.

 

[exile]

The NRCoC says you should buy a ticket to cover part of your journey, or have authority to travel, and pay the appropriate fare "as soon as is reasonably practicable". This has been mentioned in this thread.

Actually, it doesn't say that. What it does say is
"If you cannot buy an appropriate ticket for the journey you want to make because the
range of tickets that is available at the station from which you intend to start your journey
is restricted, you must buy a ticket or Permit to Travel before you travel that entitles you to
make at least part of the journey. Then you must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, buy
an appropriate ticket to complete your journey. In these circumstances, you only need to pay
the fare that you would have paid if you had bought a ticket immediately before your journey.
The price you will have to pay will be reduced by the amount paid for the ticket or Permit to
Travel."

That doesn't cover the situation where you can't buy ANY ticket or permit.

I suppose if the office is closed then the range of tickets is restricted to zero, but you obviously can't then buy a ticket or permit before boarding.

You might say, as a matter of common sense, that the same should apply when you can't buy any ticket, but that's not what it actually says.

The NCoC, probably quite reasonably, was not written with the possibility in mind that the TOC doesn't actually provide any method of buying a ticket.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Say that someone stops you at the station exit and queries your ticket. As it happens you have misinterpreted the routeing guide and travelled on a not-allowed route, or broken the restrictions on your ticket (eg by breaking your journey). Clearly, you didn't have any intention of paying any excess due as you are now heading out of the station, though you were also unaware you'd broken the restrictions on the ticket and were therefore liable for an excess.

Would the revenue officer be justified in trying to prosecute you, given it looks like a clear case of evasion, even if it was not intentional in the sense of you were not aware your ticket was invalid?

Bear in mind that you get prosecuted for your INTENTION not to pay - and if you don't know your ticket is invalid, you clearly don't INTEND to pay for a valid one.

 

[Stigy]

Would the revenue officer be justified in trying to prosecute you, given it looks like a clear case of evasion, even if it was not intentional in the sense of you were not aware your ticket was invalid?

Bear in mind that you get prosecuted for your INTENTION not to pay - and if you don't know your ticket is invalid, you clearly don't INTEND to pay for a valid one.

He could report you for it, but if the evidence isn't strong enough to suggest a 5(3)a Regulation of Railways Act 1889 offence (where intent IS established), the TOC could chose to seek to prosecute under Byelaw 18(1), whereby no intention is required, and as such is a Strict Liability matter, still heard at a Magistrate's Court.

I realise I've chimed in quite late, so apologies if I've missed part of the conversation and/or am repeating what's already been said!

 

[exile]

He could report you for it, but if the evidence isn't strong enough to suggest a 5(3)a Regulation of Railways Act 1889 offence (where intent IS established), the TOC could chose to seek to prosecute under Byelaw 18(1), whereby no intention is required, and as such is a Strict Liability matter, still heard at a Magistrate's Court.

I realise I've chimed in quite late, so apologies if I've missed part of the conversation and/or am repeating what's already been said!

On my reading of 18(1) - this again only talks about boarding a train without a valid ticket. So, you could buy a ticket which you think is valid but isn't, and fall foul of this, even with no question of intent to avoid payment, and even if you pay an excess when asked, as you have certainly boarded without a valid ticket.

The 1889 act might well be used though -and having an invalid ticket might be better evidence of "intent" than not having one at all.

 

[Stigy]

On my reading of 18(1) - this again only talks about boarding a train without a valid ticket. So, you could buy a ticket which you think is valid but isn't, and fall foul of this, even with no question of intent to avoid payment, and even if you pay an excess when asked, as you have certainly boarded without a valid ticket.

The 1889 act might well be used though -and having an invalid ticket might be better evidence of "intent" than not having one at all.

Ambiguous? Maybe. 18(1) states that you should have a valid ticket when boarding a train, entitling you to travel (not necessarily for the whole journey). I guess that ticket might have been valid when the train was boarded, but not when the passenger finished their journey. I think the very fact that the passenger has made a journey, whereby the ticket is invalid at the end of said journey, would be enough to fall foul of this one.

Proving intent to avoid payment depends on either what was asked of the Passenger and/or what their actions were. If they state that they intended to go to a different destination and were trying their luck, fair enough. If they said they weren't aware the ticket wasn't valid at their end destination, different kettle of fish. If they over-travelled and still dont admit intention, saying they'd pay at the barrierline, yet knew their ticket wasn't valid where they alighted, I'd be inclined to ask what they'd do if no staff stopped them anywhere.

 

[yorkie]

On my reading of 18(1) - this again only talks about boarding a train without a valid ticket. So, you could buy a ticket which you think is valid but isn't, and fall foul of this, even with no question of intent to avoid payment, and even if you pay an excess when asked, as you have certainly boarded without a valid ticket.

The 1889 act might well be used though -and having an invalid ticket might be better evidence of "intent" than not having one at all.

Unfortunately the question is too vague, and therefore the answer (by Stigy) is understandably of an 'it depends' nature, therefore we can't really progress on that issue.

To be honest each situation is different and would definitely justify a new topic in its own right, I think. For each situation (e.g. Std to 1st, Overdistance, Deviation from route, change of route, travel at invalid time, etc) the excess process is different and for some it is the same whether there was opportunity to pay before boarding or not, and it may vary by TOC too (e.g. whether they sell discounted fares on board e.g. GC, full fare only e.g. Virgin, or compulsory to buy before boarding e.g. LO).

It is likely that each scenario has already been covered in an existing thread which may be found using the search feature. I can take a look for you and send you a PM along with all the excess rules when I get time/home (you may have to remind me if I forget!)

 

[DaveNewcastle]

He could report you for it, but if the evidence isn't strong enough to suggest a 5(3)a Regulation of Railways Act 1889 offence (where intent IS established), the TOC could chose to seek to prosecute under Byelaw 18(1), whereby no intention is required, and as such is a Strict Liability matter, still heard at a Magistrate's Court.

I realise I've chimed in quite late, so apologies if I've missed part of the conversation and/or am repeating what's already been said!

This thread has gone round in circles so many times that you might as well chime in anytime - if it wasn't relevant at the time of posting, then it soon will be (again)!!!

I find this to be one area where the TOC's procedure is distasteful - their choosing to decide which Offence to prosecute AFTER receiving the passenger's MG11 Statement. Even in the case of the regular and persistent Fare dodger who is eventually caught (or perhaps, who is caught again), it offends the Process of Law to write indicating a potential prosecution and requesting a Statement in which the passenger will then provide the Evidence to assist the TOC in deciding which Offence to Prosecute.

There are several Offences possible, and we could expand the choice to include Fraud or Theft, but I do not feel comfortable with an invitation to make a Written Statement BEFORE choosing which Offence or even which Act to prosecute under; or even whether to pursue a Civil or Criminal matter.

 

[yorkie]

I think that these laws need looking at. They should only be able to prosecute if intent can be proven, in my opinion. The existing laws are out of date, not fit for purpose, and ludicrously biased toward the TOCs and against passengers.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I think that these laws need looking at. They should only be able to prosecute if intent can be proven, in my opinion. The existing laws are out of date, not fit for purpose, and ludicrously biased toward the TOCs and against passengers.

They were probably very appropriate for the time.
A time in which our roads were populated by pedestrians and horses.
Money (in ordinary daily life) only existed as coinage.
Rail travel was provided by an ad hoc group of independently funded Companies raising their capital by large scale share issues while the government was grappling with a means of both Licensing them and consolidating their revenue model as well as a more pressing raft of safety measures which had been sadly inadequate.

I completely agree that a revision is appropriate since so many of these underlying factors have moved on so radically. What is not at all clear is how such a review might be initiated. I fear that we may not see that in the next decade or two, so perhaps we just need to continue to work within the constrants that we have rather than against it. Fortunately, for most of us, most of the time, that simply requires us to pay the due Fare for our journey!

 

[Stigy]

This thread has gone round in circles so many times that you might as well chime in anytime - if it wasn't relevant at the time of posting, then it soon will be (again)!!!

I find this to be one area where the TOC's procedure is distasteful - their choosing to decide which Offence to prosecute AFTER receiving the passenger's MG11 Statement. Even in the case of the regular and persistent Fare dodger who is eventually caught (or perhaps, who is caught again), it offends the Process of Law to write indicating a potential prosecution and requesting a Statement in which the passenger will then provide the Evidence to assist the TOC in deciding which Offence to Prosecute.

There are several Offences possible, and we could expand the choice to include Fraud or Theft, but I do not feel comfortable with an invitation to make a Written Statement BEFORE choosing which Offence or even which Act to prosecute under; or even whether to pursue a Civil or Criminal matter.

I agree that it's a strange circumstance whereby a company can potentially pick and chose which offence they prosecute depending on the evidence submitted. The same applies to 'Administrative Penalties' or out of court settlements in some cases.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They were probably very appropriate for the time.
A time in which our roads were populated by pedestrians and horses.
Money (in ordinary daily life) only existed as coinage.
Rail travel was provided by an ad hoc group of independently funded Companies raising their capital by large scale share issues while the government was grappling with a means of both Licensing them and consolidating their revenue model as well as a more pressing raft of safety measures which had been sadly inadequate.

I completely agree that a revision is appropriate since so many of these underlying factors have moved on so radically. What is not at all clear is how such a review might be initiated. I fear that we may not see that in the next decade or two, so perhaps we just need to continue to work within the constrants that we have rather than against it. Fortunately, for most of us, most of the time, that simply requires us to pay the due Fare for our journey!

The Byelaws were amended in 2005 though, surely at this time some other things should have been changed if it was though necessary?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The 1889 act might well be used though -and having an invalid ticket might be better evidence of "intent" than not having one at all.

This may be in the mind of the passenger with the "doughnut"
(i.e. two tickets covering both the first few stations and the last few stations of a long journey. But there's something missing in the middle.)

 

[ralphchadkirk]

There are several Offences possible, and we could expand the choice to include Fraud or Theft, but I do not feel comfortable with an invitation to make a Written Statement BEFORE choosing which Offence or even which Act to prosecute under; or even whether to pursue a Civil or Criminal matter.

I would be inclined to agree, if it was not a common practice. However, we see all the time where the Defence and the Prosecution collude to lessen charges in order to secure a guilty plea, where sentences can be cut for early guilty pleas. More relevant is that the police carry out all the same processes - they may arrest for an original crime but if they cannot find the supporting evidence then they may choose to charge differently.

 

[exile]

Basically, the TOCs should make it as easy as possible for the honest passenger to pay, then they have a stronger legal and moral case against fare dodgers.

Instead, certain TOCs don't provide ticket offices or machines and the conductors often can't get round the train to sell tickets due to frequent stops or malfunctioning machines.

McNulty is going to make things worse by closing more ticket offices (all category E stations - that is, more or less all Northern ones) and removing guards from more trains. Unless someone comes up with a technological solution.

 

[Greenback]

Basically, the TOCs should make it as easy as possible for the honest passenger to pay, then they have a stronger legal and moral case against fare dodgers.

Instead, certain TOCs don't provide ticket offices or machines and the conductors often can't get round the train to sell tickets due to frequent stops or malfunctioning machines.

McNulty is going to make things worse by closing more ticket offices (all category E stations - that is, more or less all Northern ones) and removing guards from more trains. Unless someone comes up with a technological solution.

I agree, though I am not sure that the McNulty proposals will be carried through. I hope not as they are heavily flawed.

 

[exile]

I agree, though I am not sure that the McNulty proposals will be carried through. I hope not as they are heavily flawed.

I suspect the government will just reduce the subsidy and let the operators and the unions fight it out.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

It used to frustrate me when commuting into Leeds from Steeton & Silsden, an unmanned station with no ticket machine. The train would very quickly become busy and the conductors rarely made it down and back up meaning you would often have to buy a ticket in Leeds station but when you did you were treated very poorly and one more than one occasion I had to queue for over 30 minutes to buy a ticket. Yet outside of the barriers there are banks of automated ticket machines as well as desks, quite why they could not install a few of these inside the barrier I do not know.

 

[snail]

They were probably very appropriate for the time.
A time in which our roads were populated by pedestrians and horses.
Money (in ordinary daily life) only existed as coinage.
Rail travel was provided by an ad hoc group of independently funded Companies raising their capital by large scale share issues while the government was grappling with a means of both Licensing them and consolidating their revenue model as well as a more pressing raft of safety measures which had been sadly inadequate.

And except for a few halts around the country, Companies that had staff at all stations ready to sell you a ticket and check that people leaving trains had them.

 

[RPI]

It's statute law so it doesnt need to be advertised, otherwise we'd have to have signs saying "do not murder people".

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....quite why they could not install a few of these inside the barrier I do not know.

I guess the thinking is that people will just buy tickets to get through the barrier, rather than from where they came from. A better idea would be to put the machines at the unmanned stations.

 

[exile]

It's statute law so it doesnt need to be advertised, otherwise we'd have to have signs saying "do not murder people".

Clearly, travelling without intending to pay doesn't need to be pointed out as a crime. What a passenger has to do to demonstrate that he/she does intend to pay should be publicised, however. As illustrated by the "passing the ticket office at your destination" issue. I'm not sure a poll of passengers would get more than 20% thinking you'd have to do that. They might think that the TOC might actually think about providing a ticket office or machine at the starting station or staff on the train able to sell tickets.