Small vs Train company to overturn Unpaid Fare Notice

[BazzaS]

If I had read the Revenue Protection Policy before I would not have come here at all. But the arguments presented to me here drove me to find it and read it so coming here has served a very useful purpose indeed.

 

It never made sense to me that a train company would engage in the pursuit of penalties for honest mistakes which is what the arguments i was being presented with were suggesting. So I sought and found more authoritative information. It seems we are now moving into a phase were I am about to be called a fare dodger and that is the point where I will ask a moderator to intervene.

 

I haven't called you a fare dodger. I think you are mistaken, rather than intending to avoid your fare for the train you took. So, by all means ask the Site Team to look in .... (since they already have, I have little to fear!)

 

However, you have a UFN. If you fail to deal with that, you can be shown to have intent to avoid THAT fare.

If then decide to proceed with a Byelaw prosecution, they don;t need to show intent, merely that you were asked to show a valid ticket, and didn't.

 

You have repeatedly ignored these points. If you ignore them (and the UFN), the TOC won;t ask the court to decide "is mere a fare dodger", but will ask the court "have they breached S5 of the RRA 1889 by failing to pay or appeal the UFN" or "have they breached Bylaw 18 by failing to show a valid ticket on demand."

The court would then look at the evidence and reach a conclusion, not on "do we think mere is a fare dodger?", but the facts as given in evidence.

I stress, not "was there intent to avoid the fare on the train taken", but "given mere was issued with a UFN, did mere intend to avoid paying that UFN".

 

The UFN highlights that you didn't hold a valid ticket for THAT service. Once this had been highlighted to you, intent can be shown for your travel from that point onward, if you choose to not pay (or successfully appeal) the UFN, even if you can claim you didn't intend to avoid paying your fare at the time you boarded.

You keep returning to "I never intended to avoid my fare", and keep ignoring that (for Bylaw 18) intent is IRRELEVANT

 

S5 RRA 1889 prosecution -

Prosecutor: "Were you given a UFN, highlighting that your travel was ticketless"

Mere : "but I never intended to avoid my fare"

Prosecutor: "they informed you the ticket that you didn't collect, as it was only for the previous train, wasn't valid for that service? and gave you a UFN? and you haven't paid it (or successfully appealed it)?"

"Once you had had the fact that you didn't hold a valid ticket highlighted to you, what was your intent once issued the UFN?"

 

Bylaw 18 prosecution:

Prosecutor: "were you asked to show a valid ticket? and you didn;t show a valid ticket"

Mere "but I'm not a fare dodger and didn't intend to avoid my fare!"

Prosecutor: "Bylaw 18 doesn't require intent. Your Worships, I draw your attention to the facts that mere was asked to show a valid ticket and did not. Ticket issuing facilities were available to them, and none of the other defences to Bylaw 18 apply. You must convict".

[mere]

I haven't called you a fare dodger. I think you are mistaken, rather than intending to avoid your fare for the train you took. So, by all means ask the Site Team to look in .... (since they already have, I have little to fear!)

 

I didn't say you called me a fare dodger. I said that the only way your arguments can hold water are if my actions can be construed as that of a fare dodger because those are the people that the Revenue Protection guidelines are aimed at. Further,far from losing revenue the train company has actually gained 16 quid because I paid 29 quid when the ticket I meant to buy cost 13.

 

However, you have a UFN. If you fail to deal with that, you can be shown to have intent to avoid THAT fare.

The UFN will be disputed on grounds that it was issued in contravention of the Revenue Protection Guidelines. Thats the last time I'm going to say it.

 

Since you have now categorically stated that you don't think I was fare dodging I don't think anything you are trying to argue holds water and I am not going to read or respond to it.

[BazzaS]

 

Since you have now categorically stated that you don't think I was fare dodging I don't think anything you are trying to argue holds water and I am not going to read or respond to it.

 

Fair (fare?) enough.

 

I'm left with the mental image of mere with their fingers in their ears, and eyes closed tightly, chanting "I'm not listening, I'm not listening".

 

For anyone else finding themselves in the same situation : if you appeal a UFN and the appeal(s) fail, you can turn a UFN into fare evasion, by not paying it.

You'll note that I've asked mere (a number of times!) if they'd pay the UFN if their appeal didn't succeed, but they've chosen not to answer .....

[*RainbowTears*]

Fair (fare?) enough.

 

I'm left with the mental image of mere with their fingers in their ears, and eyes closed tightly, chanting "I'm not listening, I'm not listening".

 

For anyone else finding themselves in the same situation : if you appeal a UFN and the appeal(s) fail, you can turn a UFN into fare evasion, by not paying it.

You'll note that I've asked mere (a number of times!) if they'd pay the UFN if their appeal didn't succeed, but they've chosen not to answer .....

 

Most likely Bazza!

 

But you tried your best, if someone doesn't want to hear anything other then their own voice, not much more you can do about it.

 

Sadly as thats the case it seems, Id suggest stop flogging this dead horse & let them do what their going too do....

 

You sure done a great job of trying to help them thou!!

[mere]

Fair (fare?) enough.

 

I'm left with the mental image of mere with their fingers in their ears, and eyes closed tightly, chanting "I'm not listening, I'm not listening".

 

For anyone else finding themselves in the same situation : if you appeal a UFN and the appeal(s) fail, you can turn a UFN into fare evasion, by not paying it.

You'll note that I've asked mere (a number of times!) if they'd pay the UFN if their appeal didn't succeed, but they've chosen not to answer .....

 

I will be writing to EastCoast telling them they have 14 days to instruct their collection agency to cancel my Unpaid Fare Notice failing which i will sue in the Small Claims Court for any amount I am assessed on. Does that answer you.

 

If you go to Kings X station late at night you will find that all the ticket barriers are unlocked. I bet you that happens just after the ticket office shuts.

 

Why do you think that is?

[mere]

Most likely Bazza!

 

But you tried your best, if someone doesn't want to hear anything other then their own voice, not much more you can do about it.

 

Sadly as thats the case it seems, Id suggest stop flogging this dead horse & let them do what their going too do....

 

You sure done a great job of trying to help them thou!!

 

Scaremongering doesn't help anybody.

[BazzaS]

I will be writing to EastCoast telling them they have 14 days to instruct their collection agency to cancel my Unpaid Fare Notice failing which i will sue in the Small Claims Court for any amount I am assessed on. Does that answer you.

 

It doesn't answer if you will pay the UFN, though.......

 

If you haven't paid the UFN, how do you expect to recover (in contract) the sum you haven't paid.

 

If you haven't paid the UFN and they prosecute you successfully (even under bylaw 18, where intent is irrelevant), they'll recover the fare, and (Civil Evidence Act) any civil case by you is dead in the water.

 

I've explained the basis for this previously, showing it isn't scaremongering.

 

If you pay the UFN, you might try a civil claim (and you may find that judges do have a sense of humour.... I bet it will give them a laugh!)

 

If you go to Kings X station late at night you will find that all the ticket barriers are unlocked. I bet you that happens just after the ticket office shuts.

 

Why do you think that is?

 

For safety, so that no-one (even those without tickets) are "trapped". It is, however, irrelevant to your situation.

 

 

How is ignoring me working out for you, BTW?

[mere]

If you haven't paid the UFN, how do you expect to recover (in contract) the sum you haven't paid.

 

 

By suing for actual and future losses flowing etc..... courts can assess that.

 

Now answer my question.

 

Why do you think the ticket barriers are unlocked at night and if you don't mind I'll add another. When do you think they are unlocked.

[BazzaS]

By suing for actual and future losses flowing etc..... courts can assess that.

 

Now answer my question.

 

Why do you think the ticket barriers are unlocked at night and if you don't mind I'll add another. When do you think they are unlocked.

 

are you considering future losses on a "Wagon Mound" or a "Polemis" basis if you are claiming tortious behavior?

If merely in contract : (even before you get to Victoria Laundries, and Parsons v Uttley Ingham) How are you going to defeat the TOC saying "we provided the contracted service (the seat on the train that was actually booked), it is just that mere chose not to board that service"?.

 

I edited my previous post to explain why the barriers are unlocked, and I suspect they are un locked when they are no longer manned. However, that remains irrelevant to your potential civil and criminal cases.......

[mere]

By suing for actual and future losses flowing etc..... courts can assess that.

 

Now answer my question.

 

Why do you think the ticket barriers are unlocked at night and if you don't mind I'll add another. When do you think they are unlocked.

 

Sorry you did answer. For safety eh.... Why don't they do it on the underground then. Could it be because the underground don't shut their ticket offices while trains are still running.

[BazzaS]

Sorry you did answer. For safety eh.... Why don't they do it on the underground then. Could it be because the underground don't shut their ticket offices while trains are still running.

 

Perhaps, but more importantly : STILL irrelevant to your (potential) cases ......

[mere]

Perhaps, but more importantly : STILL irrelevant to your (potential) cases ......

 

What potential case. My UFN will get cancelled. It's time for Match of the Day 2 and my team won today. Good night.

[BazzaS]

By the way, you posted a link to ECT's revenue protection policy.

 

You've highlighted how there "not being a ticket office open" (even though there were facilities to buy a ticket - manned & ticket machine!) affects ECT's revenue protection policy.

 

You seem to think "no ticket office" means they can't issue you a UFN

 

I reproduce the relevant passages below.

 

"If you get on a train without a ticket you will have to pay the anytime single fare for your journey. In these circumstances you will not be able to use a Railcard, unless you have a Disabled Persons Railcard.

 

The exceptions to this are:

 

If you are unable to buy a ticket because the ticket office is closed.

If a self-service ticket machine that accepts cash is not working.

If you are unable to access our ticket retail facilities as a result of your disability.

If you’re entitled to concessionary fares without a Railcard, such as permanent wheelchair users.

In these circumstances you can buy any ticket available on the train, on the day of travel, including Railcard discounts if applicable."

 

So the ticket office being open or not is relevant only to if you can use a railcard on the train or not, or get a ticket other than an Anytime Single or not, NOT to if they can issue a UFN. You haven't mentioned a railcard so far .....

 

What fare do you believe they should have charged you?

 

If you'd said "I asked to use my railcard, and the on train staff wouldn't accept it" : you might be able to claim they breached their policy.

 

If you are saying "there wasn't a ticket office open, so they can't issue me a UFN" : you are barking.

The anytime fare KGX to LDS is £124-odd. They've already taken into account the "ticket office closed" (and complied with their revenue protection policy) by offering you the off-peak £96-odd fare.

 

Remind me : when they reject your appeal, will you be paying the UFN (£96-odd)?.

Leave aside talk of civil cases, or "the UFN will be cancelled".

If it isn't cancelled / successfully appealed : will you pay it? Yes or no?

[BazzaS]

I asked previously, but have yet to have an answer:

Contract, tort, or both?

 

Are you considering future losses on a "Wagon Mound" or a "Polemis" basis if you are claiming tortious behaviour?

 

If merely in contract : (even before you get to Victoria Laundries, and Parsons v Uttley Ingham) How are you going to defeat the TOC saying "we provided the contracted service (the offer of travel on the earlier train that was actually booked), it is just that mere chose not to board that service"?.

[firstclassx]

What a complete ******!!!

 

Why is anyone even trying to assist this person?

 

Send your appeal to the Revenue Protection Support Services (RPSS), which will be rejected. Then do whatever you want afterwards, but you have been warned that you could end up being prosecuted in a CRIMINAL court for "failing to produce a valid ticket", regardless of your intentions, they make no difference.

[*RainbowTears*]

What a complete ******!!!

 

Why is anyone even trying to assist this person?

 

Send your appeal to the Revenue Protection Support Services (RPSS), which will be rejected. Then do whatever you want afterwards, but you have been warned that you could end up being prosecuted in a CRIMINAL court for "failing to produce a valid ticket", regardless of your intentions, they make no difference.

 

It's futile as he ain't listening to anyone but his own voice & opinions!!

 

This isn't going too end pretty, esp if the OP does what he intends to do FC!

 

I'll say one thing Bazza has the patience of a Saint as he is still trying to educate this person...

[BazzaS]

It's futile as he ain't listening to anyone but his own voice & opinions!!

 

This isn't going too end pretty, esp if the OP does what he intends to do FC!

 

I'll say one thing Bazza has the patience of a Saint as he is still trying to educate this person...

 

Just scaremongering, RT .... Or so one person believes.

 

I'd like to suggest a "flag" original poster's can set between:

a) I'm actually looking for advice / opinion, and

b) I'm not looking for any opinion other than mine, merely validation.

 

The mismatch in expectations occurs when posters want b), but appear to be asking for a).

I'm not here to validate their lunacy.

[mere]

It's futile as he ain't listening to anyone but his own voice & opinions!!

 

This isn't going too end pretty, esp if the OP does what he intends to do FC!

 

I'll say one thing Bazza has the patience of a Saint as he is still trying to educate this person...

 

I would encourage anybody reading this thread for information to read the relevant TOC's Revenue Protection Policy.

 

If still in doubt about the correct interpretation of this or any other scenario contact the TOC directly and ask for clarification. Don't rely on the scaremongering and disinformation that has been rife in this thread.

[ims21]

I would encourage anybody reading this thread for information to read the relevant TOC's Revenue Protection Policy.

 

If still in doubt about the correct interpretation of this or any other scenario contact the TOC directly and ask for clarification. Don't rely on the scaremongering and disinformation that has been rife in this thread.

 

I cannot see any scaremongering or "disinformation" from the people who are trying to help you.

[Conniff]

I will be writing to EastCoast telling them they have 14 days to instruct their collection agency to cancel my Unpaid Fare Notice failing which i will sue in the Small Claims Court for any amount I am assessed on. Does that answer you.

 

If you go to Kings X station late at night you will find that all the ticket barriers are unlocked. I bet you that happens just after the ticket office shuts.

 

Why do you think that is?

 

 

 

Like others, I have asked a question and you have failed to respond. I can't for the life of me see what you are doing here, you have poo pooed every single thing said because it's not what you want to hear.

 

 

I'm beginning to smell FOTL believes they have thought up a way they might make some free money.

[Ganymede]

You were saying....

You had already bought your ticket 4 weeks previously. If you had arrived in time for the train you were booked onto then the ticket window would have been open.

 

Regardless, you could have purchased new tickets from either the open excess window or the self service machine before boarding a train you had no valid ticket for.

 

You also had the chance to arrive on time and collect your ticket on the day from the self service machine.

 

In any event, there was an open excess ticket window that you used but they wouldn't/couldn't give you tickets for a train that had departed 3 hours earlier!!

[mere]

I cannot see any scaremongering or "disinformation" from the people who are trying to help you.

 

They are not trying to help me.

 

The most helpful piece of information in this thread is the TOC's Revenue Protection Policy.

 

I found it myself - well credit where credit is due I was driven to find it my the sort of answers I was getting here.

 

I post it again here for the benefit of those who come after me.

 

http://www.eastcoast.co.uk/customer-service/revenue-protection-policy/

 

If there is anything you don't understand or you want to clarification on any particular scenario you are far better off contacting East Coast directly here

 

http://www.eastcoast.co.uk/customer-service/contact-us/

[ims21]

[BazzaS]

They are not trying to help me.

 

The most helpful piece of information in this thread is the TOC's Revenue Protection Policy.

 

I found it myself - well credit where credit is due I was driven to find it my the sort of answers I was getting here.

 

I post it again here for the benefit of those who come after me.

 

http://www.eastcoast.co.uk/customer-service/revenue-protection-policy/

 

That is the policy that says that if there wasn't a ticket window open they can sell you any available ticket on the train, rather than if there was a tciket window available they could charge you the full anytime single fare.

 

That is why you were given a UFN for £96-odd (the off peak fare), rather than £124-odd (the anytime single fare).

 

If you disagree, rather than saying "read the policy", why not cut and paste (as I did higher up the thread) the relevant section, and we can see who is being disingenious / providing false information .......

 

Here is the relevant bit again (for the "hard of reading" i.e. mere....)

 

If you get on a train without a ticket you will have to pay the anytime single fare for your journey. In these circumstances you will not be able to use a Railcard, unless you have a Disabled Persons Railcard.

The exceptions to this are:

 

• If you are unable to buy a ticket because the ticket office is closed.
  
• If a self-service ticket machine that accepts cash is not working.
  
• If you are unable to access our ticket retail facilities as a result of your disability.
  
• If you’re entitled to concessionary fares without a Railcard, such as permanent wheelchair users.
  

In these circumstances you can buy any ticket available on the train, on the day of travel, including Railcard discounts if applicable.

I think there was a ticket window open, and working ticket machines, but the on-train staff decided they would give you a UFN for the off-peak fare. Nowhere in the policy will you be able to find where they can't give you a UFN AT ALL if you didn't have a valid ticket for THAT service.

 

 

The advance ticket you had that was valid only for the service 3 hours earlier would not count as a valid ticket for the service you travelled on.

I'm not sure that your idiocy in arguing "black is white" will count as sufficient disability to fall under "if you are unable to access our ticket retail facilities as a result of your disability" ; you might try and claim "hey, I'm too stupid to bother making sure I have a correct ticket and not then arguing the toss" - it certainly seems to be a handicap that affects your day to day activities, but I'm not sure the anti-discrimination legislation was intended to cover stupidity combined with stubornness and inability to listen to reason ....

[*RainbowTears*]

 

Indeed Ims!

 

The Railway forum this OP also posted on, ended up by their closing the thread as OP wouldn't listen to anyone there either!!

 

That alone "speaks volumes".

 

@ OP you are being extremely single minded & despite posting on 2 forums I'm aware off, you will NOT listen to anyone except your own voice!

 

So you carry on doing whatever you think is right. I can only see this ending in tears for you in a bad way!..

 

I wish you good luck....