• 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!

Sorry - Another Northern Rail court summons

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

sportzbar

Member
Joined
11 May 2014
Messages
140
It is a factor that may point towards such non-intent, but not the only factor a court might choose to take into account. Much as the railway would like it to be this simple, the reality may be much more

But it is this simple in this case. The court cannot take into account any mitigating circumstances when the OP by his own admittance walked past the ticket machine. He cannot use the excuse that he didn't know he had to by a ticket from it. It has been set as a precedent that ignorance is not an acceptable excuse to break a bylaw (which he did).
 

furlong

Established Member
Joined
28 Mar 2013
Messages
3,475
Location
Reading
But it is this simple in this case. The court cannot take into account any mitigating circumstances when the OP by his own admittance walked past the ticket machine. He cannot use the excuse that he didn't know he had to by a ticket from it. It has been set as a precedent that ignorance is not an acceptable excuse to break a bylaw (which he did).

Apples and oranges. You were previously discussing 'intent' i.e. RORA offences. Correctly or otherwise, conventional consideration of the byelaws does not involve explicit discussion of intent but merely the presence of (available) facilities.
 

some bloke

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2017
Messages
1,561
The court cannot take into account any mitigating circumstances...ignorance is not an acceptable excuse to break a bylaw (which he did).
After a Penalty Fare appeal decision, a byelaw prosecution - like a prosecution under RoRA 5(3) - is barred by the Penalty Fare Regulations, 11(3) with 11(4).
 
Last edited:

some bloke

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2017
Messages
1,561
It's possible that this whole mess started with a ticket clerk misleading JimmyC, or there being a misunderstanding, about the basis of a penalty fare:
Thy guy apologised that he had to issue me with a £20 fine and said to appeal it as he could tell I was being honest.
A penalty fare is applicable where there's an honest mistake. So if the ground for appeal was that you didn't intend to avoid a fare, that was not a valid reason for your appeal to succeed.

There's a question in my mind about whether the Pen Fare Regs really cover (in reg. 4) the case where someone voluntarily goes up to a ticket office and asks to buy a ticket, rather than being "required" to show a valid ticket. When exactly did the clerk require him to show a ticket, after he said he hadn't got one?

Also, does it cover cases where the person is not "leaving" a train, and not in or "leaving" a compulsory ticket area, but later, in the public area, free to walk out?

So on a technical basis, perhaps the PF wasn't correctly issued.

But the main thing now is the possibility of prosecution, and if there was a formal penalty fare appeal decision, it isn't clear what the company can do about that.
 

furlong

Established Member
Joined
28 Mar 2013
Messages
3,475
Location
Reading
A penalty fare is applicable where there's an honest mistake.
No. A penalty fare is applicable when the criteria specified in the regulations are met. That's it. This nonsense about "honest mistake" does not and never has meant anything. Even people deliberately trying to dodge their fare might consider they made an "honest mistake" - avoid using the phrase as it causes confusion and may give people false hope. The old rules claimed to protect "honest passengers" but that language (and many of the protections) got swept away in the last set of major reforms.
 

furlong

Established Member
Joined
28 Mar 2013
Messages
3,475
Location
Reading
Also, does it cover cases where the person is not "leaving" a train, and not in or "leaving" a compulsory ticket area, but later, in the public area, free to walk out?

That's already covered:
(b) any reference to a person leaving a train includes a person present in or leaving—
(i) a station, having left a train arriving at that station;
 

some bloke

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2017
Messages
1,561
[perhaps off topic, at least for now]
That's already covered:
Thank you. How about the other part - was he required "by or on behalf of an operator, [to] produce a valid travel ticket"?

[I realise that if not, this could be used by people in other circumstances to avoid a penalty fare by asking to pay]
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
6,024
Location
West Wiltshire
The part that weakens Northern’s case is the Op appears to make the journey regularly and there is usually a conductor selling tickets.

You cannot normally be both in a penalty fares area AND the norm is to sell tickets on the train.

The problem is by doing this selling, (and might have even sold to someone sitting next to you) is rather inconsistent with what they advertise, so you could reasonably presume the advertised procedure is either wrong or superseded.

My guess is there are other stations without ticket issuing facilities and conductor is failing to complete the issuing (regularly) before entering the penalty fares zone and your boarding station. That suggests there is a problem with ticket selling capacity on that line that is unresolved.

The Court could go either way on this as Op is in wrong, and Northern appear to be encouraging his behaviour.
 

some bloke

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2017
Messages
1,561
The Court could go either way on this
I'm not clear what offence a court could consider, which isn't barred by a Penalty Fares appeal decision, or inapplicable because he gave his name and address.
 

furlong

Established Member
Joined
28 Mar 2013
Messages
3,475
Location
Reading
Thank you. How about the other part - was he required "by or on behalf of an operator, [to] produce a valid travel ticket"?

Until the OP returns and provides the actual timeline we're all requesting, we don't know if that's relevant. It would seem pretty bizarre for someone to actually issue a Penalty Fare without first actually asking to see a valid ticket and one not being shown, as it's a very obvious primary requirement.
 

some bloke

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2017
Messages
1,561
No. A penalty fare is applicable when the criteria specified in the regulations are met. That's it. This nonsense about "honest mistake" does not and never has meant anything. Even people deliberately trying to dodge their fare might consider they made an "honest mistake" - avoid using the phrase as it causes confusion and may give people false hope. The old rules claimed to protect "honest passengers" but that language (and many of the protections) got swept away in the last set of major reforms.
Please see the context of the statement,
A penalty fare is applicable where there's an honest mistake.
The context is of JimmyC thinking that if he didn't intend to avoid a fare, he has a valid ground for appeal. I'm not saying that honesty is the criterion for a PF, but that a PF is applicable where there's an honest mistake.

JimmyC reports the ticket seller as suggesting honesty is a valid ground of appeal. That would wrongly imply that a PF isn't applicable if there's an honest mistake.
 
Last edited:

some bloke

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2017
Messages
1,561
Until the OP returns and provides the actual timeline we're all requesting, we don't know if that's relevant. It would seem pretty bizarre for someone to actually issue a Penalty Fare without first actually asking to see a valid ticket and one not being shown, as it's a very obvious primary requirement.
It would be odd if JimmyC went up to the Leeds counter and said "I'd like to buy a ticket from x to y, as I didn't have time to buy at x", then the seller said "Please produce a ticket from x to Leeds".

I can't immediately think of a plausible sequence of events that would result in the seller fulfilling the criterion of asking JimmyC for a valid ticket. I wonder if this is a loophole in the Regulations with wider implications.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
JimmyC reports the ticket seller as suggesting honesty is a valid ground of appeal.
I think you might be reading too much into a very limited statement. What was stated in the OP was:
Thy guy apologised that he had to issue me with a £20 fine and said to appeal it as he could tell I was being honest.
Note that 'as you are being honest' doesn't mean the same thing as 'because you are being honest'.
 

furlong

Established Member
Joined
28 Mar 2013
Messages
3,475
Location
Reading
Whether a mistake was honest or dishonest (however you choose to define those terms) has no bearing on the validity and enforceability of a Penalty Fare.

In the case of Penalty Fares, no intent to avoid a fare needs to be shown - that was one of the core reasons they were introduced. Intent not to pay is inferred when you disregard the clear notices at the origin station stating that if you board a train without a ticket in specific circumstances a Penalty Fare may be imposed upon you. The burden of proof is reversed - you are deemed guilty of fare evasion by default, but in return for the low evidential standard, you pay a low penalty, avoid being taken to court and you don't get a criminal record.
 

some bloke

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2017
Messages
1,561
'as you are being honest' doesn't mean the same thing as 'because you are being honest'.
Perhaps I'm being dim, but I'm not sure what difference it makes. I'm still not clear what honesty has to do with a penalty fare appeal. If the seller wasn't saying an honest mistake was a valid ground for appeal (which is what JimmyC seems subsequently to have believed) then what was he saying?
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
Perhaps I'm being dim, but I'm not sure what difference it makes. I'm still not clear what honesty has to do with a penalty fare appeal. If the seller wasn't saying an honest mistake was a valid ground for appeal (which is what JimmyC seems subsequently to have believed) then what was he saying?
In mathematics/logic it's the difference between necessary and sufficient. Being honest in your actions (i.e. not trying to deliberately evade your fare) is necessary for you to make an earnest appeal, but it's not by itself sufficient for the appeal to be successful.

So it seems that to me at least that the ticket seller was encouraging the OP to lodge an appeal, if he could find grounds on which to base it.
 

furlong

Established Member
Joined
28 Mar 2013
Messages
3,475
Location
Reading
If the collector had truly believed the OP was not attempting to evade a fare, then they ought not to have issued the penalty.

Once it has been issued, apart from any non-compliance with the regulations, an appeal would need to fall under the category:
there are compelling reasons why, in the particular circumstances of the case, the appellant should not be liable to pay the penalty fare.

i.e. presumed guilty of fare evasion unless the appellant can provide "compelling reasons" that demonstrate otherwise
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
If the collector had truly believed the OP was not attempting to evade a fare, then they ought not to have issued the penalty.
If one presumes that the Penalty Fare was issued as an alternative to a RoRA prosecution, yes. But not if it was issued as an alternative to a Byelaw 18 prosecution - no requirement for intent in that case.
 

some bloke

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2017
Messages
1,561
Being honest in your actions (i.e. not trying to deliberately evade your fare) is necessary for you to make an earnest appeal
But not for a valid one! Even if you did deliberately attempt to avoid a fare, the signs might be absent or the PF for some other reason not in compliance with the regulations.

If the seller used the concept of "honesty" when he was talking about a penalty fare appeal, it wouldn't be surprising if JimmyC got the wrong idea, and - given a degree of stubbornness - failed to pay as a result.
 
Last edited:

Brissle Girl

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2018
Messages
2,481
I do wonder how much the last 30 posts or so have actually helped the OP in sorting out his situation, or are just an interesting debate between a few posters.
 

some bloke

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2017
Messages
1,561
It is for an earnest appeal. It isn't for a bad faith one.
The point is that the seller may have misled @JimmyC , or it may be understandable that @JimmyC got the wrong impression, about the basis of a penalty fare in light of the seller mentioning honesty.

Understanding this, if it applies, might help him. The fault may lie with the seller, rather than with the company or the penalty fare appeals body.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
Understanding this, if it applies, might help him. The fault may lie with the seller, rather than with the company or the penalty fare appeals body.
Not really, since it appears that he didn't follow the appeals process all the way through.
 

some bloke

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2017
Messages
1,561
Not really, since it appears that he didn't follow the appeals process all the way through.
I'm talking about the frustration he felt that, in his view, he shouldn't have to pay because he didn't try to avoid a fare.

It isn't clear that pursuing further appeals on the same ground would have made any difference.

I thought JimmyC might have been unreasonable, then I looked again and took in that the seller was talking about honesty in the context of penalty fare appeals.
 
Last edited:

Bertie the bus

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2014
Messages
2,781
Having read some of the comments on this thread which suggest if you are caught without a ticket there are 3 options open to the TOC:

1. Sell a ticket
2. Issue a Penalty Fare
3. Prosecute

And if a Penalty Fare is issued and appealed then you can refuse to pay it and suffer no consequences I was somewhat skeptical, so I’ve read the Penalty Fare legislation and was right to be skeptical.

The regulations state the company can’t prosecute providing:

The grounds on which an appeal under this regulation may be made are that—

(a) the penalty fare was not charged in accordance with the requirements of these Regulations;

(b) the appellant is not the person liable for the payment of the penalty fare;

(c) the appellant owns a season ticket valid for the journey in question but was not in possession of the season ticket at the time the penalty fare was charged; or

(d) there are compelling reasons why, in the particular circumstances of the case, the appellant should not be liable to pay the penalty fare.

There is no doubt a,b and c don’t apply in this case and based on the OP’s statements I can’t see how d could either. So unless I have missed something obvious Northern certainly can prosecute the OP for non-payment of the Penalty Fare, appeal or no appeal.
 

furlong

Established Member
Joined
28 Mar 2013
Messages
3,475
Location
Reading
And if a Penalty Fare is issued and appealed then you can refuse to pay it and suffer no consequences

The law expects the train company to take the civil route leading up to CCJ (with credit rating implications) and to send round the bailiffs - with their escalating fees that can become massive.

An appeal can be made on the grounds you quote - it doesn't have to be upheld.
 

Bertie the bus

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2014
Messages
2,781
The law doesn't expect that at all if the grounds for appeal are he would rather not pay it. He had no grounds for appeal, under the law as I quoted above, therefore the TOC is perfectly entitled under law to prosecute if he doesn't pay.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top