TfL Byelaw 17 - Enter a Compulsory Ticket Area

[Kaykay]

CASE SUMMARY

*************

CHARGE: Enter a compulsory ticket area without having a valid ticket.

LAW: London Underground wants to prosecute under Byelaw 17(1) of TfL Railway Byelaws.

DEFENDANT: She pleaded Not Guilty. She told me that she pleaded not guilty because immediately she observed the pass did not show balance on the validator she never proceeded but turned back to seek help from the uniformed train staff to ask the staff why it has not displayed balance as she top up only two days earlier. She said she did that as she does not want the stress that she might have to pay maximum fare touching out at the exit station if perhaps that it has not validated. At this stage of her asking the staff not knowing the person beside the staff was a London Underground Inspector who requested from the uniformed staff to see the pass and found that it was not her pass but that of her husband.

Railway Station: Barking Station

 

REQUEST FROM FORUMERS

***********************

The Defendant believes that the Inspector was prejudiced because of her nationality otherwise would have accepted that she never proceeded rather wanted to know why the validator did not appear to read or showed the balance.

 

According to her, London Underground prosecution appeared to be a big bully who has refused to see things with a human face. She is totally depressed and cannot sleep because of what she called honest mistake and sacred to speak for herself before the court.

1. What are the possible defense for the sort of charge made against her before a magistrate?

2. Do any one here know of any well regarded Counsel (Barrister) that would not charge so much to be recommended?

3. Can London Underground prosecute in Barking Station considering the station is owned by Network Rail?

4. Can she make her submission entirely on papers and ask the court to deal with it on the papers?

5. Any further ideas?

 

Thank you in lieu of your ideas and contributions.

[BazzaS]

A) did she start her journey at Barking?. Had she already been in a compulsory ticket area?.

My thoughts are to wonder if the compulsory ticket area can start before the validator .......

 

Was the validator a yellow (start/end of journey) one, or a pink (defining the route of an ongoing journey) one?

 

B) was the husband's Oyster a PAYG? Did it attract any concessionary rate / did it have a photo card with it?

 

C) you mention she has plead "not guilty".At what stage is the case : has she received a letter from TfL asking for her comments on events? A summons? A letter from the court asking for a plea +/- a means enquiry form?

 

D) Does she have any objective evidence of the racial discrimination she is claiming?

Edited August 25, 2013 by BazzaS

[Madamfluff]

I am a bit confused here

 

I take it the card was a pay as you go otherwise why should she be worried about paying the maximum fare.

 

Now a normal PAYG oyster is transferable

 

Oyster card provides access to the majority of London’s transport services. Ride the Tube, Dock lands Light Railway, bus and tram, and some National Rail services all with a single card. It has no date restrictions; you simply need to refill the amount you will need to use. It is also a reusable card, so you simply add value to your card the next time you visit London. And transferable, which you can pass your card on to friends or family who visit London next time (the one which does not contain a photograph).

 

Therefore are we to take it that her husband’s pass was a concessionary one? If that is the case having topped it up a couple of days before it could be argued that she was aware that she was using the type of card that only the card holder is entitled to use and was knowingly traveling using a concessionary fare that she was not entitled to.

 

 

 

To me it doesn’t look like she was treated unfairly, she approached the staff with a problem, the best person to sort out the problem was in the inspector he asked to see the card presumably to put it on his reader to see what the problem was he found out it was not her card but her husbands.

 

 

We need to know more about the type of card before we can advice.

 

 

And she needs collaborative evidence if she is going down the racism route

[BazzaS]

I am a bit confused here

 

I take it the card was a pay as you go otherwise why should she be worried about paying the maximum fare.

 

Now a normal PAYG oyster is transferable

 

Oyster card provides access to the majority of London’s transport services. Ride the Tube, Dock lands Light Railway, bus and tram, and some National Rail services all with a single card. It has no date restrictions; you simply need to refill the amount you will need to use. It is also a reusable card, so you simply add value to your card the next time you visit London. And transferable, which you can pass your card on to friends or family who visit London next time (the one which does not contain a photograph).

 

Therefore are we to take it that her husband’s pass was a concessionary one? If that is the case having topped it up a couple of days before it could be argued that she was aware that she was using the type of card that only the card holder is entitled to use and was knowingly traveling using a concessionary fare that she was not entitled to.

 

 

 

To me it doesn’t look like she was treated unfairly, she approached the staff with a problem, the best person to sort out the problem was in the inspector he asked to see the card presumably to put it on his reader to see what the problem was he found out it was not her card but her husbands.

 

 

We need to know more about the type of card before we can advice.

 

 

And she needs collaborative evidence if she is going down the racism route

 

Hang on!

I think it is fair to ask about details of the husband's card, but I don't feel it is fair to assume the card is a concessionary one. It may be a PAYG with a zero balance held?.

[Kaykay]

Response highligted on red fonts

A) did she start her journey at Barking?. Had she already been in a compulsory ticket area?.

My thoughts are to wonder if the compulsory ticket area can start before the validator .......

Would be greatful for thoughts on this

 

Was the validator a yellow (start/end of journey) one, or a pink (defining the route of an ongoing journey) one?

She said she does not recall the colour of the validator. She said she was invited to use the manual gate and the validator was after the manual gate.

There are pictures on the internet but I cannot post it because of my limited number of post. Someone may decode it with the following with capital letter "D" representing "dot" and remove any space before and after the "D"

 

www D nationalrail D co D uk/SME/html/NRE_BKG/images/photos/800/o1235-0000047.jpg

 

www D nationalrail D co D uk/SME/html/NRE_BKG/images/photos/800/o1235-0000044.jpg

 

B) was the husband's Oyster a PAYG? Did it attract any concessionary rate / did it have a photo card with it?

She said it was a concessionary pass with a photocard. That they have been investigated by the Council and new concessionary card has been re-issued to the husband after the Council investigation of the events

C) you mention she has plead "not guilty".At what stage is the case : has she received a letter from TfL asking for her comments on events? A summons? A letter from the court asking for a plea +/- a means enquiry form?

She said it is at the last stage of hearing after she said the court and London Underground refused her time to seek legal advice. She told me she was initially considering Bar Pro Bono or other pro biono agencies before she discussed this issue with me only yesterday. So I thought let me share her problem here with a view of finding any ideas probono for her.

 

D) Does she have any objective evidence of the racial discrimination she is claiming?

She said the Inspector wrote on her notes (which she said she was forced to sign) the following comments which she considered offensive about her nationality. "Strong **** accent loud". I omitted her nationality from the comments. She said she took offense because she felt bullied when insisted she must provide all these information: name, address, date of birth, country of birth, nationality. She wanted to only give her name and address alone but the inspector bullied her to give all others otherwise she would be arrested

[Kaykay]

Message highlighted below

I am a bit confused here

 

I take it the card was a pay as you go otherwise why should she be worried about paying the maximum fare.

If normal fare is £1.50. If the reader has not validated the Oyster at the exit her card would be deducted the maximum available fare for a one way trip using Oyster Card instead of the £1.50 if it was properly validated at point of entry.

 

Now a normal PAYG oyster is transferable

She said she has an Oyster pay as you go which according to her she topped up with credit and wanted to see the balance after she validator the pass which she was thinking was hers. The husband according to her holds a concessionary photocard oyster.

 

Oyster card provides access to the majority of London’s transport services. Ride the Tube, Dock lands Light Railway, bus and tram, and some National Rail services all with a single card. It has no date restrictions; you simply need to refill the amount you will need to use. It is also a reusable card, so you simply add value to your card the next time you visit London. And transferable, which you can pass your card on to friends or family who visit London next time (the one which does not contain a photograph).

 

Therefore are we to take it that her husband’s pass was a concessionary one? If that is the case having topped it up a couple of days before it could be argued that she was aware that she was using the type of card that only the card holder is entitled to use and was knowingly traveling using a concessionary fare that she was not entitled to.

 

 

 

To me it doesn’t look like she was treated unfairly, she approached the staff with a problem, the best person to sort out the problem was in the inspector he asked to see the card presumably to put it on his reader to see what the problem was he found out it was not her card but her husbands.

 

 

We need to know more about the type of card before we can advice.

 

 

And she needs collaborative evidence if she is going down the racism route

Edited August 25, 2013 by Kaykay

[Kaykay]

She said her husband pass is a Freedom Concessionary Photocard Pass.

[Grotesque]

Entering a CTA demonstrates an intention (that's the operative word) to travel, whether or not one does or not. She is being prosecuted for having demonstrated an intention to travel on a non-transferable discounted passwhich she is not entitled to.

 

As for the racism, it's customary for an Inspector to write a description of the passenger at the time to avoid any subsequent 'mis-identification' etc, including of course, any 'identifying features'.

 

Good luck!

Edited August 25, 2013 by Grotesque
Didn't see the post above which already confirmed it as a FP

[BazzaS]

How then did she come to have her husband's pass?

 

What wallets were the 2 passes in?.

[BazzaS]

 

Either way: entering a CTA demonstrates an intention (that's the operative word) to travel, whether or not one does or not. She is being prosecuted for having demonstrated an intention to travel on a non-transferable discounted passwhich she is not entitled to.

 

I disagree. A S5. RRA 1889 prosecution is for "intention to travel without previously having paid her fare", and this is a Byelaw 17 instead.

 

She's be better with a S5, given that her return to the gate-line once she realised she had the wrong pass, demonstrates she had no intent to avoid her fare. She had intent to travel, but having paid her fare : when she realised she hadn't paid her fare she went back.

 

Byelaw 17 is "strict liability ". She needs legal advice regarding if being let through the gate and allowed to the validator is "being given permission to be in the compulsory ticket area" "for the purpose of validating her pass". If she then didn't go past the validator and returned to the gate-line : has she breached such permission?.

[Grotesque]

I disagree "No person shall enter a compulsory ticket area on the railway unless he has with

him a valid ticket;" so having established that she had no valid ticket, by attempting to use it, isn't she making an implied contract. I know what you mean about validators being the other side of gates, but that is a pretty usual arrangement particularly at BR interchange stations (such as Barking, Stratford, etc), and surely must have been tested by now?

 

PS: Bazza, just realised I didn't mention S5 (of which I'm fully cognizant) in the first place!!!

 

Also, if she was interchanging (from BR/ LOROL to District line) at Barking, then she would already have been in the CTA. Perhaps the OP could clarify.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Grotesque

[Madamfluff]

Hang on!

I think it is fair to ask about details of the husband's card, but I don't feel it is fair to assume the card is a concessionary one. It may be a PAYG with a zero balance held?.

 

Actually Bazza it is if it was a normal PAYG it would not matter if the card was her Husbands as ordinary PAYG are transferable. So yes I made the assumption that it would have been a concessionary one as it was a named pass and it does seem that I was quite correct in my assumption.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Madamfluff

[BazzaS]

 

Also, if she was interchanging (from BR/ LOROL to District line) at Barking, then she would already have been in the CTA. Perhaps the OP could clarify.

 

Yup, and I asked this above:

"A) did she start her journey at Barking?. Had she already been in a compulsory ticket area?."

 

If she had only entered the CTA at the barrier she might have a defence.

If she had already been in a CTA without a valid ticket: hard to defend.

[Grotesque]

If she had already been in a CTA without a valid ticket:

 

...impossible, I would say. It would also account for 17:1 rather than 18:1 (or even that S5 you mentioned, eh?!) Re: (if) having travelled, but not on a TfL service. Some more info is ultimately required or we are just guessing...

Edited August 25, 2013 by Grotesque

[Madamfluff]

OP you have not come back to anyone to say why she was using her husband concessionary card, did she take it in error that morning or had she been using it (and topping it up) for a long period.

[Kaykay]

STORY BRIEF

**********

She said daughter, husband and herself were in a shop in front of Barking Station just to get something for daughter. Husband tried to check whether cheaper about a bus stop away and entered the bus but told to come back so alighted. Came back to shop with them. So daughter playing with bags and husband given bags to hold. After purchase of item for daughter took daughter and bag along and they went to station and left husband behind at shop with another little bag. Daughter was holding pass and she collected pass from daughter thinking was hers since daughter playing with her bag. She never knew until she asked the C2C staff why she cant get the value displayed. It was then the Inspector demanded to see pass and told her it was not her pass it was then according to her she realised it was not her pass she was holding. She told inspector she got a valid pass that she took the wrong pass. She called her husband but before husband came with other bag to demonstrate the same colour and pass inspector said no longer necessary that she would hear from them. At that stage she already collected according to her all biodata about her against her wish as her wish was to give only name and address. There were according to her several policemen (about 7) on uniform at the station at the time.

 

She said she has not traveled and she was not interchanging. She entered Barking Station for the first time with intention to begin journey there and was invited to use the manual gate by the C2C staff there. I provided link to the gateline above.

 

These were the questions I asked above and repeating it here for ideas or answers, please:

1. What are the possible defense for the sort of charge made against her before a magistrate?

2. Do any one here know of any well regarded Counsel (Barrister) that would not charge so much to be recommended?

3. Can London Underground prosecute in Barking Station considering the station is owned by Network Rail?

4. Can she make her submission entirely on papers and ask the court to deal with it on the papers?

5. Any further ideas?

[honeybee13]

Hello there.

 

2. Do any one here know of any well regarded Counsel (Barrister) that would not charge so much to be recommended?

 

I'm afraid it's against site rules to recommend lawyers.

 

Hopefully if you can give the guys enough detail to be able to advise you, it will be possible to take this forward without a lawyer.

 

Speaking for myself, I find it easier to absorb information if it's not in note form. Of course, other people on the forum may be younger or cleverer than me.

 

My best, HB

[BazzaS]

I disagree "No person shall enter a compulsory ticket area on the railway unless he has with

him a valid ticket;" so having established that she had no valid ticket, by attempting to use it, isn't she making an implied contract. I know what you mean about validators being the other side of gates, but that is a pretty usual arrangement particularly at BR interchange stations (such as Barking, Stratford, etc), and surely must have been tested by now?

 

PS: Bazza, just realised I didn't mention S5 (of which I'm fully cognizant) in the first place!!!

 

Also, if she was interchanging (from BR/ LOROL to District line) at Barking, then she would already have been in the CTA. Perhaps the OP could clarify.

 

You quote 17.1 "No person shall enter a compulsory ticket area on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket"

 

What about the statutory exemptions? 17.3 (iii)

"No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 17(1) or 17(2) if:"

"(iii) the Operator or an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket"

 

Is letting her through a barrier at the gate-line to go to a validator "permission"?

[Grotesque]

Check!

 

- but I think the implication is that that permission only extends from beyond the validator, surely: until validated, the Oyster / pass is strictly not a ticket at all. So when it failed validation, it was not a ticket.

 

Which would usually just result in being asked to turn back and top-up, or buy a ticket- but as it was subsequently found that the ticket itself was not rightfully possessed, it led to a slightly different situation...

[Old-CodJA]

CASE SUMMARY

*************

CHARGE: Enter a compulsory ticket area without having a valid ticket.

LAW: London Underground wants to prosecute under Byelaw 17(1) of TfL Railway Byelaws.

DEFENDANT: She pleaded Not Guilty. She told me that she pleaded not guilty because immediately she observed the pass did not show balance on the validator she never proceeded but turned back to seek help from the uniformed train staff to ask the staff why it has not displayed balance as she top up only two days earlier. She said she did that as she does not want the stress that she might have to pay maximum fare touching out at the exit station if perhaps that it has not validated. At this stage of her asking the staff not knowing the person beside the staff was a London Underground Inspector who requested from the uniformed staff to see the pass and found that it was not her pass but that of her husband.

Railway Station: Barking Station

 

REQUEST FROM FORUMERS

 

***********************

 

I assume from the foregoing that 'the defendant' has had a Summons and an initial hearing? This is how it reads, but if not, please advise?

 

 

The Defendant believes that the Inspector was prejudiced because of her nationality otherwise would have accepted that she never proceeded rather wanted to know why the validator did not appear to read or showed the balance.

 

I would certainly not proceed with this allegation as a line of defence unless 'the defendant' can show clear evidence of an act or omission that can be shown to have been racially motivated.

 

 

According to her, London Underground prosecution appeared to be a big bully who has refused to see things with a human face. She is totally depressed and cannot sleep because of what she called honest mistake and sacred to speak for herself before the court.

 

The depression can be an understandable reaction to an allegation in face of the potential outcome, but if it is a reaction to what happened, it doesn't have any bearing on what happened before being reported. It can be mentioned as an after effect, but it will not be regarded as a reason not to convict if the evidence supports conviction.

 

 

1. What are the possible defense for the sort of charge made against her before a magistrate?

 

If the charge is a strict liability breach of Byelaw then the defences are very limited. The 'defendant' either did the act or did not. If one of the exemptions can evidenced, then the act was not committed.

 

If the charge is that the 'defendant travelled, or attempted to travel without paying his/her fare and with intent to avoid payment', the prosecution will have to prove the intention was not to pay.

 

If the Oyster is a standard, unregistered PAYG, then it can be passed from one user to another. Grotesque is exactly right, a PAYG Oyster, which has not been validated for travel is not a travel ticket. It is best described as 'an electronic purse'. It is a means of carrying credit in order to pay a fare, nothing more.

 

If, as posted the 'defendant' travelled, or attempted to travel using a Freedom Pass issued solely for the use of the person named and identified on it, then the 'defendant's' fare had not been paid and the prosecution can likely show evidence of an attempt to avoid that fare.

 

 

2. Do any one here know of any well regarded Counsel (Barrister) that would not charge so much to be recommended?

 

CAG policy does not allow specific named recommendations, but a visit to any solicitor close to the Court at which the Summons is returnable and specialising in criminal defence matters will be best. An initial consultation is usually for an inexpensive fixed charge.

 

 

3. Can London Underground prosecute in Barking Station considering the station is owned by Network Rail?

 

Yes, TfL and TOCs staff have a right to report any offence detected at any station or on any train where they are authorised to be working. Ownership of the station is irrelevant.

 

 

4. Can she make her submission entirely on papers and ask the court to deal with it on the papers?

 

Not if she intends to plead 'Not Guilty', No.

 

If she is pleading 'guilty' to the charge then Yes, she can submit her statement in mitigation and the Magistrates can deal with the matter in her absence.

 

If she is pleading 'Not guilty' the matter will go to trial when she will need to attend. (I have previously provided a 'sticky post', which is entitled 'What happens when you get to Court' and can be found at the top of the forum. This explains the Court process in such a trial.

 

 

5. Any further ideas? Thank you in lieu of your ideas and contributions.

 

I think re-reading of the whole legislation in relation to Byelaw 17.1 might be beneficial for all interested parties.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Old-CodJA

[Kaykay]

Old-CodJA,

 

Thank you for the lead. I have done some google search and read the Transport for London Railway Byelaw as suggested. This was a quote that I would need clarification:

 

INTRODUCTION

The Byelaws apply to trains, track and stations that are part of Transport for London‟s railway, including the London Underground, London Overground and Docklands Light Railway networks. The Byelaws need to be observed by everyone to ensure ease of travel and safety on the railway system.

 

Since Network Rail is under a different Byelaw regime, is the prosecution under the Transport for London Railway Byelaw correct in law? I have asked this question considering the case law of Burns v First Capital Connect [2012] EWHC 1305 in which technicality was how Mr Burns conviction was quashed.

 

ENFORCEMENT

22. Name and address

(1) Any person reasonably suspected by an authorised person of breaching or attempting to breach any of the Byelaws shall give his name and address when requested to do so by an authorised person.

(2) The authorised person requesting details under Byelaw 22(1) shall state the nature of the suspected breach of the Byelaws in general terms at the time of the request.

 

Considering that she stated she was bullied to provide her date of birth, place of birth and nationality more than the requirement of Name and Address, coupled with that she felt that the inspector was prejudiced as the inspector according to her made the following remark "Strong [country name] accent loud". Do you see any technicality in which this could be a way of finding a defense for her?

 

26. Notices

No person shall be subject to any penalty for breach of any of the Byelaws by disobeying a notice unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court before whom the complaint is laid that the notice referred to in the particular byelaw was displayed.

 

"compulsory ticket area" means any part of the railway identified by a notice stating that no person may enter there without being in possession of a valid ticket;

 

Taken both quotes together she told me that she did not see any Notice stating "Compulsory Ticket Area". Could there be a defense for her on this ground?

[Kaykay]

Check!

 

- but I think the implication is that that permission only extends from beyond the validator, surely: until validated, the Oyster / pass is strictly not a ticket at all. So when it failed validation, it was not a ticket.

 

Which would usually just result in being asked to turn back and top-up, or buy a ticket- but as it was subsequently found that the ticket itself was not rightfully possessed, it led to a slightly different situation...

 

Thank you. Do you have ideas she could exploit from the various submissions I have made on her behalf? I want you to note that the husband has been reissued a new pass after she and the husband was investigated. Is there no credit for the investigation made?

[Old-CodJA]

Old-CodJA,

 

Thank you for the lead. I have done some google search and read the Transport for London Railway Byelaw as suggested. This was a quote that I would need clarification:

 

 

I am sorry to say that I believe you may be going in the wrong direction altogether.

 

Leave out the name of the accused and the date & time, but tell us what is the exact wording of the charge on the Summons that 'the defendant' has received?

 

 

Since Network Rail is under a different Byelaw regime, is the prosecution under the Transport for London Railway Byelaw correct in law?

 

Yes. Forget about Network Rail. Any fare is due to the service operator, not the provider of the rail infrastructure.

 

 

I have asked this question considering the case law of Burns v First Capital Connect [2012] EWHC 1305 in which technicality was how Mr Burns conviction was quashed.

 

The reality is that in Burns v FCC it was made pretty clear that the appeal was allowed only because FCC had brought the prosecution under the wrong clause in National Railway Byelaw 18. Had they laid a different charge it is very likely that the prosecution would have succeeded.

 

 

Considering that she stated she was bullied to provide her date of birth, place of birth and nationality more than the requirement of Name and Address, coupled with that she felt that the inspector was prejudiced as the inspector according to her made the following remark "Strong [country name] accent loud". Do you see any technicality in which this could be a way of finding a defense for her?

 

 

No. A traveller who cannot present a valid ticket may be questioned and will be required to give their name and address.

 

The decision to report for potential of prosecution is up to the investigating officer, who is entitled to make identity checks to ensure false details are not being given. This will normally include confirming a date of birth as it will be required on any subsequent Summons and a description of appearance, demeanour and speech are perfectly acceptable and may be considered to be relevant notes.

 

A claim that the inspector was prejudiced is a separate matter and will need sound evidence of wrong doing by him/her. Without evidence, the word 'bullied' may be considered emotive opinion that will need further explanation. From what you have posted I cannot see anything that supports such an allegation.

 

 

Taken both quotes together she told me that she did not see any Notice stating "Compulsory Ticket Area". Could there be a defense for her on this ground?

 

It has often been made clear that ignorance of any law is not a defence.

 

'Did not see' a sign is not the same as no sign being displayed.

 

At which station did the 'defendant' start, or attempt to start the journey?

 

 

I want you to note that the husband has been reissued a new pass after she and the husband was investigated. Is there no credit for the investigation made?

 

What submission was made by the husband and what investigation took place?

 

Did the husband apply for and get a replacement on grounds of 'lost' pass?

Edited August 26, 2013 by Old-CodJA

[Surfer01]

I have a foreign accent and if someone mentions my nationality, I do not find it offensive. It will help the inspector identify the person at a later stage. Seems the person is trying to play a racial card so probably best they forget that one.

[Kaykay]

I have a foreign accent and if someone mentions my nationality, I do not find it offensive. It will help the inspector identify the person at a later stage. Seems the person is trying to play a racial card so probably best they forget that one.

 

I think if the Inspector knows the name of the country from where the individual came from why was the need to ask her of her country of birth and nationality? To me I think it is derogatory to the country because it appears to state that the standard of a correct accent is a country known to the Inspector from which others must be judged.