Unpaid Fare Notice - Newcastle - Edinburgh 8/10/11 - Advice Please?

[Eagle]

...so it is fairly obvious that they were not trying to bend the rules in any way.

I'd disagree with that, being as the correct train and the wrongly-boarded train were run by diferent TOCs (XC and EC respectively) and the ticket may have been a XC-specific fare.

 

[sheff1]

There is really no excuse to board the incorrect train and I don't buy the argument that it's an easy mistake to make if a train is running late and arrives at the same time.

I know you are talking about Newcastle, but yesterday I boarded the 1903 to Sheffield at Birmingham New St and the platform screen was clearly showing the delayed 1845 to Lichfield. I knew what was happening, but many for the local service boarded. An announcement was then made on the train and they got off again.

More importantly, the platform screen never changed and, as we departed, it was still showing the Lichfield service. How many with advances for the 1903 were still waiting on the platform, i.e. the reverse of the OP's situation ?

 

[John @ home]

I'd disagree with that, being as the correct train and the wrongly-boarded train were run by diferent TOCs (XC and EC respectively) and the ticket may have been a XC-specific fare.

Not agreed. On Saturdays, both the 1744 Newcastle - Edinburgh and the 1754 Newcastle - Edinburgh are operated by East Coast. There does not appear to be any other train company involved in this incident.

 

[Eagle]

Not agreed. On Saturdays, both the 1744 Newcastle - Edinburgh and the 1754 Newcastle - Edinburgh are operated by East Coast. There does not appear to be any other train company involved in this incident.

Didn't know that, thanks. I just assumed that two trains so close together were probably different TOCs.

 

[AlterEgo]

I was always told that "ASSUME" makes an ASS out of U and ME.

Corny? It's served me well. I am a very cautious traveller! Hell, I even spent half an hour on the O2 Store on Thursday poring over my new contract before I signed it.

 

[william]

You've got to be. Everywhere there's loose pounds and there's always plenty opportunity for more.

 

[IanPooleTrains]

Whereas it is a pretty easy mistake to make by the OP and the attitude of the guard leaves a lot to be desired, I don't see an appeal being successful and the fine might stand

But, you never know

 

[AlterEgo]

The OP hasn't been fined.

 

[IanPooleTrains]

The OP hasn't been fined.

He was issued with a UPN of £89 wasn't he?

 

[185]

Appeal, and if unsuccessful, do what someone else did a while ago and approach the small claims court. In the event of an earlier service running late, it's a pretty easy and genuine mistake to make.

Waste of time approaching 'user groups' like passenger focus as they are far too close to the train companies.

(For those in the know Mr. K.R. retires next year!!! WooP!!)

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Whereas it is a pretty easy mistake to make

I think we've agreed that assessment

the attitude of the guard leaves a lot to be desired

Not in the opinion of myself, most other advisors here nor in the opinion of the ultimate authority in the matter, the NRCoC.
What error did (s)he make?

I don't see an appeal being successful

On what grounds will it fail, in your opinion?

the fine might stand

What 'fine' are you referring to?

 

[Tomonthetrain]

How would someone stand then if a board displayed 2 late running services departing from the same platform, heading to the same place, operated by the same company, as well as departing at the same time. And this does happen on the boards...especially in VT land.

 

[alanf]

I would presume the fact they weren't allowed to leave the train should go in their favour.What would happen if he reported he and his family had been kidnapped. I know it sounds stupid but he was effectively held on the train against his will. My advice contact the papers theres to many arsey people doing these kind of jobs.

Alan

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I would presume the fact they weren't allowed to leave the train should go in their favour.What would happen if he reported he and his family had been kidnapped. I know it sounds stupid but he was effectively held on the train against his will. My advice contact the papers theres to many arsey people doing these kind of jobs.

Alan

It's in no way, shape or form, kidnapping. To suggest it is is misleading.

 

[michael769]

Because it's the law that when he asks you, you give your name. Not the other way round.

In order to exercise his powers to require your details he has to first identify himself to you so that you can establish that he had the right to require you to provide that information. Until he does so he is no different from any other stranger in the train. If he fails to give his name he has failed to properly identify himself and this you are under no obligation to assist him in any way. (Of course if it came to court and he says he did indentify himself you might be in a bit of bother without your own witness).

I would certainly complain about the RPIs refusal to give his name as it is unprofessional and improper - and I find myself wondering it that failure may be enough to invalidate the UPFN. After all if the RPI has failed to properly identify himself how can the OP be sure that he had a genuine UPFN issued by an authorised person in his posession?

 

[First class]

I would presume the fact they weren't allowed to leave the train should go in their favour.What would happen if he reported he and his family had been kidnapped. I know it sounds stupid but he was effectively held on the train against his will. My advice contact the papers theres to many arsey people doing these kind of jobs.

Alan

Oh come on have a bit of common sense eh?!

A moving train should stop just to let people get off because they realised suddenly it was the wrong train? He wasn't allowed to get off because the train had been dispatched and the driver about to take power.

Kidnap?

(3) No person shall open a train door, or enter or leave any train, while it is in
motion or between station

 

[swt_passenger]

He was issued with a UPN of £89 wasn't he?

A fine can only result from a court case.

UPFNs (and PFs) are NOT fines, and using the term wrongly can only add to the confusion people face when asking for help here...

 

[IanPooleTrains]

On what grounds will it fail, in your opinion?

IMO, it is all going to fall down to the fact that he boardrd the wrong train. Yes, it is a pretty easy mistake to make but what he should have done, no disrespect, was double check that he was going to be on the right train. I know from past experiences if a train comes in that doesn't look like our train, I will always double check with the nearest available member of station staff, be it on the station or on the train, to make sure that this is the right train. It's a simple thing to do or forget but this could have been the difference

What 'fine' are you referring to?

The £89 UPN

 

[DaveNewcastle]

How would someone stand then if a board displayed 2 late running services departing from the same platform, heading to the same place, operated by the same company, as well as departing at the same time. And this does happen on the boards...especially in VT land.

Guards and RPIs are encouraged to identify Fare Dodgers and others travelling without proper authority. They do a difficult job, shared with other duties.

When there is disruption to their services, then they will be the first to know. I'd expect that a Guard in such circumstances would probably be one step ahead of the passenger and be able to assist and advise, not to assume that their passengers were Fare Dodgers!

The £89 UPN

That is not a fine. It is a ticket which has not yet been paid for; and whose payment will not, in my opinion, be pursued by EC.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

In order to exercise his powers to require your details he has to first identify himself to you

Where does it say that in the RRA?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The £89 UPN

It isn't a fine. A fine can only be issued by a court.

 

[First class]

The guard caused distress to his wife and a four year old child. Now whereascausing distress to his wife 'might' be forgiveable, causing distress to a four year old child is most certainly not

On what grounds will it fail, in your opinion?

I'm going to assume you're just finding things hard to understand than trolling. (see Luggage thread).

It is not a fine unless a court has ordered it as punishment, which hasn't. It is a civil debt (at present).

 

[IanPooleTrains]

It is not a fine unless a court has ordered it as punishment, which hasn't. It is a civil debt (at present).

My mistake, I thought it was a fine.

And I'm gonna let your "trolling" comment slide

 

[Greenback]

It's in no way, shape or form, kidnapping. To suggest it is is misleading.

And perhaps not the most helpful contribution!

In order to exercise his powers to require your details he has to first identify himself to you so that you can establish that he had the right to require you to provide that information.

Source?

I would certainly complain about the RPIs refusal to give his name as it is unprofessional and improper - and I find myself wondering it that failure may be enough to invalidate the UPFN. After all if the RPI has failed to properly identify himself how can the OP be sure that he had a genuine UPFN issued by an authorised person in his posession?

I wouldn't complain about that. It would only be one person's word against another. As for identity, I think I would be happy to accept they were an authorised person if they wore a uniform with the company logo or name on it, and the UFPN appeared to be official.

A fine can only result from a court case.

UPFNs (and PFs) are NOT fines, and using the term wrongly can only add to the confusion people face when asking for help here...

Indeed. In this case, the OP has not parted with any money anyway,

 

[AlterEgo]

There really has been a huge tranche of ill informed comments and speculation on here. It's really not helpful. :/

 

[michael769]

Where does it say that in the RRA?

It is a common law requirement. You are not required to give your details to random members of the public, and that is all any official person is until they identify themselves to you. For that reason for any official person to exercise their powers over the public they must first first properly identify themselves and the role from which their powers derive. This includes providing their name if required. Uniforms can be faked - and are not always recognisable to the public and wearing one is not sufficient to identify ones self.

(Note: There are some limited exceptions to this for uniformed police officers, but only in very restricted circumstances)

 

[ralphchadkirk]

It is a common law requirement.

Then surely it is at least recognised in a statute?

 

[First class]

It is a common law requirement. You are not required to give your details to random members of the public, and that is all any official person is until they identify themselves to you. For that reason for any official person to exercise their powers over the public they must first first properly identify themselves and the role from which their powers derive. Uniforms can be faked - and are not always recognisable to the public and wearing one is not sufficient to identify ones self.

(Note: There are some limited exceptions to this for uniformed police officers, but only in very restricted circumstances)

You're another poster starting to ruin my head.

The FULL law is:

23. Name and address
(1) Any person reasonably suspected by an authorised person of breaching or
attempting to breach any of these Byelaws shall give his name and address
when asked by an authorised person.
(2) The authorised person asking for details under Byelaw 23(1) shall state the
nature of the breach of any of these Byelaws in general terms at the time of
the request

The ONLY requirement is:

(3) Identification of authorised persons

An authorised person (usually ANY RAILWAY STAFF) who is exercising any power conferred on him by any of
these Byelaws shall produce a form of identification when requested to do so
and such identification shall state the name of his employer and shall contain
a means of identifying the authorised person.

It can be a staff number, alias name, docket number anything.

It could be: X123 - Scotrail. That is sufficient whether in plain clothes, in uniform, naked anything!

 

[MikeWh]

An announcement was made on the train (literally 1 minute before departure) stating it was a late running service at which point we tried to disembark immediately. The guard on the platform would not allow us to leave the train, the whistle blew and it left.

Oh come on have a bit of common sense eh?!

A moving train should stop just to let people get off because they realised suddenly it was the wrong train? He wasn't allowed to get off because the train had been dispatched and the driver about to take power.

I'm going to assume you're just finding things hard to understand than trolling. (see Luggage thread).

Before you accuse others of trolling (or try to put it nicely and fail), I suggest you ensure that your own comments are sound. The OP did not suggest that it was a moving train. Or even one that had actually been dispatched at the time he asked. Read it carefully again.

 

[Greenback]

It is a common law requirement. You are not required to give your details to random members of the public, and that is all any official person is until they identify themselves to you. For that reason for any official person to exercise their powers over the public they must first first properly identify themselves and the role from which their powers derive. This includes providing their name if required. Uniforms can be faked - and are not always recognisable to the public and wearing one is not sufficient to identify ones self.

(Note: There are some limited exceptions to this for uniformed police officers, but only in very restricted circumstances)

How does this requirement (which I haven't previously heard of, please forgive my ignorance) fit in with the railway byelaws?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Before you accuse others of trolling, I suggest you ensure that your own comments are sound. The OP did not suggest that it was a moving train.

It did move though...

The guard on the platform would not allow us to leave the train, the whistle blew and it left.

Which suggests to me that the OP tried to exit the train, but found the doors to be locked, and the dispatcher of course could not release them, and the train left. So what First Class said is, in essence, correct.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Plain clothes, in uniform, naked anything!

Pretty sure that WOULD be illegal!