Yes Andydd, sorry, I recall contributing to that quoted post and in this case, looking at where the PTT machines are I accept that I should have said 'monitored for availability'. My apology, the PTT in that region would be unlikely to be network linked. I have recently been discussing more modern machines where a PTT are an integral part of a computerised unit, but there are none in that part of the country where this incident took place. Nonetheless it is wrong to suggest that it is not a requirement to use the PTT machine and neither is it correct that a fare cannot be paid via one. Of course the regular users of a route where only the older PTT machines are available could not seek to use as an excuse 'They didn't know the rules' and as an example, the OP made very clear in their first post exactly what their regular practice is. It is acceptable to appeal the PF for the reasons outlined by the OP, but as is made clear in that post, the TOC have claimed that the PTT was working and therefore will be able to produce evidence of the checks being made. For that reason they appear to have rejected the appeal. The OP could take the matter up with Transport Focus as you suggest, but it is worth bearing in mind that they are NOT a transport ombudsman as they would like people to think and many make the mistake of believing that they are. TF have no powers of veto over the TOC TF might be able to persuade the TOC to look at it again, but this will rely on the OP being able to provide conclusive proof that the PTT machine was not working at the material time rather than any circumstantial suggestion that it 'often appears to be broken'. I hope the OP is successful, but from what they have told us so far it seems that they may have difficulty proving their case and this could end up in an unwanted prosecution.

The case of Gillingham (1881) clarified that to be accepted as valid for travel as a minimum, any ticket must be valid for all of the following: the day, date, place, time of train and class of accomodation occupied. More recently, additional restrictions may apply.

Sorry Andydd, This is completely wrong and very bad advice. The Permit to Travel machine, where provided, IS the essential pre-purchase opportunity and it is use of this that prevents the issue of a Penalty Fare Notice. Many people have failed to use them, refused to pay ,or accept a Penalty Notice and then to their cost been successfully prosecuted. Permit to travel machines can be used as a ticket machine, you simply put in the coinage to the total of the correct single fare and the machine issues a receipt showing that the fare is paid Obviously, if the Permit to Travel machine is not working you cannot get a permit, but remember all of those machines are computer monitored so the TOC's can show whether or not they are available for the traveller's use at the material time.

Not true. The only evidence of this nature that will definitely cancel a PF Notice is if it can be shown categorically that the machine was not operating at the material time on the day and date in question. They might consider 'likelihood' if no other evidence is available, but if the TOC have already checked and state the machine was operational, it seems their log has been examined. What may be shown as evident on other days is not conclusive in relation to the material time. As has already been stated, the TOC should be able to show from the computerised log whether or not the machine was operational at the material time.

To be able to give truly accurate advice in this case it will be necessary to know what ticket was held, the start and finish stations and the changing point on this journey

From this post this does not appear to be a Penalty Fare matter at all. Penalty Fare Notices are issued subject to strict rules and if applicable, the Penalty Notice is made out and handed to the traveller at the time of the alleged infraction. If you were not handed a printed and numbered Penalty Fare Notice at the time of this occurrence it seems much more likely that the Revenue Protection Inspector has confiscated the ticket in order to make a written report.

This is the National Rail Enquiries information about facilities that are available at Llandaf station: Llandaf station Ticket Office? Yes Opening hours Monday - Friday 06:40 - 11:40 Saturday 08:40 - 14:40 Sunday Closed Height adjusted ticket office counter -Height adjusted ticket counter is available at this station Induction loop - This office has an induction loop Ticket machines? Yes Accessible ticket machines - There are accessible ticket machines at this station However, from a TOCs point of view and that of any Court, none of this is relevant if on arrival at their destination a traveller has not declared and paid their fare and offers a fare from a closer station to avoid paying the correct fare that is due, no matter how little the difference might be.

I did make clear I shall not comment on the specifics of this thread, but just for clarification, I will respond to direct and inaccurate comment. I think your point about discontinuing the thread is well made. I also think that this is more to do with your not liking the responses that have been given than any failure to address your queries. Whilst I and other posters are undoubtedly grateful for supportive comments, I do not come onto this site seeking support, but merely to offer informed practical suggestions wherever possible. I joined the industry in 1977 and have gathered some little knowledge along the way, which I am happy to share if it can be of benefit to others, however I will not bend the truth to provide what someone wants to hear. You are as entitled to your opinion as others are to theirs and I am to mine. My connection to the rail industry revenue protection & prosecutions activities was openly posted with my profile in January 2009. We cannot force you to read or do any research, but neither did I seek to hide anything. 38 years since I joined the former BR and within my role I am very fortunate to have greater freedom & independence than pretty well anyone else that I know in this sector of the business. No-one pays me for, or tells me what to write on any forum and I come here of my own free will.

I can't speak for dx100uk and he is clearly articulate enough to do that for himself. For me, yes, I have worked for railways and am connected with the industry and the revenue protection, administration & prosecution processes. As for whether I have anything helpful or constructive to add to this thread, that would depend on exactly how the reader interprets and acts upon what might be written. From my reading of this thread it appears to me that you have made up your mind about earlier contributions by several industry insiders and have decided on a firm course of action. For that reason I shall not offer further comment on this thread but wish you good luck.

Time traveller dx100uk

I think the key elements are two-fold where Penalty Fares are concerned andydd. 1. Penalty Fares Rules do not supplant or supercede the Byelaws as we know, but in some cases where a Penalty Fare might be considered an appropriate remedy, a breach of Byelaw may be evident 2. Penalty Fares do not apply on all rail services or routes, but the National Rail Conditions of Carriage and National Railways Byelaws (2005) do apply to them all. When carrying out RPI training I always suggest that it is best to adopt the question 'has a reasonable attempt to pay the fare due been made?' before deciding what action might be taken

No offence is committed if an intending traveller genuinely cannot purchase a ticket, because no facilities to do so were provided at the starting station, the intending traveller has the right to board the train and has an obligation to declare their journey and to pay the correct fare from the station at which they started their journey at the FIRST opportunity. This is frequently, but not always, the conductor / guard on the train. Unfortunately a frequent habit of those intending not to pay is to pretend to be asleep or engrossed in reading / listening to music etc. if / when the conductor / guard walks through the train and if that traveller reaches their destination not having paid, but it can be proven that a guard had walked through that train and the traveller did not declare their journey, an inspector can show that an opportunity to pay had not been taken. If there were facilities at the starting station and the traveller simply didn't use them, or wasn't prepared to queue to use a ticket office or self service machine, that is not the same thing as no facilities. If the intending traveller ignores the facility and does not pay at the first opportunity then they can be reported and are subsequently liable to be convicted. The traveller isn't required to 'walk the length of a train' to seek out staff, but is expected to make a reasonable effort to pay the fare that is due.

This is an action that is very likely to result in prosecution, but it is clear that the OP knows that already. The usual Appeal Court case precedent referred to by the prosecution is Browning & Floyd (1946) That said, from reading the OP's articulate & concise account and subsequent thoughts, I get the feeling that he is perfectly capable of negotiating with the TOC himself once the letter seeking his version of events arrives. There is a possibility that SWT might invite the OP to attend for an interview under PACE (84), but this would only be if they have a strong suspicion that the season ticket had been used repeatedly before the offence was detected. The offence that can be alleged is 'having not previously paid HIS fare, did travel on a railway with intent to avoid a fare contrary to Section 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act (1889)'. If convicted this does carry a criminal record entry and a maximum fine of up to £1000. Additionally the Magistrates may order the defendant to pay all of the following; all, or part of the prosecution costs, fares compensation to the TOC, a victim surcharge of 10% of the fine imposed and a compulsory Criminal Courts Charge (minimum £150) I suggest that the OP makes a clear note of everything that he can remember from the interaction with the inspector so as to have a good aide memoir for when that SWT letter arrives. Once it does he may wish to write a profound apology to the company & staff concerned, explain that this was an irrational action borne of convenience and completely out of character, which will never be repeated. He might wish to say that a criminal conviction will likely have a devastating effect for his future employment and the security of his newborn family. He might ask if the TOC will allow him to repay the fare and all of the TOCs reasonably incurred costs in dealing with this, in order to dispose of the matter without Court action so as to protect his good name. They may well agree, but of course they are not obliged to do so. The OP may of course seek the services of a qualified Lawyer, which will add considerable cost, but in the initial stages of a case like this they can do little more than a reasonably articulate, but not argumentative person can do for themselves. The key thing in all these cases is not to attempt to apportion blame elsewhere. That kind of response almost always hardens the prosecutors attitude and results in a Court hearing that might otherwise be avoided. If the TOC decide to go to Summons the Legal Advisor at any Court hearing will usually allow a little assistance for the litigant in person, but if a Summons is issued, I suggest that's when it's definitely worth engaging a solicitor who deals with criminal matters local to the Court at which any case is to be heard The OP is a long way away from that point as yet and might prepare himself whilst waiting for the letter from the TOC.

What we used to refer to as PNC records are now mainly referred to as the Disclosure & Barring Service ( DBS ). If your case did not go before a Court it will not appear as any record on a DBS entry except in cases where a formal Police caution was issued at a Police station. The only record in your case will be with the Train Operating Company ( TOC ), which will show that you have had a previous warning and if you come to attention in similar circumstances again in the future they are very likely to prosecute. The TOC record will not play any part in a naturalisation application

Unfortunately that means that entirely accurate responses that truly might help you are not possible because all stations do not have the same staffing/infrastructure levels Not entirely, it is the precedents set by various cases brought under that Act and appeals heard and judgments recorded throughout more than a century since that have tested the legislation and set guidelines for Courts that will be relevant. The Act only refers to 'pay, or paid his fare', it does not specify any method of payment

I agree, there are missing facts it seems and the most important is to know what station the OP travelled from and at what time of day. Whilst it might be argued whether or not the response alleged to have been given by rail staff did actually constitute permission to board without a ticket, two important points follow IF given, the authority to board without a ticket, this does not constitute authority to travel without paying and the traveller is required to pay the appropriate fare at the first opportunity. The company should be able to confirm whether or not an opportunity had been available before the OP met the inspector and the OP should have provided name & address details if asked to do so. IF asked for a name and address for issue of a Penalty Fare Notice, it does not matter whether it is being fully paid at the time of issue or not. The rules specifically allow for that information to be recorded.

You were certainly wrong at the point that you refused your name and address Had you encountered a Revenue Protection Inspector and that inspector suspected that you were intending to avoid a fare you could have found him writing up a report potentially for more serious action. In serious cases an offence contrary to Section 5 of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889) might be alleged. Having travelled without a ticket and having been asked to pay the appropriate fare, but having failed to do so, you are obliged to give your correct name & address in accordance with National Railway Byelaw 23 (2005) and also the Penalty Fares (Railways) Rules. Ultimately, if conviction of either of these charges (RoRA S5 or Byelaw 23) is reached, a hefty fine can be imposed by Magistrates The Penalty Fares Appeals process allows for the argument that you say you had not avoided payment at the earliest opportunity to be investigated. Unfortunately, being in a hurry isn't an acceptable reason for failing to comply with that legitimate request in relation to existing legislation and if you part with payment to any member of staff, always get a ticket, or penalty receipt. It is the only evidence that you have to confirm that you made that payment Knowing which station you travelled from and what time of day isn't going to identify you by itself, but it would certainly help to ensure you get the most accurate replies

. In these circumstances, whilst a Byelaw 18.1 (2005) offence might well be alleged, the prosecution might be more likely to lay a Summons alleging the more serious offence of intent to avoid a fare contrary to Section 5(3) of the Regulation of Railways Act (1889), or possibly both in a 'belt & braces' exercise. The Appeal Court judgment in Corbyn (1978) is normally cited as the relevant precedent

Exactly so, but sadly, by him actually giving a false address that compounds his difficulty in that an additional charge can be alleged.

Is your son over 18 and is he registered to vote?

. No, the fact is that all of the following are offences where the allegation can be tried in a criminal Court; i) a failure to pay the fare and buy a ticket where pre-purchase facilities had been available to the traveller is an offence contrary to National Railway Byelaw 18.1 (2005) ii) a failure to show a ticket when asked where pre-purchase facilities had been available to the traveller is an offence contrary to National Railway Byelaw 18.2 (2005) If you fail to successfully appeal and fail to pay then the rules specifically allow for the TOC to cancel the penalty fare option (which is a civil remedy) and to issue a Summons for the matter to be heard by a Magistrates Court and the maximum penalty upon conviction is a fine of up to £1000 iii) a failure to previously pay the fare due and to travel with the intention of paying that fare only if asked later or on train is an offence contrary to Section 5(3) of the Regulation of Railways Act [1889] This is a more serious offence and one where the option of a Penalty Fare notice should NOT be given by rail staff. The maximum penalty if convicted for a first offence is also a fine of up to £1000, but this is a recordable offence and a second or subsequent conviction can result in a custodial sentence. . A summons does have to be applied for within 6 months of any allegation being identified and reported, but that does not mean any criminal Court case will be heard within 6 months depending on how busy a Courts administration is. The TOC also has the option of pursuing an unpaid debt via the civil Court process should they choose to do so, which means that (for that process) the six month limitation does not apply. 'Stone-walling', or 'burying your head in the sand' will not make the allegation go away as many have found out to their cost. The TOC may well apply for and get the Summons issued whilst correspondence is on-going and if an alleged offender fails to respond further, or refuses to accept any civil remedy offered, might seek to prove the case in absence of the alleged offender. These are not the rules of 'the big bad rail companies', but are defined by Department for Transport and the Ministry of Justice.

Yes, the SJP consists of the defendant accepting the evidence in low level offences, case papers being read by a single Magistrate & Legal Advisor simultaneously and a decision in respect of penalty in accordance with sentencing guidelines being recorded without need for a conventional hearing. The process is not suitable for matters where a custodial sentence is an option and whenever a defendant wishes to contest any matter it is referred for inclusion in a conventional Court list.

OK, now we know that an SJP Notice has been issued to your husband and this is therefore now with the Court to be dealt with by them Your husband should respond to it promptly The SJP notice is sent to the defendant explaining the offence which has given rise to the proceedings, the options available to the defendant, and the consequences of not responding to the notice. It is accompanied by the evidence upon which the prosecutor will be relying to prove the case. The notice also gives the defendant a date to respond in writing to the allegation rather than a date to attend court, which is 21 days from the service of the notice. The Court cannot deal with the case before that date unless the defendant pleads guilty and asks the Court to deal with it in their absence.

OK, that makes it a little clearer because I know that one Court in London is currently doing SJP for some TfL matters. If it has your husband's name on the Single Justice Procedure Notice you cannot deal with it for him unless you are a qualified lawyer Your husband will have an opportunity to accept the process, accept the charge and make payment to TfL, or, if he disputes the charge he needs to fill in the SJP form and send it back saying he wants the court to hear the case in the normal way.

I think we need complete clarification on this one please Rochell, please answer the following and I'm sorry if you think you have done so before, but it is really important to be precise: 1. Does the paper you have seen say on it 'You are summonsed to attend a Court" or words to that effect. If it does it will state what Court to go to and what date and time. 2. Is the paper addressed to you or your husband? It will have the person's name on it. 3. What exactly does the allegation state? If you can answer those three points clearly I'll come back and respond again. Please do NOT assume that TfL have given an opportunity to pay a settlement unless that is EXACTLY what the letter says