Prosecution letter query

[Dgall]

Just wondering where I stand on this one.
A couple of weeks ago I was going to take the train home from Leeds station one evening. There was an event on in Leeds that day and the station was busier than normal with a build up of people around the ticket machines and the barriers to the platform. With my train due I decided i'd get to the platform to ensure I didn't miss the train and then purchase a ticket on The Trainline app as I have before.
In order to get to the platform without going though the ticket barrier I hopped over a fence to access the platform (I know, I deserve no sympathy). Unsurprisingly I was spotted my security who stopped me, took my details and asked me to leave the station all of which I complied no problem.
Yesterday I received a letter from Northern rail asking me to explain my actions and threatening prosecution, a letter I have seen many time generally sent to people who have traveled without a valid ticket.
Now, I fully accept I deserved stopping and I was a fool for jumping a fence to access the platform, and frankly I am embarrassed, it was a severe error of judgement on my part.
However having looked around the web I can't find any cases similar. I didn't board a train or travel without a ticket, I merely accessed the platform without a ticket, something you can do on most stations in the country and I had no intention of travelling without paying.
Is it an offence to gain access to a platform without a ticket? Just wondering how this is likely to play out.
Any advice appreciated.

 

[furlong]

There is the following byelaw:

9. Stations and railway premises
...
(2) Where the entrance to or exit from any platform or station is via a manned or an automatic ticket barrier no person shall enter or leave the station, except with permission from an authorised person, without passing through the barrier in the correct manner.

(There might be legal technicalities about the definition of 'station'.)

 

[furlong]

And an attempt might be alleged under RORA:

5 Penalty for avoiding payment of fare.
...
(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;
...

You'd probably struggle to argue against a train company that said someone who climbed over a fence to access the platforms was demonstrating their intention to avoid payment.

 

[Dgall]

Fair enough.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[some bloke]

get to the platform to ensure I didn't miss the train and then purchase a ticket

It's not completely clear whether you intended to use the app on the train - perhaps you did, as the train was due.

Under byelaw 18(1) you aren't allowed to board without a valid ticket (except for example where there are no facilities to buy). Although you didn't breach that byelaw, it may be worth bearing in mind for your letter. The byelaw offence doesn't mean dishonesty, whereas the RoRA offence does.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/railway-byelaws
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/52-53/57/section/5

At first I read your words to mean that you have bought on board other times. It's also against the Trainline terms - see the third paragraph of 4.7:
https://www.thetrainline.com/terms

If you meant to buy on the platform even though the train was due, that may or may not be plausible to them depending on the timings and maybe other factors.

 

[furlong]

Although you didn't breach that byelaw, it may be worth bearing in mind for your letter.

What might or might not have happened afterwards isn't relevant for any letter. (Focus on actual evidence.)

If you meant to buy on the platform even though the train was due, that may or may not be plausible to them depending on the timings and maybe other factors.

Seriously? Climbing a fence is far outside the range of behaviour expected to be exhibited by a person who intended to pay. In a rush with a long wait for the next train? Then ask the barrier staff for permission to proceed on the understanding you're buying a ticket on the app immediately but can't afford the small delay to buy it first.

 

[some bloke]

What might or might not have happened afterwards isn't relevant for any letter. (Focus on actual evidence.)

I'm referring to what @Dgall might write, or not write, about his intentions. The fact that boarding without a ticket isn't allowed may be useful information for him.

Seriously? Climbing a fence is far outside the range of behaviour expected to be exhibited by a person who intended to pay. In a rush with a long wait for the next train? Then ask the barrier staff for permission to proceed on the understanding you're buying a ticket on the app immediately but can't afford the small delay to buy it first.

Yes, it looks dodgy. Again, the remarks are about what he puts or doesn't put in the letter, and it isn't perhaps obvious how he can best present an implausible-sounding story.

 

[furlong]

I'm disputing your suggestion "that may...be plausible to them" - trying to defend something indefensible can only make a bad situation worse.

 

[some bloke]

I think "may or may not" could have been English understatement. The question is, what's the alternative to telling the implausible truth?

 

[najaB]

The question is, what's the alternative to telling the implausible truth?

To my mind, it's the truth or nothing at all. There is no other option which we can recommend.

 

[Dgall]

It's not completely clear whether you intended to use the app on the train - perhaps you did, as the train was due.

Under byelaw 18(1) you aren't allowed to board without a valid ticket (except for example where there are no facilities to buy). Although you didn't breach that byelaw, it may be worth bearing in mind for your letter. The byelaw offence doesn't mean dishonesty, whereas the RoRA offence does.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/railway-byelaws
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/52-53/57/section/5

At first I read your words to mean that you have bought on board other times. It's also against the Trainline terms - see the third paragraph of 4.7:
https://www.thetrainline.com/terms

If you meant to buy on the platform even though the train was due, that may or may not be plausible to them depending on the timings and maybe other factors.

I didn't mean I intended to pay once on the train. The example I had in mind was I have arrived in Leeds before on a train from say Manchester, once I have got off the train I've bought a ticket for my next journey on the app while I'm on the platform waiting for the train, as Intended to this time. In both that example and the incident I'm in trouble for I was on the platform momentarily without a valid ticket but had no intention of boarding without a ticket or relying on buying one from a guard.
Though I now understand there are specific rules regarding avoiding a barrier to gain access to a platform, which I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised about.

 

[some bloke]

Thanks. You could make that clear in your letter, as this might imply your priority was to get the train rather than the ticket:

With my train due I decided i'd get to the platform to ensure I didn't miss the train and then purchase a ticket on The Trainline app as I have before.

It seems worth mentioning that you've bought on the platform before.

As I was attempting to say above, writing that the train was due might make someone wonder how you expected to have time to buy on the platform. It may help if you can be more specific about when the key events happened, and how big the crowds/queues were at the barriers/machines.

You could change "In order to get to the platform without going though the ticket barrier" to "In order to avoid being delayed by the crowd" if appropriate.

A main task is perhaps to be more specific about why you went over the fence, to cast doubt on the idea that you were definitely going to try and avoid paying.

So you could try to think of other factors that were relevant to your motivation - was there a special reason for getting that train? What was your state of mind at the time - were you particularly worried about something?

@furlong is right that it looks dodgy, and I had been about to add something to that effect when he replied. But as I understand it, the suggestion that you could have asked staff to let you through may be unrealistic, as you're saying you couldn't or seemed unlikely to get to the barrier in time. This part needs work to clarify why either of those applied:

the station was busier than normal with a build up of people around the ticket machines and the barriers to the platform.

They may think "OK, so it was busier than normal - so what? This doesn't tell us there was a huge crowd."

I'm not saying it would be easy to make your story a lot more plausible than one that looks like it's been made up, but there may be factors useful to mention.

Also, even fairly implausible scenarios could look more plausible when someone presents themselves, on the phone to a prosecution department, in an interview at their office, to the prosecuting lawyer before court, or to the magistrates in court.

 

[furlong]

To my mind, it's the truth or nothing at all. There is no other option which we can recommend.

With the OP describing what happened in their own words.

I'm not saying it would be easy to make your story a lot more plausible than one that looks like it's been made up

I don't think it's the role of a forum like this to help to make stories more plausible!

 

[some bloke]

I don't think it's the role of a forum like this to help to make stories more plausible!

I do, where the aim is to tell the truth more accurately. In that post I attempt to show ways that someone can give more detail; and suggest thinking of factors that they may not be aware could be relevant. The aim is partly to show the company that if it comes to court, the defendant is likely to have a more coherent account than someone who has just come up with a simple excuse.

 

[najaB]

I do, where the aim is to tell the truth more accurately.

There is a subtle, though important, difference between "explain your story clearly" and "make your story more plausible" (where the latter doesn't exclude introducing information).

I think we're in agreement that the forum should only engage in the former.

 

[the chairman]

Intent to avoid payment is shown by people's actions; we cannot look into their mind. Intent does not have to be present throughout; many people decide to avoid payment late in the journey. The OP's actions as described by him/her show clear intent to avoid payment.

 

[Haywain]

The OP's actions as described by him/her show clear intent to avoid payment.

And it's difficult to see how any combination of words will change that.