Split ticket - Connecting train delayed - Court action (Sowerby Bridge - Birmingham journey)

[packermac]

Condition 9.4 says that if you miss your train because a connecting train is delayed you may travel on the next train provided by that train company. This is also confirmed internally to staff in the Advanced Fares FAQs which is in the Fares & Ticketing Guide section of this forum.

There is no requirement to only use an Advance ticket. Missing the train because of a delay to a connecting bus or car journey is not covered.

Thanks for that Hadders I would suggest for clarity (from someone who spent 41 years reading and writing contracts) that the next reissue, (whoever actually produces that) should include the words "whatever type of ticket you may have for the connecting service". Anything that leads to interpretation also leads to ambiguity, as no member of the public would know this has been clarified, and I suspect even if TIL do they choose to ignore it, from what I have seen on here.

 

[Hadders]

I agree but sadly the railway thrives on Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt plus a number of people who like to make up their own rules....

 

[infobleep]

Out of interest, if this goes to court and the OP presented evidence of other people buying new train tickets, could the judge order the train company to look into that or would the court only deal with the OP and nothing else?

 

[island]

That would be ruled out of order by the judge as irrelevant to the case at hand.

 

[talltim]

It isn't irrelevent tho. If they hadn't succeeded procecuting previous cases wrongly, then they might have stopped and not made this procecution.

 

[ainsworth74]

It isn't irrelevent tho. If they hadn't succeeded procecuting previous cases wrongly, then they might have stopped and not made this procecution.

It is irrelevant to the case in front of the magistrate at that time. What should or shouldn't have happened in other cases is irrelevant unless someone appealed a conviction and eventually it made it to a higher court where a precedent might have been established. Otherwise the magistrate is concerned with the law and facts of the case in front of them. As stated by @furlong earlier the people who should be doing something about cases like this are the DfT and ORR in their various regulatory roles. However, as I said at the time, they clearly don't care.

 

[Starmill]

Writing a large number of letters accusing people of crimes or unpaid debts and threatening prosecution or court action, and then promising to give people an easy way out if they pay £90 plus full fare is an absolutely marvellous way to make money. It well suits the train operator, the prosecutor and ultimately the Department to let this happen. Some forms of vexatious litigation can be exceptionally effective.

 

[PG]

Some forms of vexatious litigation can be exceptionally effective.

I note that the government website has a list of Vexatious Litigants which includes at least one limited company. It would seem, to my mind at least, that another limited company should be added to that list; though how that might come about I do not know.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I note that the government website has a list of Vexatious Litigants which includes at least one limited company. It would seem, to my mind at least, that another limited company should be added to that list; though how that might come about I do not know.

For the 'how', see https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...exatious-litigants-and-the-treasury-solicitor (Guidance Note: Vexatious Litigants and the Treasury Solicitor). But it wouldn't be easy (in the context suggested here, I suspect it would be impossible):

When a reasonable body of information has been obtained, and it is considered that a VL application would have good prospects of success, one of the Law Officers will then consider whether an application should be made.

They will look at:

the number and type of proceedings
the individual’s conduct and character displayed during those proceedings
the degree of hardship suffered by complainants
the likelihood of unmeritorious litigation continuing
It is important for those subject to vexatious litigation that they consider all remedies open to them and not assume that the Attorney General will find the overall conduct of the individual whether in the courts or tribunals to be vexatious. The overriding principle of fairness is applied by the Attorney General when balancing an individual’s right to bring proceedings, against the public interest when seeking an order that limits the individual’s access to the courts and/or tribunals.
(...)

The VL proceedings brought in the Divisional Court are heard before 2 High Court judges, one of whom will be a Lord Justice of Appeal. (...) The court or appeal tribunal will consider whether the litigant has habitually and persistently and without reasonable ground instituted proceedings/ applications and will look at the entire history (as available) of the subject’s conduct within the court/tribunal proceedings (see AG v Vernazza [1959] 1 W.L.R. 622).

And for an idea of the sort of level things have to get to for someone to be declared a vexatious litigant (or in this case to have the closely related civil restraint order issued against them), have a look at https://www.seddons.co.uk/our-thinking/vexatious-litigants-how-law-deals-people-whose-hobby-suing:

An example of such an order being extended is provided by the case of Ms Anal Sheikh. The background facts are set out in the judgment, and essentially flowed from a modest land transaction in which Ms Sheikh, then a solicitor, advanced money to her client. A dispute ensued which mushroomed out of all control, leading to litigation initiated by Ms Sheikh against both lawyers who had acted against her and judges who had found against her. In his judgment extending the order for a further two years, Turner J states:

"I am in no doubt that the stress of the [unsuccessful] litigation combined with its financially catastrophic outcome has had the profoundest impact upon Miss Sheikh. It is to her credit that, notwithstanding the depth of her feelings, she was able to articulate her case to me with all due courtesy and presentational restraint. Unhappily, however, the substance of her allegations in this case are characterised by a complete failure of objectivity. She continues to assert that Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Sir Terence Etherton MR, Henderson LJ and Briggs LJ conspired together to steal her title to the development site and then shared between them the profit of £64,000,000. She further accuses them of torturing and unlawfully killing her mother. There is something almost poignant in the absurdity of these allegations based, as they are, upon no discernible evidence. At one point, Miss Sheikh submitted to me that the fraud was "too clever to be seen." She does not, however, entertain the rather more mundane possibility that the reason it cannot be seen is because it does not exist."

He continued:

"In order to rationalise her conclusion that virtually every judge who has made a finding adverse to her and virtually every counsel who has represented the interests of those whom she opposes is part of a vast conspiracy of fraud, she has convinced herself that the United Kingdom is governed by a malevolent juristocracy the corrupting influence of which permeates through and contaminates other institutions including, but by no means limited to, the Land Registry and the Solicitor's Regulation Authority.

In this regard, Miss Sheikh's presentation fits precisely the all too familiar template of the obsessive litigant."

 

[Belperpete]

Out of interest, if this goes to court and the OP presented evidence of other people buying new train tickets, could the judge order the train company to look into that or would the court only deal with the OP and nothing else?

The judge could take the view that if other people bought new tickets, then that is what the OP should have done too.

To be honest, that is what I would have done too, and then raised a formal customer complaint. Once TIL are involved, you have big problems. If it goes to court, you are going to have to waste time and possibility money in attending court, with the possibility that the magistrate doesn't accept your argument. In situations where a member of staff insists that you buy a new ticket despite you explaining why it should not be necessary, I would comply and complain later - you will then be dealing with the TOC's customer relations department, and not the awful TIL. In every case where I have done this, I have got the refund.

 

[Starmill]

The judge could take the view that if other people bought new tickets, then that is what the OP should have done too.

I don't see why they would? Unless they'd been presented with some sort of evidence of other people having paid and specifically what their circumstances were, and and a legal reason why that would be relevant.

 

[Starmill]

To be honest, that is what I would have done too, and then raised a formal customer complaint. Once TIL are involved, you have big problems. If it goes to court, you are going to have to waste time and possibility money in attending court, with the possibility that the magistrate doesn't accept your argument. In situations where a member of staff insists that you buy a new ticket despite you explaining why it should not be necessary, I would comply and complain later - you will then be dealing with the TOC's customer relations department, and not the awful TIL. In every case where I have done this, I have got the refund.

Indeed. Also, if you pay and complain, and you're unable to recover your losses through polite complaints, the Ombudsman or your Bank, you can make a County Court claim against them. This isn't necessarily easy, but it certainly does remove the risk of criminal conviction on the downside.

Cases like this show why the law can and should be changed to remove the criminal aspect of payment of the correct fare.

 

[Belperpete]

I don't see why they would? Unless they'd been presented with some sort of evidence of other people having paid and specifically what their circumstances were, and and a legal reason why that would be relevant.

I was responding to the following post:

Out of interest, if this goes to court and the OP presented evidence of other people buying new train tickets,

 

[Starmill]

I was responding to the following post:

This is a bizarre tangent. It's still exceedingly unlikely that circumstantial evidence like that would change the Judge's mind about whether the charge is lawful.

 

[crosscity]

From what I can see (using a M-F date in January), the OP was intending to catch the following trains:
Sowerby Bridge dep 06:06 (2I80 0519 Leeds-Wigan Wallgate. UID Y57319)
Manchester Victoria arr 06:53
Salford Crescent arr 07:00

Salford Crescent dep 07:06 (1Y53 0556 Blackpool North-Manchester Airport. UID Y20506)
Manchester Piccadilly arr 07:15

Manchester Piccadilly dep 07:27 (1O08 0727 Manchester Piccadilly-Bournemouth. UID C74437)
Birmingham New St arr 08:57
Birmingham International arr 09:12


The question is, did the OP have a valid ticket to get from Sowerby Bridge to Manchester Piccadilly via Salford Crescent? I presume the op bought and was using a
£11.30 Anytime Day Single from Sowerby Bridge-Manchester Stations via Hebden Bridge.

I am on the Ops side, but if the ticket isn't valid to Manchester Piccadilly via Salford Crescent then the tickets don't join up.

Looking at the Routing Guide I cannot see how the ticket is valid to Manchester Piccadilly via Salford Crescent. Sowerby Bridge is a Halifax Routeing Point Member and Manchester Piccadilly is part of the Manchester Group Routing Point. The Manchester Group Routing Points are
Deansgate G-mex
Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester Piccadilly
Manchester Victoria
Salford Central
..... but not Salford Crescent.

... and I can't find a relevant easement.

I hope this isn't the case as it gives the railway a defence. Perhaps a routing guide expert could assist.

 

[Kilopylae]

I haven't checked the Routeing Guide yet, but what crosscity says unfortunately sounds correct. National Rail Enquiries suggests an itinerary from Sowerby Bridge to Birmingham International that simply has Manchester Victoria to Manchester Piccadilly as an OSI (rather than a train journey).
Ignore this.

 

[yorkie]

@Mickyb the offer is there if you would like me to check the exact tickets held and itinerary held; I am happy to provide advise via conversation message or by phone.

If the tickets were bought from an accredited ticket splitting provider, I am sure they will be happy to help too.

 

[snail]

This is a bizarre tangent. It's still exceedingly unlikely that circumstantial evidence like that would change the Judge's mind about whether the charge is lawful.

And how many of these people are being prosecuted anyway? If they simply bought a new ticket then there is little other than circumstantial evidence.

 

[MotCO]

I haven't checked the Routeing Guide yet, but what crosscity says unfortunately sounds correct. National Rail Enquiries suggests an itinerary from Sowerby Bridge to Birmingham International that simply has Manchester Victoria to Manchester Piccadilly as an OSI (rather than a train journey).

How does this square with post #4 :

I can get NRE to show a route changing at Salford Crescent and Picc in the May online timetable, identical with the December PDF tables.
I would be inclined to write back politely requesting that the summons be withdrawn as it is based on a misunderstanding of the NRCoT, and informing them that you will plead not guilty and that your defence will be that you had a valid combination of tickets.

 

[Kilopylae]

It....doesn't. At all. Give me a minute and I'll have a slightly more careful look at this

 

[crosscity]

......
The question is, did the OP have a valid ticket to get from Sowerby Bridge to Manchester Piccadilly via Salford Crescent? I presume the op bought and was using a
£11.30 Anytime Day Single from Sowerby Bridge-Manchester Stations via Hebden Bridge.

I am on the Ops side, but if the ticket isn't valid to Manchester Piccadilly via Salford Crescent then the tickets don't join up.
.....
I hope this isn't the case as it gives the railway a defence. Perhaps a routing guide expert could assist.

@Mickyb the offer is there if you would like me to check the exact tickets held and itinerary held; I am happy to provide advise via conversation message or by phone.

If the tickets were bought from an accredited ticket splitting provider, I am sure they will be happy to help too.

My motivation is that I don't want the Op to be defending his position in court if there is a hole in his defence. I am not a legal person, or a railway expert. I do not intend to make any further comments on this, other than urge the Op to take you up on your offer.

 

[SteveM70]

Northern’s app offers anytime singles (£11.30) from Sowerby to Piccadilly changing at Crescent and also £5.50 advances for most trains. I’ve used Tuesday as a sample date; obviously the timetable is a bit different now to what it was then but it seems to establish the principle that it’s a valid route

 

[ainsworth74]

Looking at the Routing Guide I cannot see how the ticket is valid to Manchester Piccadilly via Salford Crescent. Sowerby Bridge is a Halifax Routeing Point Member and Manchester Piccadilly is part of the Manchester Group Routing Point. The Manchester Group Routing Points are
Deansgate G-mex
Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester Piccadilly
Manchester Victoria
Salford Central
..... but not Salford Crescent.

... and I can't find a relevant easement.

I hope this isn't the case as it gives the railway a defence. Perhaps a routing guide expert could assist.

Is it not simply that via Salford Crescent is within three miles of the shortest route? In any event even CrossCountry's website will happily sell a ticket for use via Salford Crescent (indeed the route is offered without even specifying Salford Crescent as via point so I would suggest that that right there would be quite an effective defence against such a charge.

 

[Kilopylae]

Alright. Using Monday the 6th of July, National Rail Enquiries does recommend the following itinerary for Sowerby Bridge to Birmingham International:
6.04 Sowerby Bridge > 7.01 Salford Crescent (Northern)
7.06 Salford Crescent > 7.15 Manchester Picc (Northern)
7.27 Manchester Picc > 9.13 Birmingham International (XC)

It took me a while to notice this, as it involves doubling back between two map points, so it looks wrong, but travel via Salford Crescent is allowed under the within three miles of the shortest route rule.

The OP's route is entirely permitted.

 

[crosscity]

Alright. Using Monday the 6th of July, National Rail Enquiries does recommend the following itinerary for Sowerby Bridge to Birmingham International:
6.04 Sowerby Bridge > 7.01 Salford Crescent (Northern)
7.06 Salford Crescent > 7.15 Manchester Picc (Northern)
7.27 Manchester Picc > 9.13 Birmingham International (XC)

It took me a while to notice this, as it involves doubling back between two map points, so it looks wrong, but travel via Salford Crescent is allowed under the within three miles of the shortest route rule.

The OP's route is entirely permitted.

I am pleased to hear my logic was faulty, and that, indeed, the OP had a valid ticket from Sowerby Bridge to Manchester Piccadilly for the route taken, and wish him all the best.

My apologies to the OP if my post caused added stress. Should I have not posted? I believe the outcome gives him a little more ammunition in fighting the injustice he has suffered. The routing rules, although arcane are the railway's after all.

Just for completion the excellent railmiles website gives rail distances in miles and chains (80 chains=1 mile) as:
2m 34ch Manchester Victoria - Manchester Piccadilly (via the new Ordsall chord) is the shortest route
1m 59ch Manchester Victoria - Salford Crescent
2m 29ch Salford Crescent - Manchester Piccadilly

So by my calculation it's 4m 8ch from Man Vic-Man Picc via Salford Crescent (1m 59ch + 2m 29ch)
and the difference between the two routes is 1m 54ch (4m 8ch - 2m 34ch), so is indeed well within 3m of the shortest route.

 

[Realfish]

….the OP had a valid ticket from Sowerby Bridge to Manchester Piccadilly for the route taken, and wish him all the best.

My apologies to the OP if my post caused added stress. Should I have not posted? I believe the outcome gives him a little more ammunition in fighting the injustice he has suffered. The routing rules, although arcane are the railway's after all.

You were right to post, I had similar concerns. This ties up some of the lose ends and helps the OP address any moving of the goalposts that XC or TIL might employ, remembering that their original argument was some cock and bull story that, 'it was 2 different train companies it (NRCOT) doesn't apply as it was 2 separate journeys' (post #3)

 

[ainsworth74]

@Mickyb I was just wondering if you could confirm that the two tickets held were an Anytime Day Single from Sowerby Bridge to Manchester Stations and an Advance Single from Manchester Piccadilly to Birmingham New Street. It seems likely from your opening post but I just want to be sure that something hasn't been missed down the line.

 

[30907]

This is the OP's description in #1.

All day single - Sowerby Bridge 06.06 to Manc Pic 07.15 (Northern Rail)
Advanced - Manc Pic 07.27 to Birmingham NS 09.15 (Xcountry)

 

[ainsworth74]

This is the OP's description in #1.

Yes I have read that but just for the sake of clarity I think it worth confirming what was actually held rather than using euphemisms like "All day single" which, of course, isn't actually a ticket type. It is most likely nothing but it was pointed out to me by a silent reader that we hadn't actually confirmed the tickets held and that could make a difference.

 

[Mickyb]

Hi sorry just catching on this.

Yes the train ticket was anytime day single from Sowerby to Pic changing at Salford Cres. Getting to Pic at 7.15.

The ticket inspectors arguement is that 9.4 doesnt apply as the tickets were seperate and it was 2 different train companies. Its upto the court to decide if my ticket was valid. Im affectively being prosecuted for travelling on a train without a ticket, fare evasion.

I submitted my evidence to the clerk, in reponse I was given a new date of July 30th to attend court.