The OP already knew there was a RPI on the train who knew the details of their ticket. They then asked to purchase a ticket to extend their journey. That does not demonstrate "intent" (either action- or mindset-based) to dodge a fare.
-
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!
Received a Pre-court Action but would like to contest it
- Thread starter Miafey
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
No. If they had asked for the ticket before the train reached Oldfield Park then it would be an extension. Having reached Oldfield Park the ticket was no longer valid and could not be extended.
To quote the Act in question
You might argue that there was no intent, however as you said the OP had just spoken to an RPI and didn't buy a ticket which is enough to show intent for the purpose of the law. If he didn't buy a ticket at 16:02 having had the opportunity, why should the court believe that he would have bought one at 16:03?Regulation of Railways Act ss 5 (3)(b) said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry for the repeat postings, I'm trying get my thoughts clear in.my head too
You cannot prove intent until the second distance commences as there is no action to prove it during the first distance.
The second section of 5(b) (post AND) requiring intent cannot then become active until the commencement of travel on the second distance.
I think I'm right in saying that in the second section of 5(b) intent cannot be proved until an opportunity to pay has been passed? As the intent cannot be proved until travel on the second distance has commenced the the opportunity to pay has the start there too.
You cannot prove intent until the second distance commences as there is no action to prove it during the first distance.
The second section of 5(b) (post AND) requiring intent cannot then become active until the commencement of travel on the second distance.
I think I'm right in saying that in the second section of 5(b) intent cannot be proved until an opportunity to pay has been passed? As the intent cannot be proved until travel on the second distance has commenced the the opportunity to pay has the start there too.
Last edited:
MichaelAMW
Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2010
- Messages
- 1,012
Could the OP not ask the delayed friend to give evidence, be that directly to GWR or to some aspect of the legal process, i.e. before or during any court hearing?
Not buying a further ticket when checked just before the station is not an action that can prove intent as it cannot be proved by an action that the decision to travel further was made before this time (as indeed it wasn't)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Btw my comment on there being no time limits in that section of the law means that it makes no distinction between travelling the second distance on the same train or the one an hour later. Catching the train an hour later is still fits 'knowingly and wilfully proceeds by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance,'
Also there is no concept of a journey in it so we don't have to worry about whether the OP made one journey or two.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Btw my comment on there being no time limits in that section of the law means that it makes no distinction between travelling the second distance on the same train or the one an hour later. Catching the train an hour later is still fits 'knowingly and wilfully proceeds by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance,'
Also there is no concept of a journey in it so we don't have to worry about whether the OP made one journey or two.
It is always interesting to see these various interpretations, but what is missing in these quotes so far is the phrase that commences the relevant section of the Act, which is;
If any person travels, or attempts to travel....
No need to invoke 5 (3)(b) in that case as 5 (3)(a) is sufficient:
If you hold that stepping out onto the platform ends the initial journey, then the OP has attempted to travel without paying his fare.Regulation of Railways Act ss 5(3) said:
If, as has been suggested, there is a TVM at Oldfield Park then you don't even need to invoke the RoRA as a Byelaw 18 prosecution is even more certain to succeed seeing as it doesn't require any intent at all.
The only valid defence against an 18.1 prosecution is if there was no opportunity to purchase or if the OP was given permission to board without a ticket.Railway Byelaw 18(1) said:
Last edited by a moderator:
John Palmer
Member
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2015
- Messages
- 245
From najaB (Sorry, quote facility not working properly here):
"Regulation of Railways Act ss 5(3)
'Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof'
If you hold that stepping out onto the platform ends the initial journey, then the OP has attempted to travel without paying his fare."
You appear not to have taken into account the emboldened limb. The OP says he attempted to purchase a ticket but was told to wait whilst the official involved attended another passenger. How does that assist an allegation of attempted fare evasion, and how is it to be reconciled with the need to demonstrate intent?
Furthermore, I thought it had been established with a high degree of probability that at the relevant time there was neither a TVM nor an open ticket office at Oldfield Park - am I wrong? And if I am right then what is the relevance of a possible Byelaw 18 prosecution?
"Regulation of Railways Act ss 5(3)
'Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof'
If you hold that stepping out onto the platform ends the initial journey, then the OP has attempted to travel without paying his fare."
You appear not to have taken into account the emboldened limb. The OP says he attempted to purchase a ticket but was told to wait whilst the official involved attended another passenger. How does that assist an allegation of attempted fare evasion, and how is it to be reconciled with the need to demonstrate intent?
Furthermore, I thought it had been established with a high degree of probability that at the relevant time there was neither a TVM nor an open ticket office at Oldfield Park - am I wrong? And if I am right then what is the relevance of a possible Byelaw 18 prosecution?
According to the letter, GWR are minded to prosecute for ticketless travel from Oldfield Park to Keynsham.
Should it go to court could a defence solicitor ask the following questions of GWR:
1) Did the defendant board at Oldfield Park?
2) At the time in question, were there facilities for the defendant to buy a ticket prior to boarding?
3) Did the defendant attempt to purchase a ticket at the earliest opportunity?
From my reading of this thread the answers would be: 1) Yes, 2) No, 3) Yes.
How would a prosecution succeed if those answers were given?
Should it go to court could a defence solicitor ask the following questions of GWR:
1) Did the defendant board at Oldfield Park?
2) At the time in question, were there facilities for the defendant to buy a ticket prior to boarding?
3) Did the defendant attempt to purchase a ticket at the earliest opportunity?
From my reading of this thread the answers would be: 1) Yes, 2) No, 3) Yes.
How would a prosecution succeed if those answers were given?
1) No, they boarded the train at Bath with a short ticket to Oldfield Park but travelled to Keynsham.
2) As they originally boarded the train at Bath the answer is yes.
3) No, see answer to 1.
Isnt it wonderful how the interpretation of the facts can alter the answers!
If I was sitting as a magistrate and this case came before me I think I would explore this part of the OP's account in detail.
He showed the RPI his ticket as he was leaving the train. He then stepped onto the platform. Looked at his phone. Read quite a complicated message. Decided to reboard the train.
How long is the usual "dwell time" for trains at Oldfield Park?
Then you are safe from a Byelaw 18 prosecution. However I still say a prosecutor could make a strong case for RoRA ss 5(3)(b) it is a reasonable interpretation that travelling from Bath Spa to Keynsham without changing trains constitutes a single journey and so you did not pay the correct fare for the journey taken.
Last edited by a moderator:
1) No, they boarded the train at Bath with a short ticket to Oldfield Park but travelled to Keynsham.
2) As they originally boarded the train at Bath the answer is yes.
3) No, see answer to 1.
Isnt it wonderful how the interpretation of the facts can alter the answers!
I honestly did not have the plan to travel to Keynsham when I boarded the train at Bath. How could I buy a ticket for a journey that I was not even aware of? Just because I live in Keynsham? I don't normally travel by train and I wasn't planning going home by train that day.
Your answers to the questions are based on the presumption that I was indeed intented to travel without paying for my ticket. And then you use your answers to prove I'm guilty of traveling without paying for my ticket. The wording "short fare" is itself an indication of intention for a journey longer than the fare paid.
In my circumstances I actually got off the train. It was really not a decision or something but because I was planned to do so so I did. Had I read his msg before I got off the train I would have travelled on, in the hope of getting a ticket from the conductor for the next part of my journey. I would never thought of just jumping off the train and getting back on again to make the first distance which was paid for complete and then start a new distance. It just happened. Even so there was a change of plan and like I said it was not totally my fault. Had the other train been on time why would I have to change my plan?? If was more or less a forced change. Of course it was not the case that my partner was ill or my house was on fire so theoratically I could have waited for an hour. But again at that time I did not see myself any different from anyone boarding the train from oldfield park without a ticket.
As Camden said it's generally just things people do as a matter of course. I am no expert in transport related rules and regulations and I've seen people purchasing tickets on the train before. I did not give enough though about how different boarding the same train would be and to me, at that time, "I should be able to buy a ticket on the train" was a matter of course. Of course my ignorance is not an excuse for crime, but because I did not know I could not possibly have been intentional.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Just a minute or two, oldfield park is a very small station. In fact I'd say it was probably less than a minute. I really did not have time to think. It was pretty much "jump on the train or else we'll have problems"
Last edited by a moderator:
What 445driver is doing is showing how a prosecutor could portray your actions to a magistrate. There is nothing that makes that interpretation any less valid that your explanation.
It doesn't help your case that, had the RPI not been there (let's say he got on at the other end of the train from you), your actions would have resulted in you getting home for half the fare that you should have paid.
Your defence is that in the thirty to sixty seconds or so between alighting and reboarding the train you received, read, comprehended and reacted to a message that you have since lost.
While I don't have any particular reason to think that you aren't being truthful you would be ill advised to let this matter get to court as there is no way of knowing which interpretation a magistrate will believe.
bb21
Emeritus Moderator
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 24,151
I think we are just going around in circles here. I don't think they are necessary conflicting opinions, only differing on interpretation on where the first opportunity to pay presented itself. There are broadly three possibilities:
Provided that the OP can get hold of a copy of the text the friend sent advising of the change in his circumstances I think the third outcome is unlikely. The issue for me is whether court takes the first interpretation or the second interpretation. I cannot be sure of that, nor any incline which way it is likely to go, and I doubt anyone else on here can either. The difficulty here is the the OP's behaviour, unfortunately, resembled that of a fare dodger who deliberately bought a short fare. My gut feeling is that there is a strong possibility the court would find that, unless the OP can provide some definitive proof that he only became aware of the change in circumstances during station dwell, which imo is very difficult to do, as outlined in Post 106.
Time limit when one journey becomes two is irrelevant imo in this case. A very important factor at play is that the OP encountered the RPI immediately before he got off, so that was potentially the "opportunity" we were looking for.
- The court agrees that the OP's journey requirements changed en route and the first opportunity to pay could only occur after he reboarded the train at Oldfield Park where his first ticket expired, so no case to answer here (- this opens a whole other can of worms in terms of revenue protection but I won't go into that here as it is irrelevant to the OP's case);
- The court is satisfied that the OP's journey requirement changed en route and the first opportunity to pay was when the OP encountered the RPI immediately before getting off the train, in the absence of satisfactory proof that the OP only became aware of the change in circumstances in the 20-30 seconds during station dwell (see Post 106);
- The court finds that the OP's journey had always been to Keynsham, in the absence of any evidence to suggest otherwise;
Provided that the OP can get hold of a copy of the text the friend sent advising of the change in his circumstances I think the third outcome is unlikely. The issue for me is whether court takes the first interpretation or the second interpretation. I cannot be sure of that, nor any incline which way it is likely to go, and I doubt anyone else on here can either. The difficulty here is the the OP's behaviour, unfortunately, resembled that of a fare dodger who deliberately bought a short fare. My gut feeling is that there is a strong possibility the court would find that, unless the OP can provide some definitive proof that he only became aware of the change in circumstances during station dwell, which imo is very difficult to do, as outlined in Post 106.
Time limit when one journey becomes two is irrelevant imo in this case. A very important factor at play is that the OP encountered the RPI immediately before he got off, so that was potentially the "opportunity" we were looking for.
This is Disputes & Prosecutions, so no surprise there!
I agree with most of what you've written except for:Sadly it is way too easy to fake texts and messages to be certain that the court will accept it as proof of anything.
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
That's a very fair summary, bb21.
But I will add to the advice that I have already given to Miafey on here, and that is that I very strongly advise AGAINST letting this matter reach a Magistrates Court :- The cost / benefit / risk / probability assessments which you are partially exposing here in your assessment, just don't make a Court hearing a realistic procedure to advise if we wish to minimise Miafey's exposure to a risk of further loss. I say this despite the 100 or so posts on here debating the evidential and non-evidential questions that could be raised and argued, but which have no reliable authorities which would help us to anticipate and evaluate the probabilities of the decisions on these questions (it is always foolish to advise someone to enter uncharted territory even if they are asking for support in doing so, support which Miafey was seeking initially, but having now changed their position, we should not be supporting a contest, but helping to evaluate and minimise their exposure to further loss, and to minimise the risk of challenges during their travel in the future).
Last edited:
bb21
Emeritus Moderator
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 24,151
This is Disputes & Prosecutions, so no surprise there!
This case is an interesting one showing up some of the grey areas in revenue protection and I am sort of glad it stimulated some meaningful discussion. I can see various interpretations depending on one's perspective, but as always with these cases, the only one that matters is the court's.
True, but it is possible to obtain details of text messages from the network via an SAR request.
Then again the timing of the text can be important. If it was sent before the OP left Bath (a merely 3 minutes before Oldfield Park), then it may also be difficult to argue ignorance of the change in circumstances before leaving, but without knowing when the texts were received, it would be difficult for me to say.
I agree most of what you've outlined above but this one.
Why would it make any difference if I had asked for a ticket from oldfield park to keynsham when I was encountered by the RPI immediately before getting off the train?
His questions would be the same: why did you only have the ticket until oldfield park? You did not attempt buy a ticket until being asked?
To him I would still be someone who was trying to extend the journey without paying, wouldn't I?
So basically to have definite evidence to account for everything I have said the requirement would be that the message has to arrive in the two-minute window after I boarded the train at Bath Spa but before the train arrived at oldfield park and I would have to read the message and coped with the situation within that two-minute window. Even if the first part could be proved the second part is really beyond me. In civil proceedings there is "reasonable expectation", in criminal there is "beyond reasonable doubt".
Are these requirements really reasonable? Could anyone possibly proof when they actually read a piece of message in the inbox, withouth making some arrangements knowingly beforehand?
Indeed, I was merely countering BNMs post to show how a different interpretation can lead to the complete opposite answers, I was in no way inferring that the things I listed was what actually happened, merely that a prosecutor could easily counter the argument (as suggested by BNM) in a Court of law.
bb21
Emeritus Moderator
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 24,151
If you did that, then there would be no doubt whatsoever that you committed no offence, as at no point of your journey you travelled without a valid ticket. He can ask what he likes. The answer to that question would be irrelevant.
As someone else pointed out earlier, no offence is actually committed until you travelled beyond Oldfield Park without a ticket. Normally for people actually joining at Oldfield Park this is not an issue as there is no opportunity to pay at Oldfield Park, so encountering the RPI (or the guard most often) would have been the first opportunity, but in your case it is muddied on the "opportunity" front because you did not join at Oldfield Park. You joined the train at Bath and you encountered the RPI immediately before you got off, so the court may find that it presented an opportunity for you to pay.
I have split the discussion on the incorrect calculation of delay compensation into a separate thread.
Because up until and at that point you had a valid ticket and there is a defined procedure for selling an over-distance excess. However, under the conditions of carriage
Which is what applies once you pass the destination on the ticket you held.NRCoC para 18 said:
Thanks for the explanation. This point had never occurred to me....
It sounds right but in the meantime it does sound quite right...
I was reading this post:
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=25950
Changing the contract by paying excess fares
Excess fares may be purchased by customers, already in possession of tickets, only in one of three circumstances:
Before the journey starts - at a station
To allow customers holding tickets to change the terms on which their tickets were issued, before travel.
During the journey - at a station or on a train
When customers have been unable to purchase tickets, for their entire journeys, at the originating station.
Before or during a journey - at a station or on a train
When customers have previously purchased tickets which are inappropriate for their journeys, for one of the following reasons:
· Customer wishes to travel, or is already travelling, on a train, at a time of the day or on a day of week with a restricted validity ticket (click here to view more details);
· Customer wishes to travel, or is already travelling between stations shown on their ticket by a route where a higher fare applies (click here to view more details);
· Customer has a ticket for travel in Standard accommodation but wishes to travel, or is already travelling, in First Class (click here to view more details);
· Customer is over-riding (click here to view more details) or deviating from the permitted route for their journey (click here to view more details);
· Customer wishes to break, or has broken their journey with a restricted validity ticket; or terminates short of destination, where a higher fare applies (click here to view more details).
So what is the "defined procedure for selling an over-distance excess"
I know this is going off topic but this really frustrates me - in no other industry is there this ability to threaten with a criminal record for innocent mistakes (and in this particular case, on face value there's not even a mistake).
People are actually suggesting that you should get off the train and wait an hour for the next one, just to comply with the NRCOC. That is absolutely insane - I could understand marginally more if there were ticketing facilities at the station, but in this case you would literally be disembarking for an hour purely to wait for the next train.
Where is the focus on the customer that every other industry has had to adopt?
The minority of significant fare evasion can be dealt with under existing fraud legislation through the criminal courts - for any casual fare evaders, there are the civil courts which are much more appropriate. Strict liability is out of touch as well.
The current system means many innocent people end up being penalty fare'd (or taken to court) for things which are the fault of our over-complicated railway system
(rant over)
People are actually suggesting that you should get off the train and wait an hour for the next one, just to comply with the NRCOC. That is absolutely insane - I could understand marginally more if there were ticketing facilities at the station, but in this case you would literally be disembarking for an hour purely to wait for the next train.
Where is the focus on the customer that every other industry has had to adopt?
The minority of significant fare evasion can be dealt with under existing fraud legislation through the criminal courts - for any casual fare evaders, there are the civil courts which are much more appropriate. Strict liability is out of touch as well.
The current system means many innocent people end up being penalty fare'd (or taken to court) for things which are the fault of our over-complicated railway system
(rant over
)As explained above, if the OP had asked for an excess before alighting there would not have been an problem.
People are suggesting if I only found out the plan was changed after alight the train I would have to wait for an hour to get another train.
At a station before departure, or on a train before arriving at the destination of your current ticket, you say "Hello my good man. I have in my possession a ticket to Oldfield Park station. But I'm rather in a bit of a pickle because due to a change of plans I'm in need of a ticket to Keyesham. Do you suppose I could trouble you to provide me with the means to rectify this rather inconvenient situation, old chap?"
Or similar.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Or ask the guard before boarding.
Thank you very much. So:
for someone who actually is indeed intended to travel to bath spa to Keynsham, he could just buy a ticket from bath spa to oldfield park and aboard a train at bath spa. If
1) he does not get checked on the day he saves 3.7
2) if he gets checked on the train once and it is before oldfield park he could pay for the excess, which makes the journey marginally more expensive than a straight through ticket from bath to keynsham
3) if he gets checked on the train only once and it is after oldfield park he could claim he aboard the train from oldfield park and get a ticket from oldfield park to keynsham, which is marginally cheaper than a straight through ticket from bath to keynsham
Only if he is unlucky enough to get checked twice, once before oldfield park and once after, and by the same person who remembers him, would he be caught of traveling without a ticket
Sounds like life is much easier for those who actually have the intention to fare-dodging but know what they do, than for me who was just confused at that unfortunate moment.
Effectively, yes. That is why your story - which involves a very conveniently timed, self-deleting message - is unlikely to be believed if this case gets as far as court.
And also why most TOCs are investing in ticket machines and barriers where they can, in order to close this (and other) loopholes that collectively result in many hundreds of millions in lost revenue.
bb21
Emeritus Moderator
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 24,151
We are going off topic somewhat but yes, that is possible, or there may not be many boarding at Oldfield Park and the RPI remembers exactly who boarded there.
Obviously there are other ways the railway companies use to catch fare evaders, such as the station blocks and the token system some companies use, where everyone boarding at certain stations (usually short-fare hotspots) would have to pass manual barriers to either collect a token and or be sold a ticket, so anyone claiming to have come from those stations but not in possession of a token or a valid ticket would obviously be lying and give the train company solid evidence of intent to avoid paying the correct fare, hence highly likely a criminal record should it go to court. The random nature of these blocks also add to their effectiveness.
I don't think it would be relevant to your case, only the fact that such a mechanism exists. If you are interested in further reading, I attach a copy of the Excess Fare Procedures for over-riding for your reference. Note that there is also some leeway regarding the interpretation of "opportunity to pay" before boarding.
- Status