Severity of railway ticketing laws compared to other laws

[Antman]

Clearly they are not, but that does preclude other offences being committed.

Such as?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The original point was that somebody mistakenly travelling on an invalid ticket is no more guilty of wrong doing than GWR were for mistakenly not allowing somebody to travel with a valid ticket.

I am unfamiliar with guilt having an element of degree. It's a binary decision.

There is a previously adopted offence (in legislation or in Common Law) of which persons may commit. When so, a Court may find Guilt. We refer to intentional fare evasion as fraud. That is an offence in Statute and in Common Law). A person can be found guilty of the offence or not.

Where a person employed by GWR mistakenly refuses a ticket holding passenger from boarding, no evidence of a fraud is created. Not even a sliver of evidence which might lead a Court considering a Fraud to find Guilt. The Company could not be found Guilty.

Dave was quite clearly objecting to your repeated description of this as fraud.

Accidentally losing the ticket which specifies the terms of the agreed contract is not a Fraud.

Such as?

A range of potential violations, perhaps the most obvious is a Railway Byelaw offence of failing to provide that ticket when requested.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Well that's a bit a mute point, either they are guilty of fraudulent travel or they are not.

are you muting him ? or suggesting that the point is one of semantics with regards to exactly what defintion of fraud is being used

 

[Antman]

are you muting him ? or suggesting that the point is one of semantics with regards to exactly what defintion of fraud is being used

It's obvious what point I'm making, either somebody is travelling fraudulently or they're not.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

It's obvious what point I'm making, either somebody is travelling fraudulently or they're not.

given that typos can get one an infraction on here , my obviously jocular point over the confusion of some not quite homophones has been missed ...

go back to your flask of weak Lemon drink ....

 

[MikeWh]

It's obvious what point I'm making, either somebody is travelling fraudulently or they're not.

Your point may have been more obvious if you called it moot.

 

[Antman]

given that typos can get one an infraction on here , my obviously jocular point over the confusion of some not quite homophones has been missed ...

go back to your flask of weak Lemon drink ....

Maybe if used the caps lock appropriately your posts would make more sense, just a thought!

 

[6Gman]

Well that's a bit a mute point, either they are guilty of fraudulent travel or they are not.

If it were a mute point how would we hear it?

 

[Deerfold]

Maybe if used the caps lock appropriately your posts would make more sense, just a thought!

As he's commenting on your spelling mistake, the words kettle, pot and black spring to mind.

It doesn't help that you've missed the word "you" out of this post and should have had a semicolon instead of your final comma.

 

[exile]

If train company X sells you a £100 ticket when you actually only need a £50 ticket, or sells you a ticket to replace one it claims is invalid and is in fact valid, this is "mis-selling", if deliberate. However if it's the result of poor training etc, no offence will have been committed and the company will be obliged to do nothing more than compensate the customer appropriately. Meanwhile the passenger, if he buys the wrong ticket through ignorance or error, may be judged to have committed an offence. This is what the OP is alluding to. If an unpaid fare was treated as an ordinary debt, to be recovered in the usual way, as it is for unpaid rent etc, the playing field would be rather more level.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's obvious what point I'm making, either somebody is travelling fraudulently or they're not.

Very true, but inadvertently doing so is not fraud. Fraud is defined as "obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception". You can't deceive someone unwittingly.

It would be fraud to use a fake ticket with the intention of passing it off as a real one. It wouldn't be fraud to board a train having genuinely forgotten to purchase one, for example because you normally hold a season ticket but on this occasion it has expired, but it would be a Byelaw offence. Nor would it be fraud to board a train having deliberately decided not to purchase a ticket, as you are not deceiving anyone by doing it - but that would be both a RoRA and Byelaw offence.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If an unpaid fare was treated as an ordinary debt, to be recovered in the usual way, as it is for unpaid rent etc, the playing field would be rather more level.

I think there is a fairly strong argument for it to be treated that way - basically the same as failure to pay for parking on private land or where decriminalised.

 

[radamfi]

Has anyone been given a criminal record after losing their ticket?

 

[AnonymousUser1]

V<snip>
I think there is a fairly strong argument for it to be treated that way - basically the same as failure to pay for parking on private land or where decriminalised.

be careful what you wish for ...

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/d...fs-fees-and-charges/fees-bailiffs-can-charge/

310 gbp is the minimum extra charge that 'private ' debts incur when enforced as few cartifcated bailiffs will send a compliance letter without attempting to illegally enter your property in very short order ... and there are numerous anecdoatal reportso f the enforcemernt vists taking place before / in the absence of a compiance letter, although of course you will be charged for the compliance letter under the Interpretations Act provisions for postal service .

 

[AlterEgo]

Has anyone been given a criminal record after losing their ticket?

I doubt it, because simply losing your ticket (byelaw, failing to show a ticket) is different to evading the fare (RoRA).

A byelaw conviction is a non-recordable offence.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

be careful what you wish for ...

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/d...fs-fees-and-charges/fees-bailiffs-can-charge/

310 gbp is the minimum extra charge that 'private ' debts incur when enforced as few cartifcated bailiffs will send a compliance letter without attempting to illegally enter your property in very short order ... and there are numerous anecdoatal reportso f the enforcemernt vists taking place before / in the absence of a compiance letter, although of course you will be charged for the compliance letter under the Interpretations Act provisions for postal service .

But a bailiff will only call at your house if the debt has gone to the County Court and the defendant loses. In most (but not all) cases, the reason it goes to court is a failure for the debtor to engage with the creditor. I have little sympathy for those people, and I speak as having in the past had debt problems, long since resolved.

 

[radamfi]

I doubt it, because simply losing your ticket (byelaw, failing to show a ticket) is different to evading the fare (RoRA).

A byelaw conviction is a non-recordable offence.

But anyone could say they have "lost" their ticket, so how are people who have genuinely lost their ticket distinguished from people trying it on?

 

[AnonymousUser1]

I doubt it, because simply losing your ticket (byelaw, failing to show a ticket) is different to evading the fare (RoRA).

A byelaw conviction is a non-recordable offence.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


But a bailiff will only call at your house if the debt has gone to the County Court and the defendant loses. In most (but not all) cases, the reason it goes to court is a failure for the debtor to engage with the creditor. I have little sympathy for those people, and I speak as having in the past had debt problems, long since resolved.

and you think that the TOCs won;t puish this through as fast as possible , no doubt using fake (i.e. in house) legal firms and possibly even an in house ./ in group bailiff firm ...

Local authorities move to Bailiffs within days of council tax payments being missed and once the process has started the 310 gbp is payable.

you only need look at the feedback given about Equita and Rossendales and their 'robust' ways of working ... ever wondered why these massivefirms aren;t the ones featured in the fly on the wall shows vs soem more niche operators ?

 

[AlterEgo]

and you think that the TOCs won;t puish this through as fast as possible , no doubt using fake (i.e. in house) legal firms and possibly even an in house ./ in group bailiff firm ...

Local authorities move to Bailiffs within days of council tax payments being missed and once the process has started the 310 gbp is payable.

you only need look at the feedback given about Equita and Rossendales and their 'robust' ways of working ... ever wondered why these massivefirms aren;t the ones featured in the fly on the wall shows vs soem more niche operators ?

Some TOCs are quite litigious. But I doubt any of them would be daft enough to go to court without some period of trying to engage with the debtor over the matter.

The difference with council tax vs the proposition being discussed here is that not paying council tax is a criminal offence rather than simply a civil debt.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Some TOCs are quite litigious. But I doubt any of them would be daft enough to go to court without some period of trying to engage with the debtor over the matter.

The difference with council tax vs the proposition being discussed here is that not paying council tax is a criminal offence rather than simply a civil debt.

yet 99.99 &% of council tax enforcement is civil

and as it standard a liot of the fares related stuff is currently a criminal matter and therfore requires proof to the criminal standard of proof rather than civil .

 

[Phil.]

But anyone could say they have "lost" their ticket, so how are people who have genuinely lost their ticket distinguished from people trying it on?

"How much did you pay for your ticket"?
"What sort of ticket was it"?
"How did you pay for your ticket"?
"Did you buy it at the ticket office or a machine"?

Just some of the lost ticket questions that were asked by T.T.I.s to establish the veracity of a story.

 

[Antman]

Some TOCs are quite litigious. But I doubt any of them would be daft enough to go to court without some period of trying to engage with the debtor over the matter.

The difference with council tax vs the proposition being discussed here is that not paying council tax is a criminal offence rather than simply a civil debt.

Non payment of council tax is not a criminal offence.

 

[radamfi]

"How much did you pay for your ticket"?
"What sort of ticket was it"?
"How did you pay for your ticket"?
"Did you buy it at the ticket office or a machine"?

Just some of the lost ticket questions that were asked by T.T.I.s to establish the veracity of a story.

Does that mean that paying by card makes you immune from prosecution, because the transaction will appear on a statement?

 

[AlterEgo]

Non payment of council tax is not a criminal offence.

I should be specific - neglecting to pay.

 

[Stigy]

Does that mean that paying by card makes you immune from prosecution, because the transaction will appear on a statement?

No, because you couldn't produce the ticket itself, which you are obliged to. The thinking behind this is that anybody could be using the ticket that one says he or she has "lost" or cannot produce.

Staff may not be able to easily prove an offence of fare evasion for a lost ticket, but Railway Byelaw 18(2) would most definitely apply. Bank Statement or no Bank Statement.

 

[Phil.]

Does that mean that paying by card makes you immune from prosecution, because the transaction will appear on a statement?

Sorry, late reply. No, because there's nothing to stop the ticket purchased being handed over to someone else. You tended to rely on gut instinct and experience to pick up the non-genuine cases.

 

[radamfi]

Sorry, late reply. No, because there's nothing to stop the ticket purchased being handed over to someone else. You tended to rely on gut instinct and experience to pick up the non-genuine cases.

So a genuinely lost ticket could mean a criminal record?

 

[A Challenge]

So a genuinely lost ticket could mean a criminal record?

The key word here is COULD, it is very unlikely that they would prosecute, and you would hope the TOC wouldn't.

 

[najaB]

So a genuinely lost ticket could mean a criminal record?

Could, but it requires a number of stars to align:

1. The ticketless passenger needs to be detected - we've seen many posts on the forum about how lax revenue protection can be.
2. The guard/RPI would need to not believe the passenger - again, we've probably all seen examples of people being given the benefit of the doubt.
3. The TOC's prosecutions team would need to see sufficent grounds for going for a RoRA rather than a Byelaw prosecution
4. The passenger would either have to not engage with the TOC, or do a very poor job of convincing them to drop the prosecution.
5. The magistrate would need to be convinced that the evidence presented demonstrated intent to avoid payment.

Because of all of this, while it isn't impossible, it is highly unlikely that a completely innocent person who lost their ticket would end up with a record.

 

[Antman]

So a genuinely lost ticket could mean a criminal record?

I'm not sure how you draw a line over lost tickets? Anybody could travel without paying and if challenged claim to have lost their ticket.

 

[radamfi]

Sounds like there is still a risk of a criminal record if you travel by train. Even if it's unlikely, it is a very severe punishment and therefore an unacceptable risk. Anyone could have their ticket pickpocketted.

If we had mobile phone tickets for all walk on journeys, and thus were linked to someone's account and could only be used by that person, would you then have protection from prosecution if you lost the phone?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Could, but it requires a number of stars to align:

1. The ticketless passenger needs to be detected - we've seen many posts on the forum about how lax revenue protection can be.
2. The guard/RPI would need to not believe the passenger - again, we've probably all seen examples of people being given the benefit of the doubt.
3. The TOC's prosecutions team would need to see sufficent grounds for going for a RoRA rather than a Byelaw prosecution
4. The passenger would either have to not engage with the TOC, or do a very poor job of convincing them to drop the prosecution.
5. The magistrate would need to be convinced that the evidence presented demonstrated intent to avoid payment.

Because of all of this, while it isn't impossible, it is highly unlikely that a completely innocent person who lost their ticket would end up with a record.

You should add another to your list of alingned 'stars' : -
A Prosecutor would have to provide evidence to the much higher standard of proof required for a Criminal conviction than the standard of a civil matter (which many on here seem to prefer if they were to re-write the reules) - the standard of 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.

So a genuinely lost ticket could mean a criminal record?

. . . . . Anyone could have their ticket pickpocketted.

'genuinely loosing a ticket' is NOT evidence 'beyond all reasonable doubt' of an intent to avoid paying the fare. No where near it.

An I can't begin to think of what rules must apply in this alternative universe
in which 'having their ticket pickpocketed' is evidence beyond all reasonable doubt of an intent to avoid paying the fare.

I had failed to find any instance of a passenger who had lost their ticket being convicted of a recordable offence, but I did ask on here in case any of the professionals working in the industry had any knowledge or experience of such a conviction. One forum menber helpfully replied. They HAD personally been aware of 'at least two' such instances. But then they added 'if you believe them', which seems to imply that it was not in fact a known that they had 'lost their ticket' at all. (and there was no reference to the parties, dates, courts, penalties, etc.of those incidents). You asked avery similar question yourself on 28th October:

Has anyone been given a criminal record after losing their ticket?

and you received no answer.