Unpaid fare

[najaB]

Essentially, you are saying that, when you board a train without a ticket, the only possible fare you can ask for is from [station you boarded] to [station you're getting off at], and that asking for any other fare, e.g. a cheaper but still valid one, is automatically intent to avoid payment.

No. I'm saying the only guaranteed way to avoid trouble is to ask for a fare from where you started your journey (assuming that we're talking single fares), asking for a cheaper loophole fare is leaving yourself open to a prosecution that the TOC has a greater than zero chance of winning.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

No. I'm saying the only guaranteed way to avoid trouble is to ask for a fare from where you started your journey (assuming that we're talking single fares), asking for a cheaper loophole fare is leaving yourself open to a prosecution that the TOC has a greater than zero chance of winning.

The only guaranteed way to avoid trouble entirely is to buy a ticket before you board. So let's not venture into hypotheticals. The OP first asked for a ticket from C-l-S, and that would have been a valid ticket for the journey undertaken. Its price, therefore, is irrelevant to any prosecution.

 

[najaB]

The OP first asked for a ticket from C-l-S, and that would have been a valid ticket for the journey undertaken. Its price, therefore, is irrelevant to any prosecution.

But it's not. Other than the fact that a double-back is permitted, this is classic short-faring: asking for a station closer to your destination than the station at which you started your journey and for which, coincidentally, a cheaper fare applies. So the crux of the matter is if you can buy a ticket for a journey which requires a double-back after the point at which you double-back. You are convinced that you can, I am not convinced either way.

I'm not in XC's prosecution department, and I suspect that you aren't either so neither of us can say with confidence what interpretation they will apply, neither can we say how a magistrate would decide.

Fair?

 

[Nick66]

Is it , please enlighten me.

Through Sainsbury’s from the drop-off car park perhaps? Still think you’d be pushing it to say you got to the barrier without passing one on the inside though

 

[Wallsendmag]

That it might be considered a loophole fare is irrelevant - it is a valid ticket.

Through Sainsbury’s from the drop-off car park perhaps? Still think you’d be pushing it to say you got to the barrier without passing one on the inside though

You'd still walk past the three machines next to the footbridge.

 

[cuccir]

You'd still walk past the three machines next to the footbridge.

Not if you were to go through the gates by platforms 9-12, and then either turn immediately left up the stairs, or take a train from one of those platforms.

However, Newcastle is a major city terminal. I'm not sure it's reasonable to suspect someone wouldn't think it were possible to buy a ticket there.

 

[Haywain]

Not if you were to go through the gates by platforms 9-12, and then either turn immediately left up the stairs, or take a train from one of those platforms.

However, Newcastle is a major city terminal. I'm not sure it's reasonable to suspect someone wouldn't think it were possible to buy a ticket there.

From my knowledge of the station, I would say that you are really stretching things to say that entering the station that way does not involve passing a TVM. Just how close do you have to get to a TVM to have passed it?

 

[sheff1]

If you enter from Sainsburys the barriers are directly in front of you. I have entered that way and gone direct to platforms 9/10 for a XC train and, unless things have changed very recently, there is no TVM in one's sight line.

 

[Haywain]

If you enter from Sainsburys the barriers are directly in front of you. I have entered that way and gone direct to platforms 9/10 for a XC train and, unless things have changed very recently, there is no TVM in one's sight line.

I don't agree that that could be seen as not passing a TVM.

 

[Wallsendmag]

If you enter from Sainsburys the barriers are directly in front of you. I have entered that way and gone direct to platforms 9/10 for a XC train and, unless things have changed very recently, there is no TVM in one's sight line.

I suppose if you only look to the right and squint a bit you'll miss the one next to the footbridge behind the 9-11 barriers.

 

[Katy Cheung]

Hi All,

My letter finally came in the post. It's pretty generic and doesn't actually tell me what legislation they want to prosecute under. (Photo hopefully attached)

Any advice on what to include in my response will be very much appreciated. Do I even bother mentioning that I was running late and ran on, the CLS stuff or just stick to: yes I did get on the train without a ticket. Sorry. Please let let pay the fare and your admin/penalty charge?

Thanks again for your help

 

[najaB]

Do I even bother mentioning that I was running late and ran on, the CLS stuff or just stick to: yes I did get on the train without a ticket. Sorry. Please let let pay the fare and your admin/penalty charge?

I'd advise the latter.

In the interest of brevity, @ForTheLoveOf will be along shortly to make the point that, since a CLS to DHM ticket is valid via Newcastle, their opinion is that you've done nothing wrong. To which I'll point out that I agree that there's nothing wrong with starting/stopping short on a walk-up ticket (generally), but you need to actually be in possession of the ticket when you break your journey.

 

[Katy Cheung]

Hi All,

I sent a letter which basically went with "yes I did get on the train without a ticket. Sorry. Please let me pay the fare and admin charge." I didn't mention anything about asking for chester le street mistakenly etc.

I received a reply which says "the report of this matter alleges that you had failed to pay the correct fare due and had boarded a train with the intention of travelling without having previously paid the correct amount."

"The fare offered by you on arrival at the ticket check was for a shorter journey and lesser amount than the journey actually made and the company does consider that an attempt to avoid a liability may be alleged. This left the inspector no alternative but to report the incident".

They've reiterated my responsibilities as a traveller and have now given me 14 days to respond before issuing a summons. They have quoted National Railways Byelaw 18 (2005) and are considering whether a more serious charge of "intent to avoid fare" could be alleged.

Any help and advice really really appreciated on what to do next.

 

[najaB]

They've reiterated my responsibilities as a traveller and have now given me 14 days to respond before issuing a summons. They have quoted National Railways Byelaw 18 (2005) and are considering whether a more serious charge of "intent to avoid fare" could be alleged.

This is pretty much standard. Reply to them again saying that you accept that you were in the wrong, that you want to settle the matter as expeditiously as possible and that you will always ensure that you have the correct ticket before boarding in future.

 

[Katy Cheung]

This is pretty much standard. Reply to them again saying that you accept that you were in the wrong, that you want to settle the matter as expeditiously as possible and that you will always ensure that you have the correct ticket before boarding in future.

Thanks NajaB - Knowing it's standard is a relief. I was starting to wonder whether this was the last chance to correspond and therefore needed to engage some legal advice.

In my last letter I had said:
- I did get on the train without a ticket
- I was running late, added my excuse and said I mistakenly thought it would be ok to buy on train
- not an excuse for actions for context which contributed to lapse in judgement
- I regret what I've done, take full responsibility and apologise. It won't happen again.
- hope you will consider settling out of court.

I'm struggling to think of things to add. Do I just reiterate it all again and add your points.
Do I address the point about chester-le-street, that it wasn't my intention to pay a lesser fare?

I'm just worried that they're just making me say things to use against me later in court...

Thanks once again for all your help.
Katy

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Thanks NajaB - Knowing it's standard is a relief. I was starting to wonder whether this was the last chance to correspond and therefore needed to engage some legal advice.

In my last letter I had said:
- I did get on the train without a ticket
- I was running late, added my excuse and said I mistakenly thought it would be ok to buy on train
- not an excuse for actions for context which contributed to lapse in judgement
- I regret what I've done, take full responsibility and apologise. It won't happen again.
- hope you will consider settling out of court.

I'm struggling to think of things to add. Do I just reiterate it all again and add your points.
Do I address the point about chester-le-street, that it wasn't my intention to pay a lesser fare?

I'm just worried that they're just making me say things to use against me later in court...

Thanks once again for all your help.
Katy

It appears that they are at the stage where they determined to prosecute the matter, but are yet deciding between the Byelaws and RoRA - though it's worth noting that in some previous cases it has been known to be possible (but by no means guaranteed) to settle out of Court at or after this stage.

What they are saying about "the fare offered by you on arrival at the ticket check was for a shorter journey and lesser amount than the journey actually made", if those are the actual words used, is not very accurate and it shows how their pro-forma template is not fit for all situations. It is quite possible for someone to legitimately ask for a ticket from a station nearer to the destination than the one they actually got on, with the fare being lower, without this being an offence. That is simply down to whether or not the fare is valid for the longer journey and whether or not they represent having made their journey from the nearer station.

Or - to put it another way - if the question that was asked by the inspector was "where did you get on?" and you answered "Chester-le-Street" then this puts you into a lot more problems than if you were asked "where do you need a ticket from?" and you answered "Chester-le-Street".

Can you recall the precise wording of the question?

 

[Katy Cheung]

It appears that they are at the stage where they determined to prosecute the matter, but are yet deciding between the Byelaws and RoRA - though it's worth noting that in some previous cases it has been known to be possible (but by no means guaranteed) to settle out of Court at or after this stage.

What they are saying about "the fare offered by you on arrival at the ticket check was for a shorter journey and lesser amount than the journey actually made", if those are the actual words used, is not very accurate and it shows how their pro-forma template is not fit for all situations. It is quite possible for someone to legitimately ask for a ticket from a station nearer to the destination than the one they actually got on, with the fare being lower, without this being an offence. That is simply down to whether or not the fare is valid for the longer journey and whether or not they represent having made their journey from the nearer station.

Or - to put it another way - if the question that was asked by the inspector was "where did you get on?" and you answered "Chester-le-Street" then this puts you into a lot more problems than if you were asked "where do you need a ticket from?" and you answered "Chester-le-Street".

Can you recall the precise wording of the question?

I can't be 100% certain but I think I asked for a ticket before she asked me what I wanted. Then I think she answered "chester le street? No one got on at chester le street."
I then said "sorry I meant Newcastle". She then asked me to follow her off the train.

I can't remember for certain but I don't think she wrote anything in her black book about it in the statement she asked me to sign. But like I said previously I spent the time apologising and didn't pay as much attention as I should have.

This may be a stupid question but would she have been recording everything I said on some sort of body cam or recorder? I was quite flustered so wondering whether I missed her telling me I was being recorded...

If this is a stage where they are determined to prosecute....is this when I should be getting legal advice and it's no longer advisable to deal with it on my own?

Thanks

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I can't be 100% certain but I think I asked for a ticket before she asked me what I wanted. Then I think she answered "chester le street? No one got on at chester le street."
I then said "sorry I meant Newcastle". She then asked me to follow her off the train.

I can't remember for certain but I don't think she wrote anything in her black book about it in the statement she asked me to sign. But like I said previously I spent the time apologising and didn't pay as much attention as I should have.

This may be a stupid question but would she have been recording everything I said on some sort of body cam or recorder? I was quite flustered so wondering whether I missed her telling me I was being recorded...

If this is a stage where they are determined to prosecute....is this when I should be getting legal advice and it's no longer advisable to deal with it on my own?

Thanks

Many RPIs do now wear bodycams, but generally the button to keep the recorded footage (it otherwise being overwritten on a continuous loop, like a dashcam) is only pressed when there is something beyond a "mere" ticketing dispute. For example, some kind of physical altercation.

It may end up that if you do plead not guilty that she will be called as a witness and you or your solicitor may wish to question her on this point - whether you specifically proffered your fare or not. Even if it is deemed that you didn't proffer your fare, and/or that you made a misleading statement in initially referring to C-l-S, as I have previously said, the validity of the fare from C-l-S via Newcastle is a highly relevant fact in my view, and one that should certainly be considered as a defence, or at the very least a mitigation, to any offence.

Obtaining legal advice may certainly be something worth doing in these circumstances, if a conviction under RoRA would be a serious issue for you (career-wise or otherwise). Most solicitors offer free initial consultations and it would be a criminal defence solicitor you'd be after. There's a handy search tool on the Law Society's website.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

If this is a stage where they are determined to prosecute....is this when I should be getting legal advice and it's no longer advisable to deal with it on my own?

You're moving towards the point where legal advice might be a good idea. So look to see if you have anything that provides you with free legal advice. If you are a member of a trade union (and possibly some professional associations) you may get this as a benefit of your membership. If you're a student, talk to your student union. If you have home insurance, see if there are any legal services included.

 

[najaB]

I can't be 100% certain but I think I asked for a ticket before she asked me what I wanted. Then I think she answered "chester le street? No one got on at chester le street."
I then said "sorry I meant Newcastle".

It doesn't really matter that much - the likelihood that a magistrate will understand and/or appreciate the difference is quite low.

If this is a stage where they are determined to prosecute....is this when I should be getting legal advice and it's no longer advisable to deal with it on my own?

In my opinion, unless and until they request a summons that you intend to challenge in court any money spent on legal advice is a waste. Especially since they appear to be leaning towards a Byelaw offence which has no more impact on your life than a simple speeding ticket would. If you can get free advice then there's no harm in taking it.

 

[Katy Cheung]

Thanks all.

Will think about where to find legal advice. When you google about it all sorts of specialist legal firms based in london appear. Is this really necessary? But I'm worried a local lawyer won't know what they're doing....

It's really difficult to judge whether I'll have lost my chance to persuade them to allow me an out of court settlement if I try to write to them myself at this second opportunity.

Also I remember the RPO saying that I was not under arrest but she was giving me a caution. I was reeling so much from the fact she had been potentially considering arresting me that I didn't really pay much attention. Googling what that might mean I was starting to worry that she had been recording me and i can't even remember what I said to be able to tell a lawyer exactly what may or may not have happened and now feel these details could be really important...

 

[najaB]

When you google about it all sorts of specialist legal firms based in london appear. Is this really necessary?

Only if you plan to try and defeat a prosecution on a technicality (as per @ForTheLoveOf's suggestions). Personally I don't think it's worth it as you'll likely spend a couple of grand trying to avoid a fine of a couple hundred pounds.

 

[Katy Cheung]

In the forums experience - how many times do they usually write to you before going to Summons?

I've had a look at XC prosecution policy and it talks about dropping cases on exceptional circumstances.

How is a case going to be exceptional? I originally didn't want to litter my letter with reasons contributing to my lack of sleep and silly lapse of judgement but is this an invite to tell them more and to do it now?

I also feel it's important for me to stress that there wasn't any intention to avoid the fare as from what you have all said this part of what they're potentially accusing me of is quite serious.

I'm looking into the legal advice but any thoughts on what else TIL may be open to considering based on the forums experience?

Thanks

 

[cuccir]

I would expect this letter to be your last communication before either a summons or an offer to settle.

By definition there's no one feature that makes a case exceptional, but it would be have to be something of sufficient magnitude that it might make a reasonable person be so tired or distracted as to name the wrong town at which they boarded. If you've been a bit busy at work and were a bit run down, that's probably not exceptional; but there may be health or personal reasons which are stronger than that. If you feel you have those then include them in your response. However, I'd suggest that they may be suspicious of anything previously-unmentioned which appears at this late stage; it would have to be something of very significant mitigation I think.

In all honesty, I would expect prosecution to be more likely than settling at this stage in the process, although it does happen.

 

[some bloke]

Katy can't rely on the validity of a ticket she didn't mean to buy.

If she had known the ticket was valid (somehow, despite the train stopping at Chester-le-Street) why say she meant Newcastle?

Would the fact that I was on a train that actually stopped at chester-le-street matter (because the assumption would be that you would get the ticket to go via Newcastle to get a direct train to Durham)?

I think I asked for a ticket before she asked me what I wanted. Then I think she answered "chester le street? No one got on at chester le street."
I then said "sorry I meant Newcastle".

The thing I'd wonder about as a prosecutor or magistrate is how you came to say Chester-le-Street. Referring to general confusion wouldn't seem to be enough. If there are factors such as that you habitually get on there, that might help.

if you are convicted under Byelaw 18(1), there is no associated criminal record, as the conviction is considered 'spent' immediately - unlike a conviction under RoRA, which remains 'unspent' for one year after conviction.

There should be no record on the Police National Computer unless court staff make a mistake.

The main relevant law does not say that offences such as byelaw convictions are immediately spent, as regards the requirement to disclose them if asked by an employer.

This links to the official guidance:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-a-letter-from-tfl.173719/page-6#post-3964745

 

[some bloke]

In relation to convictions becoming "spent", the amended Rehabilitation of Offenders Act simply refers to convictions in general. It does not distinguish between convictions on, or supposed to be on, the Police National Computer (which may, collectively, be sometimes called a "criminal record") and those not. So it doesn't exclude byelaw convictions from the usual provisions.

The specified normal rehabilitation period is a year for people over the age of 18 who receive a fine.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/10/section/139/enacted

The "explanatory note" document states,

"Where a caution or conviction has become spent, the offender is treated as
rehabilitated in respect of that offence and is not obliged to declare it for most
purposes, for example, when applying for employment or insurance."

There is separate legislation concerned with police records, checks and disclosure by the police.

 

[tony_mac]

I guess it's worth also noting that it's not only for job applications - the question is quite likely to come up when applying for insurance. There is still an obligation to answer honestly and not pretend that the conviction is 'spent', when it isn't.