Sticky situation resulting in Travel Irregularity Report

[Hebden Bridger]

The industry relies on the requirement to be in posession of a valid ticket before entering a train or platform, which makes it easy for inspectors to differentiate those who have paid and those who would only pay when challenged. (At this point, many on here point to those parts of the Country where it is, or has been, custom and practice to pay-on-board, but those circumstances don't appear to apply to this incident).

The requirement to be in possession of a valid ticket is expressed in the section of the Act you quoted: "having previously paid". 'Previously' is not 'negated' by 'offering to pay when challenged'.

There is ample Case Law to confirm this interpretation - it lies at the core of the first principles in the detection of fare evasion.
'Attempting to travel without having previously paid his fare' is satisfied when a passenger produces an expired and/or used ticket for the journey about to be taken.

While I defer to your knowledge of case law, I'd be interested to know the actual cases. I would have thought that the likelihood of a used ticket operating a ticket gate is low (well about zero in the ones I know of), hence the consequence of travelling without a ticket by is anything but probable or natural as required by Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, although I do understand the court may consider all the evidence in determining whether or not there was intent.

Not that I offer this as any sort of legal advice to the OP, this was just the basis of my opinion in a previous post that intent would be difficult for the TOC to prove in this case.

 

[jon0844]

If it's an open ticket that hasn't been cancelled, presumably a gateline would mark it as used - but otherwise, you'd potentially be able to continue using it?

 

[razor89]

An interesting situation... A few questions though for those in the know

Can inserting a ticket into a ticket barrier really prove intent to travel? While the vast majority of people doing this will afterwards get on a train, a minority may simply be meeting someone off a train, or using toilets if they are on the paid side, spotting etc. Does RORA mention platforms or travel only?

Also, having worked on a gateline for my local TOC, my experience has been that although barriers will write data onto a ticket indicating it has been used, when reading a ticket the barrier will not read this data. Therefore once the ticket has been used, after 10 minutes (due to passback prevention) the ticket can be used again in the same barrier with no issues. I'm curious as to how the inspector knew the ticket had already been used before checking the data on a machine...

 

[Haywain]

I would have thought that the likelihood of a used ticket operating a ticket gate is low (well about zero in the ones I know of), hence the consequence of travelling without a ticket by is anything but probable or natural as required by Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, although I do understand the court may consider all the evidence in determining whether or not there was intent.

To my mind, the act of inserting a used (or out of date) ticket into an automatic barrier demonstrates intent to travel, especially if one is not in possession of an unused ticket.

 

[island]

If it's an open ticket that hasn't been cancelled, presumably a gateline would mark it as used - but otherwise, you'd potentially be able to continue using it?

I do wonder sometimes why ticket gates don't have a little printer inside which will print the date, time, station, and direction whenever a ticket is put through. They used to do this in Ireland but then replaced the ticket gates with new ones which didn't.

 

[Hebden Bridger]

To my mind, the act of inserting a used (or out of date) ticket into an automatic barrier demonstrates intent to travel, especially if one is not in possession of an unused ticket.

Yes, but RoRA requires an "intent to avoid payment", not an intent to travel.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

While I defer to your knowledge of case law, I'd be interested to know the actual cases.

The most commonly cited cases are listed in Section 8.2.3 of this forum's Fares & Ticketing Guide (though I think you knew that already!). If you have access to legal databases then a search on the Acts with keywords such as 'ticket' and 'fare' or 'fraud' should help - if you have a more specific enquiry then I'd be pleased to try to help.

I would have thought that the likelihood of a used ticket operating a ticket gate is low (well about zero in the ones I know of), . . .

and is 100% in the ones I use. I frequently use 'used' tickets to open the barriers to allow me access to the cycle racks on some of the major stations on the ECML and don't recall the barrier ever refusing to open.

To my mind, the act of inserting a used (or out of date) ticket into an automatic barrier demonstrates intent to travel, especially if one is not in possession of an unused ticket.

I will guess that that interpretation will probably be shared by others investigating the incident.

 

[Hebden Bridger]

The most commonly cited cases are listed in Section 8.2.3 of this forum's Fares & Ticketing Guide (though I think you knew that already!). If you have access to legal databases then a search on the Acts with keywords such as 'ticket' and 'fare' or 'fraud' should help - if you have a more specific enquiry then I'd be pleased to try to help.

Perhaps, I should declare my interest here, as an expert witness in cases involving IT and technology matters, but not anywhere near this area, so not that really interested and don't have access to legal databases unless I travel to my base office (when I really should be working). Yes I'm aware of the case law in the FAQs and even followed the Corbyn case at the time, being at university at the same time as this err colourful, well known Trotskyist - now one of Boris Johnson's favourite climate change deniers.

and is 100% in the ones I use. I frequently use 'used' tickets to open the barriers to allow me access to the cycle racks on some of the major stations on the ECML and don't recall the barrier ever refusing to open.

Thats extremely poor anecdotal evidence in my view. The details of previous use of a ticket in electronic ticketing implementations would usually either be stored on the ticket or on the database supporting the system (or both), or really I'd have severe doubts about the system's fitness for purpose. This was undoubtably true in OPs case, because a) the ticket was refused at the gate and b) while the gate may not have had the technology to display details of previous use, the control system in the ticket office appeared to do so.

Given the TOC's publicity that the purpose of ticket barriers is to cut down on fare evasion and the detection of duplicate use being an obviously trivial technical matter, I continue to hold my opinion that the consequence of avoiding payment is anything but probable, and indeed proven to be impossible in OP's case (though perhaps not in the case of ECML's chocolate teapot machines).

I will guess that that interpretation will probably be shared by others investigating the incident.

I would guess that too, whether it is right or even relevant is another matter entirely.

 

[RochdalePioneers]

It's a tricky one. Fare evaders will pull any old excuse. And sometimes their excuses are the situation that non-fare evaders find themselves in accidentally.

I have sympathy for the OP having done exactly the thing he did in sticking an old ticket through the barrier and having it rejected. I tried to travel on an expired ticket and am therefore Satan's bedfellow apparently. Where I differ is that the correct unused return portion had mistakenly been filed by me along with receipts in my wallet, so after a quick and slightly frantic search I offered up the correct ticket and was on my way.

Now, were I trying to evade using the unused return portion I could have proffered up the in date and unmarked return portion to the on train gripper, had it marked, and got out the other end ok. So my innocent error could also have been a genuine attempt to evade. Reading some of the posts on the thread I probably should have been prosecuted for this outrageous crime.

Or perhaps, maybe, some of us do the same trip repeatedly, get a stack of identical bar the date tickets, and confuse one with the other?

Sent from my HTC One mini using Tapatalk 2

 

[6Gman]

It's a tricky one. Fare evaders will pull any old excuse. And sometimes their excuses are the situation that non-fare evaders find themselves in accidentally.

I have sympathy for the OP having done exactly the thing he did in sticking an old ticket through the barrier and having it rejected. I tried to travel on an expired ticket and am therefore Satan's bedfellow apparently. Where I differ is that the correct unused return portion had mistakenly been filed by me along with receipts in my wallet, so after a quick and slightly frantic search I offered up the correct ticket and was on my way.

Now, were I trying to evade using the unused return portion I could have proffered up the in date and unmarked return portion to the on train gripper, had it marked, and got out the other end ok. So my innocent error could also have been a genuine attempt to evade. Reading some of the posts on the thread I probably should have been prosecuted for this outrageous crime.

Or perhaps, maybe, some of us do the same trip repeatedly, get a stack of identical bar the date tickets, and confuse one with the other?

Sent from my HTC One mini using Tapatalk 2

Except the OP makes his (quite lengthy) journey only fortnightly, and really is running a risk by keeping his next ticket with his past ticket/s on a mound on his desk!

 

[jon0844]

Is the OP going to come back and say when he's found the ticket?

 

[razor89]

Thats extremely poor anecdotal evidence in my view. The details of previous use of a ticket in electronic ticketing implementations would usually either be stored on the ticket or on the database supporting the system (or both), or really I'd have severe doubts about the system's fitness for purpose. This was undoubtably true in OPs case, because a) the ticket was refused at the gate and b) while the gate may not have had the technology to display details of previous use, the control system in the ticket office appeared to do so.

Just like to highlight my previous post... In my experience as barrier staff on my local network, ticket barriers will write data to a ticket if it is used in a barrier, however the barrier does not read that data. Therefore the same ticket can be used again after approximately 10 minutes (due to passback rule). I have not only observed this but have proved it myself when emptying ticket bins. Tickets can be refused at gatelines for a variety of reasons but at least 90% of the time (in my experience) it is due to the mag stripe being corrupted.

 

[TonyR]

Charging someone for not getting through a ticket barrier designed to stop people without a valid ticket sounds a bit to me like charging someone with robbery for trying the door handle of a shop that is locked.

 

[island]

Robbery involves violence against a person, so would be ludicrous in that situation. However, trying the door handle of a car to try to find out whether it's locked can be an offence.

 

[Flamingo]

I would guess the OP is now looking at a handful of "in date" tickets, trying to remember which one they have put through a barrier before, as sending off one to back up their story that also turns out to have been used will not be a smart move...

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I would guess the OP is now looking at a handful of "in date" tickets, trying to remember which one they have put through a barrier before, as sending off one to back up their story that also turns out to have been used will not be a smart move...

Well, we know that 5 days ago, moneybrains confirmed "I'm trying to find the ticket at the moment." and hasn't been back here since.

I would never imply anything into someone's silence.
But we should expect some expression of glee when a passenger manages to find a, er, missing ticket. But moneybrains's silence on finding the 'missing ticket' does fuel our speculation.

 

[martybabes]

Charging someone for not getting through a ticket barrier designed to stop people without a valid ticket sounds a bit to me like charging someone with burglary for trying the door handle of a shop that is locked.

This, I think, is what was meant.

 

[185]

To my mind, the act of inserting a used (or out of date) ticket into an automatic barrier demonstrates intent to travel, especially if one is not in possession of an unused ticket.

It may show intent, but this has to be the thinnest ice I've ever seen a TIR (prosecution report) on. I doubt a court, if challenged would go anywhere near this one.

 

[Fare-Cop]

It may show intent, but this has to be the thinnest ice I've ever seen a TIR (prosecution report) on. I doubt a court, if challenged would go anywhere near this one.

Not advice that the OP should rely on though, as always we only have the OPs' version of events and moneybrains has not come back to answer the queries that have been raised throughout the thread.

We don't know for certain what is in the inspectors' report.