Court case this Thursday

[NJames]

Hi,

 

Just looking for some advice / reassurance.

 

On March 16th, there was an incident where I am being accused of travelling without a ticket with the intent of not paying.

 

This is the Revenue Protection Officer's word against mine -

- and lets just say he wasn't the most friendly RPO in the world.

 

The case is to be heard in court this Thursday.

 

I am also being prosecuted for what SWT think was abuse to a member of staff.

 

I can clearly say that their version of the word "abuse" is different to what you and me think it means.

 

I was prosecuted for bye-law 18(1) in February 2011 where I had to pay a total of £208.70 in costs, this is a second offence.

 

Please don't judge me. Both times I have intended on buying a ticket from the guard.

 

Having spoken to two solicitors,

they have assured me and are pretty certain that this will not be a prison sentence,

even though this is a second offence.

They just said my wallet will be a little lighter than it has been.

 

To save me from explaining it again,

this is the letter I wrote when I received a letter from South West Trains saying they were "considering" prosecution.

 

Any advice / thoughts would be appreciated.

 

... and please don't give me the "you avoided payment, you deserve what you get" as I have seen a lot of that on the forum!

 

LETTER TO SWT:

 

I am responding to your letter regarding the incident on 16th March.

 

I arrived at London Road (Guildford) train station just as the train was pulling into the platform.

Instead of going from London Road to London Waterloo, I went from London Road to Guildford and then up to London Waterloo.

 

Having done this once in the past, I learnt that it is a much quicker route rather than going via Clandon / Effingham Junction.

I was unable to find a guard on the train from London Road to Guildford to buy a ticket,

searched for the guard on the train from Guildford to London Waterloo.

 

The guard on the train from Guildford to London Waterloo said he didn't have a ticket machine on him he was therefore unable to serve me a ticket.

He was very polite and told me that if I explain the situation when I get to London to the staff at the barriers, they would let me buy a ticket.

 

On my arrival at Waterloo, I went straight to a member of staff on the platform – who turned out to be a Revenue Protection Officer.

 

From what I remember, I think his name was XXX?

He was stood next to the train already serving a customer when we pulled into the platform.

When he finished serving the customer, I explained the situation to him and told him why I was unable to buy a ticket

and what the guard told me on the train from Guildford.

 

I said I would understand if I was given a penalty fine as I boarded the train with no ticket, BUT I did search for the guard.

 

When I said this, he was very rude to me saying it's not up to me whether I am fined it's up to him.

I then said to him that I would like to be served by another member of stall less rude than him, and he told me to go and find someone.

 

He then said "Go on then. Find someone else, but you won't find anyone".

 

I understand that your officers need to be stern, but surely this is completely over the top?

I then called over two Police Community Support Officers who were standing by the barriers on the platform

as I believe the way the Revenue Protection Officer was speaking to me was unacceptable.

 

They told me not to worry and that they could see I was being treated unfairly by the member of staff.

I said to the Revenue Protection Officer that I was willing to buy a ticket for my journey,

but he wouldn’t let me say anything and kept interrupting me insisting I was being rude to him and breaking Byelaws.

 

Not knowing what a Byelaw was, I asked him and he refused to give me information or details as to what it meant.

 

Following this, I said to him that I work for XXX and that I had recently heard from a number of staff and journalists from work

(and other companies) that the manner of staff at South West Trains was unacceptable and more and more people were raising complaints.

 

Your Revenue Protection Officer then told me I was using my job as a threat to South West Trains.

This was not the case at all. I value my job too much to use it as a threat.

 

I then demanded for the Revenue Protection Officer to call for the station manager.

The manager came down (after a long 15 minute wait) and

 

at the start he was really polite and understanding of my situation.

 

he then then went over and spoke to the Revenue Protection Officer.

 

The manager returned to me, also telling me I have broken two Byelaws. J

 

ust like the Revenue Protection Officer, he refused to tell me what this meant either.

I was then told by the manager to leave the train station otherwise the situation would be taken further.

I asked yet again if I could buy a ticket and he said no, just leave the station.

 

May I ask why:

 

a) if I was a fare dodger, would I have tried to find the guard or a member of staff at Waterloo

b) had I been intent on defrauding South West Trains, would I give my real name and address

 

I made an effort to pay my train fare, but was met with rudeness.

I have been a regular with South West Trains for over 5 years

– using your service at least 5 days a week

– spending nearly £20 each day.

Never before have I been faced with these issues.

 

I am still more than happy to pay for the journey from London Road (Guildford) to London Waterloo,

just like I have been from the moment I got on the train to find the guard.

 

I would be grateful if you could give this letter your consideration as it is the truth.

I repeat - I was the one who approached both the guard on the train and ticket inspector at London Waterloo.

 

By trying to do the right thing I appear to have left myself open to accusations.

[fkofilee]

Okay, am I right in thinking you should have had a intermediate meeting before going to court?

[NJames]

I've tried talking to them.

[NJames]

I have already spoken to prosecutions to ask if they will accept an out of court settlement and they refused and

said the case will still be heard on Thursday.

 

It seems that the prosecutions department don't have manners either as every time I call they are nothing but rude.

 

I was also advised to find the name of the guard who said I could get a ticket at Waterloo by emailing Guard Management.

 

When I did this, they replied saying it is a legal matter and they can not get involved in any correspondence with me.

 

I know they're protecting said guard. Sadly, I have no other way of finding out his name.

[citizenB]

Would it not be possible for you just to advise that the Guard on X train on X date at X time advised you to take the following action ? It will then be up to the claimant to provide the "Witness".

 

 

I am sure that someone will look in and advise as soon as they can.

[NJames]

I've tried that but they're not having any of it. I'm guessing because he can get in trouble for telling me I can do it. They're trying to protect him. I've done all I can. Just worried about the outcome of the whole thing.

[citizenB]

Ah.. ok. I will send an S.O.S out for you..

[NJames]

I've done nothing but worry since I received the summons and the letter telling me they were prosecuting me. I'm hoping it's just a hefty fine and nothing more.

[BazzaS]

I can't offer much reassurance unless you can identify the member of staff who gave you permission to travel without a ticket.

 

It isn't unheard of for people to claim this, when they haven't been given permission, so it will be something a court will have heard before.

How do you intend to answer if asked :

 

"You know from being prosecuted before that you need to buy a ticket prior to travelling.

 

a) Why did you not take the name of the member of staff who you say gave you permission to travel, knowing the possibility of this being seen as an offence?

b) Why did you not buy a ticket PRIOR to boarding the first train .... since you admit to travelling without a ticket and without trying to purchase a ticket prior to boarding"

 

can you claim any of the statuatory defences? ... "My train was pulling out and I didn't want to miss it" isn't seen as sufficient reason to board a train without a ticket

 

There is no "board first, buy ticket later' scheme, and you should know this from the first prosecution ........

 

At least you can't go to prison, unless it is a second (or subsequent) S5(3) RRA 1889 prosecution, rather than a Bylaw 17 or 18 prosecution, or a first S5(3) prosecution

[NJames]

The train was coming into the station and there were a few people fannying around at the ticket machine taking forever, and if I waited, it which would have meant I missed my train. Looking back, yes, I should have waited and then got the next train. How can I get his name for my defence? They won't open up and give it to me.

 

I understand that there is a possible chance of "3 months jail sentence" but what are the chances of this? I'm now using this to my advantage, but one of the solicitors I spoke to said there are people far worse than me who are still free. Has anybody heard of these cases going to jail?

 

Also, have you tried taking the name of a guard / SWT staff member? They always get funny about it. The RPO wouldn't give me his name unless I provided the paper and a pen. Who carries a pen and paper with them on a Sunday when you're going up to London for the day? I asked if I could make a note of it on my phone ... he stopped me from doing that, too.

[NJames]

I'm sorry -- what do you mean by this?

 

 

At least you can't go to prison, unless it is a second (or subsequent) S5(3) RRA 1889 prosecution, rather than a Bylaw 18 or 19 prosecution, or a first S5(3) prosecution

[BazzaS]

I'm sorry -- what do you mean by this?

 

You can't go to prison for a Bylaw 17 or 18 prosecution, be it a first or subsequent one.

 

You can't got to prison for a first 'guilty' if prosecuted under S5 Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

 

You can only (potentially) go to prison for a second or subsequent 'guilty' if prosecuted under S5 Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

 

How did the RPO stop you from recording his name ... did he seize your phone from you?

[NJames]

It's confusing the hell out of me and making me worry non-stop!

[NJames]

So, the 18(1) prosecution in February 2011 is different to the S5(3)(a) and "contravening Byelaw 6(1)" which I am being prosecuted for this time?

 

Nobody has explained the Byelawys to me and I really can't find much information on them, if any. What are the likely outcomes of the 2x prosecutions this time do you think, bearing in mind I have the 18(1) from 4 years ago.

 

When I said I would take a picture of his name badge or make a note on my phone he said no and then hid his badge. I know I have done wrong, but there is no need for them to treat me like dirt. I haven't read or heard one good thing about SWT's RPO's which is interesting.

[rebel11]

Can you demonstrate that you normally buy tickets before you travel?, e.g. credit card statement etc. And this is an isolated incident, although it's the second time.

[NJames]

Yes, I have lots of tickets that I have kept since the summons arrived. I travel using SWT every day and usually buy tickets a day before or on the day before I get on the train.

 

How is it isolated if it's happened before? It's a difference offence from the one I had in 2011.

[rebel11]

I don't mean since you had the summons, I'm talking about the last couple of years. It's isolated in the sense that there hasn't been a prolonged period of travel without purchasing a ticket, say 3 months, 6 months etc.

 

Yes, I have lots of tickets that I have kept since the summons arrived. I travel using SWT every day and usually buy tickets a day before or on the day before I get on the train.

 

How is it isolated if it's happened before? It's a difference offence from the one I had in 2011.

[NJames]

Ah, I see. Well, I know there's not much more I can do. As I say, I'm hoping it's just a hefty fine and not 3 months!

[BazzaS]

Nobody has explained the Byelawys to me and I really can't find much information on them, if any. What are the likely outcomes of the 2x prosecutions this time do you think, bearing in mind I have the 18(1) from 4 years ago

 

When I said I would take a picture of his name badge or make a note on my phone he said no and then hid his badge. I know I have done wrong, but there is no need for them to treat me like dirt. I haven't read or heard one good thing about SWT's RPO's which is interesting.

 

Ascertainment bias.

 

People who have a "harmless" interaction with an RPO aren't likely to report it to others.

People caught ticketless are more likely to grumble about it : Ascertainment bias.

 

 

As for not finding much info on Bylaws : have you tried googling "railway Bylaws" : first two results lead to:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4202/railway-byelaws.pdf

 

Level 3 on the standard fine scale : up to £1000 for each Bylaw conviction

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/48/part/III/crossheading/introduction-of-standard-scale-of-fines

[NJames]

I'm not grumbling about travelling without a ticket as I know I am in the wrong for not purchasing a ticket before my journey. What I could spend hours grumbling about is the attitude of SWT staff.

[BazzaS]

I'm not grumbling about travelling without a ticket as I know I am in the wrong for not purchasing a ticket before my journey. What I could spend hours grumbling about is the attitude of SWT staff.

 

If their attitude deserves a complaint : you SHOULD complain.

 

However, complain separately to dealing with your prosecution.

I've not yet heard of when adding "the staff were rude" / "the staff were mean" to a reply regarding a prosecution or possible prosecution has made them less likely to prosecute.

[Old-CodJA]

If you look at the 'stickies' at the top of this forum page you will find the National Railway Byelaws (2005) that are relevant to ticketless travel

 

If you google the same title you will find the full document, including Byelaw 6, which relates to unacceptable behaviour on a railway. If that is the only charge being summonsed you are not being prosecuted for a ticketing matter so you can forget about producing old tickets as evidence and the guard on the earlier train will have no relevance either.

 

This is all about your alleged behaviour at the time. You say that PCSOs were present and took part saying that they considered that you were unfairly treated. The BTP will have a record of who was on duty at the time. You should contact BTP to ask them to provide a statement supporting you if that is true.

 

If convicted this is not an imprisonable offence and will be dealt with by way of a fine

[rebel11]

If that is the case it sounds like SWT were more concerned with your behavior towards their employees then the fact that you were traveling without a valid ticket, strange thing for Revenue Protection Inspectors to be worried about.

[BazzaS]

If that is the case it sounds like SWT were more concerned with your behavior towards their employees then the fact that you were traveling without a valid ticket, strange thing for Revenue Protection Inspectors to be worried about.

 

I'd disagree.

I think all railway staff (and the public!) should be concerned with the behaviour of the travelling public towards railway staff, and if it had to be a choice between enforcing that and enforcing Bylaws 17/18 : it should be the former.

 

However:

a) it doesn't have to be a choice

b) I suspect the two areas often go "hand in hand"

 

Incidentally, poor behaviour by railway staff towards the travelling public should be equally unacceptable.

[rebel11]

I disagree, it should be both. The OP didn't just walk up to the Revenue Protection Officer, there was a reason, he wanted to inform the RPO that he had traveled without a ticket because he was running late.

 

Also where have I said the following?

 

'I think all railway staff (and the public!) should be concerned with the behaviour of the travelling public towards railway staff'.

 

I'd disagree.

I think all railway staff (and the public!) should be concerned with the behaviour of the travelling public towards railway staff, and if it had to be a choice between enforcing that and enforcing Bylaws 17/18 : it should be the former.

 

However:

a) it doesn't have to be a choice

b) I suspect the two areas often go "hand in hand"

 

Incidentally, poor behaviour by railway staff towards the travelling public should be equally unacceptable.