Unfair Fare Evasion Prosecution Letter?

[UnFareEvasion]

I have received a letter about a prosecution from South Western Railway for not having a ticket for a journey, which seems unfair to me as I took every reasonable step I could and had a pre-booked ticket for that specific journey the whole time, I was simply unable to print it for the first half of the first leg of the journey.

I began my journey in Claygate on the 17:16 train on the 11th of Feb, heading for Worcester Shrub Hill via connections at Waterloo and Paddington. I had an advance single ticket booked for the journey booked through Great Western Rail. I arrived in plenty of time for the 17:16 train I had booked, and attempted to collect this from the ticket machine at the Claygate station, armed with my ticket booking reference as required. Due to an issue with the ticket machine I was unable to print the ticket. As there is no ticket office in Claygate I caught the train and tried to talk to the guard on the train. I could not find them during the journey so when I arrived in Waterloo I went to the first staff member I could and explained the situation. They referred me to their colleague and said they could help me.

I made it clear to the colleague I had a valid pre-booked ticket for that specific journey at that time, showing them my ticket confirmation online and explained that I was simply unable to print the ticket in Claygate due to an issue with the ticket machine. I requested assistance in printing my ticket. I was told that they could print me a slip that would allow me to get through the barrier and I could print the ticket once through. I gave them my details and was asked to sign a receipt, which I as then handed and allowed through the barriers. I then printed my ticket and continued the journey.

The connection times were very tight, and I had 2 large bags and a dog with me so I got on my way as quickly as I could. After I was on the next service to Paddington I realised that the receipt I was given was a prosecution note. I received the prosecution letter about 2 weeks later, which said that I was "informed that the facts of the matter would be reported in writing" and that "we feel there is sufficient evidence to prosecute you for an offence ... under the Railway Byelaws of Regulation of Railways Act 1989". They outlined 2 options - paying an £8.90 fare plus admin costs of £120, or taking the matter to court, and that I have 21 days to respond.

I emailed them explaining the details, and requesting they retract the prosecution letter as I had a valid ticket - but have been notified that they will take 21 days to respond to that email.

I can provide evidence of the ticket for the journey in question, both the original booking and the ticket I printed after I was allowed through the barrier. I also have attached the letter they sent me about the prosecution.

Is this right that they can send me this fine, given I had a ticket but just couldn't print it? Is there anything I can I do to dispute this?

 

[WesternLancer]

I have received a letter about a prosecution from South Western Railway for not having a ticket for a journey, which seems unfair to me as I took every reasonable step I could and had a pre-booked ticket for that specific journey the whole time, I was simply unable to print it for the first half of the first leg of the journey.

I began my journey in Claygate on the 17:16 train on the 11th of Feb, heading for Worcester Shrub Hill via connections at Waterloo and Paddington. I had an advance single ticket booked for the journey booked through Great Western Rail. I arrived in plenty of time for the 17:16 train I had booked, and attempted to collect this from the ticket machine at the Claygate station, armed with my ticket booking reference as required. Due to an issue with the ticket machine I was unable to print the ticket. As there is no ticket office in Claygate I caught the train and tried to talk to the guard on the train. I could not find them during the journey so when I arrived in Waterloo I went to the first staff member I could and explained the situation. They referred me to their colleague and said they could help me.

I made it clear to the colleague I had a valid pre-booked ticket for that specific journey at that time, showing them my ticket confirmation online and explained that I was simply unable to print the ticket in Claygate due to an issue with the ticket machine. I requested assistance in printing my ticket. I was told that they could print me a slip that would allow me to get through the barrier and I could print the ticket once through. I gave them my details and was asked to sign a receipt, which I as then handed and allowed through the barriers. I then printed my ticket and continued the journey.

The connection times were very tight, and I had 2 large bags and a dog with me so I got on my way as quickly as I could. After I was on the next service to Paddington I realised that the receipt I was given was a prosecution note. I received the prosecution letter about 2 weeks later, which said that I was "informed that the facts of the matter would be reported in writing" and that "we feel there is sufficient evidence to prosecute you for an offence ... under the Railway Byelaws of Regulation of Railways Act 1989". They outlined 2 options - paying an £8.90 fare plus admin costs of £120, or taking the matter to court, and that I have 21 days to respond.

I emailed them explaining the details, and requesting they retract the prosecution letter as I had a valid ticket - but have been notified that they will take 21 days to respond to that email.

I can provide evidence of the ticket for the journey in question, both the original booking and the ticket I printed after I was allowed through the barrier. I also have attached the letter they sent me about the prosecution.

Is this right that they can send me this fine, given I had a ticket but just couldn't print it? Is there anything I can I do to dispute this?

Hi and welcome - I'm sure people here can give you more clarity on what realistic options you have

my initial thought is the most important point is the inability to print your tickets at your boarding station of Claygate, due to a faulty ticket machine. It's not so much proof that you had bought a ticket that you need (tho that is important), a key thing is do you have proof that the ticket machine was not operational at the date and time you tried by any chance?

If you do not have proof can you narrow down the time and date that you were there and trying to use it? The railway company may have a record of when the machine was not functioning which would support your argument.

Does Claygate have a ticket office that was open at the time who you could have asked for help with the ticket getting printed? If it does I think the railway will have expected you to have asked for assistance at the ticket office.

You have my sympathy with the situation, you have not been treated sympathetically.

 

[AlterEgo]

Reported for prosecution for being unable to print an Advance single - yuck.

Did the RPI not offer to take you to the ticket machine at Waterloo and help you print your ticket to send you on your way? That would be the most basic customer service I could imagine, and would have revealed any issues with your booking.

 

[UnFareEvasion]

Reported for prosecution for being unable to print an Advance single - yuck.

Did the RPI not offer to take you to the ticket machine at Waterloo and help you print your ticket to send you on your way? That would be the most basic customer service I could imagine, and would have revealed any issues with your booking.

They simply explained that they could print me a receipt that would allow me through the barrier and that I could print the ticket myself. I wasn't aware I was being given a prosecution note.

Hi and welcome - I'm sure people here can give you more clarity on what realistic options you have

my initial thought is the most important point is the inability to print your tickets at your boarding station of Claygate, due to a faulty ticket machine. It's not so much proof that you had bought a ticket that you need (tho that is important), a key thing is do you have proof that the ticket machine was not operational at the date and time you tried by any chance?

If you do not have proof can you narrow down the time and date that you were there and trying to use it? The railway company may have a record of when the machine was not functioning which would support your argument.

Does Claygate have a ticket office that was open at the time who you could have asked for help with the ticket getting printed? If it does I think the railway will have expected you to have asked for assistance at the ticket office.

You have my sympathy with the situation, you have not been treated sympathetically.

I was unable to print the ticket - I had the right card and the right booking number but it didn't seem to allow me to print them. I know the details I had were right as I was able to print them fine at the ticket office later in the journey.

 

[Haywain]

attempted to collect this from the ticket machine at the Claygate station, armed with my ticket booking reference as required. Due to an issue with the ticket machine I was unable to print the ticket.

What was the nature of this "issue with the ticket machine"?

 

[AlterEgo]

They simply explained that they could print me a receipt that would allow me through the barrier and that I could print the ticket myself. I wasn't aware I was being given a prosecution note. I genuinely don't know what could have done differently.


I don't have any proof of the issue with the ticket machine unfortunately, and no there wasn't a ticket office at the station where I could get any additional help with the situation.

What sort of problem did you have? Did it not recognise the code, or your card, or was it off or vandalised?

 

[UnFareEvasion]

The ticket machine seemed to be operational, I just couldn't get it to print my ticket. I was putting the right info in (confirmed as I was able to collect the tickets later in the journey with the same info), but just wouldn't let me print the ticket. I wish I'd taken photos / video of it now.

 

[AlterEgo]

The ticket machine seemed to be operational, I just couldn't get it to print my ticket. I was putting the right info in (confirmed as I was able to collect the tickets later in the journey with the same info), but just wouldn't let me print the ticket. I wish I'd taken photos / video of it now.

What, exactly, happened when you say "it wouldn't let me print the ticket" - was there an error message? Or did nothing happen? This will be an important part of your response to the train company so it's good to get this right.

 

[UnFareEvasion]

Yeh, good question. I can't remember if there was an error message. I was unfortunately a little flustered and should have taken better note of it.

 

[Haywain]

I was unfortunately a little flustered and should have taken better note of it.

I'm afraid this is likely to be crucial in arguing against SWR, and without any sort of detail about what happened you haven't got a strong case.

 

[pedr]

The unfortunate and unfair position is that a passenger who boards a train without a ticket in their possession/instantly available at a station which is listed as having ticket-selling facilities is liable to be convicted of a bylaw offence unless they can demonstrate that the ticketing facilities were out of order/unavailable, or that they were given direct permission to travel without having a valid ticket in their possession.

It's not entirely clear from the complex web of laws which apply here whether a failure of the ticket-on-departure facility at a machine which would function to sell a ticket for travel from the station is a good defence to a bylaw charge either, even if the passenger can demonstrate the TOD failure. It's not impossible to interpret the bylaws as requiring a passenger in this situation to purchase a ticket for their travel before boarding (at least to the next station where they could collect tickets) regardless of the reason why they haven't been able to collect the tickets before boarding.

Neither of these are customer-focused rules or interpretations, but that doesn't help much in the immediate situation.

 

[WoodHillsian]

Did you use a Chase Bank debit card, or another online bank debit card? There have been issues with ticket machines not recognising the cards, and simply going back to the start message after you enter the code (happened to me, but the ticket office was able to print out the ticket for me)

 

[WesternLancer]

If no 'hard evidence' that the machine was not working (and not everyone carries around something to take a a photo with even these days) is it going to be a case of 'appealing to SWRs' better nature to to charge this level of sum being asked for - esp the admin fee? - ie no other realistic course of action, apart from paying the sum demanded of course. I am ruling out going to court as an option.

 

[spag23]

unless they can demonstrate that the ticketing facilities were out of order/unavailable,

Does the actual wording of the bylaw/reg really oblige the passenger to demonstrate that the TVM wasn't working? I thought it referred only to the fact of whether it was working. That said, I appreciate that providing evidence of its failure would help counter the TOC's (all too common!) denial of their customers' statements.

(happened to me, but the ticket office was able to print out the ticket for me)

But in this case there was no ticket office at the starting station

 

[Titfield]

A couple of points spring to my mind:

1. I do not think you have avoided the fare as SWR claim in their letter. Have you double checked your bank statement to be able to prove that the fare was indeed paid. Also double check that somehow this amount has NOT been refunded to you thus negating the point that you had paid.

2. Assuming that the fare was paid then it is not unreasonable to go back to SWR and point out that it was their failure to tend the purchased ticket that has placed the OP in a difficult position. The OP has done all he could reasonably be expected to do (1) sought out the guard on the train (2) sought assistance at the first staffed station without causing delay to his journey.

 

[island]

A payment receipt isn't valid for travel and where ticket on departure is the delivery method, the ticket needs to be printed before joining a train.

If this proceeds to court, which it will if you do not pay the sum requested, the burden of proof will be on yourself to show that there was no ticket issuance facilities at the station where you boarded the train. It does not sound like you have any proof of this, and as such, you will almost certainly lose in court and end up with fines, costs, and surcharge in excess of £500.

Whilst I sympathise with those who cite unfairness and poor customer service, from a legal perspective the odds are stacked against you I'm afraid.

Did you use a Chase Bank debit card, or another online bank debit card? There have been issues with ticket machines not recognising the cards, and simply going back to the start message after you enter the code (happened to me, but the ticket office was able to print out the ticket for me)

As the OP said they were able to print the ticket at Waterloo, this does not appear to be the issue.

 

[Tetchytyke]

A payment receipt isn't valid for travel and where ticket on departure is the delivery method, the ticket needs to be printed before joining a train.

Which is true where the facilities exist and are in working order, and in this case they did not.

Proving it is more difficult, although it is not for the defendant to prove their defence, it is for the TOC to prove that machine was in working order. The problems are if the TOC testifies that the machine was in working order.

If SWR do not back down, this is one where I would be going to the media.

 

[Starmill]

If no 'hard evidence' that the machine was not working (and not everyone carries around something to take a a photo with even these days) is it going to be a case of 'appealing to SWRs' better nature to to charge this level of sum being asked for - esp the admin fee? - ie no other realistic course of action, apart from paying the sum demanded of course. I am ruling out going to court as an option.

I'm not sure this is fruitful.

If the ticket on departure function on the machine wasn't working, there can be no argument that any fare is now due, nor, in my view, that any offence was ever committed. I think that would be common ground between SWR and the OP.

If the ticket on departure function was working then the bill is what it is and as the OP would be guilty they'd really have no choice but to simply pay it.

The OP may be able to persuade SWR to write back confirming their agreement not to proceed. If that doesn't happen the OP will likely need to pay up or accept a strong likelihood of being found guilty.

 

[MotCO]

Was your ticket for onward travel to Shrub Hill for a specific train? Was it a single ticket or series of tickets? I'm thinking whether you can appeal to SWR's better nature because you can prove that you bought a ticket (albeit it was not printed out by the time you reached Waterloo), and once the train for Shrub Hill departed, there is no possibility of anyone else using the ticket.

 

[Starmill]

If SWR do not back down, this is one where I would be going to the media.

The OP could start by contacting their MP now potentially.

 

[Haywain]

although it is not for the defendant to prove their defence,

In post #15 @island has pointed out that the burden of proof will lie with the OP.

 

[AlterEgo]

it is not for the defendant to prove their defence, it is for the TOC to prove that machine was in working order.

It actually isn't unfortunately. If the OP wishes to mount a defence of this sort then it is for they to show the ticket machine wasn't working.

Magistrates Court Act 1980:

101 Onus of proving exceptions, etc.​

Where the defendant to an information or complaint relies for his defence on any exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification, whether or not it accompanies the description of the offence or matter of complaint in the enactment creating the offence or on which the complaint is founded, the burden or proving the exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification shall be on him; and this notwithstanding that the information or complaint contains an allegation negativing the exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification

 

[Pushpit]

I want to put one idea on to the table to handle the onus of exceptions, assuming SWR doesn't respond to the email already sent:

If SWR does not respond before the deadline, the OP could pay the penalty "under protest" say on day 20, and write a formal letter to SWR explaining the circumstances and requesting a full refund within 21 days. This is to avoid a criminal record and to minimise overall costs to all concerned.

If that refund does not materialise, take SWR to the Small Claims track of the County Court system, for the refund and any additional costs. The reason being is that the Original Poster will then have to provide a Statement of Truth about how the ticket machine failed to work properly. There is firstly a presumption that Statement of Truth are honest, and secondly it will then be over to SWR to explain why the machine was working properly - so the onus is a lot more balanced (plus it would interesting to see how SWR can prove that). The District Judge then decides between claimant and defender on the balance of probability basis.

 

[Starmill]

I would be tempted to lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner if you think the inspector lied to you before recording your name and address.

While the law allows for the recording of name and address where there's reasonable suspicion of an offence, and under GDPR the prevention of crime may be a permissible ground for the processing of data, none of this could be relied on if a company deliberately tell a consumer something that they know is false in order to obtain that name and address in the first place. Plainly the Byelaw cannot be relied upon to record the OP's name and address in this case because the inspector did not say that they were requesting name and address because they were an authorised person who had reasonable suspicion that OP had broken a Byelaw.

The OP could also submit a Subject Access Request to see which ground SWR say they are holding their name and address on file under. I would be astonished if they were holding it lawfully after obtaining it by lying through their teeth.

Be warned though, even if you were successful in a claim that SWR unlawfully processed your data, apart from potential compensation or costs that wouldn't in any way undo the proposed criminal charge, or conviction. At the end of the day the law is totally on SWR's side, and they're fully aware of it. Your only hope of "winning" in this case is that SWR capitulate or submit a fatally flawed case through their own error.

 

[island]

I would be tempted to lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner if you think the inspector lied to you before recording your name and address.

While the law allows for the recording of name and address where there's reasonable suspicion of an offence, and under GDPR the prevention of crime may be a permissible ground for the processing of data, none of this could be relied on if a company deliberately tell a consumer something that they know is false in order to obtain that name and address in the first place. Plainly the Byelaw cannot be relied upon to record the OP's name and address in this case because the inspector did not say that they were requesting name and address because they were an authorised person who had reasonable suspicion that OP had broken a Byelaw.

The OP could also submit a Subject Access Request to see which ground SWR say they are holding their name and address on file under. I would be astonished if they were holding it lawfully after obtaining it by lying through their teeth.

It’s not clear that the inspector lied to the OP, but even if they did, the most the ICO is going to do about it is issue a moderately worded warning. Any prosecution will not be stopped and any penalty fare will remain payable.

 

[Starmill]

It’s not clear that the inspector lied to the OP, but even if they did, the most the ICO is going to do about it is issue a moderately worded warning.

If you take the OP's account at face value it's impossible to believe the inspector could have made a mistake, or that they told the OP the truth.

Any prosecution will not be stopped and any penalty fare will remain payable.

Obviously. But that would be a fool's errand.

What could be done however is pay the money-grabbing settlement and then sue for damages for the unlawful processing of data.

 

[UnFareEvasion]

I emailed [email protected] on the day the letter arrived outlining what had happened and requested that they retracted the prosecution. Thankfully today I got a response to say that they have reviewed the evidence and have decided they will not be pursuing the case and have removed it from their records.

Thanks to all on this forum for their help, and I'm very glad to have had this dropped!

 

[AlterEgo]

I emailed [email protected] on the day the letter arrived outlining what had happened and requested that they retracted the prosecution. Thankfully today I got a response to say that they have reviewed the evidence and have decided they will not be pursuing the case and have removed it from their records.

Thanks to all on this forum for their help, and I'm very glad to have had this dropped!

Good to hear, thanks for updating us.

 

[MotCO]

I emailed [email protected] on the day the letter arrived outlining what had happened and requested that they retracted the prosecution. Thankfully today I got a response to say that they have reviewed the evidence and have decided they will not be pursuing the case and have removed it from their records.

Thanks to all on this forum for their help, and I'm very glad to have had this dropped!

That's a good outcome. Common sense has prevailed!

 

[Starmill]

I emailed [email protected] on the day the letter arrived outlining what had happened and requested that they retracted the prosecution. Thankfully today I got a response to say that they have reviewed the evidence and have decided they will not be pursuing the case and have removed it from their records.

Thanks to all on this forum for their help, and I'm very glad to have had this dropped!

Thank heavens for that. Somebody saw some sense.