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

[mmh]

There are legal controls on the railway - one of them happens to be that you must be in possession of a valid ticket when travelling on ATW trains. This passenger didnt possess such a ticket so was penalised then didnt turn up to court.

its pretty much black and white no matter how you try to spin it.

It's not black and white by any means, ATW operate many stations with no staff or ticket facilities at all. Having never been on an ATW train not on a North Wales route I've never seen an ATW train where you couldn't buy tickets on-board. How am I supposed to know that this isn't always the case?

 

[Darandio]

As multiple ATW defending posters have said, he should have gone to the window at Cardiff Central, and had he done so ATW should have charged him 0.00, so that's the fare he didn't pay.

And then he moves house and thinks it will all go away. Post #56 sums it up fairly well.

Regardless of how stupid the situation is in terms of the actual fare evaded, they could have also made sure it never got this far.

 

[yorkie]

So effectively the fine is for having a ticket that says Cardiff on it not....

Essentially the original offence was indeed that the ticket stated Cardiff instead of Heath; the price paid was the correct price.

However it escalated because of various other circumstances, but that's the root cause. It's not over how much money was paid for the journey made; no-one can deny it was the correct amount.

 

[PermitToTravel]

The attitude of some posters on here is, frankly, utterly hilarious. Compare what the average person on the street would think of this to what the average Railforums member seems to think...

 

[158756]

Did he actually show the RPI or ATW the ticket to Cardiff? If not as far as they can tell he's just one of the many treating the Valley Lines and other parts of the network as a free ride, costing taxpayers millions of pounds every year.

You might then say £2 fares aren't worth following up, but if not what's the point of charging fares in the first place. There is widespread fare evasion and letting people off, even for small amounts, just encourages more and angers the honest customers who have paid the fare.

 

[mmh]

Going back (again) to my failure to buy one ticket despite trying in 5 places on one journey (2 ticket offices, 1 excess fares window, 1 guard, 1 train with unreachable guard), what should have happened to me for travelling to Weston-super-Mare from Swindon on a ticket which finished at Swindon?

The railway is far from perfect on this stuff, which is another reason common-sense should be used - which most guards seem to have, except on here perhaps, but seems all too often to be missing when it comes to RPI staff enforcing The Rules.

 

[yorkie]

Did he actually show the RPI or ATW the ticket to Cardiff?

I can't believe they won't have established where the journey started; if the answer was 'Cardiff' the next question would be how did you get through the barriers. It would soon become apparent the journey started from London.

You might then say £2 fares aren't worth following up, but if not what's the point of charging fares in the first place. There is widespread fare evasion and letting people off, even for small amounts, just encourages more and angers the honest customers who have paid the fare.

I find this statement to be bizarre.

The person paid the correct amount, around £200 for the journey made, and yet you are asking what is the point of charging fares?

No-one is saying £2 fares are not following up; sensible people are saying that if the person has paid the right amount of money, then they should not be prosecuted. Did you ignore the post from ANorthernGuard earlier about what he would have done?

The railway is far from perfect on this stuff, which is another reason common-sense should be used - which most guards seem to have, except on here perhaps, but seems all too often to be missing when it comes to RPI staff enforcing The Rules.

I agree the vast majority of Guards show common sense. I wouldn't say "except on here", as I am not aware of any Guards on here who have disagreed with what a sensible guard, ANorthernGuard, said he would have done.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is an unintended consequence of de-nationalisation.

I'm not sure it is. SBB is a nationalised railway and has an even more draconian ticketing policy than the UK does. On regional DOO services, there is no valid reason for boarding without a ticket. If all the TVMs are failed at a station, the station is de-facto closed unless you already have one or use a mobile ticket. (It isn't quite as strict on the ICs and IRs provided you speak to the guard immediately, I believe, though if you sit down and wait for them you'll be getting a CHF100 PF - and the guards can issue them unlike here).

 

[SouthStand]

I completely agree. It demonstrates how the railway is not responsible or sensible enough to have the law on its side in this case, and justifies my belief that railway fare evasion on the level of simple failure to pay the correct fare should be a civil matter (with regular fraud charges used for genuine fraud e.g. falsification and misrepresentation).

It seems to be reaching the point with this utter nonsense (prosecution for an administrative error and evasion of £0.00) that it's time for the railways to be treated like the car parking companies and have many of their rights removed.

Indeed. I rarely travel by train nowadays (perhaps once every 3 months or so) and used to look disapprovingly on fare dodgers. Nowadays I despair when reading threads like this and think if you can get away with it then good luck to you!

 

[Antman]

Well he dodged the fare between Cardiff General and Heath High Level.

Saving himself exactly nothing!

 

[tiptoptaff]

Gave his address then moved, or gave his address KNOWING he's going to move? I suspect the latter.

 

[Antman]

And then he moves house and thinks it will all go away. Post #56 sums it up fairly well.

Regardless of how stupid the situation is in terms of the actual fare evaded, they could have also made sure it never got this far.

Goodness me, how dare he move home? Whatever was he thinking? Surely you're not suggesting he moved purely because of this nonsense?

 

[beeza1]

Despite the railway being legally correct in this case, this is the sort of nonsense that gives "the railway" a bad name in the UK.
there is a widely held view that fares and ticketing are DELIBERATLY made as complex as possible, SPECIFICALY in order to extract fines, penalties and surcharges from passengers.

I think you can also add MISLEADING to that assumption.
When I get a ticket to Birmingham the destination states "Birmingham Stations", I don't think it's unreasonable to assume this means ALL stations in Birmingham, but as I now know it only means New Street, Moor Street and Snow Hill, I found this out when I continued to Five Ways, the person who checked my ticket informed me it wasn't valid but said "I will let it go this time, make sure you get the correct ticket next time" or something similar, it was a few years ago. Perhaps it would be better if it stated "Birmingham Central Stations".
I think a similar situation exists with Manchester tickets.

 

[Antman]

This kind of thing is exactly why my elderly sister, who is nearing 80 years old, still drives more than 50 miles each way to visit her son every few weeks. She could easily make the journey by rail and her son begs her to, but she doesn't want to make an honest mistake and fall afoul of this kind of thing. It is an unintended consequence of de-nationalisation.

Exactly that, you've hit the nail on the head and I wonder how many other law abiding people don't use the railway for the same reason, get on the wrong train or miss your stop and you could land up in court and this particular case highlights the absurdity of it all.

Imagine spending £200 plus in a supermarket and then being prosecuted because you forgot to pay for the carrier bags.

 

[Darandio]

Surely you're not suggesting he moved purely because of this nonsense?

Of course i'm not. Try again.

 

[exile]

Did he actually show the RPI or ATW the ticket to Cardiff? If not as far as they can tell he's just one of the many treating the Valley Lines and other parts of the network as a free ride, costing taxpayers millions of pounds every year.

You might then say £2 fares aren't worth following up, but if not what's the point of charging fares in the first place. There is widespread fare evasion and letting people off, even for small amounts, just encourages more and angers the honest customers who have paid the fare.

But there was NO lost revenue. The fare to Heath was the same as that to Cardiff.

 

[Chris M]

Exactly that, you've hit the nail on the head and I wonder how many other law abiding people don't use the railway for the same reason, get on the wrong train or miss your stop and you could land up in court and this particular case highlights the absurdity of it all.

Imagine spending £200 plus in a supermarket and then being prosecuted because you forgot to pay for the carrier bags.

On, as in my experience get given a penalty fare even though I had the correct ticket for my journey. I knew I was right and so I appealed and the penalty fare was cancelled (about a fortnight later) but how many people wouldn't have been sure enough to challenge the RPI and ended up paying a fine on top of the correct fare?

 

[takno]

Of course i'm not. Try again.

I spent my first 10 years out of uni moving house most years, and never staying in one for more than 2 years. That's the reality of living in the private rented sector, and if you are moving for jobs even more so. Even paying for the 3 months standard redirection is a luxury at that point that normal people can't afford. You just re-address everything you can think of and move on. Even if you do buy the redirection I'd estimate it's at best 95% effective while it's active, and almost nobody goes above the 3 months. There's been plenty of cases listed on this site where the initial contact has been more than 3 months after the incident.

There are dozens of perfectly good reasons why somebody would not get this letter, and since it's not something they're actively expecting there is really no reason they would miss it when it didn't arrive. The first you'd ever know about it might well be when it comes up on credit check or similar, and reversing it at that point could prove extremely difficult.

As an absolute minimum, if there is no response to this kind of thing, it should be sent recorded delivery before any default judgement is obtained

 

[falcon]

Regardless of the passenger's negligence in failing to update the address or forwarding mail, there is still no reason this should have gone to court. There already is a kind of Cardiff Zone 1, in that the fares from London Paddington to Cardiff Central are really just manifestations of the


I'm sorry, but ATW's policies and application thereof are entirely ludicrious in this case. There is no suggestion that the passenger has not committed an offence in the letter of the law, but equally, given that there is no doubt that the passenger has not committed an offence in the spirit of the law, I find it an abuse of Court for them to have prosecuted the matter.

No matter how incompetent or negligent the passenger was - in not receiving, forwarding or responding to letters, as well as buying the ticket to the incorrect stated destination (though still to the same flow destination) - this case is so egregious a misuse of the Court process and of the arcane anti-passenger laws applying to the railway that I find it prima facie evidence as to why private railway prosecutions should no longer be allowed (it properly being a matter for the BTP or CPS) and why Byelaw 17/18 and possibly even RoRA S5 should be repealed.

By all means, punish a misdeed such as this by a Penalty Fare as part of a properly implemented and vetted system, and take passengers to County Court for non-payment thereof, but the use of prosecution for what in any other industry would be a civil dispute is a gross abuse of power.

I think you have fallen into the trap of believing what the newspaper wants you to think.

It's sensationalistic journalism and hype.

There are many details missing from the story that are very relevant to the outcome.

It's just his side of the story assisted by Journos that need to keep a job by creating stories.

Also the issue of that regarding the repealing of Railway Laws is a seperate issue.

 

[PermitToTravel]

I spent my first 10 years out of uni moving house most years, and never staying in one for more than 2 years. That's the reality of living in the private rented sector, and if you are moving for jobs even more so. Even paying for the 3 months standard redirection is a luxury at that point that normal people can't afford. You just re-address everything you can think of and move on. Even if you do buy the redirection I'd estimate it's at best 95% effective while it's active, and almost nobody goes above the 3 months. There's been plenty of cases listed on this site where the initial contact has been more than 3 months after the incident.

There are dozens of perfectly good reasons why somebody would not get this letter, and since it's not something they're actively expecting there is really no reason they would miss it when it didn't arrive. The first you'd ever know about it might well be when it comes up on credit check or similar, and reversing it at that point could prove extremely difficult.

As an absolute minimum, if there is no response to this kind of thing, it should be sent recorded delivery before any default judgement is obtained

To address this increasing issue, the government very recently consulted on changing the rules for civil claims (source, commentary, commentary, etc) with a view to making the process more fair for people who've moved house finding themselves in this situation. The procedures are likely to be changed so that judgements made at old addresses, which people don't know about, can be set aside / the process restarted.

It'd be good if this too was done for criminal cases. In particular, private prosecutions by TOCs are an issue - police investigations / CPS prosecutions are likely to come with quick decisions about charging, and even things like bail conditions requiring changes of address to be notified; whereas TOCs often wait several months before even writing to the person involved (there have been threads on this forum from people who've had a TOC write to them years after the incident, and had the courts quickly throw the case out!)

 

[Chris M]

There are dozens of perfectly good reasons why somebody would not get this letter, and since it's not something they're actively expecting there is really no reason they would miss it when it didn't arrive. The first you'd ever know about it might well be when it comes up on credit check or similar, and reversing it at that point could prove extremely difficult.

About 10 years ago I cocked up my car's tax and MOT date by about three weeks and so was allegedly sent a fixed penalty notice. I never received it - I hadn't moved house in the relevant time period and my address details were up to date with the DVLA. The first I knew about it was when I received a follow-up letter stating that I hadn't paid a fine and now owed more. I had to ring up the helpline about it as the letter didn't actually say why I was being fined (just a "you haven't paid the fine we previously told you about") and it was a good two months after I'd got the car MOTed and taxed.

 

[island]

They must have restarted the scheme in Belgium, it was a few years ago I had to get a ticket to Ghent rather than use the free onward.

It's no longer free, but it's available for a small supplement at time of booking.

 

[falcon]

But the fact remains that the fare evaded is nil. Zero. Nothing.



Nobody is arguing that the passenger had an invalid ticket. He didn't have a valid ticket. This is not in dispute.



But surely you can see that while he may have held an invalid ticket, and boarded a train without one, he was actually no better off for doing so.



Do you think the spirit of the law was upheld in the case outlined in the OP?

Do you think it is fair and just that a criminal prosecution resulted from the case resulted in the OP?

You and other posters are assuming many things that are not relevant to the final outcome of THIS case.

He the OP ended up with the £471 fine because he did not respond. That is it that is why he was find £471.

A prosecution is only putting somebody before a court it can be found to be guilty or not guilty.

It is not the prosecution that did for him. It was his inaction.

Had he answered the documentation the outcome may and possibly would have been different.

So the arguments about "the prosecution" being wrong based on the fine he received is irrelevant.

Had he responded and it had gone to court the magistrates may have said this case is NOT in the spirit of the law and is a frivolous prosecution. Not Guilty.

It is pointless decrying the railway laws as needing repeal based on this case.

If one is going to decry the railway laws do it where the OP had responed to the documentation.

 

[6Gman]

Goodness me, how dare he move home? Whatever was he thinking? Surely you're not suggesting he moved purely because of this nonsense?

I don't think he is suggesting the final point.

Getting your post redirected is straightforward, inexpensive and efficient in my experience. Especially when you have something like this hanging over you. And even if redirection wasn't an option in his circumstances why not advise ATW of the change of address?

 

[AlterEgo]

You and other posters are assuming many things that are not relevant to the final outcome of THIS case.

He the OP ended up with the £471 fine because he did not respond. That is it that is why he was find £471.

A prosecution is only putting somebody before a court it can be found to be guilty or not guilty.

It is not the prosecution that did for him. It was his inaction.

Had he answered the documentation the outcome may and possibly would have been different.

So the arguments about "the prosecution" being wrong based on the fine he received is irrelevant.

Had he responded and it had gone to court the magistrates may have said this case is NOT in the spirit of the law and is a frivolous prosecution. Not Guilty.

It is pointless decrying the railway laws as needing repeal based on this case.

If one is going to decry the railway laws do it where the OP had responed to the documentation.

The railway shouldn’t be prosecuting any case where the passenger had already paid the right amount of money. It’s not about what the law says, it’s a matter of public perception and wielding the powers they have as responsibly as any other prosecutor.

I completely agree that liars, cheats and fraudsters should feel the force of the law.

Non-evasion offences like the failure to show a ticket on demand, as described in the OP should be dealt with through a civil process. It’s entirely wrong to criminalise people in this way.

Imagine if the police were responsible for prosecutions of this kind. There would be uproar at this sort of conduct.

 

[6Gman]

But there was NO lost revenue. The fare to Heath was the same as that to Cardiff.

But he failed to ask for a ticket to Heath. Buying a ticket to Cardiff. Then buying a ticket at Cardiff to travel onward to Heath. Which is an additional fare. Which he failed to pay. So there was a loss of revenue.

 

[falcon]

But there was NO lost revenue. The fare to Heath was the same as that to Cardiff.

If he had responed to the documentaion there may not have been any fine at all. That is the issue.

People are prosecuted (accused) in the courts all over the UK.

Some of them are found not guilty and awarded costs because the case was not proved.

But in order for that to happen the accused(the prosecuted person) needs to respond to documentation to tell the courts "there was NO lost revenue". If he does not do that he gets found guilty.

That's why he got find £471.

The power of the media!

 

[takno]

I don't think he is suggesting the final point.

Getting your post redirected is straightforward, inexpensive and efficient in my experience. Especially when you have something like this hanging over you. And even if redirection wasn't an option in his circumstances why not advise ATW of the change of address?

If this happened a month previous and they hadn't written (which again based on this forum seems quite likely), why would you think you "had it hanging over you"? You'd just assume that they'd decided not to do anything and forget about it, particularly in view of being not pursuing a 0.00 loss being an apparently perfectly reasonable to do. As to advising ATW, who would you advise? If they haven't written you probably don't have an address for them.

 

[AlterEgo]

But he failed to ask for a ticket to Heath. Buying a ticket to Cardiff. Then buying a ticket at Cardiff to travel onward to Heath. Which is an additional fare. Which he failed to pay. So there was a loss of revenue.

If he’d have bought the correct ticket in the first place it wouldn’t have cost any more money.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Sounds like theirs a pile of missing info . . . .

Indeed. Which makes the request for other opinions rather sterile, not that that seems to have stopped the OP from launching into a list of anti-rail opinion and rant.

. . . I would be consulting a solicitor to see if there were any grounds for a malicious prosecution lawsuit.

You would be throwing away your money. If you had no evidence that the Prosecution had acted without probable and reasonable grounds to believe that the offence had been committed (extremely implausible, as the Court has already convicted on that evidence) AND you had no evidence that the Company had brought the prosecution with malicious intent, then quite simply there could be no prospect of any success. If you had been aquitted of the alleged Crime, and the tests of probable and reasonable grounds to believe that the Offence had arisen, AND that the failed Prosecution was brought with malicious intent, then you might have grounds to consider it, but who has ever succeeded in finding an action for 'malicious prosecution' after having been Convicted?
Fleming's 'Law of Torts', 10th edition (2011) :-

"I start with this, that at the present day the bringing of an action under our present rules of procedure, and with the consequences attaching under our present law, although the action is brought falsely and maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause, and whatever may be the allegations contained in the pleadings, will not furnish a ground for a subsequent complaint by the person who has been sued, nor support an action on his part for maliciously bringing the first action."

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. . .

I strongly suspect that this is exactly why a situation which many people on here are finding to be outrageous, appears to be outrageous.

But there was NO lost revenue. The fare to Heath was the same as that to Cardiff.

The issue with that point is that the passenger may have paid the same amount of money as the fare to Heath, but had not contracted with the Rail Companies to travel to Heath. I suggest that this distinction IS a suitable area for reform in the industry, as it no longer reflects the nature of rail service provision.