Train Fare Evasion

[Cbirch182]

What the traveller in one carriage rarely knows about those in the next is what journey those people are making and therefore will not know what happened at the station that they got on at, but the RPI will.

 

For example, if the ticket facilities are out of order at station A it is perfectly acceptable for a traveller from A to board the train and approach staff and pay the fare. You may have seen that happening.

 

That does not mean that it is acceptable for a traveller from station B where facilities to pay were available, to wait to be asked to pay a fare on board.

 

The traveller from station B who does so may be charged with the strict liability Byelaw offence under 18.1 (2005), but might also be charged with the more serious offence of 'intending to avoid a fare' if not challenged to pay contrary to Section 5.3.a of The Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

 

The precedent for a charge under that legislation can be found in the case of Corbyn (1978) where the Appeal Court Judges (Lord Widgery, Judge Cummings-Bruce and Judge Park) decided that a traveller who boarded a train, knowing that a fare is due and who did not pay that fare beforehand, but travelled with the intention of waiting to be asked to pay before doing so, should be considered guilty of intending to avoid payment unless challenged.

 

.

 

A costly lesson in learning the rules

[Cbirch182]

Ok, so the original court appearance date was some time ago (which I pleaded guilty by post) and I have now received another summons having pointed out a discrepancy within their statement of facts. The fare avoided has also been amended from £0.00 to £0.10.

 

How have they been allowed to revise their 'statement of facts' having deleted the comments that I was unable to pay the fare after being cautioned? This was not stated and nor should it have been in the witness statement (i.e. my statement) because I never admitted that I couldn't pay the fare or had the means to pay it.

 

It seems grossly unfair that having either deliberately or accidentally falsified their statement of facts that they have been allowed by the court to go away and reissue the summons with a re-worded statement. I wish now I could have attended court to witness and pointed this out to them in court personally which may have proved quite an embarrassing moment and may have worked in my favour.

[SRPO]

If you plead guilty, it is to the statement of facts.

If you disagree with the statement of facts you should not plead guilty.

If the summons has been amended it will have been applied for by the prosecution & granted by the bench.

I dont intend to read through the entire thread, but frankly anyone who cant be arsed to attend court for a recordable offence is just asking to get shafted.

[Old-CodJA]

Ok, so the original court appearance date was some time ago (which I pleaded guilty by post) and I have now received another summons having pointed out a discrepancy within their statement of facts. The fare avoided has also been amended from £0.00 to £0.10.

 

How have they been allowed to revise their 'statement of facts' having deleted the comments that I was unable to pay the fare after being cautioned? This was not stated and nor should it have been in the witness statement (i.e. my statement) because I never admitted that I couldn't pay the fare or had the means to pay it.

 

It seems grossly unfair that having either deliberately or accidentally falsified their statement of facts that they have been allowed by the court to go away and reissue the summons with a re-worded statement. I wish now I could have attended court to witness and pointed this out to them in court personally which may have proved quite an embarrassing moment and may have worked in my favour.

 

What exactly have you been charged with?

 

Is the charge on your summons

 

that you did fail to show a ticket on demand contrary to National Railways Byelaw 18.1

 

or

 

that you did travel on a railway without a valid ticket and with intention to avoid payment of the fare contrary to Section 5.3.a of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889)

[Cbirch182]

What exactly have you been charged with?

 

Is the charge on your summons

 

that you did fail to show a ticket on demand contrary to National Railways Byelaw 18.1

 

or

 

that you did travel on a railway without a valid ticket and with intention to avoid payment of the fare contrary to Section 5.3.a of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889)

 

Byelaw no 18 (1)

[Old-CodJA]

In which case the reference to whether you had means to pay etc. are not relevent. The straightforward question being asked by the Court by that charge is

 

"Did you show a valid ticket when asked?"

 

Whether or not you had the means to pay is not in dispute and whether you intended to pay or not is not in dispute either.

 

If facilities were available to buy a ticket before a traveller boards a train then there is a requirement that he must do so.

 

If you failed to show a ticket when asked to do so the strict liability offence contrary to Byelaw 18.1 is made out.

 

You may be able to put mitigation of course, but unless

 

You had a valid ticket ,

 

or, there were no facilities to buy a ticket, and the TOC will have evidence to show whether or not that was the case,

 

or, you were not the person reported,

 

I doubt that the tiny amendments that you have referred to will have much significance

[SRPO]

18(1) relates to entering a train without a valid ticket, it doesnt cover failing to hand over a ticket, all you had to say was you did buy one and lost it, they will then have to prove you never bought one.

[Old-CodJA]

18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas

 

(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.

 

(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.

 

You will see the importand bit is: the ticket has to be with him to be accepted as valid for the journey being made

 

Whether the ticket has to be shown or not has been tested countless times and takes account of the unscrupulous respondent who might say, 'I left it at home guv' and then later produces a ticket used by a third party or similar.

 

The ticket needs to be shown at the time of travel and must be valid for the place, day, date, time of train and class of accomodation occupied.

 

We had a conviction on this basis this tested and upheld yet again following an appeal hearing in the Greater Manchester area only a few months ago

 

What I think you are referring to is the claim of 'intent not to pay', which might be disputed by saying 'I have paid' and then the TOC will have to show that you haven't.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Old-CodJA

[Old-CodJA]

Of course it would have been much more straightforward if the TOC had charged with 18.2 which is only concerned with showing the ticket on demand, but in my experience most Courts accept that for evidence to have been gathered in support of the charge 18.1 the traveller must have been asked to show their ticket and failed to have one with them

[SRPO]

I'll stick with the wording of the byelaw, enter a train for the purpose of travelling without a ticket entitling travel.

Its silly to charge 18(1) unless the passenger admits not buying one when interviewed.

[Old-CodJA]

Yes, I agree, but we don't know what he did admit of course.

 

It was for that reason that 18.1 was relevent in the appeal I referred to, which had been correctly charged by the way

[Grotesque]

And from the OP's point of view of course, the one thing we've established is that on the SMN Branch line, you can't be PF'd but you can be MG'd. So the options open to anyone protecting revenue the options are limited, although to anyone collecting revenue the options are even more limited!

[train woman]

Hi, I was going about my daily commute to work which consists of a car journey to Wickford where I park my car and board a train to Brentwood. I have an annual season ticket/Gold card for travel between Wickford & Brentwood (Approximately £1,100). This morning, I decided to board the train (having a flat tyre) in my home tome of South Woodham Ferrers which runs to Wickford a couple of miles down the line. This route between these two stations is a non-penalty fare branch line as stated on the nationalexpress website and on the occasions where I use this line, I have always willingly purchased tickets from the friendly ticket men that patrol the carriages selling tickets without any problem-even getting a discount for showing my gold card. There IS a ticket office at the station which I'll admit was open, but as always as can be expected on a monday morning a long queue and with 1 train every hour I decided to board my train and but one en route to Wickford. I was then met by two Inspectors and two enforcement officers and as I couldn't produce a valid ticket I was facing a prosecution for fare evasion. This come as quite a shock as I have never had problems buying tickets onboard on the rare occasions I use the line and now I was being made out to look like a criminal for evading the fare. Luckily, I have some old tickets and bank statements to show that I have purchased tickets in the past which may help fight my case and prove my honesty. I'm now awaiting something in writing from the prosecuting company to see what the next step is, possibly a court summons or a heavy fine I suppose. In the meantime if anyone else could share their experience or offer advice I would be very interested to hear. Thank you.

As a train conductor/guard for over 13 years I would have to tell you to get a copy of the railway bye-laws for that particular company, ask for one at any major station ticket window, however it will state YOU MUST purchase a ticket before travel at a manned station if the ticket window was open at the time of puchase, there is no legal valid reason for avoiding this, your only other option is to find the guard/trains manager/conductor BEFORE you board and ask their permission to buy one off them, they must agree or else sorry but it's tough! We are allowed to sell cheap tickets at our descretion, otherwise it's full standard single only, personally I have enough trouble trying to get people to pay at all so will just sell ticket for journey at cheap rate, but down south is different they don't have this discretion, after all you are breaking the law, may seem petty/trivial to you but there have to be rules or no one would pay. sorry.

[train woman]

Few other things, we are there to see to the safety of the train, then the timing/door proceedure then revenue, we are not supposed to be selling to people who got on at a manned station really, just the un manned ones where you don't have the opportunity of paying beforehand or if we are emailed/txted that the station ticket windows are shut! Also it is a popular misconception that if the guard fails to find you, then you don't have to pay, NOT TRUE! Your responsibility to find me and offer to pay. Funny enough it's ony ever the old people who do that who pay 50p! I'm not cynical!

[Conniff]

It would seem you didn't read the post closely enough

 

I have always willingly purchased tickets from the friendly ticket men that patrol the carriages selling tickets without any problem

[Old-CodJA]

It would seem you didn't read the post closely enough

I have always willingly purchased tickets from the friendly ticket men that patrol the carriages selling tickets without any problem

 

That quote makes no difference whatsoever to the legal position as correctly identified by trainwoman

 

IF the TOC go forward with a prosecution it is a comment that might be offered in mitigation, but just because someone has been allowed to pay in the past does not mean they can rely on that every time. I know that some of you will point to the possibility that a Court might take the view that the traveller might have felt it was OK because of this, but the strict liability requirement of the Byelaw remains the rule in force.

 

The harsh reality is that if there are facilities to buy a ticket before boarding, every traveller has an obligation to use them. Traveller running late for a train, or not wishing to queue are not acceptable reasons for failing to comply

 

The National Rail Conditions of Carriage are clear in reminding travellers that they must make time to buy a ticket before travelling.

 

Where excessive queing times are concerned, the booking office queues are constantly monitored and can be seen on CCTV at virtually all stations and revenue staff are notified when there is a problem

 

I understand that this might have been an isolated incident, but if the traveller had not paid or been checked before the train reached Wickford, it is very likely that a fare would have been avoided because after Wickford a valid ticket would have been shown and for that reason the report is correctly made out.

 

Wait and see if you get a letter before responding promptly to the office that sends it.

[Wriggler7]

The aspect of this matter that Old Codja may not know, but probably would have been in the mind of the ticket Inspector, is the thought that if you live in South Woodham ferrers, and work in Brentwood, why on earth would you ever drive to Wickford? (I learned to drive between Wickford & Burnham for the very reason that the roads are 'interesting'.)

 

I suspect that the Inspector suspected, rightly or wrongly, that if you did use your car, you would carry on and do the easy bit along the A127 and up the A128 to Brentwood, or you would always use the train for the whole journey.

 

What the Inspector suspected ceased to be important once he/she had decided to write a report.

[Old-CodJA]

Yes, the important local knowledge of the inspectors is always a valid observation and in pretty well all of these posts, we only ever get the opportunity to make an assessment based on what the OP has told us.

My job covered virtually all of the south & east of England in BR days and much farther afield at times too, but always relied on the expertise of local RPIs for specific knowledge of their patch

[Cbirch182]

The aspect of this matter that Old Codja may not know, but probably would have been in the mind of the ticket Inspector, is the thought that if you live in South Woodham ferrers, and work in Brentwood, why on earth would you ever drive to Wickford? (I learned to drive between Wickford & Burnham for the very reason that the roads are 'interesting'.)

 

I suspect that the Inspector suspected, rightly or wrongly, that if you did use your car, you would carry on and do the easy bit along the A127 and up the A128 to Brentwood, or you would always use the train for the whole journey.

 

What the Inspector suspected ceased to be important once he/she had decided to write a report.

 

 

The inspector has a right to be suspicious of course - that's their job. But in answer to your question why I don't drive to Brentwood is because it's £10 a day parking (Wickford is free). Also as we both know the trains between Wickford & southminster are approx one every hour. So even on ocassions when I go to London at weekends I will always drive to Wickford.

[Cbirch182]

Few other things, we are there to see to the safety of the train, then the timing/door proceedure then revenue, we are not supposed to be selling to people who got on at a manned station really, just the un manned ones where you don't have the opportunity of paying beforehand or if we are emailed/txted that the station ticket windows are shut! Also it is a popular misconception that if the guard fails to find you, then you don't have to pay, NOT TRUE! Your responsibility to find me and offer to pay. Funny enough it's ony ever the old people who do that who pay 50p! I'm not cynical!

 

Thanks for your post. I now appreciate the simplicity of the rules. I wonder if the old people ever end up in court though for making this mistake? The thought in todays world seems to be that everyone is out on the fiddle. I'm dissappointed that this has gone to court because it was a genuine mistake on my part. It worries me even more when I read about others being summoned to court for standing in first class on packed trains.

[Wriggler7]

Interestingly, the demographics for fare evasion are pretty similar to that for all low level crime. Yes, there are older people 'making mistakes'. Using London Borough Freedom passes as an excuse to travel 'the world', and so on.

 

As to the general issue of assuming that everyone is on the fiddle, we live in a world where Presidents 'massage' intelligence and tarmaccers offer to do your drive cheaply if you 'don't want a bill'.

 

If that sounds cynical, that is a result of hearing too many fanciful excuses in Court for simple crime. The worst I heard involved claiming DLA in respect of a daughter who had died 8 years previously. The defence (such as it was) 'I thought it was alright, my other children were disabled too, and we weren't claiming for all of them'.

 

If I am unfairly cynical in this case, I apologise.

[Cbirch182]

Finally all coming to a conclusion now, just one more thing....

 

The Court issued a Notice of fine and collection order under the offence of "Board a train in a non comp ticket area without a valid ticket - railway bye-law."

 

Can anyone clarify what this means as there wasn't any information attached regarding a conviction? Do I have a conviction against my record etc? I questioned a clerk of the court over the telephone who advised me it isn't anything to worry about.

 

Would this have any bearing on going to America, applying/declaring for jobs etc?

 

Thanks

[Old-CodJA]

A conviction for the strict liability offence of breach of National Railway Byelaw 18.1 is a relatively low level matter

 

There is a record of every conviction made by a Court, but this breach of Byelaw is not an offence of dishonesty and therefore is is what is called a 'non-recordable' offence. I appreciate that the use of language here is confusing.

 

In simple terms it means that the conviction will not normally be added to the PNC records and therefore does not show up on a basic check.

[Cbirch182]

Interestingly it now seems that on my local branch line, the Inspectors are plain clothed and now follow the ticket guard through the carriage. So anyone who boards this train without a ticket and avoids the guard on the train perhaps derseve to be fined or dealt with as the TOC see appropriate.

 

It's frustrating that when I was challenged for a ticket, the ticket guard was at the opposite end of the train to the Inspector. I firmly believe that they were 'playing the game' in order to fine/prosecute as many customers as possible before extending the opportunity for passengers to buy a ticket onboard. I'm sure my case (and probably quite a few similar) installed some doubt over the validity of their ticket collecting procedure hence the low fine and fact they had beefed up their case against by quoting I didn't have any money to pay for a ticket when in fact I had plenty! I wonder what would have happened if I was an 80 year old pensioner without a ticket...? My case certainly confirmed to me what sort of people these "Revenue Protection Officers" really are and how the TOC's seem driven to prosecute in any way they can. Just another failure of the justice system!

[RPI]

how is it a failure of the justice system? you broke the law and got done, thats the justice system working, get over it!