Train Investigations Limited (TIL) - court threats

[Fare-Cop]

Today I have received a court summons. It's dated 24 Feb but received today, 12 March. The court date is 23 March...not leaving me much time.

The date stamped on the Summons will be the date on which it was authorised by the Court, it would then have been sent back to the prosecutor's office and then posted to you with all other relevant papers in accordance with the Criminal Investigations & Procedures Act (1996). Unless it's changed since I retired, the minimum time allowed by a Court between service of a Summons and the first hearing is actually only 7 days, but I agree, this does seem a little tight, we always recommended a minimum of 14 days to give a defendant time to respond

They have given me three options:

1) Plead guilty, pay £200 (ticket and court fee) and not appear in court.

I think you may be confused, this looks to me like the total of the fare that they are claiming and the application for prosecution costs that they will ask the Court to award against you if they are successful, probably something in the area of £150 or so, plus the fare. If successful there would also be any fine the Court might choose to impose.

The prosecutor cannot include on a Summons a 'fee to make it go away'

2) Plead guilty, not pay £200 and appear in court in person.

Again, this is an option to accept the allegation and await the decision of the Court, but notifies you of the claim they intend to make and would be added to any fine the Court impose if they are successful in the prosecution.

3) Plead not guilty and then wait for a new court date so the train manager can appear to give evidence.

If you are not guilty of any offence, this is the clear course of action that should result in a full examination of the evidence put by both sides, it also gives you or your legal advisor the opportunity to question the prosecution case and any witnesses, including the Train Manager, in front of the Magistrates

The court summons includes a copy of the train manager's written statement. It includes considerable false information. They've also included a copy of the free gate exit pass she issued for me to leave at Birmingham.

If you can clearly show that the statement by the staff member is false then a not-guilty plea is recommended. You would be well advised to secure the services of a solicitor who is versed in criminal law to represent you, preferably one who is known to the Court at which the case is to be held, but that's not essential.

My partner thinks I should plead guilty and pay £200 just to make it go away but I am incensed - I paid £70 for the original tickets, which have never been refunded despite what TIL seem to think.

I addressed that above, as I said, they cannot include a 'fee to make it go away' on a Summons, but you will need to consider the best option for you. If the prosecutors have not been interested in settling out of Court, you may still be able to convince them to settle if you wanted to, but given what you have posted here, I can understand your reluctance, why admit to an offence that you believe you did not commit.

Can anyone recommend a place to go for advice? Or does anyone have any experience in this? Thanks again, Scott

It's beyond the remit of this forum to recommend any particular law firm to the exclusion of all others, but if you put 'Fare Evasion - Solicitor' into Google a number of good firms will appear in results.

Please do this - any fine/sentence is the business of the court not TIL. They cannot specify any settlement. It appears that they are offering to settle before court and bullying you into a plea.

I think this is a misunderstanding of what is actually printed on the Summons.

From what has been posted it may be that you have misinterpreted the financial implication of pleading guilty. The train company can indicate the compensation it seeks for the allegedly lost fare and its own costs in bringing the prosecution but this is on top of the sentence the court can impose for the offence, which would be decided on by the magistrate.

I agree 100%, the prosecutor must state the amount of the fare that is claimed avoided and if they want the Court to award their costs if successful they must state what their costs claim will be.

Does the paperwork say “Single Justice Procedure” on it?

Unlikely if they are charging with 'intent to avoid a fare contrary to Section 5.3 of the Regulation of Railways Act (1889)

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

That £200 will just be prosecution costs and compensation for the fare.

Not versed in railway matters, but I'd imagine a fine of £300 or so, plus Government victim surcharge will need to be added to your calculations.

 

[Realfish]

That £200 will just be prosecution costs and compensation for the fare. Not versed in railway matters, but I'd imagine a fine of £300 or so, plus Government victim surcharge will need to be added to your calculations.

...together with the fact that you will have received a criminal conviction, seemingly of 'intent*'. Something, if your account is accurate, as you have described, I find deeply disturbing.
* if you are able, as advised by 'some bloke' (post #25) above, please post the paperwork you have, minus the personal details

 

[Llanigraham]

That £200 will just be prosecution costs and compensation for the fare.

Not versed in railway matters, but I'd imagine a fine of £300 or so, plus Government victim surcharge will need to be added to your calculations.

A Fine awarded by the Court will be dependant on the accused's income.
It is for the accused to provide details of their income, normally before the hearing.

 

[scottinthesky]

Hi everyone. hope you're all faring well from the trauma of the last few months.

Many of you very graciously helped me with information earlier in the year with this case and I wanted to give an update.
TIL issued a court summons and sent me a separate letter "strongly encouraging" me to pay them £168 to avoid this. I declined and prepared all of my evidence for the court. I explained I would be representing myself and that it would be out of proportion to instruct a solicitor for such a small sum etc. The court were very helpful and guided me with paperwork. Then four things happened all in parallel [note that all quotes in " are direct quotes from each organisation]:

1) I issued a court summons to Trainline. I wanted them to be present because they could explain why XTC refused to accept the ticket when I had no idea it had been invalidated. Trainline suddenly became helpful and responsive and they carried out a full investigation. They found a "systems error" had caused the problem. They also said that the XTC train staff should have been aware of this because it is a "common, well-known problem in the industry". They said that even if the train staff had been unaware of this, XTC themselves should have realised this. Even more telling, their electronic system showed that the e-tix had been 'clipped' by the train staff despite the error messages on the handheld devices and that no refund had been issued.

2) Capital One's dispute team wrote to me formally and said that despite TIL's claim that I had refunded the tickets, no refund had been attempted or issued. They agreed to provide specific evidence for use in court.

3) TIL wrote to me with a rather emotive letter. They said they were "disappointed" I had chosen to proceed to court and offered a "final offer" of paying £288 to avoid a court appearance. They said it was "rare" for them to offer this and I should consider myself "fortunate" to have been offered it. This smacked of desperation and I became ever more suspicious of their intent. I sent the letter to the court as evidence.

4) I decided to review XTC's own prosecution policy to see if they'd followed this before they referred the case to TIL, particularly considering they had not contacted me directly. Their website has two versions of the PP on it, one 'live' on the site and another in a PDF attachment. Several points are contradictory and it's clear which is the most up to date. They also list different members of staff as the responsible person for prosecutions. I contacted customer relations online and asked who was the responsible person - they replied and said "To be honest Scott, I don't know." No further help was forthcoming. I therefore prepared a lengthy document for the head of revenue and asked them to explain each point of the PP they had failed to follow (they had not followed about 75% of their own policies).

Considering all of this, I then contacted the Rail Ombudsman. Within 24 hours they contacted me to say they'd passed my case to Transport Focus. I heard from TF the next day and they said "It appears you have been treated very unfairly..." and they agreed to liaise with each organisation involved although stated they couldn't get involved in the legal process. Within 5 days, TIL sent me a curt letter to say they had decided not to pursue this. They didn't offer an explanation and ended the letter with "This matter is now closed."

TF did a fantastic job and I'm pleased the court case has been dropped (the date was during lockdown and the court said they wouldn't facilitate remote attendance - I would've had to travel from Newcastle to Birmingham to attend) but I think this issue is far from over. They caused me stress for several months and preparing my evidence took hours and hours. It was patently clear from the start their evidence was shaky but they behaved like ambulance-chasers - desperate for me to pay for an easy life.

TF are pursuing TIL - they want a written explanation for their actions and a review of their original evidence. I have just heard from XCT too. A junior administrator has written and said their senior team are working from home and can't reply directly (?). It's basically a letter to fob me off. They haven't answered any of my questions in relation to the PP and have blamed TIL for everything, saying that because they're a third part contractor, they're not responsible. TF are pressing XTC for an answer too.

I have an appointment with a civil law solicitor next week to discuss the possibility of suing TIL for the months of bullying actions. I have no idea if that's something that will come to fruition but I'd like to make sure they don't get away with this. I think most of my friends and family would've been so scared of TIL's threats, they'd have paid up, even if they knew they were in the right.

Thanks again for all of your previous messages, I thought those of you who tried to help me might appreciate an update

 

[WesternLancer]

Hi everyone. hope you're all faring well from the trauma of the last few months.

Many of you very graciously helped me with information earlier in the year with this case and I wanted to give an update.
TIL issued a court summons and sent me a separate letter "strongly encouraging" me to pay them £168 to avoid this. I declined and prepared all of my evidence for the court. I explained I would be representing myself and that it would be out of proportion to instruct a solicitor for such a small sum etc. The court were very helpful and guided me with paperwork. Then four things happened all in parallel [note that all quotes in " are direct quotes from each organisation]:

1) I issued a court summons to Trainline. I wanted them to be present because they could explain why XTC refused to accept the ticket when I had no idea it had been invalidated. Trainline suddenly became helpful and responsive and they carried out a full investigation. They found a "systems error" had caused the problem. They also said that the XTC train staff should have been aware of this because it is a "common, well-known problem in the industry". They said that even if the train staff had been unaware of this, XTC themselves should have realised this. Even more telling, their electronic system showed that the e-tix had been 'clipped' by the train staff despite the error messages on the handheld devices and that no refund had been issued.

2) Capital One's dispute team wrote to me formally and said that despite TIL's claim that I had refunded the tickets, no refund had been attempted or issued. They agreed to provide specific evidence for use in court.

3) TIL wrote to me with a rather emotive letter. They said they were "disappointed" I had chosen to proceed to court and offered a "final offer" of paying £288 to avoid a court appearance. They said it was "rare" for them to offer this and I should consider myself "fortunate" to have been offered it. This smacked of desperation and I became ever more suspicious of their intent. I sent the letter to the court as evidence.

4) I decided to review XTC's own prosecution policy to see if they'd followed this before they referred the case to TIL, particularly considering they had not contacted me directly. Their website has two versions of the PP on it, one 'live' on the site and another in a PDF attachment. Several points are contradictory and it's clear which is the most up to date. They also list different members of staff as the responsible person for prosecutions. I contacted customer relations online and asked who was the responsible person - they replied and said "To be honest Scott, I don't know." No further help was forthcoming. I therefore prepared a lengthy document for the head of revenue and asked them to explain each point of the PP they had failed to follow (they had not followed about 75% of their own policies).

Considering all of this, I then contacted the Rail Ombudsman. Within 24 hours they contacted me to say they'd passed my case to Transport Focus. I heard from TF the next day and they said "It appears you have been treated very unfairly..." and they agreed to liaise with each organisation involved although stated they couldn't get involved in the legal process. Within 5 days, TIL sent me a curt letter to say they had decided not to pursue this. They didn't offer an explanation and ended the letter with "This matter is now closed."

TF did a fantastic job and I'm pleased the court case has been dropped (the date was during lockdown and the court said they wouldn't facilitate remote attendance - I would've had to travel from Newcastle to Birmingham to attend) but I think this issue is far from over. They caused me stress for several months and preparing my evidence took hours and hours. It was patently clear from the start their evidence was shaky but they behaved like ambulance-chasers - desperate for me to pay for an easy life.

TF are pursuing TIL - they want a written explanation for their actions and a review of their original evidence. I have just heard from XCT too. A junior administrator has written and said their senior team are working from home and can't reply directly (?). It's basically a letter to fob me off. They haven't answered any of my questions in relation to the PP and have blamed TIL for everything, saying that because they're a third part contractor, they're not responsible. TF are pressing XTC for an answer too.

I have an appointment with a civil law solicitor next week to discuss the possibility of seeing TIL for the months of bullying actions. I have no idea if that's something that will come to fruition but I'd like to make sure they don't get away with this. I think most of my friends and family would've been so scared of TIL's threats, they'd have paid up, even if they knew they were in the right.

Thanks again for all of your previous messages, I thought those of you who tried to help me might appreciate an update

Thanks for posting this update - very interesting to read indeed. I am sure regulars on this forum will also be keen to see it.

My instinct is very much to say well done for pursuing this with the thoroughness it deserves. As you say there are still points to be answered, so further updates will be of interest.

I would comment that it is poor that XC Trains have not responded properly given the levels of serious action you have clearly illustrated you are prepared to adopt (never mind taking a 'customer focused' approach). It may be that you want to wait a bit longer if TF are pursuing them. In due course I'd be tempted to ask your MP to write to the Chief Exec of XC Trains and ask them to make it clear to the CEO that as a firm taking substantial sums of public money to run their services they should expect to provide a clear and properly set out reply to the matters being raised, and if not the MP should draw their inability to do that to the attention of the Secretary of State. Their franchise is up for renewal although that process has been put on hold by the govt even before Covid - so it might concentrate the franchise holder's minds.... But as you say such a course of action is perhaps not needed whilst TF are trying to get them to respond.

Others will know if this is correct - but my hunch is that had it gone to court, you would have turned up with the info you had been given by Trainline, at which point the prosecution may well have noted the content and withdrawn the case - you having paid to go to Brum and spent much time in gathering evidence. But I can't be sure of that suggestion of course.

You are quite right to pursue them for the time you have wasted. Few people do such things going by other posts on the thread, so by doing so you will, I think, be helping others falling victim to these sorts of situations.

 

[seaviewer]

Gosh! after reading this, I resolved never, ever, to travel without a paper ticket. Pleased to hear that you persevered and won.

 

[ainsworth74]

Excellent result and it's just disappointing that you've had to put so much time and effort into getting it sorted (it's also disappointing that Trainline only appear to have been motivated to do anything when summonsed themselves). Dare I say more evidence that there are serious flaws in the system of private prosecutions and the way they are operated by the TOCs and the main third party prosecutor TIL. It still feels like there is a very very strong "prosecute and ask for an out of court settlement first, ask questions later" culture.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Hi everyone. hope you're all faring well from the trauma of the last few months.

Many of you very graciously helped me with information earlier in the year with this case and I wanted to give an update.
TIL issued a court summons and sent me a separate letter "strongly encouraging" me to pay them £168 to avoid this. I declined and prepared all of my evidence for the court. I explained I would be representing myself and that it would be out of proportion to instruct a solicitor for such a small sum etc. The court were very helpful and guided me with paperwork. Then four things happened all in parallel [note that all quotes in " are direct quotes from each organisation]:

1) I issued a court summons to Trainline. I wanted them to be present because they could explain why XTC refused to accept the ticket when I had no idea it had been invalidated. Trainline suddenly became helpful and responsive and they carried out a full investigation. They found a "systems error" had caused the problem. They also said that the XTC train staff should have been aware of this because it is a "common, well-known problem in the industry". They said that even if the train staff had been unaware of this, XTC themselves should have realised this. Even more telling, their electronic system showed that the e-tix had been 'clipped' by the train staff despite the error messages on the handheld devices and that no refund had been issued.

2) Capital One's dispute team wrote to me formally and said that despite TIL's claim that I had refunded the tickets, no refund had been attempted or issued. They agreed to provide specific evidence for use in court.

3) TIL wrote to me with a rather emotive letter. They said they were "disappointed" I had chosen to proceed to court and offered a "final offer" of paying £288 to avoid a court appearance. They said it was "rare" for them to offer this and I should consider myself "fortunate" to have been offered it. This smacked of desperation and I became ever more suspicious of their intent. I sent the letter to the court as evidence.

4) I decided to review XTC's own prosecution policy to see if they'd followed this before they referred the case to TIL, particularly considering they had not contacted me directly. Their website has two versions of the PP on it, one 'live' on the site and another in a PDF attachment. Several points are contradictory and it's clear which is the most up to date. They also list different members of staff as the responsible person for prosecutions. I contacted customer relations online and asked who was the responsible person - they replied and said "To be honest Scott, I don't know." No further help was forthcoming. I therefore prepared a lengthy document for the head of revenue and asked them to explain each point of the PP they had failed to follow (they had not followed about 75% of their own policies).

Considering all of this, I then contacted the Rail Ombudsman. Within 24 hours they contacted me to say they'd passed my case to Transport Focus. I heard from TF the next day and they said "It appears you have been treated very unfairly..." and they agreed to liaise with each organisation involved although stated they couldn't get involved in the legal process. Within 5 days, TIL sent me a curt letter to say they had decided not to pursue this. They didn't offer an explanation and ended the letter with "This matter is now closed."

TF did a fantastic job and I'm pleased the court case has been dropped (the date was during lockdown and the court said they wouldn't facilitate remote attendance - I would've had to travel from Newcastle to Birmingham to attend) but I think this issue is far from over. They caused me stress for several months and preparing my evidence took hours and hours. It was patently clear from the start their evidence was shaky but they behaved like ambulance-chasers - desperate for me to pay for an easy life.

TF are pursuing TIL - they want a written explanation for their actions and a review of their original evidence. I have just heard from XCT too. A junior administrator has written and said their senior team are working from home and can't reply directly (?). It's basically a letter to fob me off. They haven't answered any of my questions in relation to the PP and have blamed TIL for everything, saying that because they're a third part contractor, they're not responsible. TF are pressing XTC for an answer too.

I have an appointment with a civil law solicitor next week to discuss the possibility of suing TIL for the months of bullying actions. I have no idea if that's something that will come to fruition but I'd like to make sure they don't get away with this. I think most of my friends and family would've been so scared of TIL's threats, they'd have paid up, even if they knew they were in the right.

Thanks again for all of your previous messages, I thought those of you who tried to help me might appreciate an update

It is brilliant to hear of people such as yourselves who have taken on the bullying cowards that are TIL, and are willing to pursue it further rather than just being happy that the ordeal is over!

In addition to the possibility of any civil claim for your costs/time (or possibly GDPR breaches), you may also wish to raise the possibility of a claim for malicious prosecution with your solicitor. This is also a criminal offence which can be privately prosecuted (just as TIL tried to do to you!).

Of course the standard of evidence required to prove the requisite malice in a malicious prosecution is significant, and even more so if pursuing it criminally. But it is certainly an option I would encourage you to consider pursuing, if nothing else because it may cause the matter to come to the attention of the higher-ups in TIL.

That, in turn, might prevent more people in the same boat as you being unduly pressured into parting with significant sums of money, and could save them a great deal of stress!

You may wish to get in touch with a firm of solicitors specialising in private prosecutions, such as Kingsley Napley, to see if they consider that you might have a case.

 

[Wolfie]

Hi everyone. hope you're all faring well from the trauma of the last few months.

Many of you very graciously helped me with information earlier in the year with this case and I wanted to give an update.
TIL issued a court summons and sent me a separate letter "strongly encouraging" me to pay them £168 to avoid this. I declined and prepared all of my evidence for the court. I explained I would be representing myself and that it would be out of proportion to instruct a solicitor for such a small sum etc. The court were very helpful and guided me with paperwork. Then four things happened all in parallel [note that all quotes in " are direct quotes from each organisation]:

1) I issued a court summons to Trainline. I wanted them to be present because they could explain why XTC refused to accept the ticket when I had no idea it had been invalidated. Trainline suddenly became helpful and responsive and they carried out a full investigation. They found a "systems error" had caused the problem. They also said that the XTC train staff should have been aware of this because it is a "common, well-known problem in the industry". They said that even if the train staff had been unaware of this, XTC themselves should have realised this. Even more telling, their electronic system showed that the e-tix had been 'clipped' by the train staff despite the error messages on the handheld devices and that no refund had been issued.

2) Capital One's dispute team wrote to me formally and said that despite TIL's claim that I had refunded the tickets, no refund had been attempted or issued. They agreed to provide specific evidence for use in court.

3) TIL wrote to me with a rather emotive letter. They said they were "disappointed" I had chosen to proceed to court and offered a "final offer" of paying £288 to avoid a court appearance. They said it was "rare" for them to offer this and I should consider myself "fortunate" to have been offered it. This smacked of desperation and I became ever more suspicious of their intent. I sent the letter to the court as evidence.

4) I decided to review XTC's own prosecution policy to see if they'd followed this before they referred the case to TIL, particularly considering they had not contacted me directly. Their website has two versions of the PP on it, one 'live' on the site and another in a PDF attachment. Several points are contradictory and it's clear which is the most up to date. They also list different members of staff as the responsible person for prosecutions. I contacted customer relations online and asked who was the responsible person - they replied and said "To be honest Scott, I don't know." No further help was forthcoming. I therefore prepared a lengthy document for the head of revenue and asked them to explain each point of the PP they had failed to follow (they had not followed about 75% of their own policies).

Considering all of this, I then contacted the Rail Ombudsman. Within 24 hours they contacted me to say they'd passed my case to Transport Focus. I heard from TF the next day and they said "It appears you have been treated very unfairly..." and they agreed to liaise with each organisation involved although stated they couldn't get involved in the legal process. Within 5 days, TIL sent me a curt letter to say they had decided not to pursue this. They didn't offer an explanation and ended the letter with "This matter is now closed."

TF did a fantastic job and I'm pleased the court case has been dropped (the date was during lockdown and the court said they wouldn't facilitate remote attendance - I would've had to travel from Newcastle to Birmingham to attend) but I think this issue is far from over. They caused me stress for several months and preparing my evidence took hours and hours. It was patently clear from the start their evidence was shaky but they behaved like ambulance-chasers - desperate for me to pay for an easy life.

TF are pursuing TIL - they want a written explanation for their actions and a review of their original evidence. I have just heard from XCT too. A junior administrator has written and said their senior team are working from home and can't reply directly (?). It's basically a letter to fob me off. They haven't answered any of my questions in relation to the PP and have blamed TIL for everything, saying that because they're a third part contractor, they're not responsible. TF are pressing XTC for an answer too.

I have an appointment with a civil law solicitor next week to discuss the possibility of suing TIL for the months of bullying actions. I have no idea if that's something that will come to fruition but I'd like to make sure they don't get away with this. I think most of my friends and family would've been so scared of TIL's threats, they'd have paid up, even if they knew they were in the right.

Thanks again for all of your previous messages, I thought those of you who tried to help me might appreciate an update

I'm not entirely sure that it's relevant but given TIL and indeed XC's behaviour you might ask your solicitor to consider the relevance of Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd. To me as a lay person the behaviour appears to potentially constitute harassment under the terms of the 1997 Act.

Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd - 5RB Barristers

Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd -

www.5rb.com

Practical Law UK Signon

uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com

 

[Tetchytyke]

A subject access request to TIL may well be worth the cost of a stamp.

Ferguson v British Gas Trading was my first thought too!

 

[philthetube]

I have just heard from XCT too. A junior administrator has written and said their senior team are working from home and can't reply directly (?). It's basically a letter to fob me off. They haven't answered any of my questions in relation to the PP and have blamed TIL for everything, saying that because they're a third part contractor, they're not responsible. TF are pressing XTC for an answer too.

I would have thought, (and I admit I may be wrong), that your grievance is actually with XCT, they are responsible for the actions of their agents, (contractors).
Legally XCT have a claim with TIL, not you.

Please be aware that this is my opinion, I do not know it to be fact, but I do know that under consumer law if you buy something from a shop, and it proves defective then your gripe is with the shop and the shop has to deal with it from there upwards.

Good luck anyway.

 

[Wolfie]

I would have thought, (and I admit I may be wrong), that your grievance is actually with XCT, they are responsible for the actions of their agents, (contractors).
Legally XCT have a claim with TIL, not you.

Please be aware that this is my opinion, I do not know it to be fact, but I do know that under consumer law if you buy something from a shop, and it proves defective then your gripe is with the shop and the shop has to deal with it from there upwards.

Good luck anyway.

That strikes me as correct.

 

[furlong]

Please review this thread too about potential official reviews into private prosecutions and maybe see if your MP would be interested in a dossier about your case.

 

[Western Sunset]

I echo all the above and marvel at your perseverance and tenacity.

Do let us know of any further developments.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I would have thought, (and I admit I may be wrong), that your grievance is actually with XCT, they are responsible for the actions of their agents, (contractors).
Legally XCT have a claim with TIL, not you.

Please be aware that this is my opinion, I do not know it to be fact, but I do know that under consumer law if you buy something from a shop, and it proves defective then your gripe is with the shop and the shop has to deal with it from there upwards.

Good luck anyway.

I think the difference here is that OP did not have any contract or other legal relationship with TIL and yet TIL were the ones harassing the OP (possibly the will of XC).

I am sure that the solicitors will inform OP of the correct party/ies to pursue. The law of agency can sometimes lead to surprising outcomes!

 

[jumble]

H

2) Capital One's dispute team wrote to me formally and said that despite TIL's claim that I had refunded the tickets, no refund had been attempted or issued. They agreed to provide specific evidence for use in court.

At least we know for sure now that TIL are prepared to tell blatant lies rather than just telling enough of the truth to mislead the unwary.
I second the idea that a subject access request would be in order
I love the way they claim on their website that their philosophy is a "passion for getting things right lies at the core of everything they do"

 

[WesternLancer]

I love the way they claim on their website that their philosophy is a "passion for getting things right lies at the core of everything they do"

I love the way they claim on their website that their philosophy is a "passion for getting things right lies at the core of everything they do"

Yes, you can just imagine the management 'brainstorming' session where they came up with that...or the consultant that helped them produce it...

 

[talldave]

I love the fact that TIL's "final offer" was higher than their previous one. Smacks of malicious intent to my untrained eye!

 

[talltim]

Just awanted to add my 'well done' to the thread. Please let us know if you do decide totake it any further.

 

[some bloke]

Impressive work, Scott.

Perhaps subject access requests to XC and Trainline could be worthwhile in case they turn up anything interesting, considering XC's account of what they had not been told.

They said they wrote to XCT to explain this and to ask for an explanation. XCT have denied every hearing from Trainline.

 

[PupCuff]

Just to interject, I would make the following comment - whilst it's very easy to criticise the TOC and TIL;

The revenue officer has acted on the information which has been presented to them, in that a scan of the ticket indicated that it had been refunded, and customers purchasing an e-ticket, using it for travel then refunding it is a common fare evasion issue;
The train company reviewing the report has acted on the information which it has available, in the report from the revenue officer and any interrogation of their systems (which would show the same erroneous 'refunded' flag as the revenue officer's inspection device did as they'll work off the same database);
TIL will only work on the evidence which is in front of them, their ethics are perhaps questionable at times and I would like to think professionalism is one of the areas in which they intend to develop but here on this board we only see a small proportion of the cases they deal with and the ones we do see tend to be where an error has been made somewhere along the line and slipped through the net hence the need to dispute.

It's Trainline here who have erroneously marked on the system that the ticket they sold has been refunded and after investigation admitted it was caused by a system problem. Trainline have tried to deflect blame by saying either the revenue officer or the train company should have known it was a problem with seemingly no explanation of why anyone involved should have known that a ticket marked as 'refunded' had not actually been 'refunded'. I would imagine there would be some level of service third party ticket retailers must meet in order to sell train tickets, so an avenue could be to raise a complaint with the authority that manages this?

Incidentally, all this sort of thing is why I like a nice orange piece of card in my hand. It hasn't failed me yet.

 

[DelW]

What an awful saga of incompetence, malpractice and outright lying by three supposedly reputable organisations. One of the worst aspects is that all three were apparently willing to harass an entirely innocent passenger into accepting a criminal record, despite having done nothing at all wrong, simply in order to cover up their own incompetence.

Well done to the OP for fighting his way through this, and one hopes that these organisations are indeed punished for their actions.

I'm another one who always wants a physical ticket in my hand, an opinion regularly reinforced by cases like this one.

 

[Bikeman78]

What an awful saga of incompetence, malpractice and outright lying by three supposedly reputable organisations. One of the worst aspects is that all three were apparently willing to harass an entirely innocent passenger into accepting a criminal record, despite having done nothing at all wrong, simply in order to cover up their own incompetence.

Well done to the OP for fighting his way through this, and one hopes that these organisations are indeed punished for their actions.

I'm another one who always wants a physical ticket in my hand, an opinion regularly reinforced by cases like this one.

Totally agree. It's all to easy for a glitch in the system to make your ticket disappear. I'm happy to risk it with a two quid bus ticket. I can easily write that off and pay again with cash or debit card. Rather different with a £70 ticket. Same with plane tickets. No way I'm turning up at the airport without printed evidence of my ticket.

In the 30 odd years that I've been responsible for my own rail tickets, I have only ever lost one. I dropped it on an escalator coming up from the Underground and it fell down the side of the step. Fortunately I knew the guard on the train back to Cardiff and, after they had stopped laughing, they let me on without problem.

I had a similar problem with a reloadable cash card for a restaurant chain. When it came to paying the bill, it would not scan. After several attempts, the waitress managed to check the balance on the card. Fortunately I had checked the balance earlier and I knew that the credit had reduced by the amount owed. I was able to log in to my account and show the amount had been debited a few minutes earlier. Just shows how easily computers can wipe out credit and leave no evidence at the scene.

 

[jumble]

What an awful saga of incompetence, malpractice and outright lying by three supposedly reputable organisations. One of the worst aspects is that all three were apparently willing to harass an entirely innocent passenger into accepting a criminal record, despite having done nothing at all wrong, simply in order to cover up their own incompetence.

Well done to the OP for fighting his way through this, and one hopes that these organisations are indeed punished for their actions.

I'm another one who always wants a physical ticket in my hand, an opinion regularly reinforced by cases like this one.

Likewise I will only use either paper tickets or print at home advance ones as this saga demonstrates that if the service provider makes a mistake then the customer can be prosecuted.
I don't care which of the three companies involved are at fault just that if one of them messes up then the consequences are a potential nightmare.
I have always considered the technology a bit flakey in any event

 

[WesternLancer]

Just to interject, I would make the following comment - whilst it's very easy to criticise the TOC and TIL;

The revenue officer has acted on the information which has been presented to them, in that a scan of the ticket indicated that it had been refunded, and customers purchasing an e-ticket, using it for travel then refunding it is a common fare evasion issue;
The train company reviewing the report has acted on the information which it has available, in the report from the revenue officer and any interrogation of their systems (which would show the same erroneous 'refunded' flag as the revenue officer's inspection device did as they'll work off the same database);
TIL will only work on the evidence which is in front of them, their ethics are perhaps questionable at times and I would like to think professionalism is one of the areas in which they intend to develop but here on this board we only see a small proportion of the cases they deal with and the ones we do see tend to be where an error has been made somewhere along the line and slipped through the net hence the need to dispute.

It's Trainline here who have erroneously marked on the system that the ticket they sold has been refunded and after investigation admitted it was caused by a system problem. Trainline have tried to deflect blame by saying either the revenue officer or the train company should have known it was a problem with seemingly no explanation of why anyone involved should have known that a ticket marked as 'refunded' had not actually been 'refunded'. I would imagine there would be some level of service third party ticket retailers must meet in order to sell train tickets, so an avenue could be to raise a complaint with the authority that manages this?

Incidentally, all this sort of thing is why I like a nice orange piece of card in my hand. It hasn't failed me yet.

Points well made - but it all just fails Barry Doe's 'John Lewis' test doesn't it - why would you run a business (or allow your products in this case a ticket) to be sold via a system that had system errors that basically led to your customers being accused of shop lifting on a potentially regular basis - and expect them to keep patronizing your business....

and then refuse to believe them, refuse to answer their legitimate request for information until they take you to court or an Ombudsman, but threaten them with criminal record instead.

 

[Tetchytyke]

TIL will only work on the evidence which is in front of them

No, TIL will take a selective view of the evidence in front of them and will conveniently ignore any evidence that disproves their position. The fact that they then attempted to mislead the OP about the "refund" makes it worse. If the police investigated something this badly, questions would be asked.

As you say, I can't blame the XC guard for reporting what they saw, there's no blame attached to the XC guard. But there is lots and lots of blame attached to TIL- and XC, because ultimately TIL are merely an agent of XC- and this is just yet another example of why they should lose their rights to bring prosecutions.

 

[PupCuff]

Points well made - but it all just fails Barry Doe's 'John Lewis' test doesn't it - why would you run a business (or allow your products in this case a ticket) to be sold via a system that had system errors that basically led to your customers being accused of shop lifting on a potentially regular basis - and expect them to keep patronizing your business....

and then refuse to believe them, refuse to answer their legitimate request for information until they take you to court or an Ombudsman, but threaten them with criminal record instead.

I agree. It may be different now but 90% of problems when I used to work out on the trains came from third party retailers, whether it be incorrect information given to the customer, seat reservations messed up, etc. My understanding of it is, if you have a licence from whoever (RDG?) to retail train tickets then you can just get on with it and can quite happily sell whatever tickets are available in industry systems. What audit processes there are to make sure this is done in a manner which meets the standard is something I don't know and feel should be improved which would hopefully highlight things like this.

No, TIL will take a selective view of the evidence in front of them and will conveniently ignore any evidence that disproves their position. The fact that they then attempted to mislead the OP about the "refund" makes it worse. If the police investigated something this badly, questions would be asked.

Clearly ethically you should consider all the evidence before going to prosecute and disclose it as required. But if it took Trainline being summoned to testify as a witness to get them to investigate and admit their error then it would seem that it was only at this stage where the real reason for the invalid ticket came to light and it wouldn't be appropriate to continue with a prosecution.

 

[Tetchytyke]

But if it took Trainline being summoned to testify as a witness to get them to investigate and admit their error then it would seem that it was only at this stage where the real reason for the invalid ticket came to light

Trainline certainly don't come out of it looking at all good, I quite agree. But I think you are being rather too kind on TIL, who clearly did not investigate what happened with the ticket when the OP told them his version of events, instead choosing to double down on the threats.

As I said, a subject access request to TIL asking for copies of all correspondence between TIL, XC and Trainline would be interesting. I suspect neither XC nor TIL bothered themselves to check what the OP was saying. And that makes it particularly egregious.

 

[Howardh]

Is this problem one soley of Trainline, or does it affect other ticket agents, including the train companies themselves?