Seeing that people are looking at the effects of Penalty Fare Rules and Conditions of Carriage, I think it important to look at the strict liability obligations defined by the National Railways Byelaws.

railway-byelaws.pdf

what agood idea

then this thread can be used for discussions rather than on live threads where users need help

dx

Thank you dx100uk,

I specifically posted this because it is clear that some people are very confused in respect of the difference between prosecution and penalty fare legislation.

In fact, the Byelaws make the distinction abundantly clear.

Byelaw 17 relates to Compulsory Ticket Areas, which must exist in order to impose a penalty fare and is separate from Byelaw 18, which covers all other areas of the railway.

The penalty for breach of Byelaw 17 is a penalty fare, or prosecution under S.5 of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889)

The penalty for breach of Byelaw 18 is a fine of up to £1000, which may be imposed upon conviction by a Magistrates Court.

.

OldcodJA, fraid I have to disagree with you regarding byelaw 17 having to exist to charge penalty fares.

My understanding is that a byelaw is not required as the Penalty Fare Rules 1994 provide that for penalty fare to be charged a 'scheme' must be in place.

Minor misunderstanding SRPO, I think it's probably in the reading of it and I can see how you might think that's what I meant

What I actually meant was that a compulsory ticket area (CTA) has to exist.

The TOC who has applied for and got a scheme in place needs to have the signs in place to warn a traveller that a PF may be applied before an authorised person can issue one.

Byelaw 17 just refers to the liability in respect of a CTA

I think I know what you are getting at, but it may be confusing to people who will think that a CTA has to exist for them to be charged a PF.

For example, London Bridge isnt a CTA but you can be charged a PF if you travel from there without buying a ticket.

Yes, there are a few such places. Birmingham New Street being a case in point.

Yes, there are a few such places. Birmingham New Street being a case in point.

Are you suggesting CTA's are the norm for Penalty Fare Schemes? According to the Strategic Rail Authority's Penalty Fares Policy (the bulk of which has been pasted in sticky thread 309653), the norm should simply by for the TOC to nominate penalty fares trains and stations, with CTA's reserved for "larger and busier stations":

No, it was merely a simple reference to why Byelaw 17 refers specifically and only to CTAs.

Sorry, I don't quite understand. Are you saying Birmingham New Street does or does not have a CTA?

My understanding is CTAs are something which can (only) be created by Penalty Fare Schemes (but Penalty Fare Schemes don't need to create CTAs, and generally don't). Thus it's wrong to say:

... Compulsory Ticket Areas, which must exist in order to impose a penalty fare

But it would be correct to say it the other way round:

Thus the references to CTAs in byelaw 17 are creating a criminal offence relating to CTAs, which were it not for this byelaw would only be subject to the civil action of a penalty fare.

As for the penalties, it may seem like nitpicking, but the penalty for breaching byelaw 17 can't be prosecution under some other law. The penalties for breaching the byelaws are laid out in Schdeule 20 of the Transport Act 2000 (the Byelaws being made under section 219 of that act):

2 Bye-laws may provide that any person contravening them is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding—

(a)level 3 on the standard scale, or

(b)such lower amount as is specified in the bye-laws,

for each offence.

And Then Byelaw 24 states:

24. Enforcement

(1) Offence and level of fines

Any person who breaches any of these Byelaws commits an offence and, with the exception of Byelaw 17, may be liable for each such offence to a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

So there is a fine of up to £1000 for all the byelaws, except for byelaw 17 where there is no fine.

Behaviour which breached byelaws 17 or 18 could separately lead to prosecution under section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 if there was intent to avoid the fare. However, as s5 RRA only refers to passengers and makes no mention of CTAs (they won't exist for 100 years yet!) it could not be used in the subset of byelaw 17 cases in which a CTA is used to prosecute people who merely enter the part of a station covered by the CTA but make no attempt to travel (e.g. someone saying goodbye to a friend on a platform without the required platform ticket).

Similarly, behaviour which breaches either byelaw 17 or 18 could separately lead to a penalty fare (if there is a penalty fare scheme in place) on the basis of the Penalty Fare Rules. It is important to note that section 10 of The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 1994 sets out an exclusion of double liability, so if a prosecution is brought (under the byelaws or s5 RRA) a penalty fare cannot be charged (or must be refunded).

So in summary, there are 3 distinct pieces of legislation relating to travel without a valid ticket:

1. The most serious is section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, criminal, requires intent to avoid fare, fine up to level 3 (£1000), or for second or subsequent offence can at discretion of court lead to imprisonment up to 3 months.
   
2. Railway byelaws (both sections 17 and 18), criminal, strict liability (no intent needed), fine up to level 3 (£1000) except byelaw 17
   
3. Penalty Fares (where such a scheme exists), civil matter, cannot be used in conjunction with either of the criminal prosecutions above.
   

Hopefully that's all clear and correct

Firstly, no, Birmingham New Street is not a CTA and your explanation relating to CTAs is entirely correct.

Secondly, your explanation and direct quotes fron the legislation are entirely right of course.

My reference to potential prosecution in relation to behaviour that would be contrary to Byelaw 17 is to say what could (and does) happen if the Penalty Fare Notice (PFN) is not resolved.

This isn't determined as the penalty by any legislation, but is offered as an explanation of the practical process that has been followed by BR from 1989 and the TOCS since 1996.

If a PFN is issued and not either paid, or successfully appealed in due time, the TOC may cancel the PFN and issue a Summons alleging that the traveller's original intent was 'intent to avoid a fare' as determined by Section 5 of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889). Many thousands of these cases have been dealt with by the courts over the last 15 years.

It was simply an explanation of what can and does happen, not always and some may not be processed further..

In simple terms, if a PFN is issued and not resolved, or not paid, it doesn't always just go away.

.

Thread now stuck..