Urgent - court case Friday 12th April

[Titfield]

This seems to be quite typical of Northern, if you turn up they will withdraw or settle quite happily. Seems a very shady way to go about prosecutions as it doesn’t seem like you presented any new evidence.

Please do follow up the complaint. Tristan Kirk at the Evening Standard may also be interested in your experience.

But as has so often been said on here what would be a better process that didnt also give the persistent fare evader carte blanche to continue.

How many of those at the court have failed to engage with Northern? If they do not engage what action should Northern take? By summoning them to court, Northern has the opportunity to settle with some of those (possibly the same as they would have done if they had engaged) and withdraw others (possibly the same as they would have done if they had engaged). Obviously the Northern representative has to make quick decisions based on what he can see at the time. He will have a summary of the cases with him / her and will be able to see those who have / havent engaged and the strength of the arguments of those who have engaged but to that point have been rejected by Northern.

I do not defend Northern's apparent heavy handedness but until someone comes up with a better system then it is what we are faced with.

Undoubtedly there will be a small minority of cases which Northern has got wrong and they do need to look at these and see if there is a systemic problem. Certainly disruption seems to create problems with advance tickets and single operator only tickets and whether the rules have been waived.

Messages such as you must have a valid ticket before you board the train (acknowledging there are certain circumstances where this is not required) and you must have a valid railcard if you claim the railcard discount need to be repeated time and time again. Perhaps the tocs also need to remind app bookers to check their railcard validity and whether it is auto applied before making a booking.

 

[Brissle Girl]

That is very good news @Thornsandroses, and I am very pleased for you. (I was waiting with great interest for an update from you, as I am sure many of the regular contributors were.)

Your experience really shouldn't go unreported though - have you considered You and Yours on Radio 4, which is a very good consumer programme which might be interested, particularly if you highlight that your experience is unlikely to be an isolated one. The parallel with the Post Office in terms of TOCs having the power to prosecute without involving the CPS is one that may well pique their interest in your case.

 

[Titfield]

That is very good news @Thornsandroses, and I am very pleased for you. (I was waiting with great interest for an update from you, as I am sure many of the regular contributors were.)

Your experience really shouldn't go unreported though - have you considered You and Yours on Radio 4, which is a very good consumer programme which might be interested, particularly if you highlight that your experience is unlikely to be an isolated one. The parallel with the Post Office in terms of TOCs having the power to prosecute without involving the CPS is one that may well pique their interest in your case.

Yes I should add I am pleased for @Thornsandroses too!

I think many MPs (of all hues) will have the issue of private prosecutions and how the process can be abused on their list of "major concerns". As more and more admissions come to light of effectively the Directors of the Post Office not being aware of the extent of their prosecutions, so I am sure parliament will be looking at other organisations who engage in industrial scale legal actions such as TOCs. Who knows it may even have ramifications for the car parking operators who issues county court claims on an industrial scale.

 

[WesternLancer]

Update:

I attended court on Friday. The waiting room was full of Northern customers, all of whom had tickets for their journeys. It was a difficult morning as there was only one duty solicitor, and we were told that if we wanted to see them, we would be waiting around all day with no guarantee, which meant that effectively no one had representation. Listening to people's stories throughout the morning, there seems to be a pattern of Northern ticket inspectors being aggressive in their attempts to ticket people. It makes me wonder whether they are being offered some incentive to raise fines. Some of these people were quite vulnerable. One man had a ticket on his phone and the officer refused to help him when all he needed to do was open it in the app for him. At least half of the defendants did not turn up and I have no doubt that Northern are raising a lot of money in fines by intimidating people who do not want to/cannot put up a fight.

I was brought to a room with a representative from Northern who asked if I wanted to settle things outside of court, or reopen the case. I showed him my evidence and he withdrew my case immediately. I asked for the complaints procedure and he insisted that the inspector reacted correctly. I disagree and will be following the complaints procedure. He would not comment on the cancellations, delays and so on.

I will also be complaining to the court for their handling of the case, the accidents with my address and GDPR violations. I will also need to claim back the amount of the fine I've paid so far, compensation for travelling etc.

Thanks again to everyone who offered help and advice.

Thanks for such a useful outline of events. Of course important to follow through with Northern as you outline. But I think raising the wider issues that you have skillfully outlined with your MP would be important in this case too.

 

[vinnym70]

Is it my imagination or has the hunger to go after every ticketing anomaly increased dramatically now most TOCs are run by the Operator of Last Resort which is ultimately the government? I accept there are plenty of people who deliberately evade their fares by various means but the railway seems to be rapidly becoming the equivalent of private car parking operators chasing after everyone and anything mainly because 'they can'

 

[LYuen]

Is it my imagination or has the hunger to go after every ticketing anomaly increased dramatically now most TOCs are run by the Operator of Last Resort which is ultimately the government? I accept there are plenty of people who deliberately evade their fares by various means but the railway seems to be rapidly becoming the equivalent of private car parking operators chasing after everyone and anything mainly because 'they can'

The train managers/guards/ticket inspectors I and my friends encountered on LNER, and recently TPE are mostly nice, e.g. chitchatting while checking tickets, and while finding and loading the railcard app, or giving the benefit of doubt while there's an issue.
I think it is more of a Northern situation than OLR as a whole.

 

[Titfield]

Is it my imagination or has the hunger to go after every ticketing anomaly increased dramatically now most TOCs are run by the Operator of Last Resort which is ultimately the government? I accept there are plenty of people who deliberately evade their fares by various means but the railway seems to be rapidly becoming the equivalent of private car parking operators chasing after everyone and anything mainly because 'they can'

No I dont think it is that as such. I suspect that The Treasury have taken a very hard look at all the books of all the TOCS and come to an understandable conclusion that in some areas there is an almost industrial scale level of fare evasion. The Treasury have told the TOCs to get it sorted. I wonder if the Treasury has an incredibly long memory of quite frankly being told a "crock" by BR from the modernisation plan onwards and quite simply are laying down the law and wont believe what the TICS tell them.

I dont think the majority of TOCS are behaving like disreputable car park owners*. What they are doing is using the data from online booking accounts in a far more proactive way so that fewer "multiple offenders" are treated like "one off offenders". I get the impression we are seeing more TOCS prepared to settle out of court (rather than going to court). Whilst the letters look frightening I suspect this is a calculated decision to encourage those suspected of travelling without a valid ticket to engage in the process so it can be resolved rather than ignoring it when the TOCS only realistic course of action is then to go to court. EDIT Not withstanding the monetary implications of going to court (ie the court gets most of the money not the TOC) I wonder if the TOCS have been told that very large numbers of offenders going to court makes it look as if the TOCS aren't doing their revenue protection / anti fraud job properly and if they don't improve then heads will roll.

* I do think some TOCS need to improve the training of their staff in some cases. I do have concerns that we see a significant number of posters on here who have been not been told the full implications of what will happen next when stopped for a ticketing issue. Likewise there should be absolute clarity and understanding of when excess fares or penalty fares or being reported is the appropriate route for the TOC to go down.

 

[Pushpit]

Thanks for such a useful outline of events. Of course important to follow through with Northern as you outline. But I think raising the wider issues that you have skillfully outlined with your MP would be important in this case too.

I agree with this. I would also urge the OP to write to the Managing Director of Northern, pointing out that this is happening under his watch, that some of this is a pretty brutal abuse of power. And with a note: "If letters of this sort are handled by a Correspondence Team or personal assistant, in view of recent development at the Horizon Inquiry, it is nevertheless important that this matter is brought to the personal attention of the MD".

 

[Brissle Girl]

Personally I welcome the more proactive approach, particularly reviewing accounts where people have been caught for prior offences. There is still too much clearly deliberate fare evasion, and anything that reduces that should be welcomed. And sensible use of searching for highly suspect purchases, such as daily purchase of an e-ticket from Finsbury Park (other first stations out of London are available) to London Terminals, in conjunction with another ticket from further out, makes sense to me.

However, to be clear, there are still too many sharp practices, such as not excessing a ticket used on the wrong train, and other miscellaneous practices, such as the one in this thread. And I wholeheartedly condemn those.

There is probably a debate to be had as to what settlement should be requested when someone is caught, but that might be better in another thread.

 

[vinnym70]

There's a big gulf between making a mistake and going out of your way to beat the system. Yet it seems anyone making a mistake is deemed as potentially trying to beat the system and then it falls to that person to provide evidence that they are not.

In my view, that blurs the lines between people who have made a legitimate mistake and people who are indulging in behaviour which is deliberate and possibly fraudulent.

Whilst proactive approaches are generally a 'good thing' there remains a possibility that those investigating don't get things right. There's a lot of threads here regarding travelling without a valid railcard and retrospective investigations flagging multiple journeys that may also have been booked without a railcard. But then, there's plenty who push back on this. I'd question whether the investigators have the full facts to hand? If they do that's fine, but if they don't then that's a much bigger issue and falls somewhere between how private car park management companies tend to operate and how the Post Office treated postmasters over Horizon.

But yes... separate thread? Maybe someone like Blackbelt Barrister might have some thoughts that could help us all?

 

[Hadders]

This is a good result, thanks for updating us.

Clearly this case should not have ended up in court, given what @Thornsandroses told us. I would encourage them to complain to Northern about this, and I would also be inclined to involve your MP.

On a more general point, there does seem to be a crackdown on fare evasion across the board at the moment. We had years of little or no checks during covid and it is clear that many took advantage of this. That said, in the overwhelming majority of cases, train companies seem to be willing to offer out of court settlements even in cases involving industrial levels of fare evasion where prosecution is probably more appropriate.

 

[WesternLancer]

I agree with this. I would also urge the OP to write to the Managing Director of Northern, pointing out that this is happening under his watch, that some of this is a pretty brutal abuse of power. And with a note: "If letters of this sort are handled by a Correspondence Team or personal assistant, in view of recent development at the Horizon Inquiry, it is nevertheless important that this matter is brought to the personal attention of the MD".

Yes. And copy of that sort of letter. With a covering note to the MP asking them to take an interest in the matter and raise it where they consider appropriate should be all that is then required. A half decent MP should follow up on that.

 

[Sultan]

It's a shame that Northern cannot be taken to court for wasting court time. I congratulate you for pursuing it and making a complaint to both Northern and the court. Unless this is raised in the public arena the practice of taking everyone through the process (hoping they will capitulate and pay) will just 'juggernaut' on unchallenged.

Maybe, (tongue in cheek?), when you make the complaint to Northern, invite them to pay your admin fees (£100?) else you'll take them to the small claims court for the same, plus court fees. (Obviously only do this if you feel you have a strong case that you should never have been charged in the first place and have that 'Alan Bates' attitude to life).

Good luck and thanks for letting us know.

 

[BRX]

Sorry to read that you had to go through all that. It must have involved quite a lot of stress, time and expense. What is so bad about this process is the totally disproportionate amount of effort the wrongly accused passenger has to expend, compared to the ease with which the TOC can trigger it all. There ought to be a system in place that ensures it is as easy as possible for the innocent person to submit whatever evidence they have, and this ought to happen before the threats & pressure are turned on.

 

[island]

Sorry to read that you had to go through all that. It must have involved quite a lot of stress, time and expense. What is so bad about this process is the totally disproportionate amount of effort the wrongly accused passenger has to expend, compared to the ease with which the TOC can trigger it all. There ought to be a system in place that ensures it is as easy as possible for the innocent person to submit whatever evidence they have, and this ought to happen before the threats & pressure are turned on.

There is such a system, involving a letter being sent to the address given asking for an explanation. The OP did not receive the letters because they moved house and chose not to purchase a mail redirection service or ask the occupants of the old address to notify them of/forward their post.

 

[BRX]

There is such a system, involving a letter being sent to the address given asking for an explanation. The OP did not receive the letters because they moved house and chose not to purchase a mail redirection service or ask the occupants of the old address to notify them of/forward their post.

From what I see on these forums, the first letter that is sent out often already has a threatening tone. It's easy for the TOC to press a "send" button on their system but the effect on a recipient can substantial.

 

[Haywain]

From what I see on these forums, the first letter that is sent out often already has a threatening tone. It's easy for the TOC to press a "send" button on their system but the effect on a recipient can substantial.

Post #67 in this thread criticises the TOCs for letters that "look frightening" on the on hand while then criticising them for not telling those stopped of "the full implications of what will happen next when stopped for a ticketing issue", which suggests that for some people they will never be able to get it right. In my view it is quite right that if the outcome of the process could be legal action then this should be set out clearly at an early stage.

 

[Fermiboson]

Post #67 in this thread criticises the TOCs for letters that "look frightening" on the on hand while then criticising them for not telling those stopped of "the full implications of what will happen next when stopped for a ticketing issue", which suggests that for some people they will never be able to get it right. In my view it is quite right that if the outcome of the process could be legal action then this should be set out clearly at an early stage.

I think this is referring to two different things:
- The letters should be worded to be proportionate; if you say accidentally bought a ticket with a railcard expired by one week with a price difference of 50p, the letter should not be threatening Fraud Act prosecutions;
- When RPIs stop passengers, they should not use tactics like “ticketing surveys” etc. to take details; they should be clear that the passenger is being suspected of fare evasion and is being asked to give a defence.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think this is referring to two different things:
- The letters should be worded to be proportionate; if you say accidentally bought a ticket with a railcard expired by one week with a price difference of 50p, the letter should not be threatening Fraud Act prosecutions;
- When RPIs stop passengers, they should not use tactics like “ticketing surveys” etc. to take details; they should be clear that the passenger is being suspected of fare evasion and is being asked to give a defence.

Agreed on both counts.

 

[BRX]

Post #67 in this thread criticises the TOCs for letters that "look frightening" on the on hand while then criticising them for not telling those stopped of "the full implications of what will happen next when stopped for a ticketing issue", which suggests that for some people they will never be able to get it right. In my view it is quite right that if the outcome of the process could be legal action then this should be set out clearly at an early stage.

It doesn't seem very difficult to me: the first letter says hello we are writing to you about x and we want to give you the opportunity to explain what happened rather than presuming you are in the wrong. It can say that if there's no response then they might have to take more formal action but there's no need for scary legal threats on the first contact. It would remove a lot of stress and anxiety for the genuinely innocent. For those who already know they were in the wrong - well, then arguably that initial letter is redundant but it costs the TOC very little to send it.
The point is that the TOC ought to have a duty not to cause unnecessary distress whilst carrying out its revenue protection measures.

 

[ikcdab]

It doesn't seem very difficult to me: the first letter says hello we are writing to you about x and we want to give you the opportunity to explain what happened rather than presuming you are in the wrong. It can say that if there's no response then they might have to take more formal action but there's no need for scary legal threats on the first contact. It would remove a lot of stress and anxiety for the genuinely innocent. For those who already know they were in the wrong - well, then arguably that initial letter is redundant but it costs the TOC very little to send it.
The point is that the TOC ought to have a duty not to cause unnecessary distress whilst carrying out its revenue protection measures.

The issue is that "softly" written letters like that can and will be ignored and thus lead the recipient into much more trouble. "I didn't think it was important". It is better to lay out the full thing up front then people will be less inclined to ignore it.
I can imagine the posts on here, the TOC didn't lay out the full consequences and now I am in much deeper trouble than I might have been. If only they had told me up front.

 

[Brissle Girl]

The issue is that "softly" written letters like that can and will be ignored and thus lead the recipient into much more trouble. "I didn't think it was important". It is better to lay out the full thing up front then people will be less inclined to ignore it.
I can imagine the posts on here, the TOC didn't lay out the full consequences and now I am in much deeper trouble than I might have been. If only they had told me up front.

I think that's the issue. We already know that out of court settlements are far fewer than convictions, which means that even with the very overt threats people stick their head in the sands and hope the problem will go away (which it doesn't - far from it). I suspect the only meaningful effect of having a very gentle first letter is that the investigators will end up generating a second letter duplicating what is currently the first. That will increase costs and make the whole process less efficient.

 

[BRX]

The issue is that "softly" written letters like that can and will be ignored and thus lead the recipient into much more trouble. "I didn't think it was important". It is better to lay out the full thing up front then people will be less inclined to ignore it.
I can imagine the posts on here, the TOC didn't lay out the full consequences and now I am in much deeper trouble than I might have been. If only they had told me up front.

If there were no response to the first "soft" letter, then it would just revert to the current approach. The next letter would be as the first letter currently is.

I'm interested in protecting the people who (a) made no error or made a genuine error and (b) are likely to find it stressful resolving things. They are the most likely to respond to that initial one. If they don't, then when the next more serious one comes, they are no worse off than they are now.

 

[Haywain]

If they don't, then when the next more serious one comes, they are no worse off than they are now.

Except that they will be worse off because there will be an obvious increase in costs.

 

[Brissle Girl]

If there were no response to the first "soft" letter, then it would just revert to the current approach. The next letter would be as the first letter currently is.

I'm interested in protecting the people who (a) made no error or made a genuine error and (b) are likely to find it stressful resolving things. They are the most likely to respond to that initial one. If they don't, then when the next more serious one comes, they are no worse off than they are now.

"Protect" is an interesting word. All they have to do now is respond accordingly in line with the request to provide more information. And as @Haywain has noted, someone has to pay for the increased costs, and I'd rather it wasn't the farepayer or taxpayer.

 

[ikcdab]

If there were no response to the first "soft" letter, then it would just revert to the current approach. The next letter would be as the first letter currently is.

I'm interested in protecting the people who (a) made no error or made a genuine error and (b) are likely to find it stressful resolving things. They are the most likely to respond to that initial one. If they don't, then when the next more serious one comes, they are no worse off than they are now.

So how do you define "genuine error"?
I forgot that my Railcard had expired. Was that a genuine error or someone who couldn't be bothered to check? I didn't understand that I can't use an off-peak ticket during peak hours. Is that an error or just stupidity? It seems to me that a lot of fare evasion could be passed off as a "genuine error". The law is binary, either is legal or it isn't. As soon as you start muddying the waters then the law falls into disrepute...
And I suggest that most people would say that they find it stressful resolving things. It's the degree of stress that is important.
What would be much better would be if the rail companies made it more difficult to commit an error. Automatic Railcard renewals or reminders is one example we often see quoted.

 

[talldave]

It doesn't seem very difficult to me: the first letter says hello we are writing to you about x and we want to give you the opportunity to explain what happened rather than presuming you are in the wrong. It can say that if there's no response then they might have to take more formal action but there's no need for scary legal threats on the first contact. It would remove a lot of stress and anxiety for the genuinely innocent. For those who already know they were in the wrong - well, then arguably that initial letter is redundant but it costs the TOC very little to send it.
The point is that the TOC ought to have a duty not to cause unnecessary distress whilst carrying out its revenue protection measures.

Does anyone really believe that the incompetence the OP would have experienced if they had responded to an initial letter would have been any different to the incompetence they experienced on the train? I don’t. There should be some redress for time, inconvenience, and humiliation for the OP.

 

[BRX]

"Protect" is an interesting word.

What do you mean?

 

[island]

Does anyone really believe that the incompetence the OP would have experienced if they had responded to an initial letter would have been any different to the incompetence they experienced on the train? I don’t. There should be some redress for time, inconvenience, and humiliation for the OP.

I think the matter would have been resolved without going to court had the initial letter been responded to.

I am not commenting on any competence or lack thereof because I have only one side of the story.

 

[Brissle Girl]

What do you mean?

I just find the idea that people need "protecting" from a letter saying "you'll remember you were caught without a valid ticket. We're thinking of prosecuting you, but this is your opportunity to tell us your version of events before we make a decision" rather strange.