TfL Byelaw 17 - Enter a Compulsory Ticket Area

[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

[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?.

[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?.

[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.

[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"?

[BazzaS]

Byelaw 28 of the TfL Byelaws (which defines the terms used in the other Byelaws) defines a compulsory ticket area as "any part of the railway identified by a notice stating that no person may enter there without being in possession of a valid ticket" and the railway as "(a) the railways and railway premises of Transport for London and any of its subsidiaries including any train, other vehicle, station, depot, track and any associated equipment; and (b) any train, or other vehicle and any associated equipment which is for the time being used by a person or body for the purposes of providing railway services under an agreement with Transport for London or any of its subsidiaries".

 

Is Barking station a "railway premises of Transport for London and any of its subsidiaries"? In my opinion it is not. It is operated by c2c and is the property of Network Rail.

 

What do others think of this?

 

Considering Barking is a stop on the District line, at some point the station moves from c2c's to TfL's ....

 

Edited to add : Barking to Dagenham Dock is a 5 min trip on National Rail.

 

Did the OP's friend enter TfL's area of Barking station?

Edited August 27, 2013 by BazzaS

[BazzaS]

Yes I made the comments you put on bold about the second page on this thread. I think you are giving too much credit to passengers using the public transport system on their explicit knowledge on what is called "Compulsory Ticket Area." If you look at her possible view of entering the station and the gate widely opened to her how would she know what you are saying noting that most people are always in a hurry to enter and leave the station and may not have the time read every information on the station before travelling. I provided on page one the individual story which led to her being "caught." I called it Story Brief. Try and read it again to understand the story line before you leap to judgment. This picture provided a possible view she would have had with the manual gate widely opened.

 

She has her own Oyster card : she knows she needs a ticket to travel.

 

Lack of knowledge of the rules regarding a compulsory ticket area might be a mitigating factor, but not an excuse that allows her to become 'not guilty'.

 

However, I and other posters have highlighted factors that might influence a potential defence.

I can only suggest you re-read the thread, and :

a) get her legal advice, while

b) look at the suggestions made, rather than just arguing with respondents.

 

Are you looking for advice (in which case take that which has been offered and also answer the queries raised!), or are you just looking for confirmation / affirmation of your belief she shouldn't be prosecuted?.

Edited August 28, 2013 by BazzaS

[BazzaS]

I believe that I have answered all the specific questions and yet to receive specific answers. It would be good if ALL specific questions not answered are listed in numbered points so that I can answer them again. I am not regretting trying to be of a little help but I must admit I never expected the stress of trying to get answers.

 

Hang on!

 

CAG is a "self-help" site. You post, and get help to help yourself, and that is what has been offered!

 

Nowhere does it say "CAGgers must number and itemise queries that the OP has left unanswered, for the benefit of the OP".

 

I can spend time posting on other threads to help others, or I could go through this thread line by line for you.

 

Why should I go through this thread line by line just because you "never expected the stress of trying to get answers" (or otherwise, OP effectively saying : 'I can't be bothered to put the effort in, let the people who've replied do all the work'), so the effective 'cost' to me of my time in tidying up YOUR thread becomes not helping others?

 

Looking back (just to show there is at least one question I've raised you've left unanswered):

"What wallets were the 2 passes in?"

"Did the OP's friend enter TfL's area of Barking station?"

 

You can tell they are questions : I've used the convention of the "?" as a suffix.

 

Reply or not: that's your choice.

Your reply MIGHT have helped me help you, but no longer.

I'm off to see if I can help someone more appreciative of my time (freely given).

 

Reply or not: that's your choice - the replies may still be useful to others to help, just no longer to me.

 

Edited to add: OCJ has itemised some of the queries : he's a gent : I didn't, for the reasons I've stated!

Edited August 28, 2013 by BazzaS

[BazzaS]

Sorry, didn't realise I must be a racist too, either for helping initially, or maybe because I am no longer helping, or perhaps just because I'm breathing, and not giving you what you want, when you want it, regardless of it is right or wrong.

 

My friends who have suffered from more racism than I are justifiably upset by racism.

Having discussed it with them, they are equally upset when they see the 'racism card' played, as an excuse by those who haven't been discriminated against.

 

Can I point out that you don't know my ethnicity, nor OCJ's, nor any potential poster's.

 

To assume all respondents are likely racists without knowing their background or observing their behaviour is equally bigoted as overt racism is.

[BazzaS]

Moderating:

 

I don't know much about the subject so I can't offer advice, but I do need to say this: Do not accuse the posters here of racism. It's offensive, against our rules, and we won't tolerate it.

 

.

 

An emotive subject as per my previous response, and I'd not disagree with the site team (and their moderation of a thread), without good reason.

 

Thing is, I'd accept being called out for being a racist if I had been, and I'd then hope I had the courage to apologise and change my behaviour.

 

I don't want a blanket ban on calling people racists if it was justified - just a blanket ban on blanket, unfounded accusations : if that makes sense?

 

My thanks again to the site team who put in so much work behind the scenes.

Edited August 29, 2013 by BazzaS

[BazzaS]

I think some of us need some soul searching to do.

 

I have been accused and judgment appeared passed without the judge taking time to study the exact wordings of my posts and the posts of the alleged accusers.

 

Both BazzaS (post #51) and Old-CodJA (posts #50, #52) accused me wrongly that I never responded to their posts whereas as can now been clearly seen that was never the case. My first post provided the Charge TfL made against the lady. My first post also indicated how the Inspector knew the pass was not hers just on the face value. I responded to both of their specific questions as well in subsequent posts. The only question I believe I did not answer was that having to do with the racial background of the Inspector since I wanted the thread to be seen as what the lady suspected it to be - "prejudice" or "apparent bias" and NOT racial discrimination considering that racial discrimination can be very subtle in nature and difficult to discern.

 

When I responded the third time to at least one of the questions raised by Old-CodJA in post #53 I received shocking responses from him in posts #55 (first line response) and #56 considering his wealth of experience and knowledge. His post of #56 was not only extremely offensive (see my post #29 where I had stated my opinion which he ought to have read by his comments on post #50) but also created totally detached comments (see his paragraphs 2 to 5 on post #56) from the evidence that I have provided. He downplayed the evidence of two people that ought to have been recorded by the Inspector to only one person.

 

Lets look at paragraph 4 of post #56. TfL rules even stated that a child below 5 years of age is exempted not to have a ticket if and only if the child is travelling with an adult apparently with valid ticket. To understand this point is to compare it with say British Airways requirement that a child below 5 years must have ticket to travel with an adult with valid ticket obviously. Why would the Inspector having the time to note down her age, place of birth, nationality and the negative remark "Strong [Country name] accent loud" but omitting important evidential trail of being with a child considered being irrelevant, even on the face of the Inspector not willing to state categorically that she used the manual gate (see post #28, #53)?

 

Furthermore, I believe I showed respect in my responses to Madamfluff notwithstanding Madamfluff negative posts as can be seen on posts #31, #34, #37, #39, and #43 despite the picture showed the sign there "Please buy your ticket before you travel otherwise you may have to pay penalty fare (at least £20). Also Post #45

 

Grotesque appeared to have be persuaded by Madamfluff negative posts as you can see in posts #38, #39, and post #42 note the offensive comment "WTF"

 

Things like this makes you to wonder about George Orwell 1945 book "Animal Farm".

 

I have indeed "searched my soul".

I have indeed wondered about Orwell's 'Animal farm' : I've concluded I've behaved appropriately, but you clearly feel you are "more equal" than the rest of us.

 

If this is how you treat people who are trying to help : don't be surprised when no more help is forthcoming either from previous respondents or potential new respondents who are put off by your behaviour.

 

You cite my post #51: So, lets look at that!

Looking back (just to show there is at least one question I've raised you've left unanswered):

"What wallets were the 2 passes in?"

"Did the OP's friend enter TfL's area of Barking station?"

 

I can see you have replied about 1 of the wallets, but not both wallets. Never mind, you don't have to reply here: your friend may have to answer though, if the prosecutor raises it in court, as part of them trying to establish that it wasn't all an accident in her using a pass she wasn't entitled to. Never mind that I was trying to establish information to help her avoid this pitfall : you seem to feel it is far better that you rail at me than provide info that will help me help her.

 

I can't see your answer about if your friend entered TfL's area of Barking station.

 

I could always nip along to Barking station and see where the trains to Dagenham Dock depart from and look at the location of the gates & windows whose photos have been posted, and use these to try and work out the geography of where events occurred to your friend : but, actually, that isn't a reasonable expectation of my time.

 

I also might not work it out correctly. A more reliable and time effective method is to ask "Did the OP's friend enter TfL's area of Barking station?" : which you haven't answered.

Ahh well, another potentially relevant question unanswered, but more fertile ground for you to just argue with anyone about anything.

Thing is : you likely don't even know why the question is relevant, and any inclination I may have had to let you know has evaporated.

 

(BTW it is NOT that the staff member [being a TfL employee?] couldn't make a report if the OP's friend had only been in non-TfL areas, but for a different reason)

 

Be careful what you wish for. It seems you are wishing to alienate those who might have helped you help your friend: you certainly seem to be succeeding!

Edited August 30, 2013 by BazzaS