South Western Train accuses fare evasion

[iris123]

I live in London and do not regularly use SWT but this weekend was taking an overnight trip to visit a friend in Feltham.
I arrived at Waterloo Saturday late afternoon (23/06) and purchased from the ticket machine an adult return ticket to Feltham for £12.90.
When I returned to Waterloo the following afternoon (24/06) my ticket was rejected from the machine at the gate. I went over to show my ticket to the person at the gate where he told me my ticket was not valid.
I was completely shocked and said what do you mean, I purchased a return ticket? He said that was for yesterday, this is an anytime day return, you don't have a valid ticket and then he called his manager over to deal with me.
Until then I had absolutely no idea that I had purchased a ticket where the return journey had to be used on the same day. I guess it seems obvious in hindsight and I should have checked the dates on my tickets but I have traveled on other UK railways where that service is called same day which is very clear but anytime is a bit ambiguous, it seems to imply that you don't have to worry about peak or off peak (to me). No sense arguing that I guess, the point is when I boarded the train I was entirely confident I had paid the full and correct fare. I thought I had selected the only adult return fare available, there was absolutely no intention to dodge a fare or try to pay less.
I explained to the manager (unsure of correct title) my situation, that I had made an honest and innocent mistake. He insisted that I did not have a valid ticket and said he was issuing me with a £20 fine. I was dumbfounded by this and by the way I was being treated so I said something along the lines of no that's not fair you can clearly see I purchased a return ticket yesterday. So he said right I need your name and address and D.O.B. I was still shocked that nobody seemed to be seeing sense and I was being treated like a criminal. So I said you're being unreasonable this is stupid. To which he said I have witnesses, you're calling me names, you refuse to give me your details, I'm calling the police. And then he said I no longer had the option of paying the penalty fare that I was being charged with breaking two bye laws.
A police woman came over and she was off duty and seemed a bit put out and mentioned to me that she had missed her train because of this. So I explained to her that I had made an innocent mistake and she asked if I was visiting (I'm from NZ) and I said no that I had been living in London for six years. She said I seemed like an intelligent young woman and you would think I could have figured out how the fare systems work after being here six years. Which seems to me to be an entirely rude and unnecessary comment.
I gave my details to the Manager, he made a call to verify my address, took down the details of the ticket I'd paid for, and advised I would receive a letter/summons within eight weeks.
I'm wondering if there's any action that would be advisable to take before the letter arrives?
I'm applying for my right of abode visa in January and would be devastated if this ridiculous affair led to prosecution and affected my visa application in any way.

 

[ian959]

Pretty much sit tight and wait until the letter from SWT arrives. In the mean time, write down the circumstances of the events as clearly as you remember them so that when the letter does arrive, you have something to refer to when giving your version of events.

You should be given a chance to explain your version of events before they decide to go to prosecution although your actions in calling the RPI unreasonable and stupid is probably not going to help you too much.

 

[antharro]

In hindsight, it's easy to say that you should've just paid the £20 and considered the matter closed. Looking at it from a black/white perspective, you had an incorrect ticket, you were caught, offered a £20 fine but because you argued the matter has now escalated.

Depending on how SWT choose to proceed, there's a chance you will be offered an opportunity to explain yourself in writing. I would take the opportunity, explain it was an honest mistake and that you would be happy to pay a reasonable amount in restitution - perhaps the price of the ticket you should have had and any fine they request. Assuming this hasn't happened before, they'll more than likely settle out of court with no further action taken. Send any correspondence by Recorded Delivery to be sure it arrives safely.

I'd pay the costs and put it down to experience.

For a journey similar to yours (out on one day, returning the next day), the National Rail website offers two Anytime (no restrictions or peak/offpeak) singles at £6.60 each. Booking the journey for a same day return offers an Anytime fare at £12.90.

I'm sure others will be along shortly to correct any incorrect information I've provided here!

 

[Urban Gateline]

Firstly, could you confirm the dates you gave as Saturday is 22/06/13 and the following day is Sunday 23/06/13 unlike the dates you have provided.

Feltham is within the London Fare Zones 1-6, you cannot purchase an "open" return between London and Feltham, and the Anytime Day Return you purchased does exactly what it says, you can go and return at ANY TIME on that day only (and up till 04:29 the next day) So I am not sure where you got the impression from of being able to return another day. It clearly says on the ticket "valid from" and "valid until" and that date will be the same for both.

Also, on the day of the incident, how did you get through Feltham Station ticket barriers? They are normally manned full time and would reject your out of date ticket so any decent Gateline Assistant would not have granted you access to the platforms.

You will have been referred to a Revenue Protection Assistant or Inspector at Waterloo, with whom it sounds like you would have been better off co-operating promptly rather than making a scene.

Penalty fares, as has been mentioned countless times on this Forum, are for genuine mistakes so it would have been perfectly reasonable for the RPI to issue one under the above circumstances. However the RPI may also report for prosecution, which is what it looks like has happened, that you were reported under the Railway Byelaws, most likely for not being able to produce a valid ticket when requested.

This is the less serious form of prosecution, which carries a fine but no criminal record. However your best bet may be to wait for the letter from SWT to arrive to see what it says, it may also be worth writing up your version of events whilst they are still fresh in your mind.

Sorry but I would be inclined to agree with the Police woman, after 6 years of Living in London you should know that only Day Returns are available for short Journeys especially within the London Fare zones, you could have purchased a Z1-6 Travelcard which would have covered unlimited trips to and from London and Feltham on the day of issue for £8.90.

 

[jb]

In my view this is one of those situation where the system tends to fall down a bit.

What should happen here is that the OP should be allowed to accept a PF after a cooling-off period. What seems to happen is that, owing to a very short period of "argument" at the time, the matter is escalated to report for prosecution and (probably) dispose of the matter for a sum somewhat in excess of the PF. It depends on exactly what was said, of course, but it looks as though "any wrong move" in this situation automatically leads to escalation, which seems pretty unfair.

On the basis of what we know above, the PF was entirely appropriate, but any escalation probably not. Nonetheless there seems nothing further to do than wait for the letter and get your account down straight as soon as possible. There would seem to be next to zero chance of getting this thrown out altogether, you're in damage limitation territory right now.

Whether the OP should have known about the fares structure etc. is pretty irrelevant. The PF was probably correct. If you were thinking of including the policewoman in your account of events, I'd strongly recommend leaving her out.

 

[455driver]

The PF was probably correct.

No probably about it, the PF was entirely appropriate in that situation, the OP refused it and so it has gone on to the next stage.

Why didnt the OP "see sense" instead of pushing the (irrelevant) point about having an invalid return ticket?

If you were thinking of including the policewoman in your account of events, I'd strongly recommend leaving her out.

Why?
Leaving large bits of relevant information out will make the OPs statement look suspicious, if she leaves this out (as it is not in her favour to include it) will only raise suspicion about what else has been left out, the RPI/RPA will have made a note of the PCs number and the PC will have made notes/submitted a statement of facts anyway.

 

[jb]

the OP refused it and so it has gone on to the next stage.

Well yes, the question concerns how quickly this escalation happens. My suspicion (and that is all it is) is that the escalation from PF to report for prosecution happens considerably more readily than it should.

The offence is either deemed to be resolvable via a PF or it isn't. Yes, before all the "that's technically not quite right" sorts jump right in, this itself is a matter of discretion and the offence could have been reported for prosecution from the outset. But the point is that it wasn't.

I get the impression that some RPIs feel that, having made the initial decision to discharge this via a PF, they still have the punitive card up their sleeve of escalating to report for prosecution "if they get too much trouble". Which is ********.

Why didnt the OP "see sense" instead of pushing the (irrelevant) point about having an invalid return ticket?

It's a question of how hard they pushed - which would in my view need to be MUCH harder than outlined above to make the escalation seem reasonable. There is a point at which the RPI can reasonably give up. I am guessing that, whilst the OP may well have downplayed how hard they pushed (it's only natural), that they still didn't push anywhere near hard enough.

Why? Leaving large bits of relevant information out will make the OPs statement look suspicious, if she leaves this out (as it is not in her favour to include it) will only raise suspicion about what else has been left out, the RPI/RPA will have made a note of the PCs number and the PC will have made notes/submitted a statement of facts anyway.

It should be left out because, as the incident has been described to us, it's irrelevant. It's got nothing to do whether it's "in her favour".

 

[CNash]

No probably about it, the PF was entirely appropriate in that situation, the OP refused it and so it has gone on to the next stage.

Why didn't the OP "see sense" instead of pushing the (irrelevant) point about having an invalid return ticket?

Because a lot of passengers don't understand that a Penalty Fare is not a "fine", merely a penalty for an innocent mistake, and this is often not adequately communicated to them. The seriousness of being referred for prosecution (let alone that there are two potentially applicable statutes, and it's sometimes pot luck as to which one the TOC will choose to prosecute under) is similarly unclear. I agree with jb; a "cooling off" period would help to prevent unnecessary escalation... but it would probably end up making the TOCs a lot less money.

 

[6Gman]

I'm sorry if I'm taking this off-topic but is there really no return ticket for people travelling out one day and returning the next?

 

[iris123]

I paid SWT £12.90 when I now know I should have paid them £13.20 - we are talking about 30 pence. A completely innocent mistake. I wasn't trying to save 30p. I saw ADULT and RETURN and made the selection not realising I had to return on the same day. I made a mistake by not checking the dates on my tickets. I will not do that again. I will also not travel with SWT again.
I don't feel my return ticket was irrelevant, it was proof that I had paid £12.90 and my intentions were not to dodge a fare. I was acting entirely in good faith but had made an innocent error.
It escalated extremely quickly and their behavior was extremely bullying.
It's clear I can't do anything until the letter arrives which is what I wanted to find out, so thanks for your feedback.

 

[MichaelAMW]

Because a lot of passengers don't understand that a Penalty Fare is not a "fine", merely a penalty for an innocent mistake, and this is often not adequately communicated to them. The seriousness of being referred for prosecution (let alone that there are two potentially applicable statutes, and it's sometimes pot luck as to which one the TOC will choose to prosecute under) is similarly unclear. I agree with jb; a "cooling off" period would help to prevent unnecessary escalation... but it would probably end up making the TOCs a lot less money.

I have to say that I feel you and JB have both made an excellent point there. As it stands and is advertised, and I suspect intended by the DfT when they sanction these these things, the lowest level of response should be the PF. I would even say the "spirit" of the PF is to replace byelaw prosecutions and make it all a bit more proportional. However, that means the RPI should - and when I say should I mean the punter has a right to expect this - explain that the PF is merely a penalty aimed at persuading people to get it right. Fines and accusations etc are the next level up. Certainly, as you've said, the idea that *any* mild response of objection or questionning should suddenly take it to that next level is excessive.

Having read your remarks and, by chance, happening to have seen a PF poster today I am inclined towards the idea that the TOC has a duty to explore the PF route thoroughly. I can't see that the DfT allow the use of PFs exclusively for the benefit of the TOC: I have always assumed that it's the alternative to prosecution and it is almost *required* to be used in the relevant circumstances.

By the way, I know perfectly well I'm not giving the letter of the law here, just saying what I feel is the right response to the passenger such that she/he has a bit of protection against the minority of RPIs who seem to try heavy handed threatening behaviour.

 

[Yew]

I'm sorry if I'm taking this off-topic but is there really no return ticket for people travelling out one day and returning the next?

Nope. And some routes don't even have a 30 day return fare.

 

[Stigy]

However the RPI may also report for prosecution, which is what it looks like has happened, that you were reported under the Railway Byelaws, most likely for not being able to produce a valid ticket when requested.

This is the less serious form of prosecution, which carries a fine but no criminal record. However your best bet may be to wait for the letter from SWT to arrive to see what it says, it may also be worth writing up your version of events whilst they are still fresh in your mind.

The RPA/RPI has obviously reported the OP, however, it's not up to them how it is proceeded with. For example, it may be a Byelaw offence that can be proved, or it might be the more serious Regulation of Railways Act 1889. We won't know unless the OP supplies us with more details, such as what questions were asked, did she supply her correct details initially etc etc. I would say it sounds more like a Byelaw if anything, I agree.

Also, not sure about the behaviour part, in that the RPA/I seemed to base their decision largely on Iris' comments. Simply calling the staff member stupid for choosing to issue a Penalty Fare won't constitute a case under Byelaw 6. However swearing at the staff member or in general, depending on what words are used, in what context and how loudly probably would. As well as what gestures and body language was used.

Best bet is to wait and see what SWT's letter says. It would also help if we understood exactly what Iris said in terms of bad language, if there was any. SWT would obviously be less inclined to settle the matter administratively if Iris abused a staff member, or if they have been told she did at least.

 

[Urban Gateline]

I'm sorry if I'm taking this off-topic but is there really no return ticket for people travelling out one day and returning the next?

Correct, certainly for Journeys of such a short nature such as this one, it's maximum 30mins!

Period or "open" returns mainly exist for long distance Journeys where people tend to stay a few days at places rather than just doing a day trip. I understand they were removed for shorter Journeys as people were abusing them, ie. re-using the return part of such a return when it had already been used but not marked!

Besides, one can use an Oyster card to pay much cheaper singles each way without being restricted to time and dates for this Journey, this would have been a much better choice for the OP. As I am sure with the 6 years of living in London they have heard of an Oyster card and are able to look up it's validity online or simply a London Zonal map at a Station!

 

[Stigy]

I have to say that I feel you and JB have both made an excellent point there. As it stands and is advertised, and I suspect intended by the DfT when they sanction these these things, the lowest level of response should be the PF. I would even say the "spirit" of the PF is to replace byelaw prosecutions and make it all a bit more proportional. However, that means the RPI should - and when I say should I mean the punter has a right to expect this - explain that the PF is merely a penalty aimed at persuading people to get it right. Fines and accusations etc are the next level up. Certainly, as you've said, the idea that *any* mild response of objection or questionning should suddenly take it to that next level is excessive.

Having read your remarks and, by chance, happening to have seen a PF poster today I am inclined towards the idea that the TOC has a duty to explore the PF route thoroughly. I can't see that the DfT allow the use of PFs exclusively for the benefit of the TOC: I have always assumed that it's the alternative to prosecution and it is almost *required* to be used in the relevant circumstances.

By the way, I know perfectly well I'm not giving the letter of the law here, just saying what I feel is the right response to the passenger such that she/he has a bit of protection against the minority of RPIs who seem to try heavy handed threatening behaviour.

You are right that PFs are there to keep Byelaw ticketing issues out of court, and are meant as a deterant. However, staff do not HAVE to issue a PF in the first instance. Morally, I agree with you though, in that they should be used in such cases.

 

[MikeWh]

Sorry but I would be inclined to agree with the Police woman, after 6 years of Living in London you should know that only Day Returns are available for short Journeys especially within the London Fare zones...

Why?

It is entirely possible that someone can live in London and not use trains at all (or so infrequently that they don't understand the nuances of the ticketing system) for 6 years. I have lived in London for over 50 years and only recenly went on a Thames Clipper for the first time. There are probably several tourist attractions that many 'locals' never go to/on because it's on your doorstep. I've done quite a few, but many only in the last ten years with my kids. You wouldn't think twice about believing a politician who said they never use a bus, so why is it so hard to believe that a mere mortal might not use trains?

 

[Urban Gateline]

Why?

It is entirely possible that someone can live in London and not use trains at all (or so infrequently that they don't understand the nuances of the ticketing system) for 6 years. I have lived in London for over 50 years and only recenly went on a Thames Clipper for the first time. There are probably several tourist attractions that many 'locals' never go to/on because it's on your doorstep. I've done quite a few, but many only in the last ten years with my kids. You wouldn't think twice about believing a politician who said they never use a bus, so why is it so hard to believe that a mere mortal might not use trains?

Even assuming what you say is true for the OP, ignorance is not a defence. It clearly states the Valid "from" and "until" dates on the ticket, and if that is not enough information, it is an "Anytime DAY Return".

 

[SWT_USER]

Firstly, could you confirm the dates you gave as Saturday is 22/06/13 and the following day is Sunday 23/06/13 unlike the dates you have provided.

Feltham is within the London Fare Zones 1-6, you cannot purchase an "open" return between London and Feltham, and the Anytime Day Return you purchased does exactly what it says, you can go and return at ANY TIME on that day only (and up till 04:29 the next day) So I am not sure where you got the impression from of being able to return another day. It clearly says on the ticket "valid from" and "valid until" and that date will be the same for both.

Also, on the day of the incident, how did you get through Feltham Station ticket barriers? They are normally manned full time and would reject your out of date ticket so any decent Gateline Assistant would not have granted you access to the platforms.

You will have been referred to a Revenue Protection Assistant or Inspector at Waterloo, with whom it sounds like you would have been better off co-operating promptly rather than making a scene.

Penalty fares, as has been mentioned countless times on this Forum, are for genuine mistakes so it would have been perfectly reasonable for the RPI to issue one under the above circumstances. However the RPI may also report for prosecution, which is what it looks like has happened, that you were reported under the Railway Byelaws, most likely for not being able to produce a valid ticket when requested.

This is the less serious form of prosecution, which carries a fine but no criminal record. However your best bet may be to wait for the letter from SWT to arrive to see what it says, it may also be worth writing up your version of events whilst they are still fresh in your mind.

Sorry but I would be inclined to agree with the Police woman, after 6 years of Living in London you should know that only Day Returns are available for short Journeys especially within the London Fare zones, you could have purchased a Z1-6 Travelcard which would have covered unlimited trips to and from London and Feltham on the day of issue for £8.90.

No chance. Seen them left open at all hours on many visits

 

[iris123]

Urban Gateline
I have heard of an oyster card I travel on the Underground daily. I incorrectly assumed that I couldn't use my Oyster on SWT so I went and purchased a return ticket from the ticket machine. I don't think it's ludicrous I was not aware I could use my Oyster card, it's not heavily advertised and I don't know if I've ever traveled on SWT prior to this. Anyway, it pretty irrelevant.

 

[MikeWh]

Even assuming what you say is true for the OP, ignorance is not a defence. It clearly states the Valid "from" and "until" dates on the ticket, and if that is not enough information, it is an "Anytime DAY Return".

Just to be clear, I am not saying that it is. I'm expressing disbelief at how some posters on here can't understand how absolutely everyone must know all about trains.

 

[34D]

No probably about it, the PF was entirely appropriate in that situation, the OP refused it and so it has gone on to the next stage.

Why didnt the OP "see sense" instead of pushing the (irrelevant) point about having an invalid return ticket

You know the system. The OP doesn't. Protesting and being on the defensive is an entirely natural and appropriate reaction.

Would you know correctly how to deal with the scenario where a private security guard comes up to you in the mall and demands to look in your bag (for example)?

 

[RPI]

With respect to the OP, the name "ANYTIME DAY RETURN" written across the ticket would suggest that it is a day return, along with the "Valid until" date also displayed on the ticket, sometimes people need to take a little bit of responsibility for their own actions. We only have one side of the story here and if the OP was awkward then i'm not surprised that it was esculated to an MG11.

 

[Olympian]

But maybe they genuinely thought that ANYTIME DAY RETURN meant that it was a return valid at "Any time (of) day", rather than it was an anytime return only valid for one day...

 

[Mojo]

Besides, one can use an Oyster card to pay much cheaper singles each way without being restricted to time and dates for this Journey, this would have been a much better choice for the OP. As I am sure with the 6 years of living in London they have heard of an Oyster card and are able to look up it's validity online or simply a London Zonal map at a Station!

Furthermore, unlike many flows across the network, this is one of the journeys whereby a customer is not penalised for wishing to return on a second day, as two singles are equal to the price of the Day return.

 

[Urban Gateline]

But maybe they genuinely thought that ANYTIME DAY RETURN meant that it was a return valid at "Any time (of) day", rather than it was an anytime return only valid for one day...

As mentioned several times already, it says the "Valid from" and "Valid until" date on it, which makes it perfectly clear that it is only valid for travel on that specific day and up to 04:29 the day after.

 

[Squaddie]

As mentioned several times already, it says the "Valid from" and "Valid until" date on it, which makes it perfectly clear that it is only valid for travel on that specific day and up to 04:29 the day after.

Where is that made "perfectly clear"? Wouldn't most people, if they looked at the date at all, assume that the ticket was valid until midnight on the "Valid until" date?

I don't think I even look at the date on a ticket unless it's an Advance.

 

[Eagle]

Furthermore, unlike many flows across the network, this is one of the journeys whereby a customer is not penalised for wishing to return on a second day, as two singles are equal to the price of the Day return.

Actually not quite equal, the standard day return is £12.90 and two standard singles are £13.20. (First class they are both £19.80.) But that's still a lot less than the differential between day returns and open returns elsewhere.

 

[island]

As the OP chose to use a ticket which indicated its validity was "on date shown" and the date shown was not the date on which he tried to use it, he has committed a criminal offence. The staff member proceeded with the usual way of disposing of such a matter where a passenger has made a genuine mistake, which is to issue a Penalty Fare. However, as the OP chose not to cooperate with the issuance, the matter has been reported for consideration of prosecution instead.

It may still be possible to avoid the offence being prosecuted, and while we have previously seen a TOC issue an "after the event" £20 PF, it was a one-off.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Where is that made "perfectly clear"? Wouldn't most people, if they looked at the date at all, assume that the ticket was valid until midnight on the "Valid until" date?

I don't see an issue with this as it's benefiting the customer.

 

[455driver]

Would you know correctly how to deal with the scenario where a private security guard comes up to you in the mall and demands to look in your bag (for example)?

I would ask if (s)he had the authority to look in my bag without my permission, and if they did have the authority what legislation gives them that authority!
At no stage would I raise my voice, get personal or abusive, once you go down that route you are on a hiding to nowhere.

I can be a cantankerous old git when the mood takes me.

 

[steamybrian]

Actually not quite equal, the standard day return is £12.90 and two standard singles are £13.20. (First class they are both £19.80.) But that's still a lot less than the differential between day returns and open returns elsewhere.

Nothing to do with me but for what I can gather -- all this for 30p.
I wonder what the court would make of this..