Small vs Train company to overturn Unpaid Fare Notice

[Conniff]

What's the betting, if this is a legitimate thread, that mere won't come back with the court details, should he ever go there, so we can attend and see how it goes.

 

 

And when mere loses he won't come back then either.

[BazzaS]

What's the betting, if this is a legitimate thread, that mere won't come back with the court details, should he ever go there, so we can attend and see how it goes.

 

 

And when mere loses he won't come back then either.

 

I noticed one of the industry experts looking in (not the one who had already replied).

 

That other industry expert (who worked for NSE in the past) hasn't replied here. That may be for many reasons, but a prime contender must be "nothing I could add will persuade the OP"

 

I can only hope that expert works for ECT (they've always been careful to avoid identifying their employer), or has at least given their counter-part at ECT a heads up (since we know which train the UFN was issued on, the 23:30 KGX to LDS on 3/10/14, and the UFN value (£96.80, the off-peak fare).

 

I'm sure ECT and RPSS could do with a laugh.

Mere : don't forget your 2nd appeal to Passenger focus - they may not yet have had a chance to laugh at your misinterpretations .........

[honeybee13]

This thread is starting to remind me of iambilly...

 

HB

[*RainbowTears*]

This thread is starting to remind me of iambilly...

 

HB

 

Your right as it goes HB!

 

Single minded, likes sound of own voice & no one else's opinion counts, as it's not in agreement with OP....

 

We never found out what happened to Iambilly in the end, wasn't he last seen appealing at Court or something....

[honeybee13]

Your right as it goes HB!

 

Single minded, likes sound of own voice & no one else's opinion counts, as it's not in agreement with OP....

 

We never found out what happened to Iambilly in the end, wasn't he last seen appealing at Court or something....

 

Quite so, and we never heard again.

 

HB

[BazzaS]

Quite so, and we never heard again.

 

HB

 

He thought he was appealing against conviction & sentence.

As he'd pled guilty, he was in fact appealing against sentence, although he had made a big song & dance about how important it was to him to not have the conviction.

 

He had a rich family (but pled poverty : but didn't get legal aid [at the last minute, naturally!]). He had a barrister friend who supported him all the way (except when it came to court). He had a solicitor lined up who pulled out at the last minute (in other words his case was hopeless and he wouldn't pay the solicitor ......)

 

His sentence wasn't changed by the Crown Court.

 

He wasn't going to let it rest, ever!

He was just about to reveal his website that would show us the way forward and reveal an innocent man, wronged!!

 

The website never appeared. He wasn't heard from again.

 

Part of me wishes he (iambilly) was a troll. At least it would mean there wasn't someone as stupid as he revealed himself to be if he wasn't trolling.

 

Echoes.............

[BazzaS]

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....

 

The one with user "ihe"? With the topic closed & that user currently showing as "banned"?

 

If it is, it adds some interesting 'back story'.

The OP there had been turfed off a train previously by the same RPI for failing to give their address. It seems they are a little lax as to their responsibility to buy the correct ticket & have it available for inspection on demand ....

 

They admitted later in the thread to an exaggeration in their tale of woe (the RPI broadcasting their details "to the whole carriage" not quite being to the whole carriage.....)

 

One has to wonder if it is one & the same ......

[honeybee13]

Thank you BazzaS. That was a short lived thread, it was only started on the 4th!

 

HB

[*RainbowTears*]

The one with user "ihe"? With the topic closed & that user currently showing as "banned"?

 

If it is, it adds some interesting 'back story'.

The OP there had been turfed off a train previously by the same RPI for failing to give their address. It seems they are a little lax as to their responsibility to buy the correct ticket & have it available for inspection on demand ....

 

They admitted later in the thread to an exaggeration in their tale of woe (the RPI broadcasting their details "to the whole carriage" not quite being to the whole carriage.....)

 

One has to wonder if it is one & the same ......

 

That's the one Bazza!! Seems OP was holding out on us, not that it makes any real difference as he wouldn't listen to the "Railway Experts" over there either.

 

OP is truly singing in his own choir & it's all out of tune, judging by his "tales of woe"....

 

As for Iambilly, you have jogged my memory now Bazza, he had remarkable thick skin to match his brain cells.... He was going to take everyone on Inc the Court system as everyone else was in the wrong!!

 

I wonder how he got on..... Shame he never came back!

[mere]

Unfortunately the advice given both about how TOC's will view a situation and other ancillary matters is just plain wrong. You have people telling you that Train Companies are going to do stuff that is plainly inconsistent with the objective of Revenue Protection. Train Companies are not out to collect double bubble due to passenger mistakes but people on here and there will tell you thats what they are going to do. It's not consistent with Revenue Protection. This thread is about nothnig more than an honest mistake yet there has been talk about prosecution - thats nonsense. It is ridiculous to talk about costs being awarded for a small claim in these circumstances all that talk is just scaremongering.

 

Then there is the judgemental attitude that comes from I don't know where because of I don't know why.

 

Why should a person get punished for boarding a service they have paid for without a printed ticket. The airlines don't do it, the coach companies don't do it, i find it fascinating and in some ways I feel sorry for people who think they have to take s**t from TOC's just because they couldn't print their ticket. Hey so I'm not the best organised person or I have dyslexia or some other ailment that interferes with the standard of perfection demanded here, therefore I am fair target to pay penalty fares for journey's I've already paid for. Rubbish. But as sure as night follows day the sentiment here is if you don't pick up your ticket before hand you deserve all you get. But that sentiment is not consistent with an objective of Revenue Protection. Revenue protection isn't about charging people who aren't trying to defraud you multiple times just because they made a mistake. So when somebody says that's what a TOC will do, it is totally right to question and disagree with the fellow.

 

Now

 

I have spoken to East Coast Railways, I told them of two issues one which I never mentioned here before. The first is a historical incident and I'm going to use it to make my point about the "advice" that is given here.

 

I have a history with that particular ticket inspector. 2 months ago I got on a train for which I did have a valid booking but did not obtain my ticket. I notified the inspector as soon as I got on the train. She said she would deal with it when she came round. I offered by online booking which was for the correct train. She refused it and asked for my name and proof of address. I declined to give proof of address saying that I did not have to . She said you don't have to travel either. I repeated my offer to give my address she refused it. At the next station the police got on and asked me to speak to me off the train I said I had a valid ticket booked, the long and short of it was that they told me that the train was going to be held up by the inspector until I was off it. I got off the 2 policemen told me not to worry and they'd get me on the next train and one stood and guarded my luggage while the other took me to the ticket office and ensured I was issued permission to travel on the next service .

 

It was the same ticket inspector who dealt with me on Friday. This time she DID invite me to show evidence of an online booking (hows' that for consistency). She gave me a form to fill which requested my date of birth I didn't complete that part, she asked for my date of birth I said I wasn't giving it to her (which is correct because it is not required). She said I've dealt with you before, I said yes the police put me on the train following the one you threw me off of. She then address checked me loud enough for other passengers to hear my personal details and made a sarcastic remark and gave me the UFN.

 

Now I told this storiy on the other site and was criticised out for having an attitude and not being compliant etc.

 

The police said to me that the ticket inspector lacked common sense which was why they were so helpful to me.

East Coast whom I have spoken to said to me that the conduct of the ticket inspector was unacceptable and they would want to bring it to the attention of her management.

 

You see why I don't swallow everything I'm told here. Alot of it is just plain wrong.

 

As to the matter at hand, yes I have spoken to East Coast about the incident and got an initial response from them but for a number of reasons I am not going to post it yet. Yes one of those reasons is to give further opportunity for people to sound off.

 

What I will say is this. If you tell somebody who has not acted dishonestly or fraudulently that they deserve to be treated as though they have then you shouldn't be surprised if they pay little attention to what else you have to tell them.

[honeybee13]

Why should a person get punished for boarding a service they have paid for without a printed ticket.

 

But from what you say, you hadn't paid to be on the 23.30 train, you had a ticket for an earlier one on the same day. Was it transferable to a later service?

 

HB

[*RainbowTears*]

You have shown repeatedly, that you will not listen to anyone other than yourself, on 2 separate forums.

 

Noone here can say anything more than has been already said.

 

Good luck as I've a feeling your going to need it...

[BazzaS]

 

What I will say is this. If you tell somebody who has not acted dishonestly or fraudulently that they deserve to be treated as though they have then you shouldn't be surprised if they pay little attention to what else you have to tell them.

 

Let's see if we can split this into aspects that you can disagree or agree with each one....

 

Ignore "how you feel you have been treated". answer based on the facts.

 

1) you had an advance purchase ticket valid only for an earlier train

 

2) you had no valid ticket for the train you travelled on.

 

3) you didn't show a valid ticket on demand

 

4) you were given a UFN for the off-peak fare

 

To this point you aren't a fare evader

But the TOC could

 

5) still prosecute you under Bylaw 18 if it chose, this being a strict liability offence.

 

If you don't pay (or successfully appeal) the UFN

 

6) you become a fare evader (for the fare the UFN notifies you of)

[mere]

Let's see if we can split this into aspects that you can disagree or agree with each one....

 

Ignore "how you feel you have been treated". answer based on the facts.

 

1) you had an advance purchase ticket valid only for an earlier train

 

2) you had no valid ticket for the train you travelled on.

 

3) you didn't show a valid ticket on demand

 

4) you were given a UFN for the off-peak fare

 

To this point you aren't a fare evader

But the TOC could

 

5) still prosecute you under Bylaw 18 if it chose, this being a strict liability offence.

 

If you don't pay (or successfully appeal) the UFN

 

6) you become a fare evader (for the fare the UFN notifies you of)

 

Baz. Give it a rest. I've spoken to EastCoast they don't see me as a fare evader.

 

They cannot interfere with with the UFN procedure but if it is not dropped on appeal I should write to them and they would consider a gesture of goodwill in the amount of the fare.

 

Regarding the historical incident. I wrote to the police contemporaneously to commend them for assisting me and I still have the number of both the officers who were involved that day.

 

EastCoast have asked me for a copy of the letter which will form part of their investigation into the conduct of the ticket inspector.

 

I'm happy with both responses. They are as good as I could have expected.

[BazzaS]

Baz. Give it a rest. I've spoken to EastCoast they don't see me as a fare evader.

 

They cannot interfere with with the UFN procedure but if it is not dropped on appeal I should write to them and they would consider a gesture of goodwill in the amount of the fare.

 

Regarding the historical incident. I wrote to the police contemporaneously to commend them for assisting me and I still have the number of both the officers who were involved that day.

 

EastCoast have asked me for a copy of the letter which will form part of their investigation into the conduct of the ticket inspector.

 

I'm happy with both responses. They are as good as I could have expected.

 

So, you ARE paying the UFN after all?

 

You've been curiously silent as to this despite your vocal nature on most other aspects ....

 

Interestingly, ECT can withdraw the UFN if they choose : they don't have to let it go to RPSS

 

Why would they not do so and invite you to seek a gesture of goodwill after, when their own website that you were so keen to trumpet notes that if the appeal is considered and rejected by both RPSS and Passenger Focus, that that then constitutes EC's response .......

 

It may hinge on the word "consider" in their response

[citizenB]

 

Shift over so the rest of us can have a share of the wall

 

This thread is starting to remind me of iambilly...

 

HB

 

 

Ah yes, I was trying to remember that one earlier on today.

[mere]

So, you ARE paying the UFN after all?

 

They told me to appeal the UFN not pay it. They also told me that if the appeal is not successful I would be reimbursed as a gesture of good will.

 

Why does a simple thing like that have to be repeated to you. What is wrong with you?

[citizenB]

They told me to appeal the UFN not pay it. They also told me that if the appeal is not successful I would be reimbursed as a gesture of good will.

 

Why does a simple thing like that have to be repeated to you. What is wrong with you?

 

Who told you to appeal the UFN and not pay it ?

[ims21]

The appealing of the UFN had already been pointed out to you on this thread.

[mere]

Who told you to appeal the UFN and not pay it ?

 

Jeez Louise.

 

They told me to go through the UFN appeals procedure because they cannot interfere.

 

They said they had made a note of the incident gave me a reference and to write in with copies of my bookings. If the appeal is unsuccessful and things are as I said they would give me evouchers or whatever they called them as a gesture of goodwill on the amount assessed.

 

I am satisfied with that offer and I am very pleased that they said the conduct of the inspector (not sure which aspect) was unacceptable would be looked at by her management.

 

So I'm happy. Evidently some people here are not.

 

Meh!

[mere]

The appealing of the UFN had already been pointed out to you on this thread.

 

In amongst alot of scaremongering disinformation, .....but I knew I could appeal the UFN ... it says so if you read it and I did.

[citizenB]

Jeez Louise.

 

They told me to go through the UFN appeals procedure because they cannot interfere.

 

They said they had made a note of the incident gave me a reference and to write in with copies of my bookings. If the appeal is unsuccessful and things are as I said they would give me evouchers or whatever they called them as a gesture of goodwill on the amount assessed.

 

I am satisfied with that offer and I am very pleased that they said the conduct of the inspector (not sure which aspect) was unacceptable would be looked at by her management.

 

So I'm happy. Evidently some people here are not.

 

Meh!

 

Fair enough, if you have this resolved and you are happy.. that is good

[ims21]

There has been no scaremongering or disinformation offered to you....only simple facts (I am sure the correct term would be misinformation).

[mere]

Fair enough, if you have this resolved and you are happy.. that is good

 

Thank you.

[mere]

There has been no scaremongering or disinformation offered to you....only simple facts (I am sure the correct term would be misinformation).

 

I don't think so but am perfectly ok with it if you do. I have looked up the distinction between dis and mis information and can see why you would want to correct that. Yes misinformation is what I should have said.