unpaid ticket

[Sleepy_Head]

> The modern disease.....people cannot take responsibility for their own actions anymore, they have to be held by the hand & told what to do.

 

The modern disease is to introduce complex legislation, explain it poorly, then employ someone else to prosecute anyone who doesn't have the money to fight prosecution in court.

 

 

> You have to pay before you get on the train if facilities are available to buy a ticket or permit to travel, if there are no ticketing facilities you must pay at the first available opportunity.

 

If you go into a theatre, dodge the ticket barrier, run up the stairs and seat yourself in the auditorium don't be surprised if you get thrown out by the burly men.

 

If, OTOH, there's no ticket barrier and no-one is searching for tickets, and lots of people appear to be entering the venue without challenge whose fault is it if the venue is suddenly full of people who haven't paid?

 

If the train company wish to ensure people have paid prior to entry on the train it's up them to ensure payment, just as theatres employ box-office staff and bouncers for this express purpose.

 

 

> I'm sorry if you cannot accept the fact Sleepyhead, but if there is a facility to pay and you know you need to pay then why should you not pay?

 

Because people clearly believe that the 'conductor' will collect their fare. I've done; I've seen other people do it; the 'conductor' does nothing to discourage it. If the rail networks want people to buy their tickets before getting on the train maybe they should stop the conductor issuing fares? If OTOH the rail networks continue to employ 'conductors' and refer to them as 'conductors' (even though (as noted above) the role is a kind-of conductor-plus and doesn't necessarily include behaving like a conductor and indulging in such behaviour as walking up and down the train collecting fares) then they're creating a pattern of behaviour which will lead to people expecting to be able to pay their fares on the train if they're in a bit of a hurry. If they want to discourage that behaviour they should act differently and stop relying on a draconian and outdated piece of legislation to prop up their flagging business model.

 

 

> Why do you always need a physical barrier?

 

Because it will prevent the kind of misunderstanding outlined by the OP.

 

 

> I believe that everyone has a right to be trusted until they show that our trust is misplaced.

 

Or they betray a less-than-full understanding of the rules, eh? Spoken like a true official.

 

(I guessed, incidentally, that you do this kind of thing for a job about 3 posts back because you seem to insist on believing that anyone who doesn't have the hours in their day to read every bit of documentation issued by the railways deserves everything they get).

 

 

> I shall continue with myapplication and interpretation for now.

 

Because it pays the bills, eh? And I shall continue my unpaid work campaigning for the repeal of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (Regulation of Railways Act 1889 - criminalising people travelling without a train ticket — HMG - Your Freedom) not because it brings in the money, but because it's the right thing to do.

[Sleepy_Head]

House of Commons - Transport - Fifth Report

 

states:

 

"71. The current appeals procedures for bus and rail are not sufficiently independent. The consequences of being accused of fare dodging can be serious and it is important that the procedures are just and rigorous. The current principal rail appeal panel is associated with the rail industry and this undermines its credibility as a truly independent arbiter, sitting equidistant from the passenger and the train operating company. The bus industry appeals body has no regulatory backing. The Government should consult on new arrangements. For rail this might involve giving responsibilities to the Office of Rail Regulation or Passenger Focus; for bus it might be the Traffic Commissioner or the proposed Passenger Transport User Committee."

 

Clearly passengers are not the only group concerned with the current process surrounding 'fare evasion'.

[RPI]

Sleepy head, accept defeat graciously.

[SRPO]

Sleepy head, accept defeat graciously.

 

Theres no chance of that happening, he's another one of those 'im right & everyone else is wrong' merchants.

 

BTW, what has repealing the RRA got to do with Penalty Fares appeals?

[Old-CodJA]

Yes, that was a report from 2007 heard by parliamentary sub-committee in April 2008 and in the years since, it hasn't resulted in any change, just like the 110 years before it.

 

History has shown that there is never any need to change good law.

 

Tinkering, the habit of recent governments, does result in a lot of very bad legislation though.

[Old-CodJA]

I guessed, incidentally, that you do this kind of thing for a job about 3 posts back because you seem to insist on believing that anyone who doesn't have the hours in their day to read every bit of documentation issued by the railways deserves everything they get.

 

You keep guessing, from your interpretations it seems that you're good at it, but like most who just guess at the answers, you do seem to miss a lot of right ones.!!

 

Everyone else just read my profile (I guess), I don't seek to hide anything and posted my role in January 2009.

Edited July 28, 2010 by Old-CodJA

[timbo58]

and I, FWIW am an ex employee with no axe to grind whatsoever, I give advice based on my experience of 15 years 'front line service' dealing with ticketing problems involving everything from mistakes made, to deliberate and repeated out & out thievery, standard and first class, obvious and simple to very sophisticated, forgery, transference, almost very scenario you could think of.

I was a conductor, senior conductor, RPI and RP manager, I have attended court many times, questioned under PACE and was trained to interview and arrest for various offences, I've dealt with people of all ages, both sexes, from all backgrounds at all hours of the day and night and on various trains and locations.

I believe most of the other ex staff here are more qualified than me.

 

We've all freely given advice before on this forum, only to be argued with and dismissed as biased, it does make one wonder if the OP's would rather have a 'poor you' lot's of sympathy feedback forum rather than any real life constructive help based on fact and experience.

Perhaps CAG needs to ask when people post onto this forum whether they'd like a 'realistic' response or merely want to have 'a pop' at staff, slag off people involved in their case, or have a slap on the back from people who feel themselves 'victims' of the same legislation?

[Sleepy_Head]

I would expect advice from consumers on this forum (clue's in the title, guys), not advice from members of staff from the industry currently involved in putative prosecution. That would be like getting a parking ticket from a 3rd party company and only being able to get advice from members of that company whose only response is "Pay the fine because it's legitimate because we issued it".

 

Interesting that you've had no response from the OP. Maybe they didn't find your advice that helpful?

[SRPO]

I would expect advice from consumers on this forum (clue's in the title, guys), not advice from members of staff from the industry currently involved in putative prosecution. That would be like getting a parking ticket from a 3rd party company and only being able to get advice from members of that company whose only response is "Pay the fine because it's legitimate because we issued it".

 

Interesting that you've had no response from the OP. Maybe they didn't find your advice that helpful?

 

I think you are right, if they had been provided with a way of wriggling out of a situation of their own creation then im sure they would have come back and posted their gratitude.

 

Im still waiting for someone on here to show me how to delay paying for my Waitrose shopping when I dont have any money left at the end of the month, I mean, its hardly my fault is it?

[Wriggler7]

What surprises me in this area is that I expected to see a raft of complaints from good customers who have had bad service. What we actually see is lists of people who have had a service, haven't paid, get caught and then whinge.

 

It was refreshing to see the thread about the bus trip to Hamburg.

 

Another thought, from wig wearing friends, is that if you find yourself on the wrong end of a criminal charge, the best people to speak to are criminal defence solicitors. They will talk to you in confidence, they will expect you to tell the whole story, and they will give advice on the best way to deal with a matter. Often, that advice will be 'plead guilty, mitigate'.

 

The 'regular advisors' here do not get paid for what they tell people. They give a view based on actual experiences. They often give advice that railway prosecution teams might not like either, as they have often given an insight into how they work, and that may give the 'passenger' an edge when dealing with 'the railway'.

 

They also often bring a sense of perspective into the forum. People do worry that being caught will have a serious detrimental effect on their employability, visa applications and so on. RPI, SRPO & Old Codja have often given 'comfort' by explaining the level of seriousness with which fare evasion is given in comparison with other offences.

 

The laws applicable to 'not having a ticket' are fairly simple. The defences against it are also simple, and well known to the 'prosecutors'. They may be the best people to explain them. A 'wig wearing' friend of mine normally deals with major corporate law, found himself obliged to advise the son of a major customer on a 'pro bono' basis about a ticket offence, and asked a railway ticket inspector about the 'ins & outs'.

 

Gamekeepers are the best people to ask where the pheasants live.

[timbo58]

I would expect advice from consumers on this forum (clue's in the title, guys), not advice from members of staff from the industry currently involved in putative prosecution. That would be like getting a parking ticket from a 3rd party company and only being able to get advice from members of that company whose only response is "Pay the fine because it's legitimate because we issued it".

 

Interesting that you've had no response from the OP. Maybe they didn't find your advice that helpful?

 

Hmmm, advice from 'consumers only' well-meaning as all that might be (and I no longer work for the rail or have any axe to grind AND I am a consumer and have the tickets to prove it!) would not be as helpful as coming on here and asking a straight question and getting a straight answer though would it?

The staff members on here are highly unlikely to be the same ones involved in your case (hence your example is not wholly relevant) but still have recent, relevant and informed experience of those cases people are bringing here.

If I was in thier position I'd rather have some idea of what the outcome and possible defences are rather than a soothing thread of reponses from other poor victims of their own actions (for the most part).

[Stigy]

I would expect advice from consumers on this forum (clue's in the title, guys), not advice from members of staff from the industry currently involved in putative prosecution. That would be like getting a parking ticket from a 3rd party company and only being able to get advice from members of that company whose only response is "Pay the fine because it's legitimate because we issued it".

 

Interesting that you've had no response from the OP. Maybe they didn't find your advice that helpful?

I honestly can't believe I just read that...

[Sleepy_Head]

"advice from 'consumers only' well-meaning as all that might be would not be as helpful as coming on here and asking a straight question and getting a straight answer though would it?"

 

Ah, so it's your contention that sanctimonious answers such as "The modern disease ... people cannot take responsibility for their own actions anymore, they have to be held by the hand & told what to do." are 'helpful' in some way? What way would that be, exactly? As a consumer myself I'm absolutely positive consumers can do without answers of that nature.

 

"The staff members on here are highly unlikely to be the same ones involved in your case"

 

 

And if they were, and they were discussing a court case outside court that wouldn't be in any way be inappropriate, of course.

 

"If I was in thier[sic] position I'd rather have some idea of what the outcome and possible defences are rather than a soothing thread of reponses from other poor victims of their own actions."

 

 

Except that there are quite a few responses on this thread of the form "The company has issued you with a notice so you must have done something to deserve it".

 

Nice, helpful replies those. Direct though. Can't fault your directness.

 

 

"I honestly can't believe I just read that..."

 

I know! I can't believe some of the rubbish you've posted either! Ha, ha! Was that direct enough for you?

[SRPO]

If the site team believe that any of my posts have been 'inappropriate' or unhelpful (bearing in mind I am allowed to have an opinion also) then please let me know & I will delete my account & let other consumers give advice on how to handle the legal aspects of these offences.

If people want accurate advice they will also get my opinion in most cases.

[timbo58]

I'm sorry sleepyhead but as with 99.9% of all threads and the posts therein on this forum or any similar The OP plus anyone else genuinely interested should read between the lines and have the intelligence to understand what is 'genuine good advice from those who know' and what is opinion, and what is useful to them in their particular case and what is 'sanctimonious nonsense' in their opinion.

People will give their opinion on here: it's a free country after all.

 

It's entirely up to the readers intelligence whether they can read what they need from the threads and posts or are more interested in picking apart every single posters comments to find areas they don't personally agree with or that they feel weaken the posters arguments within each post.

 

There is some damn good advice given here, there is also some biased opinion, you decide which is which and act upon it.

 

Oh and I am terribly sorry to anyone that has been offended by my one spelling error, I prostrate myself before you and humbly beseech your forgiveness.

[Old-CodJA]

'sleepy-head' I am happy to come on here and provide well-intentioned genuinely held opinion as advice, sometimes punctuated by my personal opinion to which I am as entitled as anyone else, but I must admit, I am getting to the stage where some posts deserve much shorter answers than good manners allow me to deliver.

 

Let me simply suggest that instead of constantly nit-picking, you provide everyone with what you believe to be the correct answers and that way, those of us that do actually deal with these issues day to day can avoid voluntarily giving up any more of our time to help. Just as with my advice and that given by all the other experienced posters, it is up to the reader to decide whether they act on it.

 

I am always fascinated by the number of people who post a query, get a response they don't like and then make clear that all they were really looking for was a lot of 'poor you' comments or sycophantic 'back slapping' for telling us all about their ill-advised stand against authority.

 

There is a really old saying in legal circles that goes 'a man who defends himself has a fool for a client'

 

I don't subscribe to that as a general rule, but I can see why it arrived in common use.

[Stigy]

"I honestly can't believe I just read that..."

 

I know! I can't believe some of the rubbish you've posted either! Ha, ha! Was that direct enough for you?

You're entitled to your opinion, of course.

 

So, what you actually want is a Solicitor to give you free legal advice? I have to say you are in a minority group as far as you being unhappy with the people offering advice goes.

[Sleepy_Head]

"... avoid voluntarily giving up any more of our time to help ..." "I am always fascinated by the number of people who post a query, get a response they don't like and then make clear that all they were really looking for was a lot of 'poor you' comments or sycophantic 'back slapping' for telling us all about their ill-advised stand against authority." Actually I wasn't looking for any of that: I don't work in the rail industry, I don't use the railway system (overpriced, unreliable, doesn't go where I wish to go) and I'm not being prosecuted by anyone. I do, however, expect consumer advice to be delivered in a manner which aids the consumer. I've looked at your other posts and your tone is consistently high-handed and unsympathetic which I think is a shame because you clearly know a great deal about your subject. Be that as it may, it's unpleasant to be on the end of such posts when in a jam and looking for help. I thought I'd give y'all a taste of what it's like to encounter yourself. Bye folks. I'd say it was fun, but I've had better times putting the cat litter out.

[Old-CodJA]

Me too,

 

Job done I'd say.

[SRPO]

I think sleepy has a point, this is after all a consumer site & any advice given should be sympathetic to the unfortunate victim.

I shall endeavour to keep that thought in mind when posting in future.

[Old-CodJA]

".. I do, however, expect consumer advice to be delivered in a manner which aids the consumer. I've looked at your other posts and your tone is consistently high-handed and unsympathetic which I think is a shame because you clearly know a great deal about your subject. Be that as it may, it's unpleasant to be on the end of such posts when in a jam and looking for help..

 

This is the bit I find most inaccurate and why I find 'sleepy-head's' post so objectionable

 

I only ever suggest means by which the traveller may mitigate the effects of their transgression and where it has been unfairly or harshly treated by rail staff, I give clear advice as to how to get any case thrown out and where necessary, provide the address and contact details to do so..

 

What 'sleepy' fails to acknowledge is that the unlike other consumer issues, the vast majority of queries on this particular forum arise because someone has broken the rules and in 95% of posts that someone is the OP.

 

Ignorance is not a defence.

 

If I continue to give well meaning advice it will continue to be based on the regulations in force and I will not give unrealistic hope where the truth suggests otherwise. To do so would never be in the best interests of the person seeking help.