Another Innocent Victim Of Fare Evasion Scam

[freemycatfish]

I have posted this elsewhere but think I may have been posting in the wrong place. If so, I apologise. I shall reproduce my original post here.

If I have messed up I am sorry.

 

I hope I am posting this in the right place.

 

My statement (not yet submitted to anyone) tells the story and is reproduced below. Any advise would be great.

 

Dear sir or madam

 

I am writing to advise you of my intent to appeal against the penalty fare imposed on me at London Bridge station on the 7th April 2010. I should begin by telling you that I have no intention of paying any money whatsoever, regardless of the outcome of this appeal. My reasons for this position are clearly stated below. Should you decide to make this a criminal prosecution I will be very happy to appear in court and will endeavour to have a trial by a jury. You, of course, will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I intended to defraud your company and I will vigorously defend that accusation.

 

The circumstances that led to me travelling without a ticket are detailed as follows:

 

On the 7th April 2010 I went to Grove Park with the intention of meeting a friend at Charing Cross Station. Prior to going into the station to catch my train I called into a Barbers to have my hair cut. Unfortunately, though I was the only customer in the Barber shop, a female member of staff was engaged in applying dye to another female member of staff's hair. This procedure took longer than expected and by the time the hair dresser got around to finishing my hair cut, time was pushing on.

 

I left the shop and crossed the road to Grove Park station arriving in the lobby at 12:13pm The ticket office was closed but there was a ticket machine operating. However, the machine was serving two females who were dithering over which ticket to buy. The other machine was showing no lights and seemed to be off. As I waited for the women at the machine, a station announcement said that my train was pulling into the station. Had I waited any longer I would have missed my train and maybe my appointment. I reasoned that I could pay for the ticket either on the train if an inspector was available, or at London Bridge. I ran and managed to catch the train.

 

At London Bridge I walked down the ramp from the platform and went directly to the first two station employees I saw. I explained what happened and they sent me to a ticket office around the corner.

I approached the ticket office to explain and pay what I owed when I was asked to step aside and speak to a man in a very sharp pin striped suit who asked me why I was queuing to use the ticket office. I explained to him what I was doing and he told me that I was liable for a penalty fair of twenty pounds and asked me for identification. I showed him my Oyster card which contained both my name and photograph.

 

I then told him I would not pay him any money as I had not done anything wrong and fully intended to pay my fair. I explained that I had sought out members of railway staff as soon as I left the platform. That I had made no attempt to try and jump or tailgate the barriers and that even though a side entrance gate was wide open I had not tried to run away. I pointed out that I had joined the queue to pay the fair at the ticket office which obviously meant I fully intended not only to pay what I owed, but to buy another ticket in order to continue my journey to Charing Cross.

 

The man insisted I pay the fine and I explained to him that he has no authority to fine members of the public as he is not a justice of the peace. Statuary law does not give him the right to fine anyone and that under Common law I had committed no offence and had not intended to commit any offence. I told him that if he wanted me to pay this money his duty was to take me into a court of law and argue his case and let a jury decide if there was any guilt involved. I further stated that as my actions were clearly not those of someone refusing to pay or attempting to take any form of pecuniary advantage or commit fraud, that I doubted very much if a jury would convict.

 

The man, who later revealed by signature that his name is Young Ojuyenum but who showed me no other form of identification, told me that the system does not work like that and I had to pay. I told him that if the system does not work like that the system is wrong and that it was making him treat the innocent like the guilty and he was arbitrarily acting as judge and jury on members of the public and that this is unlawful.

I explained that as I had tried to meet my financial obligations to his company without any form of coercion and in an honest way, his actions of pulling me from a queue where I would have paid for the part of my journey not paid for and then bought a ticket to go on further, constituted demanding money with menace and trying to intimidate me into paying a statutory fine he was not lawfully able to impose. I described this action as a racket and told him I would be happy to take this matter to court.

He told me that it was my responsibility to get to the station on time. I then explained what had happened at the Barbers which had delayed me unexpectedly and he could clearly see the fresh haircut I was sporting and I noticed that he looked to check.

 

He then asked for my name and address and handed me his note book. He asked me to write my address in the notebook and this I was happy to do. I asked if he wanted my telephone number also but he declined. I then told him that in giving my real name and address I had further demonstrated my honesty to him and asked him to reconsider his actions. He refused. However, he told me that he "trusted" me to have given him the correct address and had acted in good faith towards me by not checking to see if it was genuine or not. I then asked him to please make that check as I had no intention of doing anything dishonest. He refused to do so.

 

Though irritated by this whole procedure I remained calm at all times as a police officer and other members of staff present nearby will be able to testify if film of this incident is available from the CCTV cameras. What happened at Grove Park will also be on camera and I would urge you to see the film if possible to verify my story.

 

I then told the man that I was outraged that I had been treated this way and also outraged that his company paid him to try and fleece honest members of the public of money in this way. He kept repeating that he was just doing his job. I explained that he should talk to his bosses about the nature of his job because it amounted to gangsterism.

 

I further pointed out that had I made any effort at all to evade paying the fair he would be within his rights to take some kind of action by having me detained and arrested. I asked him if he was placing me under arrest and he said no. I then told him that he had no legal right to detain me further and I was going to leave, buy my ticket and pay for the part of the journey I had already taken. He agreed to let me pay for that part of my journey already taken and asked a station employee to take the money and give me change from the £10 note I offered. This was duly done. He then filled out the enclosed form, asked me to sign it and told me to appeal his decision. I explained that I would do so and told him I did not blame him for doing his job but that his job stinks and he should consider a career change as it may land him in court on criminal charges brought by a member of the public. I also told him that I would not be paying this fine as I had broken none of the Common laws of this land and had not intended to break any law.

 

At no point was the man threatening except in so far as I have pointed out. He remained calm as did I and although our discussion was frank, it was also polite.

 

I paid for the part of the journey I had taken from Grove Park to London Bridge and then bought a ticket to cover me for the remainder of my journey to Charing Cross, on to Moorgate and then home to Grove Park again from the same ticket office I had orginally queued for.

 

I should add that any system which seeks to penalise the innocent with the guilty is neither just, fair or honest and I remain outraged that such a system as this can be operating in this country.

 

I also maintain that no employee of any company should have the right to act as judge and jury and demand money from people on the basis of a threat of further legal action if they do not pay, simply on the basis of what they -- without training or cause -- consider to be intent to defraud. We have police officers who are trained to arrest those they think are guilty of a crime and even they must have good reason to believe that a crime has taken place or might be about to take place. It is the job of the court system and judges or juries to determine guilt based upon solid evidence and not the job of railway employees who have been instructed to find everyone guilty regardless of circumstances in order to extract money from them. That is plainly unlawful, or so I shall argue in court if I must.

　

[Old-CodJA]

Like you I have repeated my post here to avoid confusion with responses given to earlier questions raised elsewhere:

 

 

I very much doubt that you would be successful in your defence and it is worth remembering that 'trial by jury' is not an option should this matter proceed to Court

 

Both the Byelaw offence and 'Intent to avoid a fare' contrary Section 5 RRA (1889) are Summary only matters

 

The Penalty Fare for failing to pay a fare before boarding is a Statutory Penalty made lawful by the Penalty Fares (Railways) rules as defined by The Railways Act.

 

Passenger arriving late for a train or not wishing to queue are not valid reasons for boarding without a valid ticket. Your complaint about delay is against a slow hairdresser it would seem

 

There are clear signs indicating that entering the platforms is a controlled ticket area where you must be in possession of a valid ticket and services to London bridge are amongst the most frequent in the south-east on almost every route. Between Grove Park and London Bridge around one train every 15 minutes.

 

This is not a case of having to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you intended to avoid a fare unless you are charged with 'intent'

 

If the Byelaw offence is alleged this is a strict liability matter. It is only necessary for the rail company to show that you were there without a valid ticket and that facilities to buy one before travelling were available at the station where you boarded.

 

Good luck with your appeal, you may get a sympathetic hearing, but I would not be too confident.

 

I also think it is somewhat uncharitable to come onto a public forum and name a member of staff, who has no opportunity to defend their point of view by the same route whilst hiding behind an alias yourself.

 

Good luck

Edited April 9, 2010 by Old-CodJA

[SRPO]

I sincerely hope you get your wish for a day in court.

[freemycatfish]

Like you I have repeated my post here to avoid confusion with responses given to earlier questions raised elsewhere:

 

 

I very much doubt that you would be successful in your defence and it is worth remembering that 'trial by jury' is not an option should this matter proceed to Court

 

Both the Byelaw offence and 'Intent to avoid a fare' contrary Section 5 RRA (1889) are Summary only matters

 

The Penalty Fare for failing to pay a fare before boarding is a Statutory Penalty made lawful by the Penalty Fares (Railways) rules as defined by The Railways Act.

 

Passenger arriving late for a train or not wishing to queue are not valid reasons for boarding without a valid ticket. Your complaint about delay is against a slow hairdresser it would seem

 

There are clear signs indicating that entering the platforms is a controlled ticket area where you must be in possession of a valid ticket and services to London bridge are amongst the most frequent in the south-east on almost every route. Between Grove Park and London Bridge around one train every 15 minutes.

 

This is not a case of having to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you intended to avoid a fare unless you are charged with 'intent'

 

If the Byelaw offence is alleged this is a strict liability matter. It is only necessary for the rail company to show that you were there without a valid ticket and that facilities to buy one before travelling were available at the station where you boarded.

 

Good luck with your appeal, you may get a sympathetic hearing, but I would not be too confident.

 

I also think it is somewhat uncharitable to come onto a public forum and name a member of staff, who has no opportunity to defend their point of view by the same route whilst hiding behind an alias yourself.

 

Good luck

 

Thank you for this point of view. It is interesting.

 

There seems to be a desire among many to just accept the way things are and not make a fuss. I am afraid I cannot do that. I do not care why these rules were made or by whom. They offend natural justice and it is that which makes me angry. With this in mind, I have been doing some research of my own and I am starting to discover some very interesting things.

 

Various Barristers are saying that these rules may not be legally enforceable.

 

The areas of the legal Acts in question NEVER quoted by train operators when trying to frighten people into paying fines for "offences" they are not guilty of, say that there are circumstances in which it is perfectly legal to travel without a valid ticket.

 

Others have been successful in fighting against this outrageous system.

 

Most interesting of all was the revelation I found here: Understanding Revenue Protection on South West Trains

 

Buried deep within this document online was this:

 

"In an attempt to get around the problem, the train companies have come up with "conditions of carriage". These don't incorporate the rules' wording, but say a penalty fare is payable if there is no window open and no working machine. It is doubtful that a passenger who has bought no ticket, and hence made no contract with the rail company, could be subject to any conditions. The conditions are invalid if they do not follow the DoT's rules."

 

The bold text is very interesting and I am seeking advice about this matter. All Statute law is based upon the laws (rules) of contract. In effect, Statute law is commercial -- actually, maritime -- law. Statute law, as I understand it, is secondary to Common law. Now, I know from previous reading on another matter that no one can be forced to enter into a contract against their will. What does tend to happen is that people are tricked into entering into contracts by being told they must or they should. A classic example of this is what almost everyone does when they buy a new car. They register it because they have been told they should register it. That registration is a requirement. Very few ask, "requirement for what and by whom?" They see the word "requirement" and just do what ever they are told. What they do not realise is that the registration document is a cleverly worded piece of deception and they have just given away what they may have worked five or more years to buy. They cease to be the "owner" of the vehicle and are now the "registered keeper." Their car now belongs to the DVLA.

 

Anyway. Getting back to this issue. If no contract exists because I was unable to buy a ticket, then the rules may not apply and if not, the train company may not have a leg to stand on. I need to look deeper into that part of things. Do you have any thoughts on that?

 

The so-called "revenue officer" stated that if I did not pay this "fine" I would be liable to criminal prosecution. This was in fact, a lie and I sensed that at the time. The only criminal matter he could bring against me at all would have been if I gave him a false name and address. (I checked) The rest of this charade is civil in nature. This was a blatant scare tactic designed to frighten me and others into compliance. The only dishonest person in this whole situation was in fact the man trying to force money out of me! Which is why I do not feel in any way, "uncharitable." As for "hiding behind an alias" do I take it your real name is Mr Old Cod-Ja?

 

That was nothing but a mean spirited remark and you probably know it. Perhaps you have worked or do work for these gangsters yourself and do not like it when the "rules" are challenged. Perhaps that is just your disposition and hipocracy comes naturally to you? What ever the case, it was an uncalled for remark and if you are any kind of a gentleman you will apologise and retract it.

 

I will not hold my breath.

 

[freemycatfish]

I sincerely hope you get your wish for a day in court.

 

 

Thank you. Me too.

[Madamfluff]

The advice old Cod Ja gave you was not a point of view but a clear and concise explanation of the regulations relating to rail travel by someone who knows what he is talking about.

 

May I suggest that next time you travel, you spend just a little bit of the time and energy you spent whining about your fine, in checking train times and ensuring you leave yourself plenty of time to get your ticket and catch the train of your choice ( even factoring in the time it will take you have have your hair cut, toe nails trimmed or any other deviation from your normal travelling habits).

 

And I totally agree with Old Cod Ja when he pulled you up for naming the Rail employee, you only need to look at the number of times you have posted and compare it to the number of posts by Old Cod Ja to know who out of the two of you fully understands posting etiquette.

[freemycatfish]

The advice old Cod Ja gave you was not a point of view but a clear and concise explanation of the regulations relating to rail travel by someone who knows what he is talking about.

 

May I suggest that next time you travel, you spend just a little bit of the time and energy you spent whining about your fine, in checking train times and ensuring you leave yourself plenty of time to get your ticket and catch the train of your choice ( even factoring in the time it will take you have have your hair cut, toe nails trimmed or any other deviation from your normal travelling habits).

 

And I totally agree with Old Cod Ja when he pulled you up for naming the Rail employee, you only need to look at the number of times you have posted and compare it to the number of posts by Old Cod Ja to know who out of the two of you fully understands posting etiquette.

 

Hmmm. Consumer action group huh?

 

Seems more like a site run by railway "inforcement" officers to discourrage the public from taking them on or drive them away with insults. You and Old Cod-Ja make a good team. I will look for help somewhere there are decent people to talk too.

 

 

Ta Ta!

 

Oh. Before I go here is something you and Old Cod Ja might like to think about. When it comes to legal matteers ALWAYS take the opinion of a Barrister over that of some opinionated rude person on a little pointless site like this one seems to be. NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES HE/SHE HAS POSTED. Back street lawyers are two a penny but good barristers are a rare find. Enjoy your lives.

 

Toodle pip.

Edited April 9, 2010 by freemycatfish
Had another thought. That's two today!

[PriorityOne]

Best of luck with this one.... agree with you all the way!

 

Unfortunately, sometimes you have to fight very hard for common sense and decency to prevail in modern society. In today's world, the tendency seems to be that we're all somehow on the fiddle. Some years ago, this wouldn't have been the case...

 

You were clearly not trying to fiddle anyone and if this goes to court, magistrates will hopefully see what a crass waste of time and money the whole farce has been.

 

[weather-cold]

trial by jury...im sorry but you will get a bunch of volunteers who sit on a bench of 3, who will almost certainly be grumpy as conservatives/labour have announced plans to cut there dinner expenses which is one of there very few perks they have

 

 

anyway you can kiss goodbye to trial by jury and say hello to trial by 3 volunteers who will be judge and jury

[weather-cold]

The advice old Cod Ja gave you was not a point of view but a clear and concise explanation of the regulations relating to rail travel by someone who knows what he is talking about.

 

May I suggest that next time you travel, you spend just a little bit of the time and energy you spent whining about your fine, in checking train times and ensuring you leave yourself plenty of time to get your ticket and catch the train of your choice ( even factoring in the time it will take you have have your hair cut, toe nails trimmed or any other deviation from your normal travelling habits).

 

And I totally agree with Old Cod Ja when he pulled you up for naming the Rail employee, you only need to look at the number of times you have posted and compare it to the number of posts by Old Cod Ja to know who out of the two of you fully understands posting etiquette.

 

3 words

 

who are ya!!!?

[weather-cold]

I have posted this elsewhere but think I may have been posting in the wrong place. If so, I apologise. I shall reproduce my original post here.

If I have messed up I am sorry.

 

I hope I am posting this in the right place.

 

My statement (not yet submitted to anyone) tells the story and is reproduced below. Any advise would be great.

 

Dear sir or madam

 

I am writing to advise you of my intent to appeal against the penalty fare imposed on me at London Bridge station on the 7th April 2010. I should begin by telling you that I have no intention of paying any money whatsoever, regardless of the outcome of this appeal. My reasons for this position are clearly stated below. Should you decide to make this a criminal prosecution I will be very happy to appear in court and will endeavour to have a trial by a jury. You, of course, will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I intended to defraud your company and I will vigorously defend that accusation.

 

The circumstances that led to me travelling without a ticket are detailed as follows:

 

On the 7th April 2010 I went to Grove Park with the intention of meeting a friend at Charing Cross Station. Prior to going into the station to catch my train I called into a Barbers to have my hair cut. Unfortunately, though I was the only customer in the Barber shop, a female member of staff was engaged in applying dye to another female member of staff's hair. This procedure took longer than expected and by the time the hair dresser got around to finishing my hair cut, time was pushing on.

 

I left the shop and crossed the road to Grove Park station arriving in the lobby at 12:13pm The ticket office was closed but there was a ticket machine operating. However, the machine was serving two females who were dithering over which ticket to buy. The other machine was showing no lights and seemed to be off. As I waited for the women at the machine, a station announcement said that my train was pulling into the station. Had I waited any longer I would have missed my train and maybe my appointment. I reasoned that I could pay for the ticket either on the train if an inspector was available, or at London Bridge. I ran and managed to catch the train.

 

At London Bridge I walked down the ramp from the platform and went directly to the first two station employees I saw. I explained what happened and they sent me to a ticket office around the corner.

I approached the ticket office to explain and pay what I owed when I was asked to step aside and speak to a man in a very sharp pin striped suit who asked me why I was queuing to use the ticket office. I explained to him what I was doing and he told me that I was liable for a penalty fair of twenty pounds and asked me for identification. I showed him my Oyster card which contained both my name and photograph.

 

I then told him I would not pay him any money as I had not done anything wrong and fully intended to pay my fair. I explained that I had sought out members of railway staff as soon as I left the platform. That I had made no attempt to try and jump or tailgate the barriers and that even though a side entrance gate was wide open I had not tried to run away. I pointed out that I had joined the queue to pay the fair at the ticket office which obviously meant I fully intended not only to pay what I owed, but to buy another ticket in order to continue my journey to Charing Cross.

 

The man insisted I pay the fine and I explained to him that he has no authority to fine members of the public as he is not a justice of the peace. Statuary law does not give him the right to fine anyone and that under Common law I had committed no offence and had not intended to commit any offence. I told him that if he wanted me to pay this money his duty was to take me into a court of law and argue his case and let a jury decide if there was any guilt involved. I further stated that as my actions were clearly not those of someone refusing to pay or attempting to take any form of pecuniary advantage or commit fraud, that I doubted very much if a jury would convict.

 

The man, who later revealed by signature that his name is Young Ojuyenum but who showed me no other form of identification, told me that the system does not work like that and I had to pay. I told him that if the system does not work like that the system is wrong and that it was making him treat the innocent like the guilty and he was arbitrarily acting as judge and jury on members of the public and that this is unlawful.

I explained that as I had tried to meet my financial obligations to his company without any form of coercion and in an honest way, his actions of pulling me from a queue where I would have paid for the part of my journey not paid for and then bought a ticket to go on further, constituted demanding money with menace and trying to intimidate me into paying a statutory fine he was not lawfully able to impose. I described this action as a racket and told him I would be happy to take this matter to court.

He told me that it was my responsibility to get to the station on time. I then explained what had happened at the Barbers which had delayed me unexpectedly and he could clearly see the fresh haircut I was sporting and I noticed that he looked to check.

 

He then asked for my name and address and handed me his note book. He asked me to write my address in the notebook and this I was happy to do. I asked if he wanted my telephone number also but he declined. I then told him that in giving my real name and address I had further demonstrated my honesty to him and asked him to reconsider his actions. He refused. However, he told me that he "trusted" me to have given him the correct address and had acted in good faith towards me by not checking to see if it was genuine or not. I then asked him to please make that check as I had no intention of doing anything dishonest. He refused to do so.

 

Though irritated by this whole procedure I remained calm at all times as a police officer and other members of staff present nearby will be able to testify if film of this incident is available from the CCTV cameras. What happened at Grove Park will also be on camera and I would urge you to see the film if possible to verify my story.

 

I then told the man that I was outraged that I had been treated this way and also outraged that his company paid him to try and fleece honest members of the public of money in this way. He kept repeating that he was just doing his job. I explained that he should talk to his bosses about the nature of his job because it amounted to gangsterism.

 

I further pointed out that had I made any effort at all to evade paying the fair he would be within his rights to take some kind of action by having me detained and arrested. I asked him if he was placing me under arrest and he said no. I then told him that he had no legal right to detain me further and I was going to leave, buy my ticket and pay for the part of the journey I had already taken. He agreed to let me pay for that part of my journey already taken and asked a station employee to take the money and give me change from the £10 note I offered. This was duly done. He then filled out the enclosed form, asked me to sign it and told me to appeal his decision. I explained that I would do so and told him I did not blame him for doing his job but that his job stinks and he should consider a career change as it may land him in court on criminal charges brought by a member of the public. I also told him that I would not be paying this fine as I had broken none of the Common laws of this land and had not intended to break any law.

 

At no point was the man threatening except in so far as I have pointed out. He remained calm as did I and although our discussion was frank, it was also polite.

 

I paid for the part of the journey I had taken from Grove Park to London Bridge and then bought a ticket to cover me for the remainder of my journey to Charing Cross, on to Moorgate and then home to Grove Park again from the same ticket office I had orginally queued for.

 

I should add that any system which seeks to penalise the innocent with the guilty is neither just, fair or honest and I remain outraged that such a system as this can be operating in this country.

 

I also maintain that no employee of any company should have the right to act as judge and jury and demand money from people on the basis of a threat of further legal action if they do not pay, simply on the basis of what they -- without training or cause -- consider to be intent to defraud. We have police officers who are trained to arrest those they think are guilty of a crime and even they must have good reason to believe that a crime has taken place or might be about to take place. It is the job of the court system and judges or juries to determine guilt based upon solid evidence and not the job of railway employees who have been instructed to find everyone guilty regardless of circumstances in order to extract money from them. That is plainly unlawful, or so I shall argue in court if I must.

　

 

PACE powers and cheap bye laws, statutory instruments etc ...you need to know the basics of law before you send this letter to prosectutors who are going to have a good old laugh reading your errors, like i have just had

Edited April 9, 2010 by weather-cold

[Old-CodJA]

 

1. I do not care why these rules were made or by whom. They offend natural justice and it is that which makes me angry.

 

2. Various Barristers are saying that these rules may not be legally enforceable.

 

3. The areas of the legal Acts in question NEVER quoted by train operators when trying to frighten people into paying fines for "offences" they are not guilty of, say that there are circumstances in which it is perfectly legal to travel without a valid ticket.

 

4. It is doubtful that a passenger who has bought no ticket, and hence made no contract with the rail company, could be subject to any conditions. The conditions are invalid if they do not follow the DoT's rules."

 

5. If no contract exists because I was unable to buy a ticket, then the rules may not apply and if not, the train company may not have a leg to stand on. I need to look deeper into that part of things. Do you have any thoughts on that?

 

6. The so-called "revenue officer" stated that if I did not pay this "fine" I would be liable to criminal prosecution. This was in fact, a lie and I sensed that at the time. The only criminal matter he could bring against me at all would have been if I gave him a false name and address. (I checked) The rest of this charade is civil in nature.

 

7. The only dishonest person in this whole situation was in fact the man trying to force money out of me! Which is why I do not feel in any way, "uncharitable." As for "hiding behind an alias" do I take it your real name is Mr Old Cod-Ja?

 

8. Perhaps you have worked or do work for these gangsters yourself and do not like it when the "rules" are challenged. Perhaps that is just your disposition and hipocracy comes naturally to you? What ever the case, it was an uncalled for remark and if you are any kind of a gentleman you will apologise and retract it.

 

9. I will not hold my breath.

 

 

1. The fact that you do not care for these rules or who made them is not a defence against the need to observe them, but is obvious from your rhetoric and needed no explanation.

 

2. 'Various Barristers' may hold a different view to that confirmed by the Courts since the 1840s however, a great many challenges have failed to remove these Acts from the Statute book or even to substantially amend them. That is the mark of good law.

 

The most often quoted case relating to 'fare evasion' refers to the Appeal Court ruling by Lords Widgery, Park and Cumming-Bruce in 1977, which upheld the Magistrates conviction and clarified the law for all. There are many other precedents confirming other parts of these legislations

 

In the case referred to above, the traveller Mr Corbyn never gave a false name or address, he always made clear that he intended to pay the fare, but never did so before travelling. In short, the Law Lords decided that a traveller who knows that a fare is due, but does not pay before travelling when facilities were available and simply intends to pay if challenged, might be considered to be intending to avoid paying unless challenged. The full judgement was of course more detailed than that and included their decision that it was not necessary to infer that the traveller 'permanently' intended not to pay.

 

However, all of that is irrelevent where the strict liability Byelaw legislation is concerned. These Byelaws have just been reviewed and in fact strengthened in many cases. The current National Railway Byelaws date from 2005.

 

3. There are circumstances where it is perfectly legal to travel without a valid ticket however, your failure to arrive early enough to buy a ticket or, not wishing to queue to get one isn't one of them.

 

4. Using your own words we can see that the DoT rules were followed in this case. There was a working ticket machine but you did not use it.

 

The 'civil' remedy that you refer to is the penalty fare legislation, but if that is not paid or successfully appealed within the time period specified by the rules set down by the Railways Act, the rail company is at liberty to cancel the penalty option and to proceed with a summary prosecution in respect of the unpaid fare.

 

5. An implied contract existed the moment that you arrived at the station and chose to travel by train. It may be worth reading the words of eminent legal expert Sir John Salmond on the subject of contracts.

 

The implication was that you would pay your fare and the advertised rules require that you do so before travelling. The penalty fare legislation, which is very much more recent and framed by legal expertise in the modern era, strengthens that position.

 

The company provided the wherewithal in providing the ticket machine for you to use and provided the train, which you did use. This was not a case of not being able to get a ticket, rather you choosing not to wait a minute or two, get a ticket and catch the next train a few minutes later.

 

6. Breaches of National Railways Byelaws are enforceable through the Courts. Whilst it does not carry a penalty of imprisonment, which the provision of false details contrary to The Regulation of Railways Act S.5.3.c does, there is still a penalty of a fine of up to £1000 which may be imposed by the Courts upon summary conviction.

 

7. No of course 'Old-Codja' is not my real name, but then I am not the person accusing someone else of dishonesty and knowing full well that person cannot openly defend themselves. All I have done is give an explanation of the process from the perspective of a daily working experience of more than 30 years in this field.

 

8. Yes, I work in prosecuting these matters and do not seek to hide that fact. I never see the need to offer any apology for being truthful.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Old-CodJA

[PriorityOne]

PACE powers and cheap bye laws, statutory instruments etc ...you need to know the basics of law before you send this letter to prosectutors who are going to have a good old laugh reading your errors, like i have just had

 

Rather than laugh at someone else's expense, perhaps you can suggest some constructive changes then?

[PriorityOne]

Apparently not....

[timbo58]

Surely the title of this thread is nonsense?

 

This IS indeed the 'consumer action group' but to ignore advice of people who can demonstrate they know 'the system, penalties and likelihood of successful prosecution of similar cases' is a bit bizarre?

 

Perhaps posters could be a bit more sympathetic: it wouldn't alter the facts though, merely building up entirely false hopes you might be able to argue your case?

 

Ignore the learned posters by all means, defend yourself in court too, it'll cost you more in the long run though IME.

 

ignore the trolls who make silly remarks too: they are merely hangers on who lost their cases too.

[PriorityOne]

The title of the thread may be a little misplaced.... as it's not a [problem], as such.... I agree.

 

The Consumer Action Group however was born from a need to challenge aspects of the system... so if OP wants to do similar, I don't feel it's fair to jump on his case for trying.

 

He has a sound argument IMO and hasn't (to my knowledge) made a habit of bunking his train fare.... That's why I support his stance on this one

[dx100uk]

i see we attracted the usual stirers to this thread.

 

 

dx

[tiredTraveller]

Sorry if this comes across as rude in any way, but please take it in the spirit it is intended...

 

Whilst you do have some good points about showing your intent to pay by being in the queue to pay for the ticket, and you are possibly *technically* in the wrong (although in my opinion not morally as you were trying to pay fairly for a service given) you could just end up blowing any chances of sympathy through sheer arrogance.

 

as the saying goes 'nobody likes a smarta**e - especially if they are right'

 

The advice I was given when I needed it, *which I listened to*, was to 'be civil, stick to the facts and don't antagonise people unnecessarily'. Regardless of what you may think of the posters involved (the same ones you accuse of upholding the status quo) it worked out for me just fine, the facts spoke for themselves and I got a fair resolution.

[PriorityOne]

Sorry if this comes across as rude in any way, but please take it in the spirit it is intended...

 

Whilst you do have some good points about showing your intent to pay by being in the queue to pay for the ticket, and you are possibly *technically* in the wrong (although in my opinion not morally as you were trying to pay fairly for a service given) you could just end up blowing any chances of sympathy through sheer arrogance.

 

as the saying goes 'nobody likes a smarta**e - especially if they are right'

 

The advice I was given when I needed it, *which I listened to*, was to 'be civil, stick to the facts and don't antagonise people unnecessarily'. Regardless of what you may think of the posters involved (the same ones you accuse of upholding the status quo) it worked out for me just fine, the facts spoke for themselves and I got a fair resolution.

 

You're right TT, being polite goes a long way. I've no up-to-date experience on fare evasion but did have my ass dragged to court some years ago for it. Yes, I was fined (deservedly so), but it was a tiny fine. The magistrates took my circumstances on board, saw that I wasn't a serial offender and reacted sensibly IMO. I was told that they'd "throw the book at me" by people in the know, so to speak.... but it didn't happen.

 

[Old-CodJA]

The title of the thread may be a little misplaced.... as it's not a [problem], as such.... I agree.

 

The Consumer Action Group however was born from a need to challenge aspects of the system... so if OP wants to do similar, I don't feel it's fair to jump on his case for trying.

 

I agree however, if you look back through the thread you will see that it was the OPs reaction in calling my hypocritical for simply trying to help his better understanding of the TOC's viewpoint that caused this to go off at a tangent

 

No-one 'jumped on his case' IMO, but when the OP got some well meant comment that wasn't critical of him or his stance, but was simply factually correct in information that he didn't want to hear, it was he who reacted.

 

I genuinely wish him well with his challenge and have simply pointed out the process and why the overwhelming majority of challenges fail.

 

Occasionally one succeeds at Magistrates Court and that is where any case will be heard. this isn't a matter to be heard by 'twelve just men and true', but IF it gets that far, will be heard by either 3 Magistrates advised by a Legal Advisor who is well versed in the legislation or, occasionally by a District Judge who is similarly well educated in such matters.

 

TT was spot on. be polite and co-operative and there is a chance it will succeed.

 

Good luck.