Rail - Prosecution notice

[MikeC]

All,

Looking for some advice if I can. I arrived at this forum by searching for information on fines issued for travelling without a valid ticket. I have seen a couple of posts but would like to present the facts of my case as I see them. I hope someone might be able to provide some advice on what to do next and what is likely to happen to me. I really dont want a criminal record!

I bought a single ticket to Sheffield from Alfreton station and boarded the train. When I left the train at Meadowhall station there were ticket barriers in operation and when I showed my ticket I was informed that this wasn’t a valid ticket. At this point I was very confused as my understanding was that I did have the correct ticket. After speaking to the member of staff at the barrier I soon realised that I hadn’t made the distinction between Meadowhall and Sheffield train stations. I am not a regular user of trains and my thought when buying the ticket was only that I was going to Sheffield the city rather than a specific train station. I realise that this was a mistake now but I can only stress that it was a genuine mistake rather than an attempt to travel without a valid ticket.

The ticket inspector didnt appear to believe what I was saying and said rather blunty that she thought I was lying. I would have been more than willing to pay the difference in fare at the barrier if that was possible, but it wasn’t a suggestion made by the ticket inspector or one that I considered myself because I thought I had the correct ticket.

The inspector took a statement from me with some basic questions such as 'Do you have the correct ticket?', I then had to sign that statement. I don't remember exactly what I said but I was honest. The inspector then told me to expect a letter from the company and that I would likely be prosecuted. She said to make sure I didnt ignore the letter.

I have today received a letter from the Company which asks me to confirm my details and offers me the chance to present further information. I wondered whether I should use this opportunity to provide all the details of the events in my own words.

Any help or guidance would be greatly appreciated.

 

[RJ]

Bit harsh given the fares from Alfreton to Sheffield and from Alfreton to Meadowhall are all identical, but then I suppose it deprives Northern of a few pennies.

Regardless of how ridiculously disproportionate I think the potential consequences of this is, unfortunately you only have to fail to produce a valid ticket in order for a prosecution under the Railway Byelaws to succeed. If there is a number on the letter, perhaps it may be worth giving it a ring and see if the person on the other end will be sympathetic to your plight. I shouldn't think that they would reject an out of court settlement.

 

[transmanche]

According to brfares.com, the Anytime Single fare from Alfreton to Meadowhall is £8.90, the same price as the Anytime Single from Alfreton to Sheffield. So whilst it may not technically be the correct ticket, would EMT/Northern really prosecute someone for 'evading' a fare of £0.00?

 

[RJ]

According to brfares.com, the Anytime Single fare from Alfreton to Meadowhall is £8.90, the same price as the Anytime Single from Alfreton to Sheffield. So whilst it may not technically be the correct ticket, would EMT/Northern really prosecute someone for 'evading' a fare of £0.00?

No, but they can for failure to produce a valid ticket.

 

[MikeC]

Thank you for the prompt responses!

It was Northern Rail rather than East Midlands.

Do you think its worth explaining my view of the situation? and should I make the very valid point that the fares are identical?

 

[wintonian]

According to brfares.com, the Anytime Single fare from Alfreton to Meadowhall is £8.90, the same price as the Anytime Single from Alfreton to Sheffield. So whilst it may not technically be the correct ticket, would EMT/Northern really prosecute someone for 'evading' a fare of £0.00?

Is it a defence to have paid the correct fare?

 

[transmanche]

No, but they can for failure to produce a valid ticket.

That would, in these circumstances, be extremely petty. Surely issuing a zero excess and educating the customer would be far better.

Personally, I think any such prosecution would be a complete waste of magistrates court time.

 

[RJ]

Is it a defence to have paid the correct fare?

No, if you fail to produce a valid ticket without an appropriate defence, you can be prosecuted under the Railway Byelaw 18.

That would, in these circumstances, be extremely petty. Surely issuing a zero excess and educating the customer would be far better.

Personally, I think any such prosecution would be a complete waste of magistrates court time.

Agree 100%, but regardless this is the situation the OP is in so we have to be realistic, rather than idealistic with any advice provided.

 

[transmanche]

No, if you fail to produce a valid ticket without an appropriate defence, you can be prosecuted under the Railway Byelaw 18.

Yes, but is it worth it?

 

[wintonian]

No, if you fail to produce a valid ticket without an appropriate defence, you can be prosecuted under the Railway Byelaw 18.

Well I can't see a court being very happy to have this one come through the post box.

I mean what exactly are the losses incurred by the TOC and and should they be compensated for those losses if there are none?

 

[transmanche]

Agree 100%, but regardless this is the situation the OP is in so we have to be realistic, rather than idealistic with any advice provided.

I'm not offering any advice - merely expressing my opinion.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

MikeC
I see others have posted remarks about the Magistrates Courts which, in my opinion, is taking a skewed view of the position from which you are seeking our advice. I understand that the letter you have in front of you has been sent in the hope of obtaining further information from you to assist the Revenue team in deciding what should be done following the report of your 'incident' at Meadowhall.
And that's what you should provide.
An accurate statement of your belief that the ticket was correct and valid for the journey you took; that you substantiated that belief by noting that the fare was identical whichever of the 2 stations you selected; that you presented your ticket immediately on request.

Your reply will be compared with the Statement given to the Inspector at the time, so if you had said then that you accepted that the ticket was incorrect, then you'd better explain the apparent contradiction; presumably you would only have said that AFTER having been told that it was invalid by the Inspector.

You should conclude with an apology for causing any inconvenience but make it clear that you are being as helpful as you can but failed to see that the two tickets, to two Sheffield Stations, but both at the same price would lead to such confusion if used interchangably.

It is true that the Revenue Team reading your reply will have the authority to pass matters on to Prosecution, but they have not done so, and in view of the facts you have presented here, are not likely to do so. As RJ points out, it is a technical Byelaw Offence, but one with no monetary loss. For that reason, I wouldn't even mention making an offer of an Out of Court Settlement, as there should be no prospect of the matter going anywhere near a Court. However, you could make an offer of paying any 'reasonable administrative cost' in dealing with the confusion.

Is it a defence to have paid the correct fare?

Possibly, but not an adequate and sufficient Defence in a Prosecution. But probably a useful argument to avoid Prosecution in the first place. And if that fails, and found Guilty, then it is useful to say so in mitigation.

 

[wintonian]

Possibly, but not an adequate and sufficient Defence in a Prosecution. But probably a useful argument to avoid Prosecution in the first place. And if that fails, and found Guilty, then it is useful to say so in mitigation.

I realise that this is unlikely to go to court but what in your opinion would be the reaction of the court/ magistrate in receiving a case like this where there has been no loss involved as the correct fare was paid? and would there be any consequences for bringing such a petty case forward?

 

[Fare-Cop]

MikeC
I see others have posted remarks about the Magistrates Courts which, in my opinion, is taking a skewed view of the position from which you are seeking our advice. I understand that the letter you have in front of you has been sent in the hope of obtaining further information from you to assist the Revenue team in deciding what should be done following the report of your 'incident' at Meadowhall.
And that's what you should provide.
An accurate statement of your belief that the ticket was correct and valid for the journey you took; that you substantiated that belief by noting that the fare was identical whichever of the 2 stations you selected; that you presented your ticket immediately on request.

Your reply will be compared with the Statement given to the Inspector at the time, so if you had said then that you accepted that the ticket was incorrect, then you'd better explain the apparent contradiction; presumably you would only have said that AFTER having been told that it was invalid by the Inspector.

You should conclude with an apology for causing any inconvenience but make it clear that you are being as helpful as you can but failed to see that the two tickets, to two Sheffield Stations, but both at the same price would lead to such confusion if used interchangably.

It is true that the Revenue Team reading your reply will have the authority to pass matters on to Prosecution, but they have not done so, and in view of the facts you have presented here, are not likely to do so. As RJ points out, it is a technical Byelaw Offence, but one with no monetary loss. For that reason, I wouldn't even mention making an offer of an Out of Court Settlement, as there should be no prospect of the matter going anywhere near a Court. However, you could make an offer of paying any 'reasonable administrative cost' in dealing with the confusion.

Possibly, but not an adequate and sufficient Defence in a Prosecution. But probably a useful argument to avoid Prosecution in the first place. And if that fails, and found Guilty, then it is useful to say so in mitigation.

Personally, I agree with all you say Dave, but there is one little element that doesn't seem to have been mentioned by anyone

I think it very unlikely that Northern will go for it, but there is a single fare of £2.10 payable for a journey from Sheffield to Meadowhall so they could suggest a loss because no valid ticket was held between those two stations.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I realise that this is unlikely to go to court but what in your opinion would be the reaction of the court/ magistrate in receiving a case like this where there has been no loss involved . . . . .

Contrary to some popular opinion, Courts can often be quite content to hear "pointless" arguments. Maybe not on a busy day in the City's Magistrates, but it happens (There are matters heard which can not conceivably result in an enforceable Decision though proceed often just to determine who will pay the Costs so far - Costs which will of course increase to include the Cost of the current Hearing. The Court of Appeal is often asked to hear such otherwise "pointless" matters.).
There is no need for a loss to be incurred to bring a Byelaw Offence to Court, and the lack of an identifiable loss should be no deterrent to any agrieved party bringing such a matter to the Justices. There is no 'public interest test' in a Private Prosecution.

But in this matter facing MikeC, and assuming that there really is no more to that matter than what we have read, then I would not expect the matter to be taken to a Court for a Decision, and if it did, then I would expect Counsel for the 2 parties to have a quiet word before the Hearing opens and agree that there is no benefit in pursuing the matter.

. . would there be any consequences for bringing such a petty case forward?

No more than a few words of admonishment from the Chair of the Bench before moving swiftly on. If there was a succession of such nil-loss and equivalent-ticket-held Claims, I'd expect Directions might be given to the Prosecutor; but we have to imagine that the Prosecution would have a reason for bringing such Claims to Court, and as we can only speculate what that reason might be, there is little point in anticipating the outcomes.

. . . . . but there is a single fare of £2.10 payable for a journey from Sheffield to Meadowhall so they could suggest a loss because no valid ticket was held between those two stations.

That does create an opportunity to 'argue' the matter, and such an 'argument' would no doubt examine any Evidence of the actual journey taken and we don't know at present all these details. You're right, there is an argument which could be presented. But I still am not persuaded that it is pragmatically realistic to take it forward for a Prosecution.

 

[talltim]

MikeC

An accurate statement of your belief that the ticket was correct and valid for the journey you took; that you substantiated that belief by noting that the fare was identical whichever of the 2 stations you selected; that you presented your ticket immediately on request.

Agree with Dave, except that I would not say that you know the ticket prices were the same before travelling ( which if I read your OP correctly you didn't) as that shows that you knew there was a Meadowhall ticket available. You can of course say that you have since checked and found them to be the same.

 

[pjnathanail]

There is a single fare of £2.10 payable for a journey from Sheffield to Meadowhall so they could suggest a loss because no valid ticket was held between those two stations.

I would disagree with this argument. The fare between Alfreton and Sheffield or Alfreton and Meadowhall is the same (£8.90 single), so there is no loss to the TOC.

The OP would not have split at Sheffield on this occasion, it was an honest mistake in thinking the two stations were part of a group. The fact that the two fares are the same would indicate they are linked in some way.

The £2.10 ticket should not apply because for no extra cost his ticket could have said "Meadowhall" instead of "Sheffield". It was simply a minor error (and an accident), and it is rather unreasnable for an RPI to do anything other than advise the passenger for the future. Its not fare evasion because no fare has been evaded!

 

[bb21]

The fact that the two fares are the same would indicate they are linked in some way.

Due to cluster pricing, however I don't believe this is relevant to the case.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I would disagree with this argument.

. . .

Its not fare evasion because no fare has been evaded!

Correct. It's not fare evasion.
However, Byelaw 18 has been breached, as RJ has already pointed out. It is the Byelaw Offence which could, though unlikely, be pursued (and if there was more Prosecution Evidence that we don't know about, then probably would be pursued).

 

[pjnathanail]

Correct. It's not fare evasion.
However, Byelaw 18 has been breached, as RJ has already pointed out. It is the Byelaw Offence which could, though unlikely, be pursued (and if there was more Prosecution Evidence that we don't know about, then probably would be pursued).

I accept that technically an offence has been committed,but surely in these circumstances discretion must prevail?!

 

[jon0844]

Personally, I think any such prosecution would be a complete waste of magistrates court time.

While I am NOT suggesting allowing it to go to court, I would actually think that if the two fares are the same and the difference is £0 then a magistrate is likely to take a dim view of it being brought to court.

I can actually see how this problem can occur, given many people will ask for a ticket to 'London', 'Leeds' or whatever. If there's just one station, that's fine. If there are loads of stations, as in London, staff will nearly always ask where exactly someone is going. I hear it all the time, and you'll generally find that people will be sold a London Terminals ticket if not going beyond King's Cross, or of course a Travelcard. But the fact is, people say they're going to 'London' initially and seem to think that this is a valid catch-all destination.

But if you think the same way for a city like Sheffield, but go to another station within the area, would you have been asked? (And from a TVM, you wouldn't choose Sheffield and then get any further stations listed as a drop down list within that area - as it would just be Sheffield).

So, I can actually see how it is possible to make such a mistake and would hope that common sense will see no further action taken - helped by the many experts on here who will advise on what to write.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Correct. It's not fare evasion.
However, Byelaw 18 has been breached, as RJ has already pointed out. It is the Byelaw Offence which could, though unlikely, be pursued (and if there was more Prosecution Evidence that we don't know about, then probably would be pursued).

Yes Dave, I agree, to succeed a fare evasion charge would require proof of intent to avoid the £2.10 and therefore that the traveller knew that a further fare was due before conciously deciding to travel from Sheffield to Meadowhall knowing that he had not previously paid the additional fare for the additional journey. (5.3.b)

That doesn't stand a cat-in-hells chance in my view, if Northern were to go with the Byelaw offence the only one that stands a remote chance is 18.2, but I can't see that happening either.

I was simply pointing out that there is a fare between the two points and it in my opinion I suggest writing to the TOC saying something like,

'I'm sorry, I didn't realise that there was a further fare from Sheffield to Meadowhall, after starting my journey I made a spur of the moment decision to get off at Meadowhall and simply made the mistake of assuming it would not matter which of the city stations I got off at. Now it has been pointed out to me I am aware that this is not the case and whilst I do not believe that I should be penalised for a genuine mistake having absolutely no intention to avoid paying anything, I have checked National Rail enquiries and see that there is a fare of £2.10 from Sheffield to Meadowhall, which I am happy to pay with apology for my genuine mistake.'

I suggest that would be sufficient to prevent any likelihood of Northern being so inflexible as to try to prosecute.

 

[sheff1]

Just to be clear, the points below are general ones for the possible benefit of people finding this thread at some point in the future. The moral from the OP's case is that, unless you are familiar with ticket splitting, always ask for a ticket to the specific station to which you are intending to travel.

The fare between Alfreton and Sheffield or Alfreton and Meadowhall is the same (£8.90 single), so there is no loss to the TOC.

Which TOC ? I would guess that TPE would get some of the revenue from a Meadowhall ticket but not from a Sheffield one.

The fact that the two fares are the same would indicate they are linked in some way.

Identical fares do not automatically indicate a link (even if it did you should still buy to your actual destination). A single fare from Sheffield to Stockport is the same as one from Sheffield to Harrogate. Clearly there is no link between the two and you would not expect to be able to use a ticket to Stockport to travel to Harrogate on the grounds that the fare was the same.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I suggest writing to the TOC saying something like,

'I'm sorry, I didn't realise that there was a further fare from Sheffield to Meadowhall, after starting my journey I made a spur of the moment decision to get off at Meadowhall and simply made the mistake of assuming it would not matter which of the city stations I got off at. Now it has been pointed out to me I am aware that this is not the case and whilst I do not believe that I should be penalised for a genuine mistake having absolutely no intention to avoid paying anything, I have checked National Rail enquiries and see that there is a fare of £2.10 from Sheffield to Meadowhall, which I am happy to pay with apology for my genuine mistake.'

My reading of the OP is that they always intended to go to Meadowhall rather than it being a spur of the moment decision. If so, a redraft of the above would be necessary.

 

[jon0844]

Should you bring the £2.10 fare into the letter? That suddenly introduces a 'loss' to the TOC and probably won't help.

 

[reb0118]

Its not fare evasion because no fare has been evaded!

Maybe not evaded but is there still a loss to Northern?

On a similar vein: We come across passengers on a daily basis with tickets issued by East Coast to Edinburgh travelling a few stops extra on local services out of Edinburgh. When challenged for their tickets they present their ticket to Edinburgh stating that they had asked for e.g. South Gyle but had been informed by East Coast that as the price was the same their ticket was valid.

Using the example of a passenger holding a Newcastle - Edinburgh ticket wishing to travel to South Gyle and stating on the South Gyle train that their ticket was valid because they had paid the same fare.

Would I be correct in my assumption that 1) this is not true, 2) although revenue allocation does not affect ticket validity - ScotRail receive no revenue from a Newcastle - Edinburgh fare, & 3) the correct fare to charge in this circumstance is an Edinburgh - South Gyle single and not a Newcastle - South Gyle zero excess?

 

[yorkie]

Revenue allocation does not determine validity, so it's best not to go there (it's going off-topic but see one of my previous examples).

A zero fare excess is appropriate if the customer asks to extend the ticket at the ticket office of their origin. If the ticket office is closed, or for some reason unable/unwilling to correctly issue the zero excess, then I would see that as no opportunity to pay before boarding, then the excess can be bought on board the train.

But if the customer chose not to request their ticket be extended until they reached their destination and then decided they wanted to continue further, a zero excess is no longer appropriate as a ticket cannot be excessed when it has been finished with (except, of course, if that is the first opportunity the customer has, e.g. Alfreton ticket office closed, Alfreton to Sheffield guard had no functional Avantix machine) and then a new ticket from the original destination to the new destination would need to be purchased.

If break of journey is allowed (it nearly always is for walk-up tickets), it is generally better to buy to the furthest point that is the same fare just in case that extra validity becomes useful. There are some exceptions to this, e.g. if the customer was unsure if Swinton or Chapeltown was the best station for them, if they bought to one they could not deviate to the other by excessing, whereas a ticket to Meadowhall (the final stop before the lines diverged) could be excessed to either station in the manner described above.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Contrary to some popular opinion, Courts can often be quite content to hear "pointless" arguments.

That does create an opportunity to 'argue' the matter, and such an 'argument' would no doubt examine any Evidence of the actual journey taken and we don't know at present all these details. You're right, there is an argument which could be presented. But I still am not persuaded that it is pragmatically realistic to take it forward for a Prosecution.

Yes, I agree, to proceed to prosecution would be very much OTT in my view, but as you say, we are not the people making the decision and we don't have the benefit of any other information that they may consider relevant.

Proceeding to further action in this one seems pretty pointless to me given the OPs explanation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The £2.10 ticket should not apply because for no extra cost his ticket could have said "Meadowhall" instead of "Sheffield". It was simply a minor error (and an accident), and it is rather unreasnable for an RPI to do anything other than advise the passenger for the future. Its not fare evasion because no fare has been evaded!

We both agree that prosecution would be OTT and I agree that the OP could have asked for a ticket to Meadowhall at the origin station for no extra cost, but just for a moment let's look at what could happen if Northern were so intransigent as to go for the Byelaw 18 offence referred to by Dave.

Under NR Byelaw 18.2 the charge would be 'that on X/DATE/X you did fail to show on demand a valid ticket for the journey from Sheffield to Meadowhall', (or words to that effect).

If Northern were incredibly fortunate, on conviction of the strict liability offence the Bench will consider a request for costs & compensation as appropriate. The request for the fare, which would have been declared with the summons, might be awarded and that would be £2.10

Now I'm not saying this is what should happen, I am saying it definitely should NOT, but like some others on here I am just pointing out what could happen and why £2.10 could be referred to as the relevant fare.

 

[MikeC]

Thank you all for the posts. I have today drafted a letter which I will send on to the train company and I will let you know the outcome.

As far as I know there isnt any further evidence that may change the story. Although when being formally questionned I was pretty hysterical (after the 'your defence may be harmed if... later rely on in court' bit I started to panic) so I am not 100% sure what I agreed that I had done. I am a little worried about contradicting what I said to the inspector. Although as I say I would have been honest.

I would gladly pay £2.10 and costs on this matter if it prevented a criminal record - I need regular CRB checks for work.

 

[island]

To put your mind (somewhat) at ease, there are two common "fare-dodging" offences, which are avoiding fare with intent (Regulation of Railways Act) and failing to hand over a valid ticket (Railway Byelaws). I think there is basically no chance of a Regulation of Railways Act prosecution holding up, and the Railway Byelaws offence is not recordable.

 

[maniacmartin]

Under NR Byelaw 18.2 the charge would be 'that on X/DATE/X you did fail to show on demand a valid ticket for the journey from Sheffield to Meadowhall', (or words to that effect).

I would say that the journey was from Alfreton, not Sheffield.