The meaning of "paying the fare due" in Regulation of Railways Act S5

[Bletchleyite]

Mod Note: Posts #1 - #17 originally in this thread.

Having said that, it might be worth speaking to a specialist solicitor on such matters (which won't of course be free) to see if that would be a solid defence. It would be worth investigating as to whether an unactivated m-ticket is considered by legal precedent (if there is any) to have had the correct fare paid, or if it is not because it could be activated and used at another point, i.e. the "payment of the fare" is seen as being at the point of activation, and having an unactivated ticket is maybe a bit like having cash in your wallet which could be used to purchase a ticket but wasn't?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Having said that, it might be worth speaking to a specialist solicitor on such matters (which won't of course be free) to see if that would be a solid defence. It would be worth investigating as to whether an unactivated m-ticket is considered by legal precedent (if there is any) to have had the correct fare paid, or if it is not because it could be activated and used at another point, i.e. the "payment of the fare" is seen as being at the point of activation, and having an unactivated ticket is maybe a bit like having cash in your wallet which could be used to purchase a ticket but wasn't?

With respect, that is a load of speculation. RoRA doesn't in any way require you to have effectively 'mutilated' your ticket (as it might in other countries). The idea of a ticket simply doesn't even enter into RoRA. It's about the payment of the fare, nothing else; payment was made when the contract for travel was entered into.

If they wanted, the railway could even never issue a ticket at all, as fare as RoRA is concerned (cf 'free rides' for staff).

 

[some bloke]

The idea of a ticket simply doesn't even enter into RoRA. It's about the payment of the fare, nothing else; payment was made when the contract for travel was entered into.

I'm not sure I follow that. Isn't it a contract to buy a ticket which you then have to validate in order for it to count as the fare for *that* journey?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I'm not sure I follow that. Isn't it a contract to buy a ticket which you then have to validate in order for it to count as the fare for *that* journey?

I think that it is quite clear from common sense that the fare had been paid for the purposes of RoRA. It would have been paid even if the OP never activated their ticket at all. But even if we were to say it had not been paid - the TOC would need to prove intent to avoid payment. Not knowing that you need to activate the ticket before boarding (when, on a race-day you are inevitably going to be 'collared' at the station exit at Cheltenham) is a perfectly good enough defence to any suggestion that failing to activate constitutes intent to avoid payment.

 

[najaB]

You paid your fare so RoRA simply doesn't come into it. There is no way an offence under that is made out.

Generally I agree with you, however @Bletchleyite has a point - the legislation was written before things like m-tickets existed and it isn't 100% clear at what point in its life cycle a m-ticket is considered to be indicative that the fare has been paid.

So in my opinion we can't say that the TOC has no case, just that they have a difficult case to satisfactorily prove.

 

[some bloke]

It would be worth investigating as to whether an unactivated m-ticket is considered by legal precedent (if there is any) to have had the correct fare paid, or if it is not because it could be activated and used at another point, i.e. the "payment of the fare" is seen as being at the point of activation, and having an unactivated ticket is maybe a bit like having cash in your wallet which could be used to purchase a ticket but wasn't?

Yes - if the unactivated ticket isn't specified as for this journey, then how can we say the fare was *necessarily* paid for this journey?

I think that it is quite clear from common sense that the fare had been paid for the purposes of RoRA. It would have been paid even if the OP never activated their ticket at all.

The subsequent activation can be omitted from the response, as it can't have any legal effect on a ticket you've already used.

I can't see merit in saying that in principle the fare has been paid, unless Luke is sure the company can't reasonably reply that m-tickets can be reused.

Perhaps it's useful to separate the two questions clearly:

In principle, can m-tickets be abused by non-activation?
In this case, was there a reasonable possibility of misuse?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Generally I agree with you, however @Bletchleyite has a point - the legislation was written before things like m-tickets existed and it isn't 100% clear at what point in its life cycle a m-ticket is considered to be indicative that the fare has been paid.

So in my opinion we can't say that the TOC has no case, just that they have a difficult case to satisfactorily prove.

Yes, that's my concern and I'm interested in what legal precedent there is on what "paying the correct fare" means in this specific context.

For instance, if there are Advances on the 0800 and 0900 both at £20, and I book on the 0800 but take the 0900, have I "paid the correct fare" in the meaning of the Act? I suspect precedent would say not.

 

[some bloke]

Yes, that's my concern and I'm interested in what legal precedent there is on what "paying the correct fare" means in this specific context.

Is legal precedent needed, or is it similar enough to composting that the principle is clear?

(Again, the circumstances are a different matter, so perhaps arguments such as, basically, "I don't go to Cheltenham except for the races once a year" should carry enough weight to avoid any consequences at all)

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The subsequent activation can be omitted from the response, as it can't have any legal effect on a ticket you've already used.

I can't see merit in saying that in principle the fare has been paid, unless Luke is sure the company can't reasonably reply that m-tickets can be reused.

Perhaps it's useful to separate the two questions clearly:

In principle, can m-tickets be abused by non-activation?
In this case, was there a reasonable possibility of misuse?

Whether or not a ticket is mutilated or composted has no bearing on whether the fare has been paid. Again, you are confusing the fare paid and the ticket. RoRA doesn't care about tickets, it just cares about the transaction of paying for your fare. You could lose your ticket entirely and still not be guilty of a RoRA offence. Paper tickets can be reused in just the same manner as m-tickets can (if not more easily), so there is no point in bringing in the question of reuse.

Yes, that's my concern and I'm interested in what legal precedent there is on what "paying the correct fare" means in this specific context.

For instance, if there are Advances on the 0800 and 0900 both at £20, and I book on the 0800 but take the 0900, have I "paid the correct fare" in the meaning of the Act? I suspect precedent would say not.

No, and this has previously been made quite clear, that the definition of "his fare" in RoRA means you must pay the correct fare for your journey and not any old random one. It is not sufficient to say "well, I have a ticket to Bedford which costs the same amount" if you are collared having departed London towards Brighton.

Is legal precedent needed, or is it similar enough to composting that the principle is clear?

(Again, the circumstances are a different matter, so perhaps arguments such as, basically, "I don't go to Cheltenham except for the races once a year" should carry enough weight to avoid any consequences at all)

This has all been previously been discussed a number of times. If you are interested in it I would suggest looking back at previous threads where the issue of "his fare" came to attention, but I don't think we are doing the OP any favours in discussing it any further here.

 

[najaB]

Whether or not a ticket is mutilated or composted has no bearing on whether the fare has been paid. Again, you are confusing the fare paid and the ticket.

How does one show that the fare has been paid? With a ticket. So you can't just say "The fare has been paid, end of story."

If I was to leave a £10 note in the station letterbox and get on a train, have I paid my £10 fare? The train company has their money after all.

As I said above, I agree in principle that paying for and receiving a m-ticket to your device should be enough to say that the fare has been paid.

But, given that m-tickets are freely transferrable between devices until activated and not afterwards, and that they are often refundable before activation and not after, I can see logic in the argument that the transaction of "paying your fare" isn't complete until the ticket is activated. In much the same way that the transaction of paying your fare at a station isn't complete until you receive you ticket.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

How does one show that the fare has been paid? With a ticket.

Not necessarily. You could in theory show a receipt, or show a bank statement, and so on. The idea of a ticket, again, doesn't feature in RoRA.

So you can't just say "The fare has been paid, end of story."

For the purposes of RoRA, we can!

If I was to leave a £10 note in the station letterbox and get on a train, have I paid my £10 fare? The train company has their money after all.

No, that is not a valid comparison. After all, the train company does not hold out a unilateral offer to transport your, which you can accept despite them not being present in any form of representation. If you put in a £10 note to a machine that said "please pay your fare here", with a button to select what fare it was you were paying, then that would count. But some people might simply call it a ticket machine

It is fundamentally about whether a contract has been made and the fare paid. If those things have been done then that suffices for RoRA.

As I said above, I agree in principle that paying for and receiving a m-ticket to your device should be enough to say that the fare has been paid.

Well then we are in agreement!

But, given that m-tickets are freely transferrable between devices until activated and not afterwards, and that they are often refundable before activation and not after, I can see logic in the argument that the transaction of "paying your fare" isn't complete until the ticket is activated.

Paper tickets are refundable and there is no practicable means to prevent them being transferred to other people. This is a total irrelevance. The activation of the ticket doesn't make the TOC receive their money any more or less than they did when you undertook the contract through the retailer and obtained your booking confirmation.

In much the same way that the transaction of paying your fare at a station isn't complete until you receive you ticket.

The ticket merely serves as evidence that you have paid your fare. But again, if they wanted, the TOCs needn't issue a ticket at all, they could just base it all off an honour system of trusting people who said they'd paid their fare for the purpose of RoRA!

 

[some bloke]

Is it clear how an m-ticket is different from a "3 days of 7" pass, carnet ticket or ranger, with which you "pay for your fare" when you fill in the date?

People can reuse paper tickets. But why, in a contract for transport, would a clause that stipulates activation be invalid?

There's another potential problem with saying you paid the fare - you are saying you want to pay less.

I think you would be better off thinking about circumstances of your situation that may help your case.

Not that it's likely, but it might be a useful exercise to ask yourself, "why should they drop the case?" as well as "why should they prosecute?".

It isn't yet clear how you forgot.

You could think of questions they might have:

Why didn't you take enough notice of parts of the screen that said it needed activation?
(Did the screen look like the first picture here, with "ready to activate" and "activate ticket"?)
https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/tickets/mobile-app

How did you come to forget?
(eg in a hurry, haven't used them before)

"I did not realise that this was necessary" doesn't seem accurate if you've told them accurately that you forgot.

You could also support your contention that you didn't intend to abuse the ticket.

Before activation, was the ticket's potential validity limited to that day?

If so, perhaps include a photo of the races, or of a race ticket - something to show that it's highly unlikely you abused, or were intending to abuse, the m-ticket.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Is it clear how an m-ticket is different from a "3 days of 7" pass, carnet ticket or ranger, with which you "pay for your fare" when you fill in the date?

The fare is paid whether you put in the date or not. That is done when you enter into the contract. It would only be if you had already used 3 days of a 3 in 7 pass and then attempted to use it for a further day that you wouldn't have paid your fare.

People can reuse paper tickets. But why, in a contract for transport, would a clause that stipulates activation be invalid?

There's nothing to suggest that such a clause is fundamentally invalid. But it doesn't have any affect on the payment of the fare.

There's another potential problem with saying you paid the fare - you are saying you want to pay less.

The reason for saying that the OP paid your fare before travelling is that it avoids the potential minefield of whether intent to avoid payment of the fare can be proven. It's simply out of the question.

 

[najaB]

Not necessarily. You could in theory show a receipt, or show a bank statement, and so on. The idea of a ticket, again, doesn't feature in RoRA.

Indeed it doesn't. The requirement is to "pay your fare". There are three stages to using a m-ticket: tendering the amount due, receiving the ticket to one or more mobile devices, and activating the ticket on a single device.

You are saying that "paying your fare" is complete at stage one - however, if I never download the ticket have I completed the transaction? I think we'd agree not. That is equivalent to walking up to a ticket window, asking how much the fare is to my destination, dropping that amount through the ticket window and walking off.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

You are saying that "paying your fare" is complete at stage one - however, if I never download the ticket have I completed the transaction? I think we'd agree not. That is equivalent to walking up to a ticket window, asking how much the fare is to my destination, dropping that amount through the ticket window and walking off.

It's equivalent to doing that, putting your money through the slot, having the ticket issued but then not picking it up. You'd still have paid your fare. I still don't see where the obsession with activation comes from. You've paid your fare whether you activate your ticket or not. Fraud is no easier or harder with an unactivated m-ticket than with a paper ticket (and indeed with an e-ticket it's easier still).

I certainly don't agree that receiving or activating the ticket pays any role in paying the fare. As you say in your first 'step', you have paid the amount due. That's the end of your RoRA obligations.

 

[Kite159]

Can you get a refund for an unactivated m-ticket, or use it on another date?

It's a bit like how some fare-dodgers on Merseyrail would carry around an unmarked scratchcard saveaway 'for insurance' in case of a RPI check if travelling between two stations which don't have barriers. You can argue they have paid their fare when they purchased the saveaway, but then it isn't valid until they mark the date.

 

[some bloke]

Can you get a refund for an unactivated m-ticket

Not according to this:
https://crosscountry.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5027/~/what-is-an-m-ticket?

What is an m-Ticket?


For some tickets on some routes the train operating companies accept electronic tickets that contain a barcode for the purcpose of validating your ticket.

Fares marked with the m-ticket symbol will be sent to your phone. When travelling using an m-Ticket you may be asked to present your m-Ticket barcode for scanning. Some stations have access gates, some of which may be fitted with barcode readsing devices that enable you to present your m-Ticket barcode for scanning to permit entry or not.

Where gates are not equipped to read your m-ticket you will need to show your ticket to the member of staff supervising the gates to enter or exit the stations.

Please note: If you are travelling within 2 hours of purchasing your ticket, your m-ticket will not be available until 2 hours after your purchase. Furthermopre, please note that m-tickets are non-refundable and non-amendable.

 

[najaB]

Can you get a refund for an unactivated m-ticket, or use it on another date?

Depending on the ticket, yes. Most are refundable if they've not been activated (possibly less a transaction fee) and many act like carnets in that you can have multiple tickets in your wallet and they only become 'used' when activated.

 

[najaB]

It's equivalent to doing that, putting your money through the slot, having the ticket issued but then not picking it up. You'd still have paid your fare.

Ah, there's the key question - is the mobile equivalent to 'having the ticket issued' step the download, or the activation? I can see the argument that it's the latter - since the m-ticket doesn't become valid until activated.

 

[najaB]

Not according to this:
https://crosscountry.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5027/~/what-is-an-m-ticket?

Rather confusingly, what they have called a m-ticket is actually an e-ticket since they speak of showing a barcode and don't mention activation.

 

[some bloke]

Maybe it's good to separate:

1. Do we think the legal argument holds?

2. Do we think the legal argument would have a very high chance of persuading prosecutors/magistrates/judges/Supreme Court?

3. Do we think it's sensible to urge people to use the argument?

 

[Howardh]

Can you get a refund for an unactivated m-ticket, or use it on another date?

It's a bit like how some fare-dodgers on Merseyrail would carry around an unmarked scratchcard saveaway 'for insurance' in case of a RPI check if travelling between two stations which don't have barriers. You can argue they have paid their fare when they purchased the saveaway, but then it isn't valid until they mark the date.

The old peak wayfarer you scratched the date off on the day you wanted to use it. I bet many a time someone's had the card and got on at an unstaffed station, and is ready to scratch as soon as the guard is seen.
Not sure if nowadays you have to purchase a specific date. If so, and you can't travel, I hope the pax can get a refund or new ticket.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Rather confusingly, what they have called a m-ticket is actually an e-ticket since they speak of showing a barcode and don't mention activation.

XC presently don't do e-tickets, only m-tickets, I believe.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Ah, there's the key question - is the mobile equivalent to 'having the ticket issued' step the download, or the activation? I can see the argument that it's the latter - since the m-ticket doesn't become valid until activated.

Having the ticket issued merely indicates that the transaction has been undertaken. It could just as well be a receipt or even nothing at all, just a "thank you - the train's on platform 1 in 5 minutes".

Maybe it's good to separate:

1. Do we think the legal argument holds?

2. Do we think the legal argument would have a very high chance of persuading prosecutors/magistrates/judges/Supreme Court?

3. Do we think it's sensible to urge people to use the argument?

Just to confirm, you are suggesting that it is questionable whether someone has paid their fare when they have a booking confirmation email showing what fare they have paid? And that accordingly one should plead guilty or settle in relation to an offence of "not previously paying [your] fare with intent to avoid payment thereof"?

I think this is such an utterly ludicrous suggestion that I really don't see the merit in discussing it any further.

I have nothing further to add really - to me, and to any rational person it is quite clear that if you have pressed "pay now" and have a booking confirmation email showing what you have paid, you have paid your fare, surprisingly enough. If you disagree, feel free but I don't think there will be any Magistrate in the land who will be convinced otherwise.

 

[najaB]

If you disagree, feel free but I don't think there will be any Magistrate in the land who will be convinced otherwise.

You are, naturally, entitled to take that position but I think anyone reading this should keep in mind that it is just that - an opinion.

 

[najaB]

XC presently don't do e-tickets, only m-tickets, I believe.

That may be so, but what they've described is an e-ticket: no mention of an app, and no mention of activation prior to use.

 

[najaB]

Having the ticket issued merely indicates that the transaction has been undertaken. It could just as well be a receipt or even nothing at all, just a "thank you - the train's on platform 1 in 5 minutes".

That is an interesting take on things - so you'd be perfectly happy if, having handed over £250 for an Anytime First Class single from London to Glasgow, the ticket office clerk said "Thank you very much, the train's on platform 1 in five minutes"?

I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, paying your fare consists of tendering the amount due and a ticket being issued.

 

[Howardh]

I buy an e-book of ten £2 bus tickets which each has to be activated before you board the bus. It means your phone has to be on before you board - and not "installing apps" as frequently happens to me grrr. You show your "ticket" and it gets swiped by the driver.
All good, simple and in the t's and c's. Just because you have spent a tenner doesn't mean you can board unactivated.
The downside is, if you are at the stop and you activate, if the bus hasn;t arrived (or is cancelled) and 15 mins passes, the ticket becomes invalid. Somehting that could happen with the trains, and I wonder if you could get your ticket back in that instance?

 

[najaB]

The downside is, if you are at the stop and you activate, if the bus hasn;t arrived (or is cancelled) and 15 mins passes, the ticket becomes invalid. Somehting that could happen with the trains, and I wonder if you could get your ticket back in that instance?

I believe (though I'm not 100% sure about it) that the ticket remains valid for the remainder of validity period of an equivalent paper ticket - one day for an Off-peak and five days for an Anytime.

 

[cactustwirly]

Yes, that's my concern and I'm interested in what legal precedent there is on what "paying the correct fare" means in this specific context.

For instance, if there are Advances on the 0800 and 0900 both at £20, and I book on the 0800 but take the 0900, have I "paid the correct fare" in the meaning of the Act? I suspect precedent would say not.

Precedents are irrelevant, since the magistrates court does not set precedents.
Yes as the law is written, you have not committed an offence since you have paid the right fare.

Section 5 (1) says it's an offence to not produce a ticket showing that the correct fare has been paid.
The TOC could argue that an offence has been committed because an inactivated m-ticket isn't a valid ticket.
However this is a relatively weak argument, since the statute doesn't mention that the ticket has to be valid, just that it proves that the correct fare has been paid.