penalty fare on southeastern trains.

[rickyquicky]

just recieved a reply from IPFAS 3 weeks after my last correspondence and they say i have to pay the fare no matter what and it is now out of their hands and will not reply to anything else i now send.

 

is 3 weeks an acceptable timescale to reply? isnt it usually 14 days? and who do i now take the issue up with?

[jkdd77]

I would now ignore absolutely everything except actual court papers- and you have a good defence to those as the PF was wrongly upheld by the IPFAS in blatant violation of the Penalty Fares Rules (and also the clear intent of the DfT).

 

For this reason, there is no chance of them attempting to enforce this through a civil court, and little chance of them daring to prosecute.

 

It perfectly illustrates my point on another thread that all appeals are always rejected, regardless of validlity.

 

Cite "abuse of process" if it does go to court under byelaw 18- as you are, to all practical intents and purposes, being prosecuted as a result of non- payment of a fare that was never due.

 

Old-CodJA has said that he have never heard of any prosecutions in the case of a season ticket holder leaves their season ticket at home. At worst, you would probably be looking at an absolute discharge if they did prosecute (no fine and no criminal record).

 

Also, remember that debt collectors, unlike bailiffs, have no actual powers.

[SRPO]

Deleted.

Edited September 23, 2009 by SRPO

[jkdd77]

Surely the prosecution wouldn't pass the 'public interest' test, and the burden of proof on the claimed 18(3) 'permission' exemption is with the prosecution, not, as you say, with the defence- innocent until procen guilty and all that? I've re-read the bylaw, and there is nothing in it to indicate the burden of proof in 18(3) is reversed.

 

In any case, I would overwhemlingly prefer an absolute discharge to having money extorted out of me in this way.

 

I genuinely believe that if rickyquicky ignores everything, then they will send lots of threatening letters from debt collectors, and eventually then crawl back under their shell and move on to other victims.

 

It is not in the commercial interests of the TOC to take on a case such as this, where they would surely lose money without reimbursement of costs, and would possibly pay the defendant's costs instead after the defendant is acquitted on 18(3).

 

As for the potential civil route, it is extremely unlikely:

 

1) they might not win, particularly not in this case

2) even if they win, they won't cover their costs in a small claims case (as few costs are recoverable- and they would have to travel to attend your local court), and will end up making a loss.

3) two-thirds of CCJs go unpaid (or not paid in full)- they don't know into which category the OP falls.

 

I stand by my original advice. If you think differently, what are your alternative suggestions, that do not involve paying an unjust PF?

 

I really don't think the OP has anything to fear here- as a prosecution could well be defended successfully, and, even in the worst case scenerio, is likely to result on a "saving" on the PF.

Edited August 11, 2009 by jkdd77

[rickyquicky]

well thanks for all the advice so far.

 

under no circumstances do i intend to pay this 'penalty' as the sheer difference in advice by southeastern themselves is just shocking.

 

there is no way they can expect someone to follow their 'rules' 100% when they are as contradictory as they are now. written documents state one thing, staff state another, the appeals people say another.

 

the final reply I recieved from IPFAS was that I am liable to pay the fine as it is the 3rd incident in a year that I have 'failed to show a ticket'. the really pathetic thing is that I had to argue with the ticket inspectors the previous 2 times because I hadn't forgotten my ticket, it was with me but the little paper card they expect to be in top condition for a month was in a bad way and although as usual i had my reciept, photocard etc etc they said it wasn't any good for travel AND I WOULD HAVE TO BUY A NEW ONE.

 

of course im not paying them for giving out tickets that are essentially not fit for purpose. how can they reasonably expect the card to last for a month in good condition?

 

I will not be ignoring the penalty fare now, I will write directly to them informing them that I have no intention to pay whatsoever, and that the difference in advice between the train station staff, (who seem to have at least half a brain), and the wannabe policemen that are the ticket inspectors is not acceptable.

[jkdd77]

well thanks for all the advice so far.

 

under no circumstances do i intend to pay this 'penalty' as the sheer difference in advice by southeastern themselves is just shocking.

 

there is no way they can expect someone to follow their 'rules' 100% when they are as contradictory as they are now. written documents state one thing, staff state another, the appeals people say another.

 

the final reply I recieved from IPFAS was that I am liable to pay the fine as it is the 3rd incident in a year that I have 'failed to show a ticket'. the really pathetic thing is that I had to argue with the ticket inspectors the previous 2 times because I hadn't forgotten my ticket, it was with me but the little paper card they expect to be in top condition for a month was in a bad way and although as usual i had my reciept, photocard etc etc they said it wasn't any good for travel AND I WOULD HAVE TO BUY A NEW ONE.

 

of course im not paying them for giving out tickets that are essentially not fit for purpose. how can they reasonably expect the card to last for a month in good condition?

 

I will not be ignoring the penalty fare now, I will write directly to them informing them that I have no intention to pay whatsoever, and that the difference in advice between the train station staff, (who seem to have at least half a brain), and the wannabe policemen that are the ticket inspectors is not acceptable.

 

 

Good for you.

 

In any case, alleged (and, in your case, non-existent) past offences cannot be used as evidence in this case.

Edited August 13, 2009 by jkdd77

[rickyquicky]

 

well i'll update this thread as and when anything exciting happens with these [EDIT] people.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Rooster-UK
Language.

[edwardl_ongshanks]

I suggest you lose the cocky attitude before you go to court. This is a strict liability offence and some of the defences suggested above are not actually available to you - and Southeastern's prosecutors will come prepared with High Court precedents which will prove this to be so (and which the Magistrates are bound by).

 

You do not seem to understand the trouble you are in - people can go to prison for this. In fact, there are people in prison for fare evasion right now!

 

I think the best thing you can do is go to see the Duty Solicitor at the Court to which you are summoned (remember, Southeastern get to choose the venue and it will be at a Court well-versed in these cases).

[Old-CodJA]

I agree that it is right to advise that a little less arrogance would be a sensible approach, but it is a mistake to state that the particular offence being suggested is imprisonable if convicted.

 

The strict liability, breach of Byelaw 18 offence is not.

 

It is punishable by a substantial fine and possibly, the award of full costs against a convicted defendant, plus compensation to the rail operator and a victim surcharge.

 

On the other hand, it is true to say that breach of Section 5 of The Regulation of Railways Act COULD carry a prison sentence and it is also true to say that offenders have found this out to their cost.

 

The main point of your posting is absolutely correct though.

 

If the prosecution team did not believe that they had a solid case, founded on evidence and legal precedent, they would not issue any Summons.

 

I'm not sure what date the 'alleged offence' is said to have been committed in this case, but the prosecution do have up to six months from that day to lay any charge & evidence before a Magistrates Court.

 

If you don't hear immediately, I certainly wouldn't assume that it has gone away.

[jkdd77]

Do you think they actually will prosecute a season-ticket holder who, moreover, genuinely believed he was given permission by barrier staff to buy a ticket at his destination station?

 

I certainly don't.

 

Even if they did, would they actually get a conviction?

 

Even if they did, would the judge actually be likely to award all costs against the defendant in such a case, or would they be much more likely to give an absolute or conditional discharge, with costs falling on the TOC?

[Old-CodJA]

Do you think they actually will prosecute a season-ticket holder who, moreover, genuinely believed he was given permission by barrier staff to buy a ticket at his destination station?

 

I certainly don't.

 

Even if they did, would they actually get a conviction?

 

Even if they did, would the judge actually be likely to award all costs against the defendant in such a case, or would they be much more likely to give an absolute or conditional discharge, with costs falling on the TOC?

 

Yes, some TOCs do prosecute 'fail to carry' as the Byelaw requirement is strict liability.

 

As a prosecutor, in the specific circumstances outlined by the OP, I have made clear that I would not do so. (Unless there were additional factors that we haven't heard about.)

 

The more likely scenario is, as happened in a Court I and a prosecutor from another company attended a few weeks back. That other prosecutor had just such a case on his list.

 

There was a claim that 'the chap at the station let me through', but that was disproved.

 

The Defendant was obliged to truthfully plead 'guilty', because he did not show a valid ticket when challenged and he accepted that.

 

Magistrates imposed a Conditional Discharge and a very substantially reduced award of costs was ordered payable to the prosecution, with no award for compensation and because no fine, no victim surcharge.

 

The Magistrates made clear that the case had been correctly brought before them, but it was plain that they were a little uncomfortable. Nonetheless, they acknowledged the oft quoted 'Rules are Rules'.

[rickyquicky]

I suggest you lose the cocky attitude before you go to court. This is a strict liability offence and some of the defences suggested above are not actually available to you - and Southeastern's prosecutors will come prepared with High Court precedents which will prove this to be so (and which the Magistrates are bound by).

 

You do not seem to understand the trouble you are in - people can go to prison for this. In fact, there are people in prison for fare evasion right now!

 

I think the best thing you can do is go to see the Duty Solicitor at the Court to which you are summoned (remember, Southeastern get to choose the venue and it will be at a Court well-versed in these cases).

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzz..................

 

what a pointless post.

 

scaremongering is the reason why consumers get treated like mugs. You state that I could go to prison, I would bet every single possession I own that the court would have more sense than to send a season-ticket holder who could produce 2 years worth of monthly tickets and a clean record to prison!

 

its the cocky attitude of companies, rail companies and everyone else who think they can bully or con people. im no mug and wont be treated like one.

 

These are the facts that will be heard in court:

 

IN MY FAVOUR:

 

I have ALL reciepts and 95% of 'valid tickets' that go with them for the past 2 years.

 

I was let through the barriers at the local station by an authority of southeastern who said I had enough 'documents' to travel.

 

I have a spotless record, look smart, and quite clearly would not intentionally evade a fare.

 

At the time of the penalty fare at cannon street, I could produce my photocard, a reciept for the missing ticket, and I had the credit card that had been used to pay (obviously with my name clearly on the card) and the same card number on the reciept. SO THERE IS NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER I HAD PURCHASED THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL.

 

IN SOUTHEASTERNS FAVOUR:

 

'rules are rules'

 

 

Wish me luck please if they are stupid enough to take me to court!

[rickyquicky]

also old-codJA, you obviously seem to be in a position to know what you are talking about, but how can they disprove that someone let me through when I had to get through the barriers? Someone obviously let me through the barriers! The barriers are always shut at my station, with a guard/staffmember manning them.

 

Wouldnt this be evidence in court? The very fact that I managed to get on the train without documents they deem 'acceptable'

[Old-CodJA]

also old-codJA, you obviously seem to be in a position to know what you are talking about, but how can they disprove that someone let me through when I had to get through the barriers? Someone obviously let me through the barriers! The barriers are always shut at my station, with a guard/staffmember manning them.

 

Wouldnt this be evidence in court? The very fact that I managed to get on the train without documents they deem 'acceptable'

 

I'm sorry 'rickyquicky', and you are right, I do know what I'm talking about in this field. Thank you. However, there is undoubtedly an element of cockiness in your posting that makes me decide that I have given all the direct advice that I will on this thread.

 

Some of your comments seem as pointless as you claim for 'edwardl_ongshanks' . Some of Edward's comments are extremely valuable for anyone facing a fare evasion charge. It is always worth seeking advice.

 

There is an old saying in legal circles that 'a man who defends himself has a fool for a client'. Now in these relatively minor matters that may not always be the case, but many have found out to their cost that they should have checked everything.

 

Your comment 'I look smart, and quite clearly would not intentionally evade a fare' is a pointless comment.

 

The whole concept that just because someone dresses sharply means they cannot be a fare evader is laughable.

 

The majority of 'intentional fare evasion' within the commuter belt is committed by many of those with good jobs and who can afford to pay, but choose not to unless challenged to do so.

 

As the financial climate worsened, so that problem has become more acute for the TOCs too.

 

It seems that you have not been charged with fare evasion, so why make an issue of it?

Edited August 14, 2009 by Old-CodJA

[rickyquicky]

sorry but i think you have taken me the wrong way.

 

my 'cockiness' is not directed at anyone here, it is my confidence and disbelief at the rail company because i think they take liberties and it is not acceptable. I didn't realise some people here have connections or are directly involved with rail companies etc but im trying to make people realise how pathetic this situation is. I personally think its quite 'cocky' to demand £20 when ive already paid £120 for my monthly ticket, to use trains that are generally a pretty bad service for rush hour commuters.

 

its all about being reasonable which they are not, and that goes back to my comment about looking 'smart'. its not a pointless comment, its one of the things to reinforce my argument.

 

if i stand in court in a shirt, suit and tie, with all reciepts, tickets etc, and can present my side of the argument presented in a clear way, the court are usually a reasonable bunch and will weigh up all the facts together.

 

 

if i did the same in jeans and t-shirt it might take the edge off my argument of being 'reasonable' and that i am just a commuter who has ALWAYS paid his way and that unfortunately there has been the odd occasion where a ticket has been in very bad condition, or has been misplaced, but on all occasions i was let through barriers with documents i did have to prove that i was entitled (in theory) to travel.

 

its about seeing things for what they are. someone who is going to and from work monday-friday, pays every month, tries to do things by the book as much as possible, and they are trying to fine me for it? i wont have it, and for that reason if they are stupid enough to take me to court, i will do everything i can possibly do to show the court how pointless the whole scenario is.

[Old-CodJA]

Yes, I understand all of that, and your comment concerning dress code can only be taken in the context of when you were stopped.

 

The question of whether someone 'appears to be a fare evader' or is in breach of Byelaw is only relevant at the time of travel and when spoken to, not three months later in a courtroom. It is at the time of the incident that the inspector makes the decision whether to report or not.

 

However, let's look at your thread another way.

 

The rail company are not trying to fine you because you did comply with a rule as you suggest.

 

The National Railways Byelaws (2005) requires you to comply with a rule that everyone has to comply with and you repeatedly fail to do so.

 

On previous occasions you have failed and the company have warned you. By your own admission, not once, but twice. Then you do it again.

 

Why is it that you see yourself as someone who needs so many warnings??

Edited August 14, 2009 by Old-CodJA

[rickyquicky]

well in actual fact i have been in breach of this 'rule' about 5 times in the last 26 months.

 

the other times with no warning/fare etc were when i showed the ticket inspectors my reciept etc and they also too said 'fine' and i was free to go through the barrier.

 

let me set a few things straight:

 

you state - 'On previous occasions you have failed and the company have warned you. By your own admission, not once, but twice. Then you do it again'

 

now what happened is that the first time is the card was in such a bad condition after 29 days that it wouldnt pass through the machine. i showed it to the guard who said it wasnt acceptable, as it was badly beaten up (but what do you expect for a flimsy piece of card you carry day in, day out?) and he said i had to put down my details and then he would let me through the barrier but the ticket would need replacing. i was told it would be £10 pounds to replace the ticket, and take a week to arrive (how THICK is this rule/procedure?). i had 1 or 2 days left on the ticket, in which every other guard said was just about legible and let me through the barriers for the remaining 1 or 2 days. i was not told/warned of any other implications, i was simply told to replace the ticket, and to give my details, there was no penalty to pay.

 

the second incident i lost my ticket, and approached the guard at my local station. after showing him what i did have, a MEMBER OF STAFF OF SOUTHEASTERN RAILWAYS said 'thats fine mate' and let me through. if it is unacceptable to the company then DONT LET ME THROUGH. at charing cross station the inspector then said that because i didnt have a ticket, i would have to fill in a form but 'dont worry its not a penalty mate, its just to let you through the barriers' were his words.

 

and then the latest incident. so no old-codJA i have not been 'warned', and therefore am not someone 'who requires so many warnings'.

 

now my issue is the very fact that the staff on my journey can be so incompetent as to decide one minute something is acceptable, and then the next minute its not. ITS EITHER INCOMPETENCE OR SOME STAFF ARE BEING REASONABLE WHILST OTHERS ARE NOT.

 

so to explain my issue once again, it is that im not a mug, will not be taken for a mug, and will do everything i can possibly do to make this as difficult as possible for the idiots who think they are going to con me out of £20.

i have been an honest customer and have paid every single month for 26 months to use their train service. if there are issues ie: i lose my ticket, then dont let me through the barrier, tell me, advise me AS A CUSTOMER what i am supposed to do. i will not accept the shocking misinformation of staff, and the wannabe policemen who think they know the law when they are as qualified on law as a 15 year old.

 

you also state:

 

'The National Railways Byelaws (2005) requires you to comply with a rule that everyone has to comply with and you repeatedly fail to do so'

 

is that a good argument? when staff are advising me differently? when i am in good faith being advised on what i can or cannot do? and then they try to fine me for it? and the fact that that 1 month in 26 i had a silly piece of card they expect to last in good condition for a month that didnt last very well?

[Old-CodJA]

well in actual fact i have been in breach of this 'rule' about 5 times in the last 26 months.

 

the other times with no warning/fare etc were when i showed the ticket inspectors my reciept etc and they also too said 'fine' and i was free to go through the barrier.

 

let me set a few things straight:

 

you state - 'On previous occasions you have failed and the company have warned you. By your own admission, not once, but twice. Then you do it again'

 

now what happened is that the first time is the card was in such a bad condition after 29 days that it wouldnt pass through the machine. i showed it to the guard who said it wasnt acceptable, as it was badly beaten up (but what do you expect for a flimsy piece of card you carry day in, day out?) and he said i had to put down my details and then he would let me through the barrier but the ticket would need replacing. i was told it would be £10 pounds to replace the ticket, and take a week to arrive (how THICK is this rule/procedure?). i had 1 or 2 days left on the ticket, in which every other guard said was just about legible and let me through the barriers for the remaining 1 or 2 days. i was not told/warned of any other implications, i was simply told to replace the ticket, and to give my details, there was no penalty to pay.

 

the second incident i lost my ticket, and approached the guard at my local station. after showing him what i did have, a MEMBER OF STAFF OF SOUTHEASTERN RAILWAYS said 'thats fine mate' and let me through. if it is unacceptable to the company then DONT LET ME THROUGH. at charing cross station the inspector then said that because i didnt have a ticket, i would have to fill in a form but 'dont worry its not a penalty mate, its just to let you through the barriers' were his words.

 

and then the latest incident. so no old-codJA i have not been 'warned', and therefore am not someone 'who requires so many warnings'.

 

now my issue is the very fact that the staff on my journey can be so incompetent as to decide one minute something is acceptable, and then the next minute its not. ITS EITHER INCOMPETENCE OR SOME STAFF ARE BEING REASONABLE WHILST OTHERS ARE NOT.

 

so to explain my issue once again, it is that im not a mug, will not be taken for a mug, and will do everything i can possibly do to make this as difficult as possible for the idiots who think they are going to con me out of £20.

i have been an honest customer and have paid every single month for 26 months to use their train service. if there are issues ie: i lose my ticket, then dont let me through the barrier, tell me, advise me AS A CUSTOMER what i am supposed to do. i will not accept the shocking misinformation of staff, and the wannabe policemen who think they know the law when they are as qualified on law as a 15 year old.

 

you also state:

 

'The National Railways Byelaws (2005) requires you to comply with a rule that everyone has to comply with and you repeatedly fail to do so'

 

is that a good argument? when staff are advising me differently? when i am in good faith being advised on what i can or cannot do? and then they try to fine me for it? and the fact that that 1 month in 26 i had a silly piece of card they expect to last in good condition for a month that didnt last very well?

 

 

Good luck

[rickyquicky]

well thanks, but in all honesty can you see the validity of my argument?

[Stigy]

I have a spotless record, look smart, and quite clearly would not intentionally evade a fare...

Some of the most blatent fare evaders I've come accross have fit your description...

[rickyquicky]

Some of the most blatent fare evaders I've come accross have fit your description...

 

yeah im sure they have, spotless record, look smart, quite clearly wouldn't intentionally evade a fare, ID, photocard, reciept of purchased ticket, correponding credit card in my name with same credit card number, 2 years worth of rail travel with every reciept and most 'tickets' that go with them etc.

 

yeah im sure the most "blatant" fare evaders match my description.

[Old-CodJA]

yeah im sure they have, spotless record, look smart, quite clearly wouldn't intentionally evade a fare, ID, photocard, reciept of purchased ticket, correponding credit card in my name with same credit card number, 2 years worth of rail travel with every reciept and most 'tickets' that go with them etc.

 

yeah im sure the most "blatant" fare evaders match my description.

 

How many 'professionals' do you think are convicted of fare evasion every year?

 

I was in Court yesterday and saw someone with a very respectable job, a 10 year history of travelling, mainly using season tickets, dressed immaculately and arguing his case well, but discovered that the facts of the allegation for which he was summonsed were found against him.

 

He now has a record and hefty fine and costs to ponder on, having been found guilty of opportunist fare evasion.

 

His was only one of more than 40 similar cases

 

If you do receive a Summons, I genuinely wish you good luck with your defence.

[rickyquicky]

How many 'professionals' do you think are convicted of fare evasion every year?

 

I was in Court yesterday and saw someone with a very respectable job, a 10 year history of travelling, mainly using season tickets, dressed immaculately and arguing his case well, but discovered that the facts of the allegation for which he was summonsed were found against him.

 

He now has a record and hefty fine and costs to ponder on, having been found guilty of opportunist fare evasion.

 

His was only one of more than 40 similar cases

 

If you do receive a Summons, I genuinely wish you good luck with your defence.

 

sorry but i do not understand your 'advice'

 

"opportunist fare evasion"

 

is completely unrelated to my case which is 'fail to carry'

 

there is no aspect whatsoever of evasion, as i can prove i paid for my ticket. There is no 'record' to speak of.

 

I was also allowed to pass freely through the barriers with the documents I had, so was misadvised if you like by Southeastern trains.

 

No need for any scare mongering from a completely unrelated case.

[Old-CodJA]

Originally Posted by rickyquicky

I have a spotless record, look smart, and quite clearly would not intentionally evade a fare...

 

 

Sorry!! Who referred to 'fare evasion' in the first place here. (see the quote above.)

 

I stated earlier in this thread, I will not give any further 'advice' on this matter and that remains the case. I simply quoted the facts in relation to how someone looks and the result in an actual case of fare evasion.

 

Now, lastly, let's look at 'fail to carry'. That's a strict liability charge - strict liability means everyone. (you and me both, whether you like it or not).

 

I have noted your claim in relation to being 'given permission' and IF the rail company do issue a summons it will suggest that they refute it.

 

You also raised the matter that you had 'failed to carry' in the past (5 times in the past 26 months in your own words) and had been detected and issued penalty notices on 2 occasions I believe. Evidence that suggests you were aware it was a Byelaw offence on this occasion, no matter that the notices were cancelled, the warning is evidently given, but not heeded. How is it that the vast majority of people can look after a ticket and have no problems, but evidently you cannot or will not?

 

As they haven't issued anything yet, why the constantly aggressive sarcasm in your posts when people try to give sound advice?

 

Why come on to the forum seeking advice if you don't need any?

 

None of us are always going to get the answer or response that we want to hear and sometimes we all have to accept that. I do so and I see no point in continuing any part of this thread from my perspective.

 

I repeat my earlier good wishes.

 

FINI.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Old-CodJA

[Stigy]

yeah im sure the most "blatant" fare evaders match my description.

I didn't actually say that though....I said "some of the most blatant"