South Western Dispute - hoping for court!?

[simonw]

Given the frequency of trains from Guildford to Waterloo, what would be a reasonable time to expect a passenger to add to their journey in order to buy a ticket at Guildford

 

[Bertie the bus]

According to the original post they made absolutely no effort to purchase a ticket from Guildford or even check to see of there was a queue so how long should be allowed isn’t particularly relevant. They seem to be relying on the not missing a connection argument but there was no connection to miss as it wasn’t a valid route.

They should pay up. I wouldn’t want my day in court based on the facts presented here.

 

[gnolife]

According to the original post they made absolutely no effort to purchase a ticket from Guildford or even check to see of there was a queue so how long should be allowed isn’t particularly relevant. They seem to be relying on the not missing a connection argument but there was no connection to miss as it wasn’t a valid route.

They should pay up. I wouldn’t want my day in court based on the facts presented here.

I'd argue Condition 14.2, the right to use split tickets for a journey, invalidates any argument based on not a valid route.

 

[Ferguson]

It isn't an offence but it is the latest time for appealing against the issue of a PFN.

I wouldn't bank on it "ending the madness".

What I think you need to do is to write urgently to SWR, who you have received the letter from, explaining the situation and your desire to resolve the issue. You will need to explain the circumstances very clearly in doing that and you will have to pay the outstanding fares. Based on what you have told us, you may be able to successfully defend a charge if it goes to court but you will have to weigh up whether you would want to do that.

While it may sound insane, I'd rather go to court than give SWR £100 for a crime I didn't commit. I stubbornly despise unfair abuse of power and believe that the person I approached to purchase a ticket, and the company backing them are doing that.

According to the original post they made absolutely no effort to purchase a ticket from Guildford or even check to see of there was a queue so how long should be allowed isn’t particularly relevant. They seem to be relying on the not missing a connection argument but there was no connection to miss as it wasn’t a valid route.

They should pay up. I wouldn’t want my day in court based on the facts presented here.

I know Guildford Station well, I was fully aware that there wasn't enough time to get there and back. Plus, doesn't section 6 permit transit through connection stations in light of no ticket facilities at alighting station?

Why isn't it a valid route? The Reading - Redhill line doesn't go to London so a change is needed to get there, Guildford was my best option at the time...

 

[MrJeeves]

what would be a reasonable time to expect a passenger to add to their journey in order to buy a ticket at Guildford

0 minutes. You do not have to delay yourself to attempt to buy a ticket.

If you already had, say, 15 minutes, it would be unreasonable not to try to buy a ticket.

I'd argue Condition 14.2, the right to use split tickets for a journey, invalidates any argument based on not a valid route.

And everyone else in this thread other than Bertie seems to agree with you

Why isn't it a valid route? The Reading - Redhill line doesn't go to London so a change is needed to get there, Guildford was my best option at the time...

The routeing guide (a set of instructions and rules that dictate what routes are permitting between two stations) doesn't permit it.

If you tried to buy a ticket for that journey from any online retailer via Guildford, it will either offer you a combination of multiple tickets to cover the journey, or tell you that there are no journeys available.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Based on the PF being issued at 15:01, it looks like the OP was on the 14:16 arrival from Dorking West.

Leaving aside routeing rules for a moment, the next departure to Waterloo would have been at 14:19, below the minimum connection time of five minutes.

As such, arguably the OP should have made an effort to buy a ticket at Guildford, as the next valid connection would have been at 14:34.

 

[Ferguson]

Based on the PF being issued at 15:01, it looks like the OP was on the 14:16 arrival from Dorking West.

Leaving aside routeing rules for a moment, the next departure to Waterloo would have been at 14:19, below the minimum connection time of five minutes.

As such, arguably the OP should have made an effort to buy a ticket at Guildford, as the next valid connection would have been at 14:34.

So I should have missed the train and waited for the next one? Getting lost on this comment...

 

[sheff1]

Based on the PF being issued at 15:01, it looks like the OP was on the 14:16 arrival from Dorking West.

Leaving aside routeing rules for a moment, the next departure to Waterloo would have been at 14:19, below the minimum connection time of five minutes.

As such, arguably the OP should have made an effort to buy a ticket at Guildford, as the next valid connection would have been at 14:34.

The PF Regulations make no reference to "minimum connection time", just the time between leaving one train and boarding the next. Clearly if one arrived at 1416 the "next" train would be the 1419.

 

[Deafdoggie]

According to the original post they made absolutely no effort to purchase a ticket from Guildford or even check to see of there was a queue so how long should be allowed isn’t particularly relevant. They seem to be relying on the not missing a connection argument but there was no connection to miss as it wasn’t a valid route.

They should pay up. I wouldn’t want my day in court based on the facts presented here.

There is no obligation whatsoever ever to make an effort if there is insufficient time.

They should not just pay up, unless they have more money than sense. No sane, rational or reasonable person would.

 

[Snow1964]

According to the original post they made absolutely no effort to purchase a ticket from Guildford or even check to see of there was a queue so how long should be allowed isn’t particularly relevant. They seem to be relying on the not missing a connection argument but there was no connection to miss as it wasn’t a valid route.

They should pay up. I wouldn’t want my day in court based on the facts presented here.

Why should they pay up, the penalty fare was based on an unsubstantiated start point that is clearly different to the specified and (stated at the time) start point (which is station nearest the address given).

There will be no cctv showing op started at Guildford (even if it had been kept), so will be harder to prove started at Guildford than Dorking West where they lived. There might even be a voice recording by inspector with customer saying where they started and then there is further evidence that they wouldn't sign the document because it was incorrect.

About the only evidence the railway has is they arrived at Waterloo and asked to buy a ticket because of no facilities at start station, flimsy evidence at best.

 

[John R]

Why should they pay up, the penalty fare was based on an unsubstantiated start point that is clearly different to the specified and (stated at the time) start point (which is station nearest the address given).

The rationale is that they did not appeal within the required timeframe. And given the OP was given the Penalty Fare, there can be no mitigating fact that they weren't aware of it, the post was late, etc, etc. They just didn't bother to prioritise making the appeal. (And continued to be very lackadaisical in all the resulting follow up, which has clearly been to their considerable detriment.)

 

[Watershed]

The rationale is that they did not appeal within the required timeframe. And given the OP was given the Penalty Fare, there can be no mitigating fact that they weren't aware of it, the post was late, etc, etc. They just didn't bother to prioritise making the appeal. (And continued to be very lackadaisical in all the resulting follow up, which has clearly been to their considerable detriment.)

That doesn't mean that they are necessarily liable for a Penalty Fare that was inherently issued incorrectly and under circumstances where it was unwarranted.

 

[30907]

Why isn't it a valid route? The Reading - Redhill line doesn't go to London so a change is needed to get there, Guildford was my best option at the time...

The short answer is "because it isn't."
The long answer "because it is double the distance compared with the direct route changing at Deepdene/Dorking" and 50% further than the route you are familiar with via Redhill (which is the original route).
Fares in the SE are still broadly distance-based, and you aren't entitled to make a detour just because it happens to be faster at that moment.

 

[AlterEgo]

That doesn't mean that they are necessarily liable for a Penalty Fare that was inherently issued incorrectly and under circumstances where it was unwarranted.

It does mean they may be prosecuted though, as they have failed to appeal in the manner required by the Regulations. The connection time as per the timetable was more than sufficient to buy a ticket. That they got an earlier train under the minimum connection time potentially works against them here.

 

[Watershed]

It does mean they may be prosecuted though, as they have failed to appeal in the manner required by the Regulations. The connection time as per the timetable was more than sufficient to buy a ticket. That they got an earlier train under the minimum connection time potentially works against them here.

The Byelaws make no mention of connection times - the relevant defence (Byelaw 18(3)(i)) simply requires that:

there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey; or

The station where the OP began their journey was unambiguously Dorking West, regardless of how much time they did or didn't allow for changing at Guildford.

As for section 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, this of course requires intent to avoid payment of the fare - which I cannot see any evidence of here. Making a dash between trains doesn't show intent to avoid the fare, it just shows intent to make a quick journey.

 

[AlterEgo]

As for section 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, this of course requires intent to avoid payment of the fare - which I cannot see any evidence of here. Making a dash between trains doesn't show intent to avoid the fare, it just shows intent to make a quick journey.

I would not like to try that defence, to be honest.

 

[furlong]

I would not like to try that defence, to be honest.

It is the prosecutor who has to prove a (momentary) "intent" beyond reasonable doubt at the point in time they allege the offence occurred and I'm not aware of any case law that decided choosing not to miss a train you are able to catch to continue your journey may be construed as a manifestation of such - and such a conclusion would seem perverse to me (see also the NRCoT quoted earlier which makes this line of argument quite a challenge).

I think this one would be destined for a civil hearing to determine whether or not the penalty that was imposed is enforceable when it is alleged that it was not imposed in accordance with the regulations but the opportunity to use the appeals process was not taken. (My take would be it's a nullity if the regulations aren't followed.)

 

[AlbertBeale]

It is the prosecutor who has to prove a (momentary) "intent" beyond reasonable doubt at the point in time they allege the offence occurred and I'm not aware of any case law that decided choosing not to miss a train you are able to catch to continue your journey may be construed as a manifestation of such - and such a conclusion would seem perverse to me (see also the NRCoT quoted earlier which makes this line of argument quite a challenge).

I think this one would be destined for a civil hearing to determine whether or not the penalty that was imposed is enforceable when it is alleged that it was not imposed in accordance with the regulations but the opportunity to use the appeals process was not taken. (My take would be it's a nullity if the regulations aren't followed.)

But presumably a prosecution, as threatened, would not specifically relate to the unpaid penalty fare (giving the chance to argue as to its inherent validity), but - given that the PF option was not appealed in time - it would be a prosecution for the "original offence" of travelling without a ticket. To which there is a legal defence.

 

[island]

But presumably a prosecution, as threatened, would not specifically relate to the unpaid penalty fare (giving the chance to argue as to its inherent validity), but - given that the PF option was not appealed in time - it would be a prosecution for the "original offence" of travelling without a ticket. To which there is a legal defence.

As the actual fare appears to remain unpaid, a section 5 (3) Regulation of Railways Act prosecution would have a decent chance, though a byelaw prosecution would be doomed.

 

[Snow1964]

As the actual fare appears to remain unpaid, a section 5 (3) Regulation of Railways Act prosecution would have a decent chance, though a byelaw prosecution would be doomed.

Yes the railway rejected the buying the ticket at first available location that accepts cash.
Then they offered online payment (but only with a penalty amount included)
Very strong argument that they are making it impossible to pay the fare, which is why it is still currently unpaid.

Now I am not sure what happens now, but if the defendant turned up in court saying they won't take the money, and I'm still happy to hand it over and here it is, then would it be settled in the courthouse without a proceeding to a prosecution.

 

[island]

Yes the railway rejected the buying the ticket at first available location that accepts cash.
Then they offered online payment (but only with a penalty amount included)
Very strong argument that they are making it impossible to pay the fare, which is why it is still currently unpaid.

The passenger still has a duty to make a reasonable effort to pay the fare. The best way to do so would be by posting a cheque for the amount due. They could alternatively ask the TOC for bank details or an online payment link. Sitting on their hands may not be a wise strategy.

 

[Haywain]

But presumably a prosecution, as threatened, would not specifically relate to the unpaid penalty fare (giving the chance to argue as to its inherent validity), but - given that the PF option was not appealed in time - it would be a prosecution for the "original offence" of travelling without a ticket. To which there is a legal defence.

There maybe a legal defence but who, in their right mind, wants to go to court to try it?

 

[MotCO]

An appeal has to be made in the form required by the Appeal Procedure (which should be summarised on the Penalty Fare Notice.)

The 2018 Penalty Fare regulations require it to be submitted "before the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the day after the day on which the penalty fare is charged; or within such longer period as the relevant Appeal Panel may allow."

Does this imply that, if an appeal is not made, the Penalty Fare must be deemed to be correct, even though the evidence in this thread shows it is not?

 

[Ferguson]

New development... I went to the payment site outlined in the letter, entered by notice details and the next screen asked for payment of the fare itself (£16.90), rather than the penalty amount of £151.... I have paid the £16.90 as prompted and taken a screen shot. This is most unexpected and I'm not sure what to do next. Do I still need to write to them? The only payment option, as outlined in the letter, was for the ticket price, there was no possibility to pay the penalty amount. Do I take this as a silent win?

 

[nw1]

As for section 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, this of course requires intent to avoid payment of the fare - which I cannot see any evidence of here. Making a dash between trains doesn't show intent to avoid the fare, it just shows intent to make a quick journey.

And if the trains still leave from the same platforms they did in "my day" (some time ago now!) it would be a same-platform island switch from P6 to P5, lending support to catching the next Waterloo being an easy and common-sense thing for the average person to do, in the absence of any explicit statement in the byelaws requiring you to account for minimum connection time when considering whether to obtain a ticket at an intermediate station. It's not a dash in this case - just a leisurely stroll to the other track on the platform island.

In fact on those timings I wouldn't mind betting that the Waterloo service immediately follows the ex-Redhill through the Guildford tunnels.

IANAL of course, just applying what I would see as common-sense.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Does this imply that, if an appeal is not made, the Penalty Fare must be deemed to be correct, even though the evidence in this thread shows it is not?

Not necessarily, but it's grounds for the TOC to attempt recovery as a civil debt.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

New development... I went to the payment site outlined in the letter, entered by notice details and the next screen asked for payment of the fare itself (£16.90), rather than the penalty amount of £151.... I have paid the £16.90 as prompted and taken a screen shot. This is most unexpected and I'm not sure what to do next. Do I still need to write to them? The only payment option, as outlined in the letter, was for the ticket price, there was no possibility to pay the penalty amount. Do I take this as a silent win?

You have paid the outstanding fare so that's it. If you were only asked to pay £16.90 and you've paid it, that should be the end of the matter and yes, you have a "silent win" as the railway have probably realised their error (re issuing an incorrect penalty fare).

Don't write to them

 

[MotCO]

Has the train company realised their mistake and are now only looking for payment of the fare?

 

[Ferguson]

Has the train company realised their mistake and are now only looking for payment of the fare?

I sincerely hope so!! They haven't communicated that with me, but the portal they directed me to only allowed me to pay 16.90. Cautiously joyous about it!

 

[MikeWh]

Keep everything to do with the case in a safe place for at least 6 months, but it looks like common sense has prevailed.