some bloke
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 1,561
5(1) is also irrelevant, because he gave his name and address.
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).
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).The court cannot take into account any mitigating circumstances...ignorance is not an acceptable excuse to break a bylaw (which he did).
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.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.
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.A penalty fare is applicable where there's an honest mistake.
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?
(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;
Thank you. How about the other part - was he required "by or on behalf of an operator, [to] produce a valid travel ticket"?That's already covered:
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.The Court could go either way on this
Thank you. How about the other part - was he required "by or on behalf of an operator, [to] produce a valid travel ticket"?
Please see the context of the statement,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.
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.A penalty fare is applicable where there's an honest mistake.
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".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.
I think you might be reading too much into a very limited statement. What was stated in the OP was:JimmyC reports the ticket seller as suggesting honesty is a valid ground of appeal.
Note that 'as you are being honest' doesn't mean the same thing as 'because you are being honest'.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.
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?'as you are being honest' doesn't mean the same thing as 'because you are being honest'.
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.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?
there are compelling reasons why, in the particular circumstances of the case, the appellant should not be liable to pay the penalty fare.
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.If the collector had truly believed the OP was not attempting to evade a fare, then they ought not to have issued the penalty.
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.Being honest in your actions (i.e. not trying to deliberately evade your fare) is necessary for you to make an earnest appeal
Which is exactly what I said...But not for a valid one!
You said it wasn't sufficient. I'm saying it isn't necessary.Which is exactly what I said...
It is for an earnest appeal. It isn't for a bad faith one.You said it wasn't sufficient. I'm saying it isn't necessary.
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.It is for an earnest appeal. It isn't for a bad faith one.
Not really, since it appears that he didn't follow the appeals process all the way through.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.
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.Not really, since it appears that he didn't follow the appeals process all the way through.
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.
And if a Penalty Fare is issued and appealed then you can refuse to pay it and suffer no consequences