What Penalty (If Any) Should I Expect?

[terryc]

In similar situations, (ticket office closed, and TVM only accepting card payment) I've always either spoken to the guard when he's on the platform (if he's near enough) or signaled to him (when he's not) to inform him that I need to buy a ticket from him once he's back on the train and we're underway. I always get an acknowledgement, and he then comes to find me

 

[najaB]

1tp2h in my view makes it more incumbent on the railway to provide adequate ticketing facilities.

Given the infrequent service, 1 ticket machine is adequate provision. The machine would be accessible from either platform for something like 50 minutes out of every hour.

What are you supposed to do if going on a 'unmanned station to unmanned station' journey. If the OP couldn't get to the machine in time, and the guard didn't get around to him on the train, what is he supposed to do at his destination station?

You are supposed to purchase a ticket at the first available opportunity. No opportunity = no offence committed.

 

[AlterEgo]

Given the infrequent service, 1 ticket machine is adequate provision. The machine would be accessible from either platform for something like 50 minutes out of every hour.

Yes, but that's the 50 minutes out of the hour that a train isn't due, and the 50 minutes that nobody would expect to be at a station for to catch a 1tp2h service to go a few miles.

It would solve a lot of problems if there were machines on trains instead of at remote stations. There would be no excuse.

 

[cuccir]

The only caveat I'd add to all that's been said is

Arriva Trains Wales have been installing ticket machines on that route relatively recently.

How recently? Given that the information is not yet on National Rail Enquiries, an infrequent or new traveller might turn-up and not know about these machines; even a regular traveller might not be aware if machines have been installed recently enough. If you weren't expecting machines - or if you knew that they had been installed but not that they were only on the other platform - you could plead forgiveness on the grounds that you didn't know you had to leave time to get to the other platform and back before the train's arrival.

I don't think that this would be enough to avoid conviction if ATW pushed it, but if I was writing asking for clemency I might point these facts out to them.

 

[AlterEgo]

The only caveat I'd add to all that's been said is



How recently? Given that the information is not yet on National Rail Enquiries, an infrequent or new traveller might turn-up and not know about these machines; even a regular traveller might not be aware if machines have been installed recently enough. If you weren't expecting machines - or if you knew that they had been installed but not that they were only on the other platform - you could plead forgiveness on the grounds that you didn't know you had to leave time to get to the other platform and back before the train's arrival.

I don't think that this would be enough to avoid conviction if ATW pushed it, but if I was writing asking for clemency I might point these facts out to them.

Bingo, NRE says Prees has no ticketing facilities.

I'd say the OP has a valid defence.

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations_destinations/PRS.aspx

 

[KTHV]

Yes, but that's the 50 minutes out of the hour that a train isn't due, and the 50 minutes that nobody would expect to be at a station for to catch a 1tp2h service to go a few miles.

It would solve a lot of problems if there were machines on trains instead of at remote stations. There would be no excuse.

I've such machines on iirc, the U-Bahn in Dusseldorf or Munich - and they work quite well.

 

[cuccir]

Bingo, NRE says Prees has no ticketing facilities.

I'd say the OP has a valid defence.

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations_destinations/PRS.aspx

I wouldn't be that confident (if the OP has used the station since the TVM's installation and before this event, for example, then I don't see this can be used) but I agree that it is worth pointing out either way.

 

[AlterEgo]

I wouldn't be that confident (if the OP has used the station since the TVM's installation and before this event, for example, then I don't see this can be used) but I agree that it is worth pointing out either way.

NRE is the "definitive source of information" and therefore the passenger shouldn't be expecting to find a TVM at the station, much less seek it out. NRE informs the passenger that there is no opportunity to pay at Prees.

 

[Clip]

NRE is the "definitive source of information" and therefore the passenger shouldn't be expecting to find a TVM at the station, much less seek it out. NRE informs the passenger that there is no opportunity to pay at Prees.

So youre saying that even though the OP knwos there is a ticket machine at the station he can use NRE as some form of defence for not leaving enough time to biuy their ticket?

Wow. Just wow.

 

[boxy321]

Bingo, NRE says Prees has no ticketing facilities.

I'd say the OP has a valid defence.

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations_destinations/PRS.aspx

^^Send 'em a screenshot of that with two fingers at 'em^^

If you've done research and see that, you cannot possibly be expected to go hunting for a machine that is supposedly not there. End of story.

 

[najaB]

If you've done research and see that, you cannot possibly be expected to go hunting for a machine that is supposedly not there. End of story.

The only problem is that, as per the first post of the thread, the OP both knew that the station has a ticket machine and knew where it was. This wasn't a first time journey.

Are you suggesting that (s)he lies?

 

[Clip]

The only problem is that, as per the first post of the thread, the OP both knew that the station has a ticket machine and knew where it was. This wasn't a first time journey.

Are you suggesting that (s)he lies?

Indeed it seems a couple of posters are actually saying that they can lie for their defence which I just find shocking


(as is the wait for my posts to come through if at all)

 

[Haywain]

^^Send 'em a screenshot of that with two fingers at 'em^^

If you've done research and see that, you cannot possibly be expected to go hunting for a machine that is supposedly not there. End of story.

That would be a great idea if the OP has already told them that there wasn't time to get to the TVM, wouldn't it?

 

[AlterEgo]

That would be a great idea if the OP has already told them that there wasn't time to get to the TVM, wouldn't it?

We don't know exactly what they said. But it does look like the OP may have scored an own goal.

It may have been better to have remained silent, as you have the right to. But hindsight is 20/20.

 

[6Gman]

I wouldn't be that confident (if the OP has used the station since the TVM's installation and before this event, for example, then I don't see this can be used) but I agree that it is worth pointing out either way.

Didn't the OP concede in his OP that the TVM was on t'other platform?

 

[cuccir]

Yes, but nowhere has he said that he knew that before arrival; the point being that it would be possible to arrive and see a TVM that you can't access (barriers go down well before a train pulls in; you see it through the windows; the train doesn't fill the whole platform; etc etc) that you didn't expect to be there.

I'm not suggesting here that the OP lie - he hasn't stated whether he knew the TVM was there or not. if he said he knew that in his interview, then that's the deal. I'm just pointing out that if I was looking to settle out of court or ask ATW to consider dropping the matter, I'd be tempted to point out that the current layout in combination with the material on NRE could mislead a traveller.

 

[Haywain]

And I cannot see it being of any help at all to point out that the information could mislead a traveller who is plainly not the OP. I also do not see that we are offering the assistance that was requested by looking for ways in which the OP can make up a post-event story that actually features no more than fragments of the truth.

 

[6Gman]

I assume the only advice we can really offer is:-

Wait for a letter from ATW
Respond by saying:
These were the circumstances (TVM on other platform, gates closed, unable to access - no sign of Conductor on train - alighted at Whitchurch)
Now realise should have made more effort to pay e.g. by looking for guard
Apologise
Understand the operator's position
Offer to pay the fare plus administrative costs

 

[furlong]

The contradiction is worthy of examination and raises a couple of (unresolved?) ambiguities.

According to the ATW website, firstly we have this statement:

On trains

You should buy your ticket before you board the train, the exceptions are if you start your journey at a station where no ticket office or TVM's are provided, or the ticket office is closed; only then can tickets can be purchased from conductors on the train.

and for Prees the company's website tells us

Self Service Ticket Machine: No

The question to my mind is whether or not that meets the requirements of NRCoC 2(ii):

(ii) the notices and other publications issued by the Train Company in whose train you are travelling indicate that you can buy tickets in that train.

In other words, does the company's website "indicate" such or not? (An objective test, surely independent of the OP's actions.)

Recall then also that a company's bye-laws or procedures cannot restrict further the rights granted by the NRCoC to a "Purchaser" - but does that leave a loophole prior to purchase?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I'll just add that I find it unfathomable that a TOC would incur the substantial cost of installation of a TVM and then not incur the relatively negligible cost of updating its website to avoid any possibility of arguments like these being made.

 

[Merseysider]

I think furlong has raised a valid point. Screenshots would be required, and if provided to ATW, there is of course a chance they'd drop the matter.

 

[furlong]

It's a criminal offence to board a train without a ticket at a station where facilities to do so are available and working.

More precisely, the exception in the byelaws is:

there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey;

No answers, here, but just more (unresolved?) ambiguities if you try to pick holes in it.

Firstly imagine a TVM inside a locked building at "the station". This exception has to apply I think - "facilities in working order" must be interpreted as a reference to the availability ("fitness for use") of the "service" a physical TVM (or ticket office) provides. In short, to make sense, this exception must refer to the service rather than any equipment, otherwise a locked-up and inaccessible TVM would still count as "facilities in working order". Then imagine a TVM on the other side of a closed level crossing. The service it provides is similarly inaccessible, and one might similarly argue does not constitute such "facilities in working order". Then we're back to determining "the time when...he began his journey", as this exception applies only at this particular moment in time.

So on this analysis, we have two questions: At what moment in time does the journey begin? What is the state of the service provided at that moment in time? (A supplementary question, given that the provision of the service takes a finite amount of time that can only be estimated in advance, is whether this availability, as viewed retrospectively in the byelaw, may ever take into account the estimated time that would be taken to receive the service.)

 

[najaB]

So on this analysis, we have two questions: At what moment in time does the journey begin? ...

If time spent at an intermediate station while changing/waiting for trains doesn't count as a break of journey, then I would say that it is reasonable to consider entering railway property with intention to travel as the start of the journey, and that it ends when you leave railway property with no intent to travel further by rail (or alternative rail provided transport).

 

[Greenback]

I assume the only advice we can really offer is:-

Wait for a letter from ATW
Respond by saying:
These were the circumstances (TVM on other platform, gates closed, unable to access - no sign of Conductor on train - alighted at Whitchurch)
Now realise should have made more effort to pay e.g. by looking for guard
Apologise
Understand the operator's position
Offer to pay the fare plus administrative costs

This is what should happen, although maybe I wouldn't offer to pay any admin costs, at least not straight away. In the highly unlikely event that this is not sufficient for ATW, then we can look at other ways of dealing with it. In my view it's far too early to be looking at inconsistencies between ATW's own website and National Rail, the NRCoC and all that malarkey.

If I were the OP I'd be looking to settle this with as little fuss and hassle as possible.

 

[island]

More precisely, the exception in the byelaws is:



No answers, here, but just more (unresolved?) ambiguities if you try to pick holes in it.

Firstly imagine a TVM inside a locked building at "the station". This exception has to apply I think - "facilities in working order" must be interpreted as a reference to the availability ("fitness for use") of the "service" a physical TVM (or ticket office) provides. In short, to make sense, this exception must refer to the service rather than any equipment, otherwise a locked-up and inaccessible TVM would still count as "facilities in working order". Then imagine a TVM on the other side of a closed level crossing. The service it provides is similarly inaccessible, and one might similarly argue does not constitute such "facilities in working order". Then we're back to determining "the time when...he began his journey", as this exception applies only at this particular moment in time.

So on this analysis, we have two questions: At what moment in time does the journey begin? What is the state of the service provided at that moment in time? (A supplementary question, given that the provision of the service takes a finite amount of time that can only be estimated in advance, is whether this availability, as viewed retrospectively in the byelaw, may ever take into account the estimated time that would be taken to receive the service.)

I think you're making a couple of leaps too many.

A TVM, not being quantum, is either in working order or it is not. Your reasoning supposes that the same TVM can be in working order if one approaches Prees station from the side on which the TVM is installed, and not if one approaches from the other side but only whilst the level crossing is down. I'm afraid that line of reasoning falls down.

The theoretical TVM in a locked office is in working order but is not, I would argue, a "facility for the issue... of any ticket" at that point in time. Crucially, it remains so irrespective of the characteristics of the intending passenger.

 

[alexl92]

Question: A few people have made the point that perhaps OP should have arrived earlier, which is a legitimate point.

However, supposing that OP had set off in reasonable time with the intention of arriving, for example, 15 minutes early, but had been prevented by factors beyond his control (such as traffic or a road closure) and therefore had arrived after the gates had dropped, could that be used in mitigation?

(I am not proposing OP makes up a story to that effect - just interested to know)

 

[island]

Mitigation, potentially. It does not provide a defence to prosecution for the offence.

 

[philthetube]

I think you're making a couple of leaps too many.

A TVM, not being quantum, is either in working order or it is not. Your reasoning supposes that the same TVM can be in working order if one approaches Prees station from the side on which the TVM is installed, and not if one approaches from the other side but only whilst the level crossing is down. I'm afraid that line of reasoning falls down.

The theoretical TVM in a locked office is in working order but is not, I would argue, a "facility for the issue... of any ticket" at that point in time. Crucially, it remains so irrespective of the characteristics of the intending passenger.

A Level crossing gate does exactly the same job as a ticket office door.

These things need to be sorted in court if the byelaws are not suitably amended.

When the bylaws were written there were no ticket machines and level crossings had pedestrian gates so this situation would not have been foreseen.

 

[Clip]

For me, again, a lot of the stuff posted above is just clouding the issue yet again - the facilities were in working order so anything furlong has posted is just bumf and does not help the OP.


The arriving in enough time when you knwo you dont have a ticket is surely somethign we all do so we give oursewlves enough time to purchase a ticket yes? Even if that does mean 10 minutes before hand - remember there are queing guidlines which generally state around 5 minutes to queue is a good time at a lot of station(though I know theyre only guidleines)

Now, lets get back to the OP - they do this journey frequently as they state in the first post. So, they know the TVM is on the opposite platform from where they enter the station - yes? And because they use it frequently then they will know how the station and the barriers work - yes?

Can we agree on those to points?

Therefore, knowing everything that we do now of the station and the fact that the OP makes this journey frequently surely it is reasonable and fair that the OP arrives in enough time to purchase their ticket from the available ticket machine before they make their journey?

You all want the railway to be fair and scream blue bloody murder from the rooftops when they dont so why are people trying to nitpick little things from websites and such like to try and create an out for the OP - do you think that is fair behaviour?

 

[najaB]

When the bylaws were written there were no ticket machines and level crossings had pedestrian gates so this situation would not have been foreseen.

The current byelaws date to (I think) 1999 or 2000 so they aren't *that* old.

 

[philthetube]

The current byelaws date to (I think) 1999 or 2000 so they aren't *that* old.

I stand corrected then, however I suspect that this situation was not envisaged, and they need specifics in them