Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
My husband usually purchases a first class weekly ticket for all zones travel. This is because he got sick of standing up. However this particular week he didn't and the last day the ticket was valid, he was running late for his train and got on first class. An inspector asked why he had got on first class. He said it was out of habit and that the train was usually packed and just didn't think. The inspector asked what the cost of the weekly ticket was and he told him. He also asked the station he got off and where he was going. He then asked him to pay the £20 penalty fare to which my husband had to admit he had no means as he had left his wallet at home as he was running late. The inspector then escorted him off at the next station. This was not the station he was originally going to. (i.e. place of work). He was then left stranded with his ticket taken off him and no means of arriving at his destination. I had to drive for an hour and a half to pick him up. But by then it was not anywhere near his work and he had to miss a day at work and earnings.
The paperwork has come through from the court and whilst most of it is correct, it does not state that his ticket was taken from him. It states that my husband told him he was getting off at the next stop but he had an all zone ticket and it was nowhere near where he needed to go. He gave no paperwork to my husband at all at the time. And that he was therefore stranded.
Any advice please on what to put on the court paperwork in defence.
Thank you.
If you look at the court papers it will have an Allegation.
This will say something along the lines that he travelled without a valid ticket with the intention of avoiding payment contrary to Railway Bylaw xxxxx. It would be helpful if you could post the exact words.
Not having the means to pay for a ticket shows, at face value, a good measure of intent. You need to show that this is incorrect. How?
Hopefully you will have some expired tickets from previous weeks to show that it in normal for tickets to be bought. If not the tickets, credit card or bank statement debit entries for the weekly tickets being bought will suffice.
You could also provide a witness statement confirming that due to lateness, his wallet was left behind which contained every means he would normally have used for payment.
Your whole defence is to show that there was no intent to avoid payment, but on this day just an unfortunate series of events. What might have helped further was if you had already written in enclosing a cheque for the cost of the journey apologising for the oversight.
Sometimes things in life just have to be taken on the chin.
Your husband has NO defence in the eyes of the law.
Without having a valid ticket, he was in effect, committing a trespass on Railway Property + was entitled to be evicted from the train.
A train ticket remains the property of the train operating company at ALL times btw.
At least it is a Railway Byelaw and not Sec. 5(5c) RRA Act 1889, with the Byelaw offences if found guilty it is not a recordable offence, unlike the RRA Act.
A railway employee who's job is to collect revenue is an authorised person, and therefore authorised to retain and remove a persons travel ticket, with or without reason. fact is fact, nothing can be done about that, although in his statement (the employees) he should of mentioned that fact that he retained the travel document.
The best advice I can offer is to attend court, explain what happened, and hope the judge is having a good day... sorry it is not the best news you most likely wanted to hear.
Well pleading guilty by post is just what these people want, makes it easy for them, and saves them on costs, and will get the money awarded that is asked for, because no one is there to defend or argue the case.
Albeit, he was in the wrong, BUT don't make it easier for them by pleading guilty by post. attend the hearing, and put up a defense.
For Bye-Law 19 (Which I am going to assume what the rail company is claiming) the average fines are between £120 to £250, including costs, it all depends on the area and many other factors.
And if it is an undefended case, they can apply for it, and since no one is there to defend and argue the costs the magistrates will give them it.
I know your husbands personal circumstances mean he can't take the time off, but it would be very silly for him to not defend.
Sorry, my knowledge of rail law is absolutely zero. But two things spring to mind:
- Could your husband not have just walked two carriages down and got into standard class? Surely an inspector would allow this?
- Your husband was offered the standard penalty fare - surely there is a timescale, other than "immediate", that this remains valid for? It seems incredibly harsh that just because he did not have his wallet with him, his fine increases from £20 to in excess of £100.
- Could your husband not have just walked two carriages down and got into standard class? Surely an inspector would allow this?
Yes he could of allowed this, but jobs worth springs to mind.
Originally Posted by MrShed
- Your husband was offered the standard penalty fare - surely there is a timescale, other than "immediate", that this remains valid for? It seems incredibly harsh that just because he did not have his wallet with him, his fine increases from £20 to in excess of £100.
Not all Train Operating Companies run a penalty fare system, the system needs to be registered before it can issue penalty fare notices.
The current system is, £20 or 3 x the fare which ever is greater, in which the penalty it to be paid within 14 days or appealed within 14 days from the date of issue.
In that case is that not a possible defence? The penalty fare was offered, but the 14 days timescale was neither mentioned, not could the OP have ever adhered to it, having received nothing in writing?
Sorry, my knowledge of rail law is absolutely zero. But two things spring to mind:
- Could your husband not have just walked two carriages down and got into standard class? Surely an inspector would allow this?
- Your husband was offered the standard penalty fare - surely there is a timescale, other than "immediate", that this remains valid for? It seems incredibly harsh that just because he did not have his wallet with him, his fine increases from £20 to in excess of £100.
Methinks that U have missed the point that the Railway Bylaws make MrShed.
It is a clear offence to NOT have a valid ticket for travel BEFORE U board a train (...subject to the exceptions stated many times elsewhere).
The Penalty Fare Charge is a completely separate issue + should NOT be confused with the absolute offence that the OP's Hubby was/is charged with.
The Op's Hubby was entitled to be ejected form Railway Property...+ also be Fined.
The OP has stated that her Hubby will NOT wish to have a day off from work to attend Court.
By pleading guilty BEFORE the Court Hearing, any Fine + Costs so imposed, will be LESS than if it was unsuccessfully Defended.
Therefore the correct advice is to take the 'hit', plead guilty by letter...+ learn to have a valid ticket BEFORE boarding a Train in future...
Originally Posted by Hobbie
Yes he could of allowed this, but jobs worth springs to mind...
I refer U to the fact that the OP's Hubby was attempting to gain a pecuniary advantage
...This is against the law + should NOT be condoned...
Disagree that it is the "correct" advice, it is "your" advice.
It wasnt against the law by the way, as there was no intent, and intent is required for there to have been an offence. However, the difficulty is proving there was no intent.
I refer U to the fact that the OP's Hubby was attempting to gain a pecuniary advantage
...This is against the law + should NOT be condoned...
Indeed, and it should not be nor is it condoned, but railway staff do have discretion to give a warning and request the passenger to either move to another carriage or leave the train without the fact of reporting a person for prosecution.
Disagree that it is the "correct" advice, it is "your" advice.
It wasnt against the law by the way, as there was no intent, and intent is required for there to have been an offence. However, the difficulty is proving there was no intent.
Say what U like Mr Shed.
MY advice is correct given the circumstances Posted by the OP.
YOUR advice would probably carry increased risks of further financial costs to the OP.
U went off on a tangent about a defence against a Penalty Fare.
...This is NOT what the OP stated that her Hubby was Charged with.
U seek to confuse by mentioning 'intent'.
It is against the Law to board a Train without a valid ticket (...subject to certain well documented exceptions...).
WTF are U saying??...That the OP's Hubby boarded 'accidently'??
...Ignorance of the Law is NO Defence.
- The penalty fare was because the OPs husband has been offered the penalty fare. As per the penalty fare scheme, this fare should have been valid for 14 days - the OPs husband was not allowed to do this.
- The OP's husband boarded the train with a valid ticket, just not for the section he was in, which was a genuine mistake. My understanding is for a successful prosecution, intent has to be proven that the defendant "intended" to deprive train company of the ticket revenue - it is obvious in this case that no such intention existed.
- Your advice is not "correct" - it is your opinion on the matter. My opinion differs, and is no less valid.
I must say MTM, having seen a lot of prior posts by yourself, I am very surprised with the obnoxious and arrogant nature of the two posts above from you.
First Great Western Trains
The Consumer Forums
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by k1mmie
).
