Revenue protection took my details - Unstaffed station

[DaveNewcastle]

This is becoming quite ridiculous:

I can't reveal my sources . . . .

What authority is an anonymous authority?

An authority is either quotable, quoted, attributable and available, or it has no authority because it is apocryphal and mysterious.

I see that earlier you refered to senior personnel at ATOC, in the plural, having given you this binding interpretation. Why would these several senior personnel make their binding interpretation secretive and refuse to publish it for the benefit of their members and for the travelling public?

Good luck with the campaign nevertheless!

This is the actual position:

I think that the pertinent point here is that until anyone is prosecuted, either successfully or unsuccessfully, for passing a card only TVM and not paying, then we only have interpretations and local customs to go on. There is not, in these instances, a 'correct' answer to be found.

I have given my assessment of how it would be dealt with by the Magistrates, but this is the fact of the matter.

 

[LateThanNever]

An authority is either quotable, quoted attributable and available, or it has no authority because it is apocryphal and mysterious.

I would have thought that sums up the privatised railway enforcement criterion in a sentence!

 

[185]

Given the number of card types that do not actually work in Northern (and others) TVMs, where the cardholder has sufficient funds, card-only could never be an enforceable, compulsory point of purchase. I am aware the problem lies with Northern's transaction handler, which may or may not be Streamline Merchant Services.

-- I am not referring to Electron, but many Lloyds, Halifax and other conventional visa debit cards.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Quite simply, they passed an opportunity to pay - which they have said they could have done but didnt want to, so they quite simply fell foul of the rules.

I know its not an opinion most of you share but that doesnt surprise me one little bit.

After all its all about lining the fat cat pockets of Serco isnt it and we cant have that. Maybe those who say that the OP is in the right would like to club together and pay for them to take it to court so we can get a proper judgement on this sort of issue so that we are all clear?

Time to put your money where your mouths are chaps and chapesses.

I think that the pertinent point here is that until anyone is prosecuted, either successfully or unsuccessfully, for passing a card only TVM and not paying, then we only have interpretations and local customs to go on. There is not, in these instances, a 'correct' answer to be found.

This is the actual position:I have given my assessment of how it would be dealt with by the Magistrates, but this is the fact of the matter.

That's not the view of senior people ATOC.

Whether any of us think that further action is or isn't justified and I'm not saying that I think it should or shouldn't be, IF action were to be taken, the reality is that the only opinion that will matter would be that of the Court.
.

 

[Clip]

Edit: I note Peter Twigg appears to have now left ATOC, so maybe someone could ask someone at ATOC for clarification

Well you appear to know those very senior at ATOC so why don't you ask them yourself?

That's not the view of senior people ATOC.

It may not be their view but it is mine - rightly or wrongly.

Cuccir, Dave and Fare-cop I would also agree with on this matter. Its a very, very grey matter here and one that really can only be decided by either ATOC or a magistrate giving a very clear ruling on it.

 

[maniacmartin]

Given the number of card types that do not actually work in Northern (and others) TVMs, where the cardholder has sufficient funds, card-only could never be an enforceable, compulsory point of purchase. I am aware the problem lies with Northern's transaction handler, which may or may not be Streamline Merchant Services.

-- I am not referring to Electron, but many Lloyds, Halifax and other conventional visa debit cards.

I've had rejections from American Express cards too

 

[Harpers Tate]

I seem to recall, though stand to be corrected, that there is (or was?) only one legal tender for the settlement of debt and that's cash. Anything else is optional (on both parties, I presume).

 

[yorkie]

I seem to recall, though stand to be corrected, that there is (or was?) only one legal tender for the settlement of debt and that's cash. Anything else is optional (on both parties, I presume).

Legal tender isn't relevant for paying for a National Rail journey, what matters is the advertise payment methods. The OP had a valid payment method (cash) which he wished to use.

It's not clear whether or not the OP held any other valid payment method* but I don't think it's relevant (others disagree and will continue to disagree, but while that's their right, it doesn't make them right!).

(* It can be inferred that he owns a bank card but not necessarily he had it with him at the time nor whether it held sufficient funds, but in any case there is no requirement to use a bank card).

 

[Deerfold]

I seem to recall, though stand to be corrected, that there is (or was?) only one legal tender for the settlement of debt and that's cash. Anything else is optional (on both parties, I presume).

I don't think legal tender means what you think it means:

http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines

Only certain types of cash - and only certain types of debt!

 

[Clip]

Legal tender isn't relevant for paying for a National Rail journey, what matters is the advertise payment methods

Quite, but in the page you quote it states

Self-service ticket machines at National Rail stations will accept a more limited range of payment

So does the fact that some machines accept a limited range of payment methods mean that they have passed the first opportunity to purchase a ticket?

I know you will never ever agree with me on this but you are putting up webpages to justify something so I am only pointing out that NRE even agrees that at places there is a limited range of payments so if you have a card then surely you must purchase one?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't think legal tender means what you think it means:

http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines

Only certain types of cash - and only certain types of debt!

and only certain amounts in certain coins too. Used to get some funny looks from people who thought they could off load their copper jar to pay for a ticket to town and they get told no!

 

[Deerfold]

and only certain amounts in certain coins too. Used to get some funny looks from people who thought they could off load their copper jar to pay for a ticket to town and they get told no!

That's also irrelevant to what's legal tender - that's an organisation's policy on what denominations to accept.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's also irrelevant to what's legal tender - that's an organisation's policy on what denominations to accept.

Legal tender is relevant for the settlement of a debt in a Court. However, in practice, if payment has been offered and refused for a service already taken in legal tender, a Court case for non-payment would likely fail.

So, if you pay when you board the bus, legal tender is irrelevant because the service can be refused if payment is not made in the manner desirable to the bus company. However, if you board, take a seat, the bus moves off and the conductor comes round, a debt has been incurred because travel has been made. Therefore it effectively (see above) becomes relevant.

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

I am only pointing out that NRE even agrees that at places there is a limited range of payments so if you have a card then surely you must purchase one?

That's a more interesting point.

Northern *could* (provided their franchise agreement doesn't prohibit them from doing so) say that payment from unstaffed station X is only available from the ticket machine by credit/debit card, and that you may not board the train at station X without first buying a ticket. So if you wish to use cash you must buy from elsewhere beforehand. That's effectively what TfL have done with buses.

What is less clear is whether that rule could be applied based on what you happen to have or not have in your wallet. So if cash is accepted, cash must surely be accepted regardless of whether you have something other than cash with you?

You might have a card but no balance in your bank account, for instance?

Neil

 

[Clip]

That's also irrelevant to what's legal tender - that's an organisation's policy on what denominations to accept.

No it isn't its in the link you actually posted - did you read it?

50p - for any amount not exceeding £10

25p (Crown) - for any amount not exceeding £10

20p - for any amount not exceeding £10

10p - for any amount not exceeding £5

5p - for any amount not exceeding £5

2p - for any amount not exceeding 20p

1p - for any amount not exceeding 20p

That's a more interesting point.

Northern *could* (provided their franchise agreement doesn't prohibit them from doing so) say that payment from unstaffed station X is only available from the ticket machine by credit/debit card, and that you may not board the train at station X without first buying a ticket. So if you wish to use cash you must buy from elsewhere beforehand. That's effectively what TfL have done with buses.

What is less clear is whether that rule could be applied based on what you happen to have or not have in your wallet. So if cash is accepted, cash must surely be accepted regardless of whether you have something other than cash with you?

You might have a card but no balance in your bank account, for instance?

Neil

Indeed that's my train of thought on the matter. Of course if you had no cash on your card and could prove it by it being declined then they would have to accept your cash.

As I said before its a grey area especially as the faithful font of knowledge states that some may have reduced payment capacity then surely whatever it does take is a chance to pay should you have that means.

 

[bb21]

No it isn't its in the link you actually posted - did you read it?

I think he meant the situation is irrelevant to the issue of legal tender (presumably on the assumption that the offer of payment was before boarding), not whether off-loading a jar of coppers is considered legal tender (after incurring the debt).

I suppose it all depends on when the transaction took place. If already onboard and after the commencement of the journey, then yes it is a question over legal tender. If not and in advance of travel at a ticket office, then it is not a question of legal tender the way I understand it.

 

[Deerfold]

No it isn't its in the link you actually posted - did you read it?

I did read it. The point is that deciding what coinage to accept for a ticket has nothing to do with what's legal tender - all the values you've quoted are what's acceptable for the settlement of a debt through a court.

To quote from the document:

It does not mean that any ordinary transaction has to take place in legal tender

The 25p is legal tender but you'd have no obligation to accept it from someone wanting to buy a ticket.

 

[LuSiVe]

You might have a card but no balance in your bank account, for instance?

Neil

I carry cards that I don't know the PIN for because they are only used for purchases over the internet. Surely there's no way to force me to use one of those?

 

[Clip]

I did read it. The point is that deciding what coinage to accept for a ticket has nothing to do with what's legal tender - all the values you've quoted are what's acceptable for the settlement of a debt through a court.

To quote from the document:



The 25p is legal tender but you'd have no obligation to accept it from someone wanting to buy a ticket.

I Must be reading it wrong then because it clearly states

Coins are legal tender throughout the United Kingdom for the following amount:

And mentions nothing about it being legal tender through settlement of a debt through court.

another way to spin this is to look at it another way. As posters say that cash is the be all and end all for purchasing a ticket - what if I had cash and card but specifically wanted to use the card - for rewards or such like but not cash - are you saying that from my choice of not wanting to use cash does not constitute an opportunity to pay? Or is it because I refused to pay by cash then I should suffer the consequences of ticketless travel?

 

[Deerfold]

I Must be reading it wrong then because it clearly states



And mentions nothing about it being legal tender through settlement of a debt through court.

I'll quote a bit more then:

Legal Tender Guidelines

Legal tender has a very narrow and technical meaning in the settlement of debts. It means that a debtor cannot successfully be sued for non-payment if he pays into court in legal tender. It does not mean that any ordinary transaction has to take place in legal tender or only within the amount denominated by the legislation.

another way to spin this is to look at it another way. As posters say that cash is the be all and end all for purchasing a ticket - what if I had cash and card but specifically wanted to use the card - for rewards or such like but not cash - are you saying that from my choice of not wanting to use cash does not constitute an opportunity to pay? Or is it because I refused to pay by cash then I should suffer the consequences of ticketless travel?

I am saying that talking about "legal tender" is an irrelevance.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think legal tender means what you think it means:

http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines

Only certain types of cash - and only certain types of debt!

Though if refused in payment of a debt (and once you've boarded and the train has started moving there is a debt) it is unlikely a Court would enforce payment.

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

Indeed that's my train of thought on the matter. Of course if you had no cash on your card and could prove it by it being declined then they would have to accept your cash.

Now what if your bank would pay the transaction (as on-board a train there may not be mobile signal to perform an authorisation) and charge you a hefty overdraft fee?

It's all way too complicated, which is why I say the railway needs to have a blanket rule on the matter of what payment methods may be used for a walk-up journey, and give the passenger choice of those methods. Like seat reservations it barely matters what it is so long as it is clearly stated and consistent.

And that rule, whatever it is, should be clearly stated on a poster at EVERY station.

Neil

 

[Deerfold]

Though if refused in payment of a debt (and once you've boarded and the train has started moving there is a debt) it is unlikely a Court would enforce payment.

Neil

If you're using normal levels of normal currency, I'm sure that's true. But it's nothing to do with "legal tender".

 

[PermitToTravel]

I did read it. The point is that deciding what coinage to accept for a ticket has nothing to do with what's legal tender - all the values you've quoted are what's acceptable for the settlement of a debt through a court.

To quote from the document:



The 25p is legal tender but you'd have no obligation to accept it from someone wanting to buy a ticket.

But a train guard would?

 

[Deerfold]

But a train guard would?

No.

Talking about legal tender is a red herring.

 

[Merseysider]

But a train guard would?

I doubt it, as they don't actually state 25p on them

 

[Tetchytyke]

Indeed that's my train of thought on the matter. Of course if you had no cash on your card and could prove it by it being declined then they would have to accept your cash.

A card being declined doesn't prove there is no available funds and a card being accepted doesn't prove there is available funds. My bank will allow debit cards transactions through and treat it as an application for an "unauthorised overdraft", charging me £30+interest for the privilege. Similarly use of a credit card involves creating a debt with a third party and, again, interest is payable on that debt. If the TOC is adamant that I pay with a credit card then they can also pay the 17.9% APR interest.

You're essentially trying to argue that the rules are based entirely on what's hypothetically in someone's wallet when they board a train. You're not, I notice, trying to claim that someone who only carried cash would be breaking the law by walking past a card-only TVM.

Deerfold is entirely correct about legal tender. It has a very strict definition, relating the settlement of debts at a court in England or Wales. Retailers are entitled to accept whatever methods of payment that they want- London Buses don't have to accept cash, and are able to choose not to, for this very reason. I could rock up at a car garage and want to buy a Ferrari in 2p pieces, and it's entirely up to them if they'll accept it or not. Nothing to do with legal tender at all.

Talk of legal tender is misleading. The point is that TOCs have made a commitment, in the TSA, that they will accept cash as a payment method. It isn't "we'll accept cash sometimes, if it's convenient, but only if you don't have a Visa". The "first opportunity to pay" is the first machine or ticket seller who will take the cash.

This whole conversation is why I asked London Midland for clarification. It'd only take one RPI with a ridiculous attitude like this one and it'd be a byelaws prosecution.

 

[najaB]

Now what if your bank would pay the transaction (as on-board a train there may not be mobile signal to perform an authorisation) and charge you a hefty overdraft fee?

That's why I don't think a TOC could compel a passenger to use a card to pay for their ticket - unless they are also willing to pay any overdraft fees that the passenger incurs.

It's also an interesting point raised above by LuSiVe: what if the passenger doesn't know the PIN for the card, they might only use the card for contactless payments.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No.

Talking about legal tender is a red herring.

It's not, because if a member of traincrew refused payment in legal tender in the specified amounts a court case would almost certainly fail. So while they don't have force in the sense some are suggesting, the guidelines *are* used by courts in determining if payment was reasonably offered and refused by the organisation bringing the lawsuit.

The ticket office or machine can refuse what they like because no debt exists at that point.

Neil

 

[MikeWh]

what if the passenger doesn't know the PIN for the card, they might only use the card for contactless payments.

In fairness you need the PIN for contactless payments otherwise you'd hit the ceiling and not be able to use it. Online transactions only is a good reason though, particularly if the card has a low credit limit. In fact I might try that myself. It's one thing to say that you'll get the money back if fraud occurs, but even better if the card limits the scope for fraud in the first place.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I see the words "compel" and "force" are being used in respect of a method of payment. This is misleading language, as the true meaning carries no more force or compulsion that follows from a passenger's free choice in seeking to travel by train and thereby binding themselves to a contract in which they make themselves obligated to pay the fare due; and in this case the passenger was in possession of two means of payment.
What is significant about the incident is that they did not pay. But despite that failure, I find nothing in johntea's contribution to this thread to suggest that any 'force' or 'compulsion' was experienced, in fact he was allowed to leave without paying at all and was simply asked to provide his contact details. I'd say that was in sharp contrast with 'force' or 'compulsion'.

This is not the use of "compel" or "force" we see in general speech, and certainly not in Contract Law.

 

[najaB]

This is not the use of "compel" or "force" we see in general speech, and certainly not in Contract Law.

This is, of course, true in johntea's case however I believe the discussion has moved from the specifics of his case to the general principles that may or may not apply in similar, though hypothetical, cases.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

This is, of course, true in johntea's case however I believe the discussion has moved from the specifics of his case to the general principles that may or may not apply in similar, though hypothetical, cases.

Even in those 'hypotetical' scenarios, we have to apply the concepts of 'compulsion' and 'force' in the context of a person who willingly chooses to enter into a contract for which their payment is a binding condition. How are we to make sense of 'compulsion' and 'force' in respect of payment when the person has chosen to travel by a paid-for service?