"... avoid voluntarily giving up any more of our time to help ..." "I am always fascinated by the number of people who post a query, get a response they don't like and then make clear that all they were really looking for was a lot of 'poor you' comments or sycophantic 'back slapping' for telling us all about their ill-advised stand against authority." Actually I wasn't looking for any of that: I don't work in the rail industry, I don't use the railway system (overpriced, unreliable, doesn't go where I wish to go) and I'm not being prosecuted by anyone. I do, however, expect consumer advice to be delivered in a manner which aids the consumer. I've looked at your other posts and your tone is consistently high-handed and unsympathetic which I think is a shame because you clearly know a great deal about your subject. Be that as it may, it's unpleasant to be on the end of such posts when in a jam and looking for help. I thought I'd give y'all a taste of what it's like to encounter yourself. Bye folks. I'd say it was fun, but I've had better times putting the cat litter out.

"advice from 'consumers only' well-meaning as all that might be would not be as helpful as coming on here and asking a straight question and getting a straight answer though would it?" Ah, so it's your contention that sanctimonious answers such as "The modern disease ... people cannot take responsibility for their own actions anymore, they have to be held by the hand & told what to do." are 'helpful' in some way? What way would that be, exactly? As a consumer myself I'm absolutely positive consumers can do without answers of that nature. "The staff members on here are highly unlikely to be the same ones involved in your case" And if they were, and they were discussing a court case outside court that wouldn't be in any way be inappropriate, of course. "If I was in thier[sic] position I'd rather have some idea of what the outcome and possible defences are rather than a soothing thread of reponses from other poor victims of their own actions." Except that there are quite a few responses on this thread of the form "The company has issued you with a notice so you must have done something to deserve it". Nice, helpful replies those. Direct though. Can't fault your directness. "I honestly can't believe I just read that..." I know! I can't believe some of the rubbish you've posted either! Ha, ha! Was that direct enough for you?

I would expect advice from consumers on this forum (clue's in the title, guys), not advice from members of staff from the industry currently involved in putative prosecution. That would be like getting a parking ticket from a 3rd party company and only being able to get advice from members of that company whose only response is "Pay the fine because it's legitimate because we issued it". Interesting that you've had no response from the OP. Maybe they didn't find your advice that helpful?

House of Commons - Transport - Fifth Report states: "71. The current appeals procedures for bus and rail are not sufficiently independent. The consequences of being accused of fare dodging can be serious and it is important that the procedures are just and rigorous. The current principal rail appeal panel is associated with the rail industry and this undermines its credibility as a truly independent arbiter, sitting equidistant from the passenger and the train operating company. The bus industry appeals body has no regulatory backing. The Government should consult on new arrangements. For rail this might involve giving responsibilities to the Office of Rail Regulation or Passenger Focus; for bus it might be the Traffic Commissioner or the proposed Passenger Transport User Committee." Clearly passengers are not the only group concerned with the current process surrounding 'fare evasion'.

> The modern disease.....people cannot take responsibility for their own actions anymore, they have to be held by the hand & told what to do. The modern disease is to introduce complex legislation, explain it poorly, then employ someone else to prosecute anyone who doesn't have the money to fight prosecution in court. > You have to pay before you get on the train if facilities are available to buy a ticket or permit to travel, if there are no ticketing facilities you must pay at the first available opportunity. If you go into a theatre, dodge the ticket barrier, run up the stairs and seat yourself in the auditorium don't be surprised if you get thrown out by the burly men. If, OTOH, there's no ticket barrier and no-one is searching for tickets, and lots of people appear to be entering the venue without challenge whose fault is it if the venue is suddenly full of people who haven't paid? If the train company wish to ensure people have paid prior to entry on the train it's up them to ensure payment, just as theatres employ box-office staff and bouncers for this express purpose. > I'm sorry if you cannot accept the fact Sleepyhead, but if there is a facility to pay and you know you need to pay then why should you not pay? Because people clearly believe that the 'conductor' will collect their fare. I've done; I've seen other people do it; the 'conductor' does nothing to discourage it. If the rail networks want people to buy their tickets before getting on the train maybe they should stop the conductor issuing fares? If OTOH the rail networks continue to employ 'conductors' and refer to them as 'conductors' (even though (as noted above) the role is a kind-of conductor-plus and doesn't necessarily include behaving like a conductor and indulging in such behaviour as walking up and down the train collecting fares) then they're creating a pattern of behaviour which will lead to people expecting to be able to pay their fares on the train if they're in a bit of a hurry. If they want to discourage that behaviour they should act differently and stop relying on a draconian and outdated piece of legislation to prop up their flagging business model. > Why do you always need a physical barrier? Because it will prevent the kind of misunderstanding outlined by the OP. > I believe that everyone has a right to be trusted until they show that our trust is misplaced. Or they betray a less-than-full understanding of the rules, eh? Spoken like a true official. (I guessed, incidentally, that you do this kind of thing for a job about 3 posts back because you seem to insist on believing that anyone who doesn't have the hours in their day to read every bit of documentation issued by the railways deserves everything they get). > I shall continue with myapplication and interpretation for now. Because it pays the bills, eh? And I shall continue my unpaid work campaigning for the repeal of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (Regulation of Railways Act 1889 - criminalising people travelling without a train ticket — HMG - Your Freedom) not because it brings in the money, but because it's the right thing to do.

> Someone who is honest, will have got a ticket if they could and will not therefore be reported. Someone who is honest may be under the wrong impression. Your application of the rules allows no possibility of mistake. That's hardly a fair application of the law and it's not the reason the law exists. > The name and address will only be requested if there is reason to report an offence or issue a penalty. There is a legal obligation to give a correct name and address when asked in these circumstances and a separate penalty at law for failing to do so. Except that if the person wilfully carries no id on them with the express intention of evading a fare they are unlikely to be prosecuted because they will have supplied a false name and address, won't they? > That really is not so is it? Well yes it is, which is why I wrote it. > If you go into a supermarket and take an item off the shelf, it is up to YOU to seek out the till and pay for it. That's not a valid comparison because food-shopping is an entirely different industry which doesn't rely on people selling tickets in order to purchase food. > If you board a bus, you either show a valid ticket as you get on or pay the fare and if you do not, you are unlikely to be allowed to travel. OK, so trains are like buses now? OK, so where is the physical barrier which prevents you from utilising the service? Where is the person checking your ticket before you get on the train at a non-barried train station? > On all other services the onus is on the traveller to pay first and the staff to check that they have done so. Unlike many other ticket-based systems. Perhaps the railways should print - in large letters - the words 'YOU MAY NOT BOARD THE TRAIN WITHOUT FIRST BUYING A TICKET' on stations rather than simply fulfilling their minimum legal obligations and printing the regulations - complete with legal mumbo-jumbo - in small type on a poster stuck up a corner?

Even if the conductor gets on the train and doesn't come out of their office marked 'Private'? I assume this will be because of precedent, legally speaking. Surely though that's unfair to customers? Any conductor in any other walk of life (trams, buses, &c.) who doesn't walk up and down the vehicle asking for fares just isn't doing their job.

"Northern Rail do not display posters that say any such thing and neither do their signs intimate that. All the information says is Penalty Fares do not apply from this particular station." National TOC states: "If you travel in a train: (a) without a ticket; or (b) the circumstances described in any of Conditions 10, 11, 12, 18, 19, 22, 30, 35 and 39 apply; you will be liable to pay the full single fare or full return fare or, if appropriate, a Penalty Fare (see Condition 4) for your journey." "Any person who does not follow the rules lays themselves open to a charge under these Byelaws. The most common being 'Fail to show a valid ticket on demand' which carries a maximum penalty on conviction of a fine of up to £1000." Then why do the TOC contain a condition which makes a passenger liable to pay the full single fare, or full return fare if that passenger boards the train without a ticket? If you must not board the train without a valid ticket why have any condition which allows the passenger to buy a ticket at all? What, therefore, is the purpose the latter part of TOC clause 2? Is it to allow the passenger to buy a ticket if they don't have one, or to allow the rail firm to make a decision based on circumstances? Why then would the third-party firm doing the investigations not seek first to recover the full single fare or return fare as stated in TOC 2(a) and instead attempt to criminalise someone who may have a perfectly reasonable explanation for their behaviour? Is this not a disproportionate response to a minor offence in much the same way that ambulance-chasing lawyers, or 'have you had a fall at work' solicitors will attempt to press the most serious charge without any regard for reasonable explanations because this will bring in most money for themselves and their clients? Two asides follow: I would also say that in 1978 the railways were a nationalised industry, as they are no longer a nationalised industry I don't see why the rail network - being a private enterprise now - should have any recourse to criminal legislation. Every other service provider has access to civil legislation which is more than adequate for dealing with matters such as fare evasion and is far less draconian than The Regulation of Railways Act 1889. Is it not the case that those people who provide a false name and address are likely to get away without paying their fares. Someone who is honest and who gives a name and address is more likely to be prosecuted. The net result will be that the law will only catch the honest and law-abiding who make minor infractions, and will fail to address the problem is it intended to address: Persistent intentional refusal to pay for train tickets.

What I don't understand is why, if the person in question got on the train at a station operated by a rail operator whose terms and conditions of carriage don't require them to have a ticket when they get on the train, another entirely different rail operator should be able to prosecute them under a different set of terms and conditions. That hardly seems fair and/or reasonable. Not to mention which, making a criminal of someone who has the intention to buy a ticket and just got caught out by the railway equivalent of a firm of ambulance-chasers hardly seems fair either. On top of that I don't know of any other private company which could invoke legislation of this kind in such a summary fashion. Strikes me this is just a throwback to the trains being a nationalised industry. Also - if Northern Rail's train clearly display posters on the trains which state (in effect) "If you get on the train without a ticket we can only sell you the full-price ticket" why can't the defendent counter-sue Northern Rail for displaying misleading information?