Tried to buy a ticket, was interviewed under caution

[js32]

Hi everyone,
On Monday I was intimidated by a member of GWR staff when I asked to buy a ticket after getting off the train at Exeter St Davids. The service was the 07:46 from Montpelier (which has no ticket machine) and I changed trains to catch the 08:10 service from Bristol Temple Meads (where I stood in the queue for tickets until I almost missed my train, then gave up). I could not buy a ticket on the train as the conductor's card machine was not working, and I provided void card receipts to prove this. The conductor (a CrossCountry employee) had assured me that if I did so, I would be allowed to buy a ticket before leaving the station in Exeter.

However, when I asked to buy a ticket in Exeter, and showed the card receipts, the man working at the barrier (a GWR employee) set out to completely intimidate me by insisting on a long interview, which he recorded, and taking my name and address details to pass on to the prosecution department. I kept asking what this was for, and what would happen to me, and he would not fully explain. He treated me with suspicion and contempt and was very rude when I asked for information. He insisted that I should have bought a ticket at Temple Meads, where I could not have done so, or on the train, where I could not have done so.

Since I was clearly not trying to avoid paying my fare (I asked to buy a ticket, and I had proof I had already tried to buy a ticket) I can only assume this man was so rude to me because he felt like abusing his power and intimidating someone.

I've now got home after a week away at work to find a letter containing a pre-court settlement offer asking me to pay £111.50 (the return fare I tried to pay for would have been £24.50). After trying my best to obtain a ticket and being treated like a criminal despite having evidence I really don't want to pay this. However I can't afford court costs. What else can I do?

I have evidence that I tried to buy a ticket on the train but I have no evidence of the queue at Temple Meads or of the conductor's assurance I could buy a ticket at the station.

Thanks everyone in advance.

 

[soil]

Do you still have the card receipts?

It seems that you have a good defence to prosecution and can write explaining yourself. The train from Montpelier was 1 minute late http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C20735/2017/03/20, so you had less than 10 minutes to buy a ticket, which may or may not have been enough time (someone with more experience at Bristol TM could comment on this). There would have been a 34 minute wait for the next train to Exeter, so it's reasonable to board this and try to pay on board, and you have evidence that you did so.

There is no guarantee they will not prosecute, and while you would appear to have a good defence in court, there is no 100% guarantee that you would win.

What is your weekly income? If you have a low income, then even in the relatively unlikely event that you lose, the total cost might not be much different from £111.50 anyway. I certainly would not pay up at this point.

And do you have a copy of the statement from the GWR staff member? Or is it just a letter.

 

[furlong]

Oh dear! If everything is as you reported, unless you did something silly like try to dodge your way out of the station without approaching staff to pay, or lie about your origin station, under the Conditions of Travel you should have been sold a ticket at your destination station.

INFORMATION: This means that you should buy a ticket from the conductor on the train if there is one available; at an interchange station provided there is sufficient time before your connecting service; or, if neither of these is possible, at your destination.

A successful prosecution might involve convincing a court beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence they have proves you did something that demonstrated you intended not to pay the correct fare for your entire journey. I wonder what evidence of this they think they have that justifies sending you such a letter?

If you're absolutely confident you're in the clear, an extreme approach would be to send them the correct fare, pointing out (some or all of) their own multiple breaches of the Conditions of Travel by failing to sell you a ticket on multiple occasions, origin(*), Bristol(quote above), on-board(x2 - makes no difference that one was a different train company from the Conditions of Travel point of view), Exeter; refusing to honour the conditional authority to travel provided by the conductor; and then compounding these failures by sending you an inappropriate letter demanding what amounts to a surcharge instead of simply requesting the fare still not paid solely due to their own contractual breaches; and seeking an apology and compensation for the time you have spent dealing with the matter, setting a reasonable deadline for a response, and saying that if you are dissatisfied with it, you reserve the right to report the company's behaviour to the ORR/DfT for investigation and/or to seek appropriate publicity.

(*)

6.1 We will ensure that you have a reasonable opportunity to purchase your Ticket before you travel.

Obviously, you should probably be more pragmatic and write something a bit gentler - but no less robust - than all of that!

 

[furlong]

In case it does go to court, you might also in your reply place them on notice now to preserve any evidence they possess that you might later need to assist your defence, such as CCTV showing you at the origin station, queueing at Bristol (which should have taken no more than 5 minutes if this was defined as a peak time) and to provide contact details for the conductor from whom you might later need a witness statement to ascertain whether or not he/she remembers giving (conditional) authority to travel in case they didn't already do this before issuing the letter.

But I repeat, can you be quite sure they don't have some other evidence against you already? Did you say something beyond confirming basic facts and "no comment" in interview perhaps?

 

[js32]

Thanks all. I do still have the card receipts. I also have proof I would have claimed the fare on expenses from work, giving me no motivation to dodge paying - not sure if this will help though?

I am fairly sure that I just stated the basic facts in interview but was fairly shaken (only had 3 hours sleep due to insomnia and this man was very angry and pretty frightening) so unfortunately I left as soon as he allowed me to go and did not say yes to being given a copy of the interview.

I will try contacting CrossCountry and Bristol Temple Meads for evidence of queue times and what I was told on the train, just in case.

 

[island]

Why didn't you buy a ticket from the guard on the train from Montpelier to Bristol TM?

 

[yorkie]

Why didn't you buy a ticket from the guard on the train from Montpelier to Bristol TM?

It's physically not possible for Guards to sell all passengers tickets on these trains, as documented in previous threads.

I've now got home after a week away at work to find a letter containing a pre-court settlement offer asking me to pay £111.50 (the return fare I tried to pay for would have been £24.50). After trying my best to obtain a ticket and being treated like a criminal despite having evidence I really don't want to pay this. However I can't afford court costs. What else can I do?

Send them the correct fare and do not pay any more.

As furlong says, you are in the right (if everything is as stated here)

 

[Paule23]

Why didn't you buy a ticket from the guard on the train from Montpelier to Bristol TM?

This is somewhat irrelevant. You have no requirement to seek out a guard to buy a ticket. Now if a guard passes you and has ticketing facilities, this would be considered an opportunity to pay, which you would need to take. But if the guard is elsewhere, and you cannot buy at an intermediate station without missing a connection, then paying at the terminal station is fine.

As has been advised I would write with your facts and payment for any outstanding fare, copy of receipts for your attempt to pay, and state you will fight any attempt to prosecute. See what happens next. On the basis of what you have said here I cannot see how they have sufficient evidence to prosecute.

 

[najaB]

This is somewhat irrelevant.

Not completely though because...

...if a guard passes you and has ticketing facilities, this would be considered an opportunity to pay, which you would need to take.

So the answer to island's question is relevant.

 

[yorkie]

That line is notorious for being difficult to pay on board; there'll be a load of passengers who boarded before Montpellier only going to Bristol who will not want to have their journey delayed for ages waiting in the infamous queues at Temple Meads, who will want to be served by the Guard first. There will have been no shortage of people who would have been keen to buy tickets, in very little time.

 

[Parallel]

There are very long queues at Bristol Temple Meads with passengers waiting to buy tickets after local trains (I.e Severn Beach line) arrive. Usually just one person selling tickets with an avantix machine too. ( Not sure about the morning peak)

 

[najaB]

There will have been no shortage of people who would have been keen to buy tickets, in very little time.

I have no difficulty believing that, but it's nice to have it confirmed by the OP rather than making an assumption.

 

[js32]

Yes, the guard did not get to me in time on the Montpelier train. This happens all the time on this line and it's never been a problem before when I've asked to pay on the next train. So it wouldn't have occurred to me to actively seek out the guard.

 

[Fare-Cop]

I know there always seem to be queues there, but does anyone know exactly what the average waiting time in the 'infamous queues at Temple Meads' actually is please?

Yes, there is a serious point to asking the question

 

[Dai Corner]

Out of interest, what is a 'void card receipt' ?

 

[island]

Out of interest, what is a 'void card receipt' ?

I expect it is, in this context, a receipt showing that a transaction was attempted on a card and it failed for a reason such as an inability to contact the bank for authorisation or a malfunction of the equipment.

 

[Dai Corner]

I expect it is, in this context, a receipt showing that a transaction was attempted on a card and it failed for a reason such as an inability to contact the bank for authorisation or a malfunction of the equipment.

Thanks. I wonder if the GWR person at Exeter (erroneously) took it as an attempt to use a card with insufficient funds on the XC train rather than a genuine attempt to purchase a ticket?

 

[najaB]

Thanks. I wonder if the GWR person at Exeter (erroneously) took it as an attempt to use a card with insufficient funds on the XC train rather than a genuine attempt to purchase a ticket?

I seriously doubt that there was quite that much thought involved.

 

[furlong]

I also have proof I would have claimed the fare on expenses from work, giving me no motivation to dodge paying - not sure if this will help though?

Even people on expenses can dodge their fare, so it doesn't help directly. (But if it ever reached court, it might contribute to the defence case.)

 

[miami]

Even people on expenses can dodge their fare, so it doesn't help directly. (But if it ever reached court, it might contribute to the defence case.)

Wouldn't help with a bylaw, but how would a prosecutor proove beyond all reasonable doubt that someone intended to evade paying a fare when they don't have any financial gain from it!

This is all rather irrelevant as the facts coveted show a serious failure on behalf of the railway industry that should be met with full apologies, dropping the matter, and some compensation for their libellous actions.

 

[furlong]

Wouldn't help with a bylaw, but how would a prosecutor proove beyond all reasonable doubt that someone intended to evade paying a fare when they don't have any financial gain from it!

I don't think anyone's discussing byelaw offences on this thread and I don't see financial gain by the passenger as an element of the RORA offence - no motive has to be proved, but merely an intent to avoid payment.

 

[najaB]

Yes, apparently so, more ridiculiusness of railway laws.

There's nothing ridiculous about it, and nothing specific to railway legislation. The job of the prosecution is to show that your actions were deliberate, they don't have to provide evidence of motive (though, of course, it makes a case more convincing).

 

[Llanigraham]

Wouldn't help with a bylaw, but how would a prosecutor proove beyond all reasonable doubt that someone intended to evade paying a fare when they don't have any financial gain from it!

This is all rather irrelevant as the facts coveted show a serious failure on behalf of the railway industry that should be met with full apologies, dropping the matter, and some compensation for their libellous actions.

There have been no libellous actions, so irrelevant!

 

[Master29]

I know there always seem to be queues there, but does anyone know exactly what the average waiting time in the 'infamous queues at Temple Meads' actually is please?

Yes, there is a serious point to asking the question

Since there is no "average time" given so to speak under CoT in which you would be expected to queue for tickets this may be a case of how long is a piece of string. It states a person must be given adequate time which in theory can mean anything. However, I am personally in agreement with the OP about the dreadful ticket queues at TM. Unfortunately, it may be up to the OP to prove this and would be down to the courts interpretation.

To the original point though it would be interesting to know something about waiting times at TM. There probably is info on this somewhere.

 

[island]

Wouldn't help with a bylaw, but how would a prosecutor proove beyond all reasonable doubt that someone intended to evade paying a fare when they don't have any financial gain from it!

This is all rather irrelevant as the facts coveted show a serious failure on behalf of the railway industry that should be met with full apologies, dropping the matter, and some compensation for their libellous actions.

Nobody's done any libelling, for a number of reasons (libel has been abolished and replaced by defamation, which require publication and proof of serious reputation as damage amongst other things).

 

[RPI]

I'm going to say one thing but keep a cautious distance..... I'm not directly involved in this one but what I do know is that the OP needs to be entirely honest and state exactly what happened

 

[CheesyChips]

I'm going to say one thing but keep a cautious distance..... I'm not directly involved in this one but what I do know is that the OP needs to be entirely honest and state exactly what happened

Saying this is not keeping a cautious distance

 

[RPI]

Basically in order to get help from the forum it's probably a good idea to be totally open ??????

 

[Master29]

I'm going to say one thing but keep a cautious distance..... I'm not directly involved in this one but what I do know is that the OP needs to be entirely honest and state exactly what happened

I think by making this very statement you`ve now done just that.

 

[RPI]

I think by making this very statement you`ve now done just that.

Explain?