Summons by TIL on behalf of Chiltern and a lying ticket enforcer

[Wethebest838]

If the ticket enforcer lied, then he can be prosecuted for lying.

Did the person who spoke to you and took your details have a body camera?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

When they boarded the train without a ticket they committed a crime. The only defence is that the station did not have any means available to them to buy a ticket with their chosen means of payment, namely cash. The station does not have a ticket office, and the only conspicuously available machine was out of service.

For completeness, we need to note that having been given permission to travel by an authorised person is also a defence. But we have spent some time talking about that:
- from an early post on this thread it seems that the railway think that permission should be in writing. I think the railway is wrong but the OP will have to argue that point in court
- the railway assert that permission wasn't given. The OP asserts that it was (verbally) and they have a witness to confirm it but I suggested earlier and the OP has not said otherwise, the witness is the OP's GF, who the court might consider to have an interest in the outcome of the case.
- then there's the question of whether the person said to have given permission was authorised to do so, or that the OP reasonably thought they were so authorised.

We can't entirely dismiss permission to travel without a ticket as a defence, but there are substantial obstacles to it being successful.

 

[John R]

If the ticket enforcer lied, then he can be prosecuted for lying.

Did the person who spoke to you and took your details have a body camera?

If they lie in court, yes they can.

Problem is proving it, if it’s their word against the OP’s.

 

[Wethebest838]

If they lie in court, yes they can.

Problem is proving it, if it’s their word against the OP’s.

Yeah 100%, it's also people interpret things different too.

Like @JBuchananGB said, I think it's going to be a very time consuming, expensive and mentally draining.

Granted to the OP, not everyone will know you can use contactless. I can't recall ever seeing a sign saying you can use contactless in Wembley or at Marylebone but there again if they had signs then everyone would just be trying to evade fares by tapping in with contactless and going further than planned. I only know really TFL who advertise it more. I know that's something for another thread to discuss.

Sadly, TIL was being very reasonable in their first response (shocker) and I would have myself took the opportunity to pay the first time then complained after.

 

[spag23]

I would relish a post where the passenger actually made their own footage/recording of staff giving permission to travel, but still went on to receive a TIR. Presenting the material in Court would be such fun!

 

[rs101]

The TOC/TIL are suggesting that only written permission to travel is acceptable? Not that has any legal standing?

 

[pedr]

It doesn’t have legal standing in that it isn’t a specified requirement in the legislation, but permission to travel must be provable by the defendant in a Bylaws case, so if the passenger has no evidence to convince a magistrate that it is at least more than 50% likely that an authorised person gave permission, that permission is effectively useless.

 

[talldave]

Granted to the OP, not everyone will know you can use contactless. I can't recall ever seeing a sign saying you can use contactless in Wembley or at Marylebone but there again if they had signs then everyone would just be trying to evade fares by tapping in with contactless and going further than planned. I only know really TFL who advertise it more. I know that's something for another thread to discuss.

The OP doesn't have any contactless cards so all discussions about contactless are pointless.

I find the negativity directed at the OP in some earlier responses for not having contactless quite inappropriate. Some of us like to think we still live in a free country and it's not yet mandatory for all bank cards to be contactless. If the OP has concerns about contactless and is prepared to deal with the sadly ever increasing inconvenience of paying with real money, good on them. London welcomes all visitors and whilst buses are cashless, we offer Oyster cards as an alternative that can be topped up by cash and card.

As for the OP's case, it's an appalling example of a TOC grasping at straws. I'd take it to court, however the costs of doing so might exceed the offer on the table. But paying that offer is morally wrong for an innocent visitor to London.

 

[LAX54]

The Engineers/Techs that work on faulty TVM's, are they TOC employees, or are they employed by the Manufacturer or Contracted Maintainer ?
If the latter, would that partly explain the TOC saying no authority was given by a TOC employee ?

 

[CyrusWuff]

The Engineers/Techs that work on faulty TVM's, are they TOC employees, or are they employed by the Manufacturer or Contracted Maintainer ?
If the latter, would that partly explain the TOC saying no authority was given by a TOC employee ?

It could be either, depending on what work was being done. Things like replenishing ticket stock, topping up change, and emptying the machines will be done by TOC staff. Anything else will be handled by the supplier or their contractor.

 

[spag23]

It's entirely reasonable for a member of the public to assume that anyone with railway clothing/lanyards, manning gates, working in railway offices or on railway equipment is empowered to authorise ticketless travel, if they issue such an authorisation. Joe Public can't be expected to know the employment status of this person, or the nature of the service contracts between the myriad (these days!) of companies "partnering" with the rail companies. I would expect the TOCs to demand that contractors ensure that their unqualified staff are trained not to authorise ticketless travel. And I'd argue that TOCs are bound to honour authorisations improperly given in these circumstances.

 

[nw1]

The OP clearly feels aggrieved. They have turned down one opportunity to settle out of court, and seem to have another (higher) one on the table, but they now want their time in front of the magistrate. Other users of this forum have found that spending £500 on a solicitor has been helpful in achieving out of court settlements, but this is not what the OP is looking for. Unless he has legal skills, or can find someone pro bono, defending his case in court is going to be expensive and time consuming.
When they boarded the train without a ticket they committed a crime. The only defence is that the station did not have any means available to them to buy a ticket with their chosen means of payment, namely cash. The station does not have a ticket office, and the only conspicuously available machine was out of service.

Is being advised by railway staff to board the train and pay onboard or at Marylebone not a defence? Is being unaware of the second ticket machine (due to the second ticket machine being in an obscure location) and not being told of the second ticket machine by said staff not a defence?

Common sense would suggest that taking the advice of a member of railway staff is a common-sense thing to do, and (IANAL) I would hope a court would indeed see that as reasonable defence.

Common sense might also suggest that if there is one ticket machine and it isn't working, a "normal" person would conclude that there is not a second, unless there is clear signage. Certainly, as someone who has used the railways since 1982, if I was at an unfamiliar station (such as Wembley Stadium) and saw an out-of-order ticket machine I might reasonably conclude that, in the absence of signage and/or staff advice, there isn't another. My conclusion in this respect would be based on my observation that smaller stations such as this normally only have one area on the station where there are ticket machines.

All IANAL. Just applying a bit of what I would consider common sense.

 

[Haywain]

Is being advised by railway staff to board the train and pay onboard or at Marylebone not a defence? Is being unaware of the second ticket machine (due to the second ticket machine being in an obscure location) and not being told of the second ticket machine by said staff not a defence?

Common sense would suggest that taking the advice of a member of railway staff is a common-sense thing to do, and (IANAL) I would hope a court would indeed see that as reasonable defence.

Common sense might also suggest that if there is one ticket machine and it isn't working, a "normal" person would conclude that there is not a second, unless there is clear signage. Certainly, as someone who has used the railways since 1982, if I was at an unfamiliar station (such as Wembley Stadium) and saw an out-of-order ticket machine I might reasonably conclude that, in the absence of signage and/or staff advice, there isn't another. My conclusion in this respect would be based on my observation that smaller stations such as this normally only have one area on the station where there are ticket machines.

All IANAL. Just applying a bit of what I would consider common sense.

"Common sense" is meaningless if it doesn’t align with the law. And, in this case, the OP will be convicted if the case goes to court and they are unable to provide a defence that shows that the alleged offence was not committed.

 

[LAX54]

It could be either, depending on what work was being done. Things like replenishing ticket stock, topping up change, and emptying the machines will be done by TOC staff. Anything else will be handled by the supplier or their contractor.

so, focusing on the latter, if it was a supplier or a contractor, who simply said, machine does not work, buy a ticket on the train / next stop, would have no standing as a defence ?

 

[Haywain]

so, focusing on the latter, if it was a supplier or a contractor, who simply said, machine does not work, buy a ticket on the train / next stop, would have no standing as a defence ?

I'm inclined to say that in working on the station they are, by default, railway staff.

 

[Snow1964]

The Engineers/Techs that work on faulty TVM's, are they TOC employees, or are they employed by the Manufacturer or Contracted Maintainer ?
If the latter, would that partly explain the TOC saying no authority was given by a TOC employee ?

If the person was working at a railway station, then it is reasonable for an out of towner to assume they work for the railway.

Whilst technically they might work for a contractor, unless they had big visitor badge, how would anyone from outside know whose payroll they were on.

Clearly if someone is working at the station with a hi-vis tabard or jacket that says ABC Rail (or whatever) then very difficult to say to a court, they obviously were not a rail employee, and anyone would have realised that they had no authority to talk.

 

[nw1]

"Common sense" is meaningless if it doesn’t align with the law. And, in this case, the OP will be convicted if the case goes to court and they are unable to provide a defence that shows that the alleged offence was not committed.

But surely committing a technical offence can, and should, lead to no conviction if there are mitigating circumstances?

For example, being advised by railway staff, or someone who looks like railway staff (if they were in fact employed by someone else) would surely be considered mitigating circumstances? Missing a second ticket machine when it was not obvious would perhaps be considered mitigating circumstances?

If the courts do not take into account mitigating circumstances, we're in a pretty sorry state!

 

[Alex C.]

If this goes to court, the burden of proof will be beyond reasonable doubt. That burden lies on the TOC, not the OP.

In practice, it is going to hinge on them saying you didn't have permission, and you saying you did (as without the permission, there are two ticket machines and an offence was technically committed).

The fact the permission was given by someone working on the ticket machine is helpful - the TOC appears to have asserted that the ticket machine was working fully. I would expect for security reasons the machines log any time they are opened, or taken offline for maintenance (but I don't know this for certain). They would need to be prepared to say that the machine cannot possibly have been offline to the court to prove their case. They will also need to explain why their 'story' has changed multiple times but yours has stayed consistent.

There are a number of risks though - firstly, they may assert that your story is technically impossible (the Horizon ongoing scandal shows that computer systems are not infallible). Secondly, these cases are heard by magistrates, who are voluntary, unpaid, and not not legally trained - although they do have access to a legal advisor in court - and they may still convict if the TOC can make a persuasive enough case against the verbal evidence of you and your witness (who, as noted in the thread, wouldn't be considered independent).

 

[James H]

if the circumstances set out by the OP are accurate it may be worth engaging their MP on the matter - feels like the sort of case where a well timed enquiry from an elected official could lead the company to drop the matter.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

so, focusing on the latter, if it was a supplier or a contractor, who simply said, machine does not work, buy a ticket on the train / next stop, would have no standing as a defence ?

I touched on this in my post #62 above.

From memory, the law requires whoever gave permission to be authorised by the railway. But it seems to me that there's some wriggle room for this to be interpreted from the point of view of whoever thought they had been given authorisation. Would a reasonable person in that position have understood the person saying 'pay at your destination ' to be authorised to say that by the railway*?

If the person working on the ticket machine was wearing a uniform saying 'Ticket machine maintenance contractor' I am not sure a reasonable person would think that they were authorised by the railway. But the point (already arguable rather than certain as we're talking about what the customer believed rather than what the railway documented) becomes even more arguable if whoever was wearing railway uniform.

*I.e. is it common sense to treat them as authorised?

 

[John R]

If the person was working at a railway station, then it is reasonable for an out of towner to assume they work for the railway.

Even if they are painting some railings, clearing gutters or some other job that is clearly a maintenance job?

Not saying that’s the case here, but it’s a very broad brush statement.

And what difference does it make if they are from “out of town” or not?

 

[Haywain]

But surely committing a technical offence can, and should, lead to no conviction if there are mitigating circumstances?

For example, being advised by railway staff, or someone who looks like railway staff (if they were in fact employed by someone else) would surely be considered mitigating circumstances? Missing a second ticket machine when it was not obvious would perhaps be considered mitigating circumstances?

If the courts do not take into account mitigating circumstances, we're in a pretty sorry state!

Mitigation is not defence. It's explaning why an offence was committed, not that it wasn't.

 

[nw1]

Mitigation is not defence. It's explaning why an offence was committed, not that it wasn't.

So magistrates ignore mitigation, or do they take it into account?

Because if they take into account, it's still a valid point.

If they don't take it into account and someone can still be convicted after following advice from someone who looks like official staff, then again that's a sad state of affairs.

I say again, it's really time to abolish Byelaws offences; the whole concept of being convicted if there was no intent to avoid payment is patently absurd. It should just be a civil debt.

 

[Haywain]

So magistrates ignore mitigation, or do they take it into account?

Because if they take into account, it's still a valid point.

If they don't take it into account and someone can still be convicted after following advice from someone who looks like official staff, then again that's a sad state of affairs.

Magistrates can take mitigation into account but as it is not a defence it can only have an effect on sentencing. The defendant would still be guilty.

The matter of being authorised to travel based on advice given by an authorised person is a defence, not mitigation.

 

[AlterEgo]

so, focusing on the latter, if it was a supplier or a contractor, who simply said, machine does not work, buy a ticket on the train / next stop, would have no standing as a defence ?

It is a little bit by the by anyway, as it is up to the OP to show that permission was given in court. “Someone fixing the machine told me” is unlikely to be compelling evidence in and of itself. There are also no witnesses beyond the OP’s own partner who cannot be in any way considered an impartial party in the case.

 

[nw1]

It is a little bit by the by anyway, as it is up to the OP to show that permission was given in court. “Someone fixing the machine told me” is unlikely to be compelling evidence in and of itself. There are also no witnesses beyond the OP’s own partner who cannot be in any way considered an impartial party in the case.

Can the person who was fixing the machine not be tracked down?

 

[Haywain]

Can the person who was fixing the machine not be tracked down?

If they can, are they likely to remember the OP and what they said to them?

 

[Snow1964]

Can the person who was fixing the machine not be tracked down?

I think that is why further up thread it was suggested request maintenance records for TVMs on or around date in question.

Even if they can't remember what they said, it collaborates the version that TVM was unavailable and Op couldn't spend their cash to buy a ticket at Wembley, so tried at next change, Marylebone.

 

[simonw]

Can the person who was fixing the machine not be tracked down?

Possibly, but are they likely to remember the conversation, and would they be willing to give up their time to come to court and defend a stranger?

 

[nw1]

Possibly, but are they likely to remember the conversation, and would they be willing to give up their time to come to court and defend a stranger?

How do courts normally operate in this respect? Do they force the potential witness to attend court, and pay their costs plus compensation if they lose any pay through having to attend court? Presumably it must happen all the time.

In any case, worth a try, I guess.