"Train passenger fined £470 for not paying £2 fare (after he'd just spent £200 on another ticket)"

[mmh]

And what happens if I ask for a zero-fare excess there?

Clue: I have never, not once, been issued one even where I have specifically requested it. I've even ended up with bizarre workarounds like refunding an already used ticket as if it hadn't been used and issuing a replacement (this one was care of Euston LM a couple of years ago). But mostly been told not to worry as the fare is the same.

A prosecution in this case is beyond ridiculous.

That's my experience too. The LM guard who found London-Atherstone was a zero-fare excess over London-Nuneaton for me didn't issue one, he just told me not to worry.

 

[AlterEgo]

Would you arrive at a London terminal and then expect a your LondonTerminals tickett To cover you for a trip in Zone one?

Some people would, quite innocently. I have dealt with a few people who wondered why their London Terminals ticket wouldn’t work the Euston barrier line.

 

[farleigh]

The lighter side of human kindness shown by the RPI.

 

[Gareth Marston]

On the Tube? No, because it isn't the (National Rail) train.

Would I, however, arrive at Manchester Piccadilly and expect to be able to continue using my Anytime ticket on another train to Manchester Oxford Road? Of course I would, and indeed I can.

(Don't cite the Thameslink situation as it's frankly bizarre; only an obscure agreement with TfL on fares means that the logical situation, the fare to any Zone 1 Thameslink station being the same, cannot be the case)

Cardiff Central to Heath High Level is 3 miles 19 chains further than Manchester Piccadily to Salford Crescent and further than Oxford Rd.

On a different system altogether with different non-zero fare differences to wherever I was going? Probably not.

But that's reminded me of a fare mistake I used to make years ago multiple times a week until one day someone explained
why my ticket was never accepted at a barrier. I often used to buy tickets to London Zone U1 (I think that's how it was printed) from a south London national rail station, and changed to the Northern Line at Balham. As far as I remember the tickets would open the barrier leaving Balham NR (I think this would be a valid break-of-journey anyway) but never open the barrier at Balham Underground. The barrier staff always let me through though, until one day someone told me those tickets were only valid to take national rail to zone 1, then an underground journey within zone 1, not just "any journey to a zone 1 station". He let me through I think, but with a "you shouldn't do this again", so I never did.

How are you supposed to know that though? I had a ticket from my origin to my destination, with no indication that my route wasn't the point of the ticket.

His ticket would have had "Cardiff Central" printed on it it did not have Heath High Level on it. There clearly two different stations.

And what happens if I ask for a zero-fare excess there?

Clue: I have never, not once, been issued one even where I have specifically requested it. I've even ended up with bizarre workarounds like refunding an already used ticket as if it hadn't been used and issuing a replacement (this one was care of Euston LM a couple of years ago). But mostly been told not to worry as the fare is the same.

A prosecution in this case is beyond ridiculous.

As I posted previously there's probably a ruck of unanswered correspondence between the journey and the court case. This has gone there because of that not because of the nature of the offence.

Some people would, quite innocently. I have dealt with a few people who wondered why their London Terminals ticket wouldn’t work the Euston barrier line.

I've had people ask for tickets to "London" believing that covers Heathrow or Gatwick Airports however in this case the man in the article was clearly not unaware of the geography of Cardiff.

 

[Wychwood93]

Some of the railway professionals posting on this thread seem to forget that most people (especially those who aren't regular commuters) don't understand the arcane regulations and fares structures of our insanely deregulated rail industry. I wonder if the man concerned simply booked a ticket to Cardiff online without realising that he could have got one to his final destination at no extra cost? Was he expected to make a detour to the booking office at Cardiff (possibly missing his connection) or did he – quite reasonably – expect to be able to pay the guard on the second train? And even if he was knowingly chancing it, why was he not offered the chance to pay even a penalty fare when challenged? Anyway, talk about sledgehammers to crack nuts!

I believe that 'Butterfly on a wheel' was used with regard to the Rolling Stones - very similar.

 

[thedbdiboy]

I believe ORCATS does provide some revenue to every possible operator for each ticket, even if the chance of using them is very low (it's based on a model developed in the 1980s, laughably simplistic by today's standards). Since it's possible to change at Newport to an ATW train on the "direct" route and it's additionally permitted to travel via Cheltenham, ATW would have recieved a (probably very small) proportion of the ticket revenue.

No, ORCATS doesn't work like that - it models allocations based on probable use so there are many permitted route/operator combinations that don't actually allocate any money to the potential carrying operator. In theory, revenue is supposed to accrue to operators based on services actually used but it's very much done on the basis that TOCs get all sorts of money that they are not technically entitled to but then pay similar sums to other TOCs on the same basis. This is all based on models devised in the 1980s but in the next decade the data from digital ticketing is likely to finally put this arcane process out to grass.

 

[CentralTrainer]

And what happens if I ask for a zero-fare excess there?

Clue: I have never, not once, been issued one even where I have specifically requested it. I've even ended up with bizarre workarounds like refunding an already used ticket as if it hadn't been used and issuing a replacement (this one was care of Euston LM a couple of years ago). But mostly been told not to worry as the fare is the same.

A prosecution in this case is beyond ridiculous.

No - any sane, right thinking person would approach a member of station staff or the Excess Window, explain they’ve a ticket to get them as far as Central - they need to get to Heath at short notice - and how much it would be to get to there from here.

Not blindly walk past staff and the window in the vain hope they, under ATW eyes, jump on the train and chance getting away with it.

And as it happens - the only time I’ve needed a zero issued and asked for it - I’ve gotten it without any further explanation or issues

 

[yorksrob]

A massive court case for a 0 cost excess ? The TOC should be prosecuted for wasting the courts time.

 

[Antman]

A massive court case for a 0 cost excess ? The TOC should be prosecuted for wasting the courts time.

I totally agree that the TOC should be prosecuted and this case just highlights the nonsense of the current system.

 

[falcon]

Man over travels, Man gets caught, man moves house and thinks it will all go away, Man gets fined by the courts, man is rather stupid. The folly of man.

Now that's the truth of the matter.

 

[Antman]

Now that's the truth of the matter.

He'd over travelled saving himself a grand total of......................zilch!

 

[falcon]

I totally agree that the TOC should be prosecuted and this case just highlights the nonsense of the current system.

There was no court case.

It was a rubber stamp job at court with a set fine because he did not answer the documentation sent to his old address.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Some people would, quite innocently. I have dealt with a few people who wondered why their London Terminals ticket wouldn’t work the Euston barrier line.

Enough people do that there is a specific sign about it downstairs at the LU barrier.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There was no court case.

It was a rubber stamp job at court with a set fine because he did not answer the documentation sent to his old address.

It should never have got near any court. It completely fails any public interest test to prosecute someone who has evaded a fare of precisely £0.00. All it does is makes the TOC look petty, bureaucratic and silly.

Prosecute people who have actually evaded a fare, not people who have simply made an administrative error. The TOCs make enough of them themselves.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And as it happens - the only time I’ve needed a zero issued and asked for it - I’ve gotten it without any further explanation or issues

You're lucky. I have never, ever received an actual zero excess, and I have requested them a few times. As I mentioned, when specifically requesting one I have had:

a. Flat refusal and a demand to pay a single fare for the extra (noting that that didn't allow me to take a fast train unlike the excess)
b. Flat refusal and a statement that it doesn't matter because the fare is the same (this one is the most common)
c. A non-issue refund (no £10 fee) and new ticket issued despite the old one having actually been used for travel
d. On one occasion, an excess for £0.05 (this one was the most bizarre, I wouldn't have liked to explain that one away)

They really are quite hard to get.

 

[Sleepy]

When Advantix was about still it was easy to do the 5p excess to avoid the paper fuss for zero excess !

 

[Gareth Marston]

It should never have got near any court. It completely fails any public interest test to prosecute someone who has evaded a fare of precisely £0.00. All it does is makes the TOC look petty, bureaucratic and silly.

Prosecute people who have actually evaded a fare, not people who have simply made an administrative error. The TOCs make enough of them themselves.

I'm sure it wouldn't if he had engaged with the initial correspondence. The person says he moved from the address he gave the RPI's and for whatever reason the court judgement was the first thing that was forwarded to him , according to him anyway. We haven't got the invidual here to help fill in the gaps but don't you think it's a bit strange that a court judgement letter finds its way to him months after he's moved but other stuff apparently hasn't?

Whether there should be a Cardiff Zone 1 fare or whatever? Yes but it's a different matter to not responding to correspondence.

 

[Bletchleyite]

When Advantix was about still it was easy to do the 5p excess to avoid the paper fuss for zero excess !

It was I think back in Avantix days. TBH I'd be happy for a flat fee of 5p (or even 50p) to be charged for them if it meant they could be issued freely as and when required without a stupid debate or a load of paperwork for staff.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm sure it wouldn't if he had engaged with the initial correspondence.

I bet he'd have got a £80 special. But it isn't even justifying of that. The first check any prosecutions department should do is "did the passenger actually evade payment of any money?" If the answer is no, chuck the report in the bin and move on to the next one.

Actually, it shouldn't even have got that far. The RPI should have checked. Fare evaded: £0.00. "Sorry, sir, did you know the rules have changed and you can't actually do that any more even though it's the same price and it used to be common practice? But you can change your ticket for free if you speak to a ticket window or guard before you finish your ticketed journey". Job done.

It is petty beyond belief.

 

[Realfish]

There was no court case.

It was a rubber stamp job at court with a set fine because he did not answer the documentation sent to his old address.

If true, and he was not aware of the proceedings presumably a possible remedy is for the passenger to approach the court and make a statutory declaration to reset the process. That said, I don't understand how he failed to receive any communication from ATW or, subsequently, from the court prior to proceedings, but did find out that the case had been heard and he had been fined.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm sure it wouldn't if he had engaged with the initial correspondence.

You need to go further back than that.

The RPI- presumably targeted on catching low-hanging fruit- should have shown some common sense.

The prosecutions decision maker at ATW should have used some common sense.

Utterly ridiculous situation, but threatening criminal prosecutions is big business for TOCs. Lots of Penalty Fakes, all for minimal cost. The sooner Byelaws issues stop being a criminal matter, the better.

 

[Tetchytyke]

That said, I don't understand how he failed to receive any communication from ATW or, subsequently, from the court prior to proceedings, but did find out that the case had been heard and he had been fined.

Easy.

ATW and the courts don't chase people.

The private bailiffs- who can legally charge £310+ fees to those they enforce criminal fines against- are very persistent in finding said people.

It's very common that people only find out about a fine when the bailiffs turn up to take their stuff. I deal with it daily.

 

[yorkie]

ORCATs allocations are irrelevant; if he had obtained the over-distance excess prior to travel (or on board the train, as many Guards would have done), the ORCATs allocation would be unchanged. So there is no point bringing revenue allocations into this discussion.

A massive court case for a 0 cost excess ? The TOC should be prosecuted for wasting the courts time.

They should, but our laws and legal system are a shambles, so they won't.

Would you arrive at a London terminal and then expect a your LondonTerminals tickett To cover you for a trip in Zone one?

On the Underground, I assume you mean? Yes I would; I could go from King's Cross to Moorgate. Not sure what that has to do with this case though?

If it was me I would have just done an over distance excess and reminded him to make sure the ticket has the correct destination (due to the fare being the same) For me there is no intent so common sense should have been used.

The RPI- presumably targeted on catching low-hanging fruit- should have shown some common sense.

Not a job requirement for that position, sadly. It should be, but it isn't. And that's the way train companies with a history of mistreating people, such as ATW and Northern, want it to be.

The prosecutions decision maker at ATW should have used some common sense.

True but that's not their priority. They will even see this as good publicity. They know people will think of them in a poor light and be put off rail travel but they don't care about that. They want to instil fear in people and they achieve that. So they'll be happy with this result, and happy to get the bad press too.

Utterly ridiculous situation, but threatening criminal prosecutions is big business for TOCs. Lots of Penalty Fakes, all for minimal cost. The sooner Byelaws issues stop being a criminal matter, the better.

Absolutely. We need change and we need it sooner rather than later.

I suggest people write to their MPs about the way certain train companies behave.

 

[Clip]

We do. Upthread it is quoted that the Anytime fare to both destinations is the same, and the magnitude of the fare mentioned is clearly not any other fare.

Come along Neil you are well aware that price does not denote validty - if it did then we could all have some fabulous trips out.

Given the cost of prosecution and the level of punishment handed down it hardly seems to have been in the public interest to bring the prosecution.

Its a private prosecution so has nothing to do with being in the 'public interest' and the cost is to be paid by the defendant so it seems.

Would you arrive at a London terminal and then expect a your LondonTerminals tickett To cover you for a trip in Zone one?

This actually happens for journeys into Kings cross as some have validity on the tube to Moorgate

A massive court case for a 0 cost excess ? The TOC should be prosecuted for wasting the courts time.

Massive? He was probably one of about 20 - 30 that ATW had brought to court that day and its not wasted if the court found in ATWs favour is it?

It should never have got near any court. It completely fails any public interest test to prosecute someone who has evaded a fare of precisely £0.00. All it does is makes the TOC look petty, bureaucratic and silly.

Prosecute people who have actually evaded a fare, not people who have simply made an administrative error. The TOCs make enough of them themselves.

Again, the fare evaded is £3. his tickets validity ran out at Cardiff Central

 

[falcon]

Again.He was fined for not answering court documents. £440 is a standard non apearance fine plus costs and victim surcharge = £471.

The story in the media is all twisted round and sensationalised to con the unsuspecting and gullible.

Just standard media rubbish.

And yes we have that old chestnut I moved address so did not get the documentation (then go and make a statutory declaration to get the fine expunged).

 

[6Gman]

Let's work through this.

Man gets off train at Heath, is stopped by RPI, and has no valid ticket for travel to Heath.

His details are taken (so he might reasonably expect some correspondence).

He moves house, but doesn't make any arrangements to forward correspondence or any effort to contact ATW (one presumes, or he would have mentioned it).

ATW (or their agents) write to him, presumably asking for his account of events.

No reply. Perhaps they write again.

No reply.

So they move to prosecution. The relevant documentation is served but there is no response.

The case goes before the Court. No response from the accused, no explanations, no mitigation, no attendance.

The standard fine, costs (and fare) are applied.

This documentation - eventually - reaches him. He gets upset.

Perhaps ATW's actions were ill-advised, but he has rather contributed to his own difficulties hasn't he?

 

[JohnB57]

Deleted

 

[bb21]

Please be reminded that under NO CIRCUMSTANCE is it permitted to be insulting a fellow forum member, whatever you think of their point of view that is being put across. If there is a problematic post you must report it instead of reacting to it.

No individual warning (including points) was issued for transgressions in this thread having taken into account the way the thread developed, however I am sure those of you who did so are aware who you are, so please consider this a final warning.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I bet he'd have got a £80 special. But it isn't even justifying of that. The first check any prosecutions department should do is "did the passenger actually evade payment of any money?" If the answer is no, chuck the report in the bin and move on to the next one.

Actually, it shouldn't even have got that far. The RPI should have checked. Fare evaded: £0.00. "Sorry, sir, did you know the rules have changed and you can't actually do that any more even though it's the same price and it used to be common practice? But you can change your ticket for free if you speak to a ticket window or guard before you finish your ticketed journey". Job done.

The RPI would only have been able to make that check if the person concerned had explained that he'd come from London, not Cardiff - and showed the RPI the London-Cardiff ticket. There's no indication in the starting post of this thread as to whether he did so, so it's probably not a good idea to make any assumptions either way.

 

[Starmill]

Your thoughts and views appreciated.

I wish I could share the OP's generosity towards certain people in this matter!