I am a train manager, not a revenue protection official. I check and issue tickets as part of my duties and in the years that I have worked, there have been few days on which at least one passenger did not attempt some form of ticket fraud. Almost invariably, fare evaders appear to think that what they are doing is not a crime. Many are blasé and dismissive, until that is, they are caught and the realisation dawns that intentional failure to pay fares is theft, pure and simple. Prosecution for more serious offences is a real possibility and a subsequent recordable conviction can wreck your life. Try getting a US visa or a job as a teacher or nurse for example. Better by far to to bite the bullet and stump up the fare, or else have the moral courage to admit at the time that you are in difficulty. I have great respect and admiration for the railway RPI teams and even more for those professionals who take the time to provide non judgemental advice to those who bleat about the possible consequences of their actions. However, these pages also attract a good many silent industry insiders who are cheered and encouraged when bilkers wriggle on the hook,

I am puzzled by the overwhelming numbers of 'silly mistakes' made by apparently educated and otherwise upright members of society. Interestingly, few if any seem to have taken premeditated action to avoid payment of their fare, or if they have, this is conveniently overlooked in the stampede to avoid prosecution. Shame on all those heartless RPIs who persecute these innocent mistake makers. Fair play for fare dodgers, no matter how you dress them up!

I'm not suing anyone, the landlords are being pursued by the council and Trading Standards are now dealing with the agent. The inventory was made by an independent body on instruction from the agent. The contract (having the four necessary elements in place), was made before the inventory was carried out. This was to enable the property to be inventoried in its refurbished condition. The company then visited the premises expecting to find a property in reasonable order,discovered a semi derelict nightmare, but reported accurately on the state of the premises. This to the detriment of the landlord. The landlord has not seen the property for years, relying on the agent, who let it degenerate. All I wanted was redress for the discomfort and inconvenience I have suffered. In what appears to be desperation, the agents have offered to return all monies taken for 'administration' and referencing Forged signatures and false claims of spurious certificates may not be enough for a criminal prosecution for fraud, we will see. However, as other matters have also been turned up by TS it looks bleak for the agents. Upshot, I will get a decent property to live in, albeit in 3 months or so, giving me another 18 months to 'quietly enjoy' my tenancy. the landlord will have to shell out c£17K and the agents are at real risk of prosecution. Job done, thread closed. Thanks to all. Who guards the guards? Good question, but in my case, nothing more than a painful pun.

I didn't buy, I rented The inventory was delivered after the contract was signed. I have documentary proof that the agent promised to renovate, (with landlord's consent). The agents are under investigation by Trading Standards and other bodies. It is a hard lesson, but although I (we) have suffered from inconvenience and discomfort, we have comeback against the landlord, who is facing a bill of £17K to put the property right. The council will do the work and impose a charge if he does not. I am just highly pi$$ed off with the agents and if I can do my share to put a spoke in their crooked wheel, it will be reward enough As I write, we are looking at temporary chalet accommodation as we will probably have to move out for 6-8 weeks whilst work is done. Not sure who will be paying, but the council are arranging it. It won't be me .

An interesting response, particularly if taken with the general consensus that the doctrine of Caveat Emptor has been in decline since 1927 (Donoghue v Stevenson). There is also a whole raft of Consumer Protection Legislation which, whilst not acquitting the tenant of any responsibility in such proceedings, also places an onus upon agents as 'suppliers' This is particularly relevant in terms of electrical safety. Although meters and cabling are specifically exncluded, the lack of a suitable earth for appliances connected to this cabling rendered them potentially lethal and I am pleased to report that my local council are now actively pursuing this area of concern. I would also argue that when an agent declares that there is a current certificate of electrical safety for a property, the tenant should not be obliged to arrange and fund an electrical safety check. Again, the local council agree with this viewpoint. In any event, the doctrine of Caveat Emptor is immediately struck down where fraudulent representation has been made and as it appears that no certificate of safety was ever granted to the property, this may well be the case. Add a forgery of my signature on their copy of the inventory, (police notified) and you can build up a reasonable picture of what I am dealing with. Thank you for your input though.

Unfortunately, this type of allegation is quite common. Last time it happened to me, I responded that in my opinion I was being harassed because of MY racial origin when I was trying to carry out my duties, (which I had done consistently), regardless of race, colour or any other factor. I then asked the passenger for their details so that I could make a report. Passenger's jaw dropped and money was found and handed over for a ticket. I made a full report before going off duty and was lucky enough to have an Asian passenger voluntarily supply his details as a potential witness.

Thanks for this. The agents have wilfully mis-described a property and its condition. (I actually have documentary evidence). The local power distribution network have just condemned the meter board and mains inlet. They are coming to do 'live work' to make safe, despite the agents insisting before we moved in that they have a valid certificate of electrical safety. Temporarily 'mislaid'. Agents I believe, also have an implied duty to perform services with the level of skill and competence which could normally be expected from the 'average' agent. I'm pretty sure, reading through the legislation (SOGSA 1982), that Part 2 s13 covers this very area. I appreciate caveat emptor, but seeing a visually acceptable tenanted property (in operation) and then moving into a shell, which is filthy, damaged by ex tenants and not repaired, plus electrically unsafe; whilst being marketed by the agent as 'pristine,' gives rise to concern. The council are chasing the landlords as there is a whole raft of 'hidden defects' including an unsafe chimney. My beef is with the agent and whether Consumer Direct are correct in not touching this area of my concerns.

Agreed the A4 was beautiful, modelled on a Bugatti car I think I heard once. Of course we missed you

In the interest of clarity, could you expand on the OP just a little? Did the member of platform staff advise that it may be more expensive to purchase the ticket on train? Once on board, did you seek out the guard to purchase? Was the 'RPI' in uniform or a grey suit? I ask because had you boarded within a Penalty Fare zone and met an RPI, (suit), it is highly likely that a Penalty Fare would have been issued had she/he not accepted that you had been given authorisation to board without a ticket. PFs can of course be appealed. FGW guards are not Penalty Fare trained. They are however, instructed to apply the full fare without benefit of any discount when passengers board without tickets, having had the opportunity to purchase one. Most guards will use discretion in how this is applied, particularly if approached by a customer. Grotesque points out the Byelaw position above, but passengers boarding from an unstaffed station, without any form of working ticket vending machine, cannot be PFd

Good luck with this one. Personally, I think your case will fall, but there is SRPO's post and he/she is an expert. I am just concerned as to why you didn't buy before travel and why you seemed not to have searched out the guard of the train. No one wants a shoal of ticketless travellers. The hassle in dealing with them would not be worth the modest if any financial gain. Sadly, there is a culture of fare avoidance and RP teams do their best to combat it. Perhaps you suffered 'collateral damage' although you do appear to have offended against the letter of the law. Please do update us. I personally treat this forum as a learning resource as well as being able to offer some modest input.

Sorry, I must have misread this. I thought that they had decided to proceed without involving the courts. Do you have an alternative to the summons, it seems that you have or am I confusing things even more? The Charter does not exclude the TOC from the provisions of relevant statute and/or Byelaws. It does however serve notice that a full fare ticket can be issued in cases like yours. However, it appears the inspector considered that your 'offence' merited a report, possibly because you had failed to buy the ticket when facilities were available.. This is based on interpretation of the facts you have provided. I am sorry if this is not what you expected to hear, but there is a reasonable consensus, arrived at by folk who work on both sides of the process. You are not being pursued for 20p, but for the ticket which had not been purchased before the incident was reported. I can only echo Stigy's point which is made above ref court.

Although you can be sold a full price fare if you do not have a valid ticket on boarding the train, having had the opportunity to purchase one, all front line staff have the option to report ticketless travellers should it be considered appropriate. They do not have to accept the fare. The inspector will have submitted the relevant report and the prosecutions department considered their next action. In your case, despite the fact that you committed an offence, they have decided to proceed without court action. Take a look here http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/system/galleries/download/misc/NRCOC.pdf These Conditions of Carriage are referred to in the XC Passenger Charter, which BTW, nowhere states that full price tickets are the only sanction available. Experienced RP staff have advised you to settle if possible and I have to agree. I'm sorry if it seems harsh, but your well reasoned posts just won't stand up in court.

Dans le west nous have aussi, connectivity bluetooth entre nos credit card machines et the machines de ticket. Et...les cloggies are deja making un bon job de running les chemins de fer sur merseyside. Mais...I have pas entendu even un rumour que les rosbifs will run des operations on the rails d' outre mer

Sorry, unfamiliar with this area of the boards. I should have known that there would be a dedicated section

Hi I recently took out 2 year shorthold tenancy through an agent. I was promised that everything would be finished to a high standard. I had Sky go in to install their services and moved myself a few days later. Nothing had been done, the place was filthy and to cap it all, an operative from the local power company told me that the mains installation has some unauthorised connections and that it is potentially dangerous. The property inventory uses the negatives poor, dirty or damaged more than 80 times. Sadly, I didn't see this until I arrived at the property with packing cases. I have little experience of the Lettings Market and took the agent on trust. I have made several complaints, but these have not been responded to. In desperation, I contacted the local council who sent out an inspector. Upshot, an immediate visit from a competent electrician to make safe and a letter to the property owners outlining some £15K worth of essential works. I have found that Letting Agents do not need to be registered with a 'redress scheme'. My particular brand of cowboys used to have ties with the Property Ombudsman, but these are now severed. My question is, do letting agents fall within the scope of the Supply of Goods and Services Act? Consumer Direct won't touch this one as they say it is a housing issue. That side of things is being looked after by the council, but I have been mis sold the lease and lied to on numerous occasions. I know that the owners must take much responsibility, but surely their agents cannot trade in this manner...or can they? Any help gratefully received.