Recovery and Prosecution Letter

[silencio]

Hi,

I've signed up to the forum for a bit of advice having read through some of the other topics on here already. So, today I received the following letter:

Obviously the date they are referring to is in the future and therefore ridiculous. I have no plans to travel to Bolton next Tuesday.

Anyhow, this likely relates to 26th January 2013. I went to Manchester Victoria Station to catch a train to watch the Bolton vs. Everton game. (my first mistake) I arrived at Victoria approx. 15 minutes before I needed to catch my train, checked the boards for the train I needed to get and headed to the ticket machine to buy a ticket. I put my card in, chose my ticket, entered my pin number and the machine advised me to take my card and that it was printing the tickets. After 2-3 minutes the machine eventually gave up trying to print the tickets and advised me that the ticket couldn't be printed and to advise the ticket office, which I did. A red light came on the ticket machine to advise of an error, being that the machine had run out of paper.

The woman at the ticket office sent someone over to have s look at the machine, which he took a good few minutes to go over to the machine and then he told me Id need to buy a ticket. I contested this with him advising that Id already bought a ticket and therefore wasn't wanting to buy another as I believe it was a machine fault. The fact that the machine advised me to take my card back and then proceeded to attempt to print tickets made me believe this was a confirmed transaction. I questioned it asking "how would I get the money back if Ive then purchased 2 lots of tickets?" "How if I try to get a refund can I prove that I didn't get a ticket for someone else?" He then told me i could check my bank statement to confirm if it had come off. A transaction would not show on a statement immediately. After a few minutes of back and forth I advised him that I had to catch this particular train and that I had to go. He then informed me I could buy a ticket on the train, which I again advised him I wasn't wanting to as I feel Id already paid. There was a lad after me that had the same issue in the time it took me to go the ticket office and get the guy to come look at it.

I ran for and got on the train and there was no ticket man to explain this to however when I got to Horwich Parkway I explained this all again. I was nothing but compliant, voluntarily producing identification for the guy to take my details down. He advised that Id receive a letter in the post shortly and that I should provide a copy of bank statement (to prove the transaction) and send this to them. I queried what if I was to get stopped on my return journey to which he advised me not to worry about it as it was unlikely later on.

A number of weeks had gone by and so I thought they'd just dismissed it however I have just received this letter. Having checked my account a few weeks back though the transaction didn't seem to have been applied. Im more than happy to pay the fare (which I thought I had done) however feel this letter is a bit much considering the circumstances, very strongly worded if they're trying to get my account which Ive already given to the guy that took my details down.

So, how is best to respond to this? I can put all this in the letter back to them but does signing the letter they've sent act as an admission of guilt? Furthermore why do they require my occupation? This is none of their business as it has nothing to do with the events that day.

I would prefer to ring them but not on an 0844. Anyone have any alternative numbers and best suggestions for how to proceed.

Thanks in advance for any help.

 

[island]

You do not need to provide your occupation or date of birth.

The problem here is that the machines are set to void the charge on your card if the ticket doesn't print. You were correctly advised of this as well as of the need to purchase a new ticket, which you chose not to do.

I have a lot of sympathy for you but you appear to have committed an offence here and while Northern does not generally prosecute first-time offenders, it usually makes this conditional on payment of a £80 surcharge.

 

[silencio]

I was not advised at any point that the machines would void the transaction. I was asked what stage it got to/did it accept my pin to which I answered yes as the machine advised me to take my card back and then it tried to print tickets. Neither of the train people I spoke to told me that nor did they reassure me that I could buy an extra ticket and there was a guarantee that I would get my money back if the first transaction went through, as I believed it had.

I am not looking to pay/will not be happy if they come for me at a minimum of £80.

 

[island]

Did you look for the guard on the train at all?

 

[221129]

I was not advised at any point that the machines would void the transaction. I was asked what stage it got to/did it accept my pin to which I answered yes as the machine advised me to take my card back and then it tried to print tickets. Neither of the train people I spoke to told me that nor did they reassure me that I could buy an extra ticket and there was a guarantee that I would get my money back if the first transaction went through, as I believed it had.

I am not looking to pay/will not be happy if they come for me at a minimum of £80.

Then that is your choice but they will then take you to court which will cost you alot more than £80.

 

[silencio]

Did you look for the guard on the train at all?

There wasn't one. The guy who took my details when i got off the train also gave me the option of getting a ticket. When i explained the situation, he didn't press me on getting a ticket and made the fact that he was taking my details down sound very casual. Not that I would receive the type of letter that I did.

ollieb - if it comes to it then I will pay it BUT this is riduliculously heavy handed for the sake of a £4 odd fare that I tried to pay/thought Id paid, a machine fault and a lack of reasonable information being provided to me.

 

[island]

All Northern Rail trains have guards.

 

[Realfish]

All Northern Rail trains have guards.

But I thought that it had been established (many threads ago) that there was not a requirement for a passenger to seek out a guard - something, if I remember correctly, EMT had got wrong in expecting them to do so.

 

[maniacmartin]

Would it have been too much to ask for the machine to have displayed a message stating that the card charge had been refunding, if it encountered this error? Or for the ticket clerk to say it had been refunded?

As it stands, the OP had no way of knowing that the charge was refunded. He had paid his fare due, and was unaware of the fact it had apparently been refunded. Clearly the RPI didn't note the story or the backoffice didn't bother reading it given that the letter states "non-payment of rail fare" and gives a date in the future! That is pretty shoddy in my opinion.

However, I'm betting that the OP has no evidence of the issues with the machine or conversation with the ticket staff. As such, I can't see much chance of success of the OP succeeding in defending this case should it go to court.

In this situation, if I had to dash to make a train, I would have bought a second ticket and then at a later date pursued the Train Company for the refund or on the first ticket that I thought I'd paid for but didn't print.

 

[island]

But I thought that it had been established (many threads ago) that there was not a requirement for a passenger to seek out a guard - something, if I remember correctly, EMT had got wrong in expecting them to do so.

I didn't say there was a requirement, I just asked inquisitively whether the passenger had done so.

 

[silencio]

I believe it was a 2 carriage train with no staff in sight. I wasn't knocking onto the cockpit (or whatever it may be called on a train).

What way could I evidence any of this besides pulling out my phone and recording it at the time? In the moment, I didnt think. I just presumed the money had been taken. Would a bank still have a record of the transaction authorisation (nearly 2 months on)? Would this be worthwhile obtaining?

It would have been nice for them to make a report at Victoria at the time instead of treating me like ****. I thought most companies ran with "the customer's always right" (even though I know from dealing direct with customers in jobs, that 99% of them.are usually wrong)?

 

[Mark_H]

There wasn't one. The guy who took my details when i got off the train also gave me the option of getting a ticket. When i explained the situation, he didn't press me on getting a ticket and made the fact that he was taking my details down sound very casual. Not that I would receive the type of letter that I did.

ollieb - if it comes to it then I will pay it BUT this is riduliculously heavy handed for the sake of a £4 odd fare that I tried to pay/thought Id paid, a machine fault and a lack of reasonable information being provided to me.

I wonder if it could be argued that you had successfully completed your part of the transaction? You have proffered your card, given your PIN, and the machine seems to have done the usual thing of verifying the PIN and confirming with your bank that it is prepared to pay up. That completes all the usual steps necessary to have paid, just the same as handing over cash.
The train company have then failed to produce the ticket that signifies that you've paid, but that doesn't change the fact that you have in fact paid. At that point, the contract is complete. Their decision to unilaterally refund you without telling you doesn't change that.
I suspect that the above, even if correct (and IANAL), won't get you past the problem of the railway byelaws requiring you to have an actual ticket to travel. However, as a matter of customer service, I believe that someone who arrived with 15 minutes to spare and was unable to get one ought to be entitled to travel and buy later, just as if the ticket office was shut and the machine out of order.

Silencio, given that proving the machine problem may be difficult, you may need to pay up to prevent this escalating, and then pursue customer services over the several issues that are here. Hopefully they'll recognise that they've fallen down in quite a few areas.

Edit: I could have shortened that to "What Martin said", but I crossposted

 

[Fare-Cop]

But I thought that it had been established (many threads ago) that there was not a requirement for a passenger to seek out a guard - something, if I remember correctly, EMT had got wrong in expecting them to do so.

That statement is a matter of 'opinion' and whether or not a traveller is required to make themselves known in order to pay has previously been tested by putting allegations of 'intent not to pay' before Magistrates, who have convicted.

It has not been challenged on appeal so far as I am aware and therefore there isn't a case precedent to refer to, but the Magistrates in such cases must have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt in order to rule as they have done.

A great deal depends on the exact circumstances in each individual case of course and I would never suggest that such an allegation is always justified.

 

[silencio]

Cheers for all the responses so far.

The letter says to write my version of events on the back of it and send it back. Personally id like to keep it in case I need it. Would it be sufficient to send my version of events without the letter but obviously include the reference?

As said previously, it won't get to court. Ill pay £80 if I have to (reluctantly) as Im looking at getting a mortgage at the moment and obviously can't have this affecting my credit rating. Im all for paying my way and coughing up the cost of the ticket. I will however contest it and believe this is some of the worst customer experience Ive ever been dealt.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Cheers for all the responses so far.

The letter says to write my version of events on the back of it and send it back. Personally id like to keep it in case I need it. Would it be sufficient to send my version of events without the letter but obviously include the reference?.

Yes it would.

 

[telstarbox]

It may be useful for you to get someone on this forum to proof-read your account (send it by private message) before you send it off to Northern.

 

[Crossover]

Semi-related question - in such situations if one wished to pay the amount requested to avoid it progressing further, but wished to later contest it, is it possible/wise to state as much when sending in payment (I was think "paid under duress", but "duress" isn't the word I am looking for...but can't think of anything better at the moment)

 

[34D]

I think that a letter from your bank may help here.

What I would _expect_ to see based on your account is an 'auth' followed by the auth being 'released'. Note that this probably won't appear on your bank statements; you'll need the bank to send you extra information.

If you explain to the bank that you may get prosecuted for a railway offence (unlikely in my view, but it is a possibility) and need evidence from them to assert your innocence, they will hopefully quickly send you the letter you need. I suggest you request this by telephone tomorrow.

Please don't respond to Northern until you've drafted a letter and shared it with one of us by PM.

You are technically guilty of a Byelaw 18 offence, though in your favour is the fact that your credit card authorised, tickets didn't print, but the machine didn't tell you that the payment had been reversed and neither did the clerk.

A response needs to explain all these in order to get the right outcome.

 

[island]

If the bank's like the one I used to work for, it won't hold a record of unused preauthorizations.

 

[silencio]

I work for a bank and used to have to look at these. Not sure how long they go back though. Ill give them a call and find out.

 

[34D]

If the bank's like the one I used to work for, it won't hold a record of unused preauthorizations.

I wonder.... would this have been more than a pre-auth? By the sounds of it it was a chip & pin verified successful transaction.... not a hotel swiping a card to do a 'traditional' preauth?

The op needs to call the bank asap. If there is no bank support available, we may need to consider a different tack.

 

[silencio]

How have things changed over the last few months? This is the first contact I have regarding this. Having just read through the thread below, how was that user initially sent a failure to pay notice and I have received the letter I have?

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=75191&page=4

 

[island]

I wonder.... would this have been more than a pre-auth? By the sounds of it it was a chip & pin verified successful transaction.... not a hotel swiping a card to do a 'traditional' preauth?

There is no difference between the two in the eyes of the bank these days. A chip & PIN transaction is still authorized at the time of transaction and banked within a day or two. Main difference with hotels is they are allowed to settle for a different amount and within a longer time frame (but must get a new authorization code on check-out if the final bill exceeds the estimated amount by a defined percentage.

The op needs to call the bank asap. If there is no bank support available, we may need to consider a different tack.

Agreed.

 

[Cheds]

Allow me to state the obvious, since nobody else has:
A simple note to say that the OP has their letter of 15th March which refers to an incident in the future. The OP sees therefore no reason to comment on it at all. The TOC can clearly not be relied on as to their version of events whenever they will/did occur. and that should be it!

 

[island]

How have things changed over the last few months? This is the first contact I have regarding this. Having just read through the thread below, how was that user initially sent a failure to pay notice and I have received the letter I have?

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=75191&page=4

No two scenarios are exactly the same, and the specific circumstances, including but not limited to the actions, demeanour and behaviour of the passenger, will help to inform a railway staff member which of the possible actions between "do nothing" and "call the BTP" will be taken. Comparisons like this are of limited use.

 

[34D]

There is no difference between the two in the eyes of the bank these days. A chip & PIN transaction is still authorized at the time of transaction and banked within a day or two.

Thanks for this - a while since I've worked in card processing, and things do change.

Allow me to state the obvious, since nobody else has:
A simple note to say that the OP has their letter of 15th March which refers to an incident in the future. The OP sees therefore no reason to comment on it at all. The TOC can clearly not be relied on as to their version of events whenever they will/did occur. and that should be it!

I've previously made suggestions like this where I'd thought they were appropriate, and other minds on the forum have suggested I were irresponsible and that doing so would only serve to antagonise the Prosecutions Manager.

 

[jon0844]

Can you specify the exact TVM you used and the actual time? Surely that will have detailed logs that can (and are) downloaded that will record things like tickets sold and when running out of ticket stock. Or, if not, it will record the time the door was opened and closed surely?

The last ticket sold before the tickets ran out or the machine was opened to be restocked will therefore be your ticket!

If the TOC fobs you off, speak to the manufacturer of the machine (or check the website) to see what it can and can't do!

While you might still be guilty of a byelaw 18 offence, you never know - they might drop it anyway. Otherwise you might find you need to pay whatever they ask for to settle, then follow it up afterwards when you have more time.

 

[silencio]

Yes, just got my authorisation code from the bank!

Northern Rail did not take the funds after the transaction being authorised and did not advise me that the transaction was cancelled. As far as Im aware Ive completed my side of the transaction and they've not upheld their side. What a horrible company. I shouldn't even need to be doing this/investigating/worrying.

 

[island]

You are in a somewhat stronger position then.

 

[silencio]

Thanks, lets hope so.

Terrible service from my bank though. Must have spent 30-40 minutes on calls being passed around etc... for a process I know well and could have done in 2 minutes including raising a query to get a letter knocked up.