Rail fine avoidable?

[Nick W]

I've just asked my wife, who never uses paper tickets (she has a Freedom Pass), where she feels her journey ends. She replied that it's when she touches out her pass, but if she had a paper ticket and there was no barrier, she would consider her journey ended when she leaves the platform.

I've heard worse. I knew someone who screwed up the ticket after going through a barrier at station A, when station B had no barrier. This is why, it's good that so many train managers announce that passengers should retain their ticket. Prevention is better than cure.

But if you were to go through the barriers at the destination, then slip into a cafe for an hour, then come out, could they reasonably ask to see a ticket?

 

[ian959]

I cannot help but feel that some people enjoy making mountains out of mole hills. I would have thought that once through the barriers you have effectively ended your journey since the barriers normally take your ticket. At a non-barriered station then the end of your journey is when you leave the railways' premises, as established by case law. fairly simple and fairly logical. In the OPs case, he has learned a costly lesson about the importance of case law and retaining your ticket.

 

[dtaylor84]

So one judge defines it to be so, and it is for ever more? Another judge is not allowed to say differently?

As I understand it, in England that is essentially correct (unless the 'other' judge is in a higher court).

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent#Binding_precedent_in_English_law

 

[whiwofbs]

A crown court judge can overrule a magistrate on a substantive matter of law as magistrates have no formal legal training.

 

[Tibbs]

I cannot help but feel that some people enjoy making mountains out of mole hills. I would have thought that once through the barriers you have effectively ended your journey since the barriers normally take your ticket. At a non-barriered station then the end of your journey is when you leave the railways' premises, as established by case law. fairly simple and fairly logical. In the OPs case, he has learned a costly lesson about the importance of case law and retaining your ticket.

The issue is that people think that railway ticketing is a molehill when really it's a mountain.

There are few things that people use so often, that they seem to understand so poorly, with such potentially dire consequences as Railway ticketing.

 

[Deerfold]

A crown court judge can overrule a magistrate on a substantive matter of law as magistrates have no formal legal training.

Indeed - irrespective of that, they are a higher court.

 

[radamfi]

Mobile ticketing would solve this problem. Few people would throw away their phone away at the end of the journey! It is not just for Advance tickets. FCC already sell walk up m-tickets using their app.

 

[6Gman]

I cannot help but feel that some people enjoy making mountains out of mole hills. I would have thought that once through the barriers you have effectively ended your journey since the barriers normally take your ticket. At a non-barriered station then the end of your journey is when you leave the railways' premises, as established by case law. fairly simple and fairly logical. In the OPs case, he has learned a costly lesson about the importance of case law and retaining your ticket.

What he said.

 

[Flamingo]

Mobile ticketing would solve this problem. Few people would throw away their phone away at the end of the journey! It is not just for Advance tickets. FCC already sell walk up m-tickets using their app.

It wouldn't solve the problem if they never had a ticket in the first place, just open up a whole new raft of excuses...

 

[curly42]

Certainly would for those of us without a mobile phone !!

 

[island]

But this is not made clear, and I'm staff! Nowhere in the Byelaws, or EMT's PF literature, can I find a reference to keeping your ticket until you leave the station. The closest is Byelaw 17 (i) 'No person shall enter a compulsory ticket area on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket'.
When the OP entered the railway, he did have a ticket. I would also argue that the bin is the property of the rail company, so they still have it.

Wrong byelaw. Byelaw 18 (2) requires a passenger to hand over his ticket for inspection when required to do so by an authorised person. This does not appear to have been complied with on this occasion.

 

[87 027]

Mobile ticketing would solve this problem. Few people would throw away their phone away at the end of the journey! It is not just for Advance tickets. FCC already sell walk up m-tickets using their app.

I'm reminded of this entertaining rant about the limitations of both paper and the current m-ticketing options:

http://www.mobileindustryreview.com...-i-go-paperless-to-waterloo-on-the-train.html

The author comes at it from an unashamedly demanding customer-centric perspective; I do fully accept there are revenue protection/counter fraud considerations he dismisses perhaps too lightly, and there are limits to how far analogies can be drawn with the airline industry. But I don't think one can deny that the rail system as a whole is not quite at the cutting edge of innovation here.

I have used m-tickets successfully myself in the past, but with some nervousness at the time - the conditions make me liable as if no ticket were held if for whatever reason the phone/app fails and can't display a ticket on demand - irrespective of whatever other proofs you may have of purchase (receipt and confirmation of ID) and non-transferability (sitting in your allocated seat on the specified service). Happily my experiences have gone without a hitch.

I do feel sorry for the OP. I have myself in the past accidentally discarded a ticket whilst en route but been let through the barriers (Thameslink) on production of the credit card receipt and a suitably apologetic explanation. (Presumably I passed the attitude test)

 

[DaveNewcastle]

So one judge defines it to be so, and it is for ever more? Another judge is not allowed to say differently?

What?

If you are making a serious point, then I do suggest that you look elsewhere for your answers, and hope that you enjoy the discovery of how law evolves.

Briefly, in the UK, our Common Law system does evolve, and even the most ancient of our inheritance of Judgements receive 'adjustments' almost every week. The development of IT and the media, for examples, continue to challenge the received cannon of Judgements. Ancient principles of Nuisance, Negligence, Trespass etc. are continually updated by Judgments in Courts today. But I'm sure you must know this.

One of the great benefits of the Common Law system (in which a prior Judgement determines a subsequent application of the same statute or tort) is one of consistency. i.e. someone accused of Theft in Shrewsbury is dealt with by applying the Law in the same way as someone accused of Theft in Whitby. By referring to the explanation of how to apply the evidence to the Law in the same way across the country, then all of us, citizens, business people, opportunists, law enforcers and others, can all expect the same outcome from a challenge in Law.
This is the basis of how applying rules and how updating the rules actually works in Law.

The benefit of having Law clarified by the Courts rather than by lawmakers has become so popularly accepted that the Guidance notes published with new legislation often leaves some terms undefined, explicity stating that it will be for the Courts to decide how to interpret the text - Courts who are facing real-world facts and circumstances, so that others in future can benefit from the decision of another Court dealing with similar circumstances, rather than the suppositions of a government department's lawmakers.

Of course a Judge is allowed to determine a matter in opposition to a prior judgement! And they do. But they will be giving a good and reasoned argument for doing so and will be exposing the Court to a risk of Judicial Review if they erred.

 

[radamfi]

Mobile ticketing appears to be in widespread use on Swiss railways. You can buy virtually all domestic tickets using the mobile apps, even seat and bike reservations. Belgian Railways appears to be getting there too.

If you are using a mobile ticket, there will be a detailed and personalised audit trail should the worst happen, so presumably a court would not be able to prove intent to defraud. The threat of bad publicity would surely prevent a TOC going to court under strict liability when using a mobile ticket.

 

[cjmillsnun]

So one judge defines it to be so, and it is for ever more? Another judge is not allowed to say differently?

Of course another judge can say differently, however they are then going against established legal precedent. 99.99% of judges would not go against such a precedent.

 

[EM2]

Of course a Judge is allowed to determine a matter in opposition to a prior judgement! And they do. But they will be giving a good and reasoned argument for doing so and will be exposing the Court to a risk of Judicial Review if they erred.

So why does the fact that a judge has decided one thing make it case law?
I've also asked this question over on Facebook, and at least half of the twenty replies believe their journey ends either when they leave the train, the platform or pass through an open barrier. Again, these are perfectly sensible people, some are seasoned travellers or commuters, some are even staff!
Also, why does the rule change when the barrier is open? If the ticket barrier is closed, you put in your ticket and it is retained. Your journey is over.
If the barrier is not closed, you do not put in your ticket, and your journey is not over. Utterly ridiculous.
What hope is there for the average man-in-the-street when there's confusion like this?

 

[Rail fine]

So one judge defines it to be so, and it is for ever more? Another judge is not allowed to say differently?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've just asked my wife, who never uses paper tickets (she has a Freedom Pass), where she feels her journey ends. She replied that it's when she touches out her pass, but if she had a paper ticket and there was no barrier, she would consider her journey ended when she leaves the platform.
This is a perfectly normal, sensible, 65-year-old that doesn't travel on her own by train. If there was a case where she needed to do so, she could easily fall foul of this Byelaw.
And if you don't finish the journey until you leave the station, every member of staff in a shop at a station or every cleaner who travels by train never completes a journey.
Can't you see how ridiculous this seems?

There are many scenarios like this, such as if you used the toilets when passing the station...waiting for a relative to arrive...the list goes on and makes it even more tiresome as Sheffield station is used as the main path into the Tram Stop on the other side.
Besides the confusion and interpretations by different members, the law is the law however strange it may seem.
It would just be helpful for the rail network to confer key laws across to the public, for example maybe a sign asking for tickets to be kept at all times in the station?
Although I believe that the OAPs protesting about rail fares has spiked the vigilance of the inspectors at this present time and normally they aren't seen there as often.

 

[MikeWh]

Also, why does the rule change when the barrier is open? If the ticket barrier is closed, you put in your ticket and it is retained. Your journey is over.
If the barrier is not closed, you do not put in your ticket, and your journey is not over. Utterly ridiculous.
What hope is there for the average man-in-the-street when there's confusion like this?

I routinely put tickets into open gates when I reckon they will be retained as a quick and easy method of disposing of them.

 

[bb21]

So why does the fact that a judge has decided one thing make it case law?

Really? :roll:

If you want to discuss this then I have to ask you to do so in a separate thread as you are not helping the OP with this distraction.

I've also asked this question over on Facebook, and at least half of the twenty replies believe their journey ends either when they leave the train, the platform or pass through an open barrier. Again, these are perfectly sensible people, some are seasoned travellers or commuters, some are even staff!

You need to read what I said in the final paragraph in Post 60 again.

Also, why does the rule change when the barrier is open? If the ticket barrier is closed, you put in your ticket and it is retained. Your journey is over.
If the barrier is not closed, you do not put in your ticket, and your journey is not over. Utterly ridiculous.
What hope is there for the average man-in-the-street when there's confusion like this?

The rule does not change. The rule is that you do not finish your journey while you are on railway premises.

The ticket remains the property of the railway company. If it is taken by the gateline, or a member of railway staff, then that is a perfectly legitimate reason to not have your ticket beyond that point even if still on railway premises.

Otherwise you need to hold onto your ticket.

If the gates are open, you are free to either insert your ticket (as many people do) or not.

If you wish to carry on this discussion for some reason then again, I need to ask you to do it in a separate thread.

There are many scenarios like this, such as if you used the toilets when passing the station...waiting for a relative to arrive...the list goes on and makes it even more tiresome as Sheffield station is used as the main path into the Tram Stop on the other side.
Besides the confusion and interpretations by different members, the law is the law however strange it may seem.
It would just be helpful for the rail network to confer key laws across to the public, for example maybe a sign asking for tickets to be kept at all times in the station?
Although I believe that the OAPs protesting about rail fares has spiked the vigilance of the inspectors at this present time and normally they aren't seen there as often.

Yes, that's right. Unfortunately as much as I agree with you that the situation is not ideal, I am glad that you can appreciate the importance of relevant railway legislation. It is not a nice situation to be in, but arguing about semantics is hardly going to sway the matter in your favour.

As I said earlier, send a copy of your bank statement to the company, at least that is some evidence that you have paid. It might not make any difference, but we have also had reports where Northern subsequently dropped the case so keep your fingers crossed.

 

[jon0844]

at least half of the twenty replies believe their journey ends either when they leave the train, the platform or pass through an open barrier. Again, these are perfectly sensible people, some are seasoned travellers or commuters, some are even staff!
Also, why does the rule change when the barrier is open? If the ticket barrier is closed, you put in your ticket and it is retained. Your journey is over.
If the barrier is not closed, you do not put in your ticket, and your journey is not over. Utterly ridiculous.
What hope is there for the average man-in-the-street when there's confusion like this?

I can see why someone might get rid of their ticket if they've walked through an open gateline with a valid ticket that isn't needed any longer. If there's a bin outside, you might throw your ticket away - and it would be somewhat unfair to walk out of the building and then be asked.

I do, however, think that there's a good chance that people who are stopped later on have in fact been observed and so those who haven't travelled, or been seen near a bin, would be ignored.