Sean Lock fined £770 for travelling in 1st with standard ticke

[soil]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lass-train-carriage-just-standard-ticket.html

Comedian Sean Lock is fined £770 for refusing to pay penalty when caught sitting in first class train carriage with just a standard ticket

- Lock was found in a first-class seat on a Victoria-Littlehampton train
- But he could only produce a standard class ticket, court heard
- He then refused to pay for a first-class ticket when asked by an inspector
- Today is fifth time case was listed after summons sent to his old address
- Comedian convicted in his absence at Tower Bridge Magistrates' Court

Award-winning comedian Sean Lock was hit with a £770 bill today for travelling in a first-class train carriage without a valid ticket.

Lock, 49, was found in a first-class seat on a Victoria-Littlehampton train and could only produce a standard class ticket.

The 2000 British Comedy Award winner refused to pay for a first-class ticket when approached by an inspector on the train near East Croydon, Tower Bridge Magistrates' Court was told.

Prosecutor Danny Butler said: ‘On the 6th April 2012, Sean Lock was spoken to on a Victoria-Littlehampton service near East Croydon...

Apparently he lives in Lewes, so presumably he was travelling there, as it was a Littlehampton train, albeit that he was questioned near East Croydon.

Southern's first class fares are admirably logical here:

http://brfares.com/#fares?orig=VIC&dest=LWS&rlc=

with a simple 50% surcharge for 1st, so the difference would have been around £13.

 

[northwichcat]

The Daily Mail headline is wrong :roll: He was ordered to pay £770 in total by a court, which would have included other sums including legal costs.

The article also suggests he sat in someone else's reserved seat. So did he refuse to move when asked? A victim surcharge of £50 is mentioned.

 

[soil]

The Daily Mail headline is wrong :roll: He was ordered to pay £770 in total by a court, which would have included other sums including legal costs.

Eh, it makes clear in the body of the article the fine, costs and victim surcharge. They can't write all that in the headline.

As far as the passenger is concerned it's a fine of £770, because that's what he's paying.

The article also suggests he sat in someone else's reserved seat. So did he refuse to move when asked? A victim surcharge of £50 is mentioned.

No it doesn't say that, it says he "was found guilty of occupying a reserved seat without valid ticket - a railway byelaw - in his absence."

So this is clearly a conviction under Byelaw 19:

19. Classes of accommodation, reserved seats and sleeping berths

Except with permission from an authorised person, no person shall remain in
any seat, berth or any part of a train where a notice indicates that it is
reserved for a specified ticket holder or holders of tickets of a specific class,
except the holder of a valid ticket entitling him to be in that particular place.

First class is reserved for holders of first class tickets. (Southern don't do seat reservations.)

Straightforward enough....

The victim surcharge goes on the whole, to various women's and hate crime charities: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...72762/vic-witness-general-fund-awards.pdf.pdf It is set, by law, at 10% of the fine, which in this case was £500 (the maximum is I believe £1000 for byelaw offences generally).

The £220 costs I presume go to cover a portion of Southern's costs in prosecuting the case - essentially they do not make money from these prosecutions, but probably feel that the news coverage in these sort of cases is well worth it.

 

[Ferret]

Fined in his absence - so that likely means in other words that he couldn't be arsed to attend Court. No wonder the total cost to him was £770!

 

[northwichcat]

Eh, it makes clear in the body of the article the fine, costs and victim surcharge. They can't write all that in the headline.

The last line breaks down the cost. The headline should say something like "Court orders Sean Lock to pay £770 after sitting in first class train carriage with just a standard ticket"
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Fined in his absence - so that likely means in other words that he couldn't be arsed to attend Court. No wonder the total cost to him was £770!

Don't most accused fare evaders fail to appear in court?

 

[Mugby]

This has made my day.

Hopefully this fine will be as unfunny to him as his pathetic attempts at comedy are to the rest of us!

 

[bnm]

This has made my day.

Hopefully this fine will be as unfunny to him as his pathetic attempts at comedy are to the rest of us!

Thanks for speaking on my behalf. :roll:

I'm one of the 'rest of us' and disagree. very funny bloke.

 

[MikeWh]

The last line breaks down the cost. The headline should say something like "Court orders Sean Lock to pay £770 after sitting in first class train carriage with just a standard ticket"

Eh? How big would the front page of the sun have to be to put all that in 2" high letters? The headline is supposed to be short and snappy to reel you into reading the article.

 

[northwichcat]

Eh? How big would the front page of the sun have to be to put all that in 2" high letters? The headline is supposed to be short and snappy to reel you into reading the article.

The proposed headline I gave is shorter than the one on the original link which is a 4 line headline.

 

[gazzak]

Thanks for speaking on my behalf. :roll:

I'm one of the 'rest of us' and disagree. very funny bloke.

Seconded.

 

[tony6499]

In the article it said he refused to answer the correspondence sent to him so maybe this is why it was quite a high fine. I would imagine he was sent the standard charge letter first which is why it escalated so much.

 

[transmanche]

In the article it said he refused to answer the correspondence sent to him so maybe this is why it was quite a high fine. I would imagine he was sent the standard charge letter first which is why it escalated so much.

It didn't say he "refused" to answer correspondence at all.

It did, however, say that the summons was sent to his old address. I also note that he's been on a UK tour since the date of the alleged offence (and so may not even have been home since then).

 

[tony6499]

It didn't say he "refused" to answer correspondence at all.

It did, however, say that the summons was sent to his old address. I also note that he's been on a UK tour since the date of the alleged offence (and so may not even have been home since then).

Did in the paper I read, said he ignored correspondence but if he moved then that is the reason

 

[transmanche]

Did in the paper I read, said he ignored correspondence but if he moved then that is the reason

Ah well, you said "In the article it said he refused to answer the correspondence". Perhaps it would've been better if you had made it clear that you weren't referring to the article linked by the OP... :roll:

 

[Oswyntail]

It didn't say he "refused" to answer correspondence at all.

It did, however, say that the summons was sent to his old address. I also note that he's been on a UK tour since the date of the alleged offence (and so may not even have been home since then).

And when he is on tour he has no arrangements for handling his mail? Let's hope he has no tax trouble (like Mr Carr), parking fines, warnings about unpaid gas bills. Or is he as daft as he makes out? (Count me on the side of non-fans)

 

[Flamingo]

First thing he's done that made me laugh!

 

[455driver]

First thing he's done that made me laugh!

We need a like button on here!

 

[richw]

I didn't even know who he was until I clicked on the article

 

[jon0844]

Before you read on, I must declare that I haven't read the article, but from what I've read on here, I do wonder what it really has to do with the railway in terms of news.

The real story seems to be; Someone got a penalty for doing something wrong, ignored letters (possibly from changing address, possibly from being abroad), got it escalated to court, didn't turn up, got a really heavy punishment in his absence, is now moaning.

The same thing that might happen for ANY court appearance, whether for unpaid parking tickets, speeding offences etc. Sadly, ignoring the paperwork for a genuine reason looks just like showing contempt - how does anyone know the difference?

So, it's really not a story unless you want people to think that the TOC got that money and this was the 'cost' of being caught in the wrong class. And I suppose most of them will and be outraged and say it's typical of a privatised railway run by jobsworths.

 

[sheff1]

I didn't even know who he was until I clicked on the article

I'm glad I'm not the only one. I did wonder why the name of the person was included in the thread title

 

[transmanche]

Someone [...] is now moaning.

There's no suggestion that he's moaning about it at all.

 

[jon0844]

There's no suggestion that he's moaning about it at all.

So what was the story about then?!! Who told the media about this story - or was it just some junior reporter monitoring the court logs looking for something of interest?

 

[SS4]

If he refused to pay he got what was coming to him. I'm quite surprised the Mail ran with it, it's not their usual angle

 

[crispy1978]

Good high level publicity to drum it in to people's heads that fare evasion is not permitted. If it makes a handful of people think about trying to fare-dodge, then it's purpose has been served.

 

[jon0844]

But we all know that probably wasn't the intention of this story!

 

[tony6499]

Good high level publicity to drum it in to people's heads that fare evasion is not permitted. If it makes a handful of people think about trying to fare-dodge, then it's purpose has been served.

I bet the TOC's are very happy with the free publicity

 

[transmanche]

So what was the story about then?!! Who told the media about this story - or was it just some junior reporter monitoring the court logs looking for something of interest?

An opportunity to mock someone in the public eye...

 

[johnnychips]

He is relatively famous and done something wrong. That's what bulks up papers these days.

 

[broadgage]

Seems about right to me, the offence was neither trviial, nor very serious, and a fine of £500 plus costs seems about right.

I wonder WHY he refused to pay at the time ?

 

[Antman]

Fined in his absence - so that likely means in other words that he couldn't be arsed to attend Court. No wonder the total cost to him was £770!

He didn't have to attend.

Must say I've never heard of him