Ticket validity - burden of proof

[maffi209]

Wasn't sure where to put this - hope this is a reasonable place...

Where does the burden of proof lie if I know my ticket it valid but the authority doesn't know this and makes a fuss.

The reason I ask is that I am travelling on a TfGM Wayfarer ticket today and had a bus driver in Bolton refuse to accept that it was valid. No amount proof - including showing him the validity on the website - would persuade him. He only let me travel in the end because I was standing my ground and he was getting increasingly delayed. Which is dissatisfying as I felt like he was letting me off rather than accepting that the ticket was valid.

It seems crazy that I had to prove the ticket was valid - I would have thought he ought to know what tickets are valid and what aren't.

Thanks.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I'd email the bus operator, and tell them the bus you were on. They can then tell the driver for future reference.

If it is a local authority product, then tell them too, as they too will tell the bus operator, and the bus operator wont like that!

 

[pemma]

Which operator was it? TfGM aren't known for producing a 100% reliable list of operators who accept the ticket - their website often mentions operators who no longer exist or who have withdrawn from the scheme, while operators who do accept it aren't always mentioned.

As far as I can tell in the Bolton area Wayfarer tickets aren't accepted on services operated by Cumfybus, Tyrers or UK Coachways. They should be accepted on buses operated by Arriva, Diamond, Rosso, First, Stagecoach and Transdev Lancashire United.

 

[najaB]

It seems crazy that I had to prove the ticket was valid - I would have thought he ought to know what tickets are valid and what aren't.

It's difficult for bus drivers (and train guards) to keep track of changes to validity but I agree that, if there is doubt, the customer should be given the benefit of it.

 

[maffi209]

Which operator was it?

It were Arriva. Not the first time I have run into the same problem with them in Bolton.

 

[mallard]

Which operator was it? TfGM aren't known for producing a 100% reliable list of operators who accept the ticket - their website often mentions operators who no longer exist or who have withdrawn from the scheme, while operators who do accept it aren't always mentioned.

In a sensible world where passengers actually have "rights" an official transport body that provides out-of-date or otherwise incorrect information like that should be liable for any and all costs and/or delays incurred as a result.

Of course, in the world of public transport, such sensible principles don't apply.

 

[najaB]

...should be liable for any and all costs and/or delays incurred as a result.

Direct, yes. Consequential, not so much.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Direct, yes. Consequential, not so much.

Really? So if I am wrongly forced to buy a new ticket that say takes me into my overdraft which I then have to pay a fee to my bank for, why shouldn't the transport company be liable for that charge too, since i shouldn't have had to buy that extra ticket (and thus incur the extra charge) in the first place?

 

[najaB]

Really? So if I am wrongly forced to buy a new ticket that say takes me into my overdraft which I then have to pay a fee to my bank for, why shouldn't the transport company be liable for that charge too, since i shouldn't have had to buy that extra ticket (and thus incur the extra charge) in the first place?

Because (and I know this isn't going to win me any friends here) you weren't forced into overdraught by the transport company - you could have sought alternative transport methods, borrowed the money from someone who wouldn't have charged fees or not travelled.

It was your choice* to buy the additional ticket that resulted in the account going overdrawn.

*Yes, I fully understand that you may have had commitments/obligations that made it imperative to travel, but Hobson's choice is still a choice.

 

[broadgage]

In a sensible world where passengers actually have "rights" an official transport body that provides out-of-date or otherwise incorrect information like that should be liable for any and all costs and/or delays incurred as a result.

Of course, in the world of public transport, such sensible principles don't apply.

IMHO, they should be liable for reasonable costs incurred as a result of error or omission.
Overdraft fees-------- certainly.
Taxi fares-------------yes, within reason.
I think there would have to be a limit, for example if being late for a meeting results in a lost business opportunity that could have made many millions, I don't think that they would liable for that much.

After all, many transport operators charge a penalty fare to customers who have made a mistake, should it not work both ways ?
In other cases, passengers are considered for prosecution, with an out of court settlement often offered as an alternative. In such cases payment of around £100 is often required towards the transport operators expenses.
When the operator is in the wrong, for example by not accepting a valid pass, surely a similar penalty should be reasonable.

 

[AlterEgo]

After all, many transport operators charge a penalty fare to customers who have made a mistake, should it not work both ways ?
In other cases, passengers are considered for prosecution, with an out of court settlement often offered as an alternative. In such cases payment of around £100 is often required towards the transport operators expenses.
When the operator is in the wrong, for example by not accepting a valid pass, surely a similar penalty should be reasonable.

Ideally, a railway ombudsman would deal with these things. I agree with what you say in principle; how it would operate is a different matter. Maybe one day!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I see nothing has changed - that issue has existed since the things were introduced.

 

[Salesy]

Before I start my waffle, I am not qualified to give legal advice, but this is my understanding of the matter.

I suppose it really isn't a question of 'burden of proof' in the sense of proving at the time whether your ticket is valid. It would be the case of proving a breach of contract if you were denied carriage (or conversely, them proving that you evaded a fare if your ticket was not valid).

If you were denied carriage then you may have a claim against TfGM for breach of contract (note, you do not have a contract with Arriva so could not claim against them directly). I see no reason that this wouldn't include consequential loss unless this was specifically excluded in the contract. The burden of proof for a civil claim is the balance of probabilities, i.e whether it was more likely than not that TfGM breached their contract.

Conversely, if you travelled on the bus without a valid ticket then you may face prosecution for fraud or obtaining services dishonestly, in which case they would have to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[greatkingrat]

Ideally, a railway ombudsman would deal with these things. I agree with what you say in principle; how it would operate is a different matter. Maybe one day!

It is coming early next year. How effective it will be in practice is another matter.

https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/media-centre/press-releases/2017/469773062-2017-08-04.html

 

[AlterEgo]

It is coming early next year. How effective it will be in practice is another matter.

https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/media-centre/press-releases/2017/469773062-2017-08-04.html

How did this one pass me by? I hope this will be a positive development and one I've advocated for years.

Full disclosure: I am very interested in working for a potential rail ombudsman with the power to mandate action on behalf of the passenger.

 

[Haywain]

Full disclosure: I am very interested in working for a potential rail ombudsman with the power to mandate action on behalf of the passenger.

That bias makes you an unsuitable candidate for any such position.

 

[AlterEgo]

That bias makes you an unsuitable candidate for any such position.

I don't understand what (for the record, non existent) bias you have managed to infer from that post.

 

[jumble]

Because (and I know this isn't going to win me any friends here) you weren't forced into overdraught by the transport company - you could have sought alternative transport methods, borrowed the money from someone who wouldn't have charged fees or not travelled.

It was your choice* to buy the additional ticket that resulted in the account going overdrawn.

*Yes, I fully understand that you may have had commitments/obligations that made it imperative to travel, but Hobson's choice is still a choice.

NajaB

I find the vast majority of your posts constructive and sensible but I really struggle to understand why if I have paid for a service and am then refused that service that it would be in any way reasonable to say if I cannot afford to pay again that I could simply decide not to travel.
I can say for sure that if I had run up an overdraft under these circumstances and the company refused to make good and said I could have decided not to travel I would be inviting them to explain this to a District Judge in the Small Claims court
After all an airline denying boarding thay would be on the hook for minimum 250 Euros.
I suspect that Eu 261 was passed after too many people had been told by airlines "Tough"

Jumble

 

[1B85]

It were Arriva. Not the first time I have run into the same problem with them in Bolton.

I had a similar problem with this ticket involving Arriva on the 320 in Wigan, but the driver seemed to think I needed a photo-card with it. He admitted hadn't seen one before though, so gave me the benefit of the doubt.

 

[najaB]

I find the vast majority of your posts constructive and sensible but I really struggle to understand why if I have paid for a service and am then refused that service that it would be in any way reasonable to say if I cannot afford to pay again that I could simply decide not to travel.

It comes down to the difference between avoidable and unavoidable consequential losses. If I suffer a loss which was the unavoidable consequence of your action then I am entitled to compensation - hence I am entitled to a refund of the second ticket which I shouldn't have had to buy. However, where a loss was avoidable then I'm not entitled to compensation.

So, using an extreme example to illustrate the point, if you run a full-service petrol station and put diesel in my petrol car, but realise the mistake and point it out before I attempt to start the engine then I'd be entitled to the cost of the fuel and any costs in draining the petrol tank, but you're not on the hook for an engine rebuild if I choose to drive it anyway (because I need to be somewhere really urgently).

Similarly, in the scenario that WelshBluebird outlined, I say you'd only be entitled to compensation for overdraft fees if (a) there was no other possible way for you to travel; and (b) the consequences of not travelling on that bus at that time were so dire as to eliminate it as a course of action.

Edit: You are, of course, free to try to make the case in a civil court action that the loss was unavoidable.

 

[35B]

Before I start my waffle, I am not qualified to give legal advice, but this is my understanding of the matter.



I suppose it really isn't a question of 'burden of proof' in the sense of proving at the time whether your ticket is valid. It would be the case of proving a breach of contract if you were denied carriage (or conversely, them proving that you evaded a fare if your ticket was not valid).



If you were denied carriage then you may have a claim against TfGM for breach of contract (note, you do not have a contract with Arriva so could not claim against them directly). I see no reason that this wouldn't include consequential loss unless this was specifically excluded in the contract. The burden of proof for a civil claim is the balance of probabilities, i.e whether it was more likely than not that TfGM breached their contract.



Conversely, if you travelled on the bus without a valid ticket then you may face prosecution for fraud or obtaining services dishonestly, in which case they would have to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

I'd be surprised if consequential loss wasn't explicitly ruled out in the contract, because the implications of consequential loss are so disproportionate to the fare paid.

I would also expect any organisation to defend itself extremely vigorously against a claim for consequential loss, precisely because the implications would be so far reaching.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[philthetube]

It comes down to the difference between avoidable and unavoidable consequential losses. If I suffer a loss which was the unavoidable consequence of your action then I am entitled to compensation - hence I am entitled to a refund of the second ticket which I shouldn't have had to buy. However, where a loss was avoidable then I'm not entitled to compensation.

So, using an extreme example to illustrate the point, if you run a full-service petrol station and put diesel in my petrol car, but realise the mistake and point it out before I attempt to start the engine then I'd be entitled to the cost of the fuel and any costs in draining the petrol tank, but you're not on the hook for an engine rebuild if I choose to drive it anyway (because I need to be somewhere really urgently).

Similarly, in the scenario that WelshBluebird outlined, I say you'd only be entitled to compensation for overdraft fees if (a) there was no other possible way for you to travel; and (b) the consequences of not travelling on that bus at that time were so dire as to eliminate it as a course of action.

Edit: You are, of course, free to try to make the case in a civil court action that the loss was unavoidable.

A much fairer example would be whether the cost of alternative travel should be provided.

Quite possibly the consequence of not travelling on the bus would make the whole journey pointless, would the passenger be entitled to a full refund for the whole journey?

 

[najaB]

Quite possibly the consequence of not travelling on the bus would make the whole journey pointless, would the passenger be entitled to a full refund for the whole journey?

I would say so, yes. That's a direct consequential loss.

 

[Starmill]

How did this one pass me by? I hope this will be a positive development and one I've advocated for years.

I believe the idea was included in quite a number of major Party Manifestos in the 2017 General Election, so it's perhaps not so surprising.

 

[ALCLegal]

NajaB

I find the vast majority of your posts constructive and sensible but I really struggle to understand why if I have paid for a service and am then refused that service that it would be in any way reasonable to say if I cannot afford to pay again that I could simply decide not to travel.
I can say for sure that if I had run up an overdraft under these circumstances and the company refused to make good and said I could have decided not to travel I would be inviting them to explain this to a District Judge in the Small Claims court
After all an airline denying boarding thay would be on the hook for minimum 250 Euros.
I suspect that Eu 261 was passed after too many people had been told by airlines "Tough"

Jumble

Very interesting. If it were me I'd be saying that buying another ticket was the only way in all the circumstances that I could get the company to fulfill their side of the agreement. There's nothing stopping you adding bank charges as special damages.

Even your claim for charges fails, your bank ought to refund you default charges.

 

[ALCLegal]

If you were denied carriage then you may have a claim against TfGM for breach of contract (note, you do not have a contract with Arriva so could not claim against them directly). I see no reason that this wouldn't include consequential loss unless this was specifically excluded in thee contact .

terms restricting liability can often be seen as automatically unfair or at leat
Liable to be unfair under statute.

I think more people need to be taking small claims court actions against large companies. The rules work in such a way where (generally) the legal fees are not claimable. If you issue a small claim the other side may not even turn up because it will be more expensive to send a lawyer than just to settle. Even if they do send a lawyer, it will cost them dearly and maybe big companies might clean their act up.

 

[najaB]

terms restricting liability can often be seen as automatically unfair or at leat Liable to be unfair under statute.

If you're making reference to the Consumer Rights Act then yes, firms don't have carte-blanche to limit liability to zero. However they are still able to place reasonable restrictions/exclusions on liability. As long as the cap is reasonable - and a limit on avoidable, indirect consequential losses is likely to be seen as reasonable - then they will prevail if the matter reaches court.

 

[marshmallow]

Earlier this year I had a ticket from London Terminals to New Cross, and due to disruptions notices at Cannon Street Station and the National Rail website said that tickets were being accepted on London buses, however when I tried to board a bus [on the advice of station staff, I might add] the driver said that the ticket was not valid as it is not a Travelcard. I explained that it is valid due to disruptions and showed him the webpage but he said that he gets advised when train tickets are allowed on buses due to delays and this had not happened. After some more arguing he radioed his office and asked if tickets such tickets were valid...they were not aware of this, but said that they would look into this, and I asked the driver if I could go and sit down...he agreed, on the grounds that if he was told the ticket was not valid, he would have to find me [this would have been interesting since I went upstairs and it was in busy Central London!]...anyway by coincidence, some revenue protection inspectors came on after a few minutes and even though I knew my ticket was valid, I was worried about what might happen. Fortunately they are clearly better informed than the drivers as when I showed my ticket they said it was fine.

It is unfair that passengers who have valid ticket should be inconvenienced because people checking them don't know that they are valid, but then it is impossible in practice for anyone to know off the top of their head exactly which tickets are valid so I think that it would be very hard for a good solution to be found unfortunately.

 

[MG11]

Wasn't sure where to put this - hope this is a reasonable place...

Where does the burden of proof lie if I know my ticket it valid but the authority doesn't know this and makes a fuss.

The reason I ask is that I am travelling on a TfGM Wayfarer ticket today and had a bus driver in Bolton refuse to accept that it was valid. No amount proof - including showing him the validity on the website - would persuade him. He only let me travel in the end because I was standing my ground and he was getting increasingly delayed. Which is dissatisfying as I felt like he was letting me off rather than accepting that the ticket was valid.

It seems crazy that I had to prove the ticket was valid - I would have thought he ought to know what tickets are valid and what aren't.

Thanks.

It's a good idea when travelling with tickets like that to carry print outs of validity from the local authority's website. I'm thinking of getting a similar Manchester based Wayfarer, which I beleive I can use from Grindleford, into Manchester, but I wouldn't dream of doing it without something written to prove validity. Sadly, frontline staff have so many ticket types, it is impossible for them to remember every single one.

 

[marshmallow]

It's a good idea when travelling with tickets like that to carry print outs of validity from the local authority's website. I'm thinking of getting a similar Manchester based Wayfarer, which I beleive I can use from Grindleford, into Manchester, but I wouldn't dream of doing it without something written to prove validity. Sadly, frontline staff have so many ticket types, it is impossible for them to remember every single one.

This is true, however the fact that people like us who know exactly when such tickets are valid need to do this shows that clearly there is a problem, as the average traveller has a lot less knowledge and would believe staff when they say that a ticket is not valid. This leads to people getting in trouble, overpaying etc. unfairly.