penalty fare on southeastern trains.

[imucky]

Ftcst = Fail to carry season ticket

Right it looks like at the time you fail to show a valid ticket ( receipt credit card receipt not vaild)

Did you file a writen appleal within 21 days?

Best action is to write a strong letter to the revenue department with a cheque to cover the costs.

[rickyquicky]

but this doesnt make sense. in the first paragraph he says "FTCST" and that is the offence.

 

in the second paragraph:

 

"at the time of making this statement, the fare that was actually due at the time of travel has still not been paid and i therefore contend that the intention of mr.......... was to travel on the railway without having previously paid their fare and with intent to avoid payment thereof."

 

how can he say there was no intent to pay when in the paragraph above he is accepting that i did have a season ticket, but that i could not show it?

 

there was no fare due as the fare had been paid.

 

i filed a reply within 21 days to IPFAS, they said they advise that i pay the penalty notice.

 

and imucky - your advice to write a strong letter with a cheque to cover costs? can you elaborate? what costs are you suggesting i pay?

 

thanks, ricky.

[SRPO]

Deleted.

Edited September 23, 2009 by SRPO

[rickyquicky]

Based on the Statement Of Facts I would definately plead Not Guilty at Court.

 

ok thanks, so good idea to let it go to court?

 

im torn between just paying 50 quid and forgetting about it, or going to court to stand up for what i feel is right. (but then risk 170 quid).

 

to update, yesterday i replied with a letter to the revenue protection services in portsmouth.

 

i basically set the record straight where i was accused of 'intent to avoid a fare' and told them that i had indeed paid for my season ticket (and therefore my travel between the specified stations), i just could not show my 'ticket'.

 

i also said that i was allowed through with the documents i did have by a member of staff, and that when the ticket inspector took exception, he didnt question whether i had paid, just that i couldnt provide the physical 'ticket'. and that therefore they have no basis to take me to court for 'intent to avoid a fare'

 

if its useful to anyone i can copy/paste my reply to them here.

[RPI]

Out of interest, did you ever find your season ticket after the incident?

[Old-CodJA]

Having continued following this thread with interest, I am happy to say that I will go back on my earlier assertion that I would not add anything to the advice that you have been given.

 

Given your own admission that this is not the first time, I still believe that you should take more care of your expensive ticket as many thousands of others manage to do and that you should be able to comply with the need to show a valid one at all times, but that aside, I agree with SRPOs latest comment.

 

The TOC could allege 'intent to avoid a fare' if a Penalty Fare Notice has been issued and ignored, provided that notice was subsequently cancelled and a Summons issued. My understanding is that you appealed the notice, but were unsuccessful however, you failed to pay the penalty and the TOC may proceed on that basis. Did they then advise you that the PF notice had been cancelled?

 

Now that you have been able to present the actual 'Statement of facts' on which the TOC are relying, if that is word for word what they allege, I think it likely that you may not be convicted.

 

It seems to me that this statement suggests that they have laid the wrong charge if they wanted to be sure of a conviction. However, they may still succeed given that you failed to pay the penalty once you were advised that it was reaffirmed.

 

The fact that they are advising 'you must pay £50' suggests that the PF Notice has not been cancelled.

 

What does the Summons state in respect of the alleged legislative breach?

 

Had the TOC simply alleged a breach of Byelaw 18.1, the offence is 'Fail to show a ticket on demand', then you would be convicted because you seem to have no 'proof' that you were allowed to pass any barrier. It appears to be your word against theirs and you agree that you were not carrying a valid ticket.

 

However, attempting to make this an offence of 'intent to avoid a fare' contrary to Section 5.3.a of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889) could result in failure in my view.

 

I think that I must also point out one further error in your reading of this though.

 

You state "i am told that i now have to pay £50, or they will take me to court for the outstanding £20, plus compensation of the amount, plus £150 towards prosecution costs."

 

The TOC are not taking you to Court for the £20.00 unpaid Penalty Fare.

 

The Statement of Fact that you have reproduced goes on to say that: "at the time of making this statement, the fare that was actually due at the time of travel has still not been paid"

 

You could not show a valid ticket on demand and this means the single fare from Sidcup to Cannon Street, which I believe is £4.40. It is that fare that you are accused of attempting to avoid. Check the compensation claim that should have been advised along with advice of their costs application.

 

 

Good Luck

Edited September 21, 2009 by Old-CodJA

[jkdd77]

Surely any criminal case has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt? If the OP swears under oath that he was given permission to proceed without a ticket, then it must surely be for the TOC to disprove it, and not for the OP to prove his innocence.

 

Surely, even in 21st century Britain, a person cannot be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of "your word against theirs"? There is nothing in the wording of byelaw 18(3) to suggest that the burden of proof is reversed, or even that that the standard used is merely 'balance of probabilities'.

 

Similarly, if the OP's assertion on permission cannot be disproven after rigorous cross-examination, then, by definition, the PF is not due, and he cannot be convicted of attempting to evade it. Furthermore, the CCTV would presumably provide some level of support for the OPs assertion. If the OP asked to see the CCTV as part of his defence, and Southeastern refused to provide it, then this would surely reflect badly on them and their case.

 

If the OP could be convicted, then what would be to stop this poster:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/public-transport-trains-tubes/206691-trains-help-what-might.html

from being convicted? Both cases hinge on verbal permission, which can never be proven either way. Otherwise anyone who is given verbal permission, in any circumstances, would risk conviction if they were given a PF, and refused to pay it.

 

Also, you seem to be suggesting that anyone who is wrongly given a PF can be convicted based solely on failure to pay an amount which is not lawfully due, or, alternatively, that the mere fact an amount is demanded by a company automatically renders failure to pay it as dishonest evasion.

 

Fare evasion is an offence of dishonesty, and if he geninuely believes that the fare demanded (the PF) is not due, then how can he possibly be convicted of wilful fare evasion? After all, he was never given any opportunity to pay the single fare, only the PF, and, given that permission was granted, he would not be liable to pay the PF in any case.

 

Would it be advisable for the OP to now offer £4.40 in payment of the single fare in full and final settlement, on the basis that he was never given a proper opportunity to pay it before? Presumably, if he had known to offer this payment at the time, then there would be no question of any criminal conviction for fare evasion.

 

Finally, note that at the moment, the OP is only being threatened with prosecution; no actual summons has been issued, and may never be issued. This is why the PF has not been cancelled.

Edited September 21, 2009 by jkdd77

[SRPO]

Deleted.

Edited September 23, 2009 by SRPO

[jkdd77]

My authority is the law as written:

 

5 Penalty for avoiding payment of fare

 

(3)If any person—

(a)Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof;

 

No intent to avoid payment= no dishonesty= no offence

 

In this case, the question of 'intent to avoid payment' is inextricably linked with the question of 'permission'. The two cannot be separated, as the OP didn't pay precisely because he believed he had permission.

 

So, if the deaf poster in the other thread, with whom you sympthaised, was charged with fare evasion, she would have no defence, according to you, because she would not be able to prove she was given permission?

 

To quote from Old-CodJA

"Section 5.3 of The Regulation of Railways Act 1889 is all about intent and the Rail Company would have to prove that [the passenger] knew her ticket was not valid and that she knew she was avoiding a liability."

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/public-transport-trains-tubes/203265-south-west-trains-ticket.html

 

If the passenger sincerely believed he had no liability to pay the fare demanded, he cannot be convicted of dishonestly avoiding it. Therefore, proving intent, in this case, requires proving that the OP did not believe he had permission to travel, which realistically means proving that he did not have permission to travel.

Edited September 21, 2009 by jkdd77

[SRPO]

Deleted.

Edited September 23, 2009 by SRPO

[rickyquicky]

Unfortunately it is up to you to prove you were given permission by an authorised person to travel without a valid ticket.

Otherwise it would be a bit like saying that 'someone' in a tesco store in Romford said you could walk out with a roast chicken from the store in Wanstead.

 

Also, although fare evasion is an offence of dishonesty, there is no obligation on the prosecution to prove dishonesty. (My authority is Lord Justice Woolf).

 

well then the very fact that i could get through the barriers would be a start, seeing as they are manned every morning, and also a request for cctv would go someway to backing up my argument.

 

anyway, the example of walking out of a tesco store is a completely different scenario and a bad illustration to use. are you likening my situation to theft?

 

this would be a more appropriate comparison - paying for goods and being given a 'ticket' to then come and collect them later (maybe like argos). you lose your ticket, however you ask if you can still collect the item as you still have the proof of purchase and is it acceptable. you are then told yes that is acceptable, and collect the goods that you have rightfully paid for.

 

its not me deciding i want to take a ride on the train because someone just said 'oh yes thats fine' and not pay my fare.

 

where is the common sense? where is your consideration for a consumers point of view? if you are trying to be helpful and are using past experience as a guide, then why not post more impartial comments that consider both sides of the argument, as opposed to using silly examples such as the one above.

 

well thanks to everyone who commented anyway, posts from ex-ticket inspectors who still feel the need to come here with an attitude of persecution are a pretty bad experience for users of a 'consumer advice forum'.

 

look at the other pathetic threads about people BLATANTLY avoiding fares/fraud etc, they get the same 'tone' of advice.

Edited September 22, 2009 by rickyquicky

[rickyquicky]

Unfortunately it is up to you to prove you were given permission by an authorised person to travel without a valid ticket.

Otherwise it would be a bit like saying that 'someone' in a tesco store in Romford said you could walk out with a roast chicken from the store in Wanstead.

 

Also, although fare evasion is an offence of dishonesty, there is no obligation on the prosecution to prove dishonesty. (My authority is Lord Justice Woolf).

 

 

dishonesty cannot be proved other than by means of facts of the situation. eg: someone who has not purchased a ticket. the evidence says he didnt pay, therefore there would be no need to prove dishonesty as the facts of the matter speak for themselves.

 

 

how could this be applied to my case?

 

when have i 'EVADED A FARE'? i fail to see how this is relevant to someone who had purchased the right to travel. there is no argument whatsoever to suggest that i had intent to avoid a fare.

 

as soon as i show the court the reciept for my payment, or a statement from southeastern confirming i had purchased a ticket as they have known all along i had purchased a ticket (they even confirmed it on their internal system), who is going to be stupid enough to say 'he intended to avoid a fare'?

 

the original offence was fail to carry. i was given permission to travel. i had paid for my travel and could prove that. there is no argument about 'dishonesty'

Edited September 22, 2009 by rickyquicky

[SRPO]

Deleted.

Edited September 23, 2009 by SRPO

[rickyquicky]

*UPDATE*

 

So its been over 6 months now since the date of the "offence", and I have heard nothing from Southeastern.

 

All I need to do now is contact the local Southeastern magstrates to see if they have applied for prosecution or whatever they call it, anyone know who to contact?

[rickyquicky]

Mods please delete this post.

Edited January 6, 2010 by rickyquicky

[rickyquicky]

Just another update for anyone who has been following this thread!

 

Its been well passed 6 months now plus whatever time they would have needed to apply or get ready for a prosecution so its pretty safe to say that Southeastern probably found someone else to try and extort for money.

 

Just goes to show that standing up for common sense can prevail over the bullying and scare mongering of a rail company who gets its way by adding admin fees, threatening prosecution etc.

 

Unfortunately there are people who take liberties with the train companies, its just more of a shame that someone who quite clearly is not a 'fare evader' could be treated in such a way. Southeastern, and the inspectors at cannon street were unable to tell the difference; or more likely, unwilling (as with some on this thread perhaps?). Because people need to use the trains they can get away with treating their customers like crap - whether its by way of general rudeness and arrogance by ticket inspectors, down to an absolutely shoddy service, due to the fact a lot of people have no other practical choice than to use the trains.

 

Thanks for all the replies, especially jkd77 who gave me particularly helpful advice.

[neeze9]

I cannot see any prosecution taking place as after 6 months as it will be statue barred. The posts indicate that you have admitted this is the 3rd time that you have failed to carry a season ticket within 12 months - don't forget your season ticket again or you will definitely face a prosecution with no opportunity to pay a penalty fare.

I would count myself lucky that you 'got away' this time as obviously the TOC involved decided not to prosecute on this occasion. I'm sure they will deal with you more effectively as you have proved to consider yourself above the rules of all other passengers adhere to.

[rickyquicky]

No don't worry, I don't count myself lucky that I 'got away' at all.

 

As for dealing with me 'more effectively'...do you realise that this is a 'pro consumer' forum? Why don't you put your poor attitude to some use and become a ticket inspector? Or are you already!?

[Stigy]

No don't worry, I don't count myself lucky that I 'got away' at all.

 

As for dealing with me 'more effectively'...do you realise that this is a 'pro consumer' forum? Why don't you put your poor attitude to some use and become a ticket inspector? Or are you already!?

Yes this Forum is here to advise consumers, but sometimes the consumer needs to help themselves. At the end of the day, if you can't produce a ticket on demand, you are in the wrong. End of story. I know what's coming next, but I can handle it...

[Old-CodJA]

I know what's coming next, but I can handle it...

 

Me too Stigy, it never ceases to amaze me how many times this thread has been dragged to the fore with nothing new to report. It's been dead for months, but this one in half a million commuters does like to keep reminding people how lucky he was in getting away with it.

 

Good Inspectors never worry about the odd one that get's lucky because there's always another day.

 

He broke a rule and didn't get punished......it was his lucky day. FIN

[MARTIN3030]

I agree that theres nothing more can be gained from continuing this thread.

In consideration of that its now being closed.

Thanks to all those who contributed.