can the conductor seize my ticket

[squashedtomato]

I had a return ticket for part of my journey. i didnt get off at the stop an carried on. The conductor checked my ticket and asked me to pay for the rest of the fare. As i didnt pay and questioned him further, the conducor seized my return ticket, so i couldnt go back. is the condutor legally allowed to seize my ticket?

[Wriggler7]

Yes. At first sight, an offence contrary to Section 5,3,b, Regulation of railways act 1889 seems to have been committed.

[Old-CodJA]

Yes, all rail tickets remain the property of the rail company at all times.

 

If a member of rail staff believes that they have identified any irregularity they are authorised to withdraw the ticket for enquiry. That applies to season tickets and railcards just as it does to any single or return journey ticket.

 

See National Rail Conditions of Carriage for passengers. Tickets, Condition 1 (page 4 of the document)

 

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/system/galleries/download/misc/NRCOC.pdf

 

The back of some old ticket stock may still bear the printed information 'This ticket remains the property of the issuer and must be given up on expiry', but in most cases it will say something like 'Issued subject to the National Rail Conditions of Carriage'.

 

See also (Page 11 in the PDF linked above)

 

20. Withdrawal of tickets

If you do not comply in a material way with any Condition that applies to the use of a

ticket, staff or agents of any Train Company may withdraw the ticket and you will be given

a receipt. In the case of an Electronic Ticket, this may require you to either allow the staff

or agent of the Train Company to delete the stored data, or demonstrate to them that you

have done so in accordance with the conditions of use of that ticket.

 

You would not normally have been given a receipt for a ticket that had already expired

Edited January 7, 2011 by Old-CodJA

[Stigy]

By refusing to pay the extra, unless there's something you're not telling us, it seems that Wriggler was right in that the Guard saw it as you trying to travel further than your ticket allowed, in an attempt to defraud the railway (5.3(b) Regulation of Railways Act 1889). The Guard was well within his rights to seize the ticket if he believed you were committing an offence, which, from the outset, it looks as though you were!

[Old-CodJA]

The Regulation of Railways Act (1889) – A Summary in relation to tickets

 

These are not the exact wording of the relevant sections of the Act, but an summarised explanation in plain English, which I use for training purposes.

 

Section 5.1 – Every traveller must show a ticket on demand or, pay the fare, or, give his correct name and address details if requested to do so.

Section 5.3 - An offence is committed if he:

Sect. 5.3.a Travels or attempts to travel without previously paying the fare and with intent not to pay that fare or any part of it.

Sect 5.3.b Pays for a certain distance intending to travel beyond that distance without paying the correct fare for the whole distance travelled or intended to travel

Section 5.3.c - Having not paid a fare or shown a valid ticket when asked, gives false details when asked for name or, address and intends not to pay the fare that is due.

 

As Stigy says, if you paid from A to B intending to travel to C, had passed B but refused to pay the additional fare when asked, the inspector was right to withdraw your ticket as evidence of what you had paid. This will accompany his report of the journey you were making, your refusal to pay and the details of the fare that you should have paid.

[SRPO]

The Regulation of Railways Act (1889) – A Summary in relation to tickets

Section 5.3.c - Having not paid a fare or shown a valid ticket when asked, gives false details when asked for name or, address and intends not to pay the fare that is due.

 

The actual wording of the Act is:

 

© Having failed to pay his fare, gives in reply to a request by an officer of a railway company a false name or address.

 

I suggest that failing to show a ticket & giving a false address would be a byelaw offence if the person said they had lost their ticket & it could not be proven that they had not bought one.

[Old-CodJA]

The actual wording of the Act is:

 

© Having failed to pay his fare, gives in reply to a request by an officer of a railway company a false name or address.

 

I suggest that failing to show a ticket & giving a false address would be a byelaw offence if the person said they had lost their ticket & it could not be proven that they had not bought one.

 

Yes, I said it was a summary and in plain English for training purposes.

 

It could be said, and we always work through this in training, that the word 'or' may or should be replaced with 'and' in the 5.3.c notes. i usually quote the full clauses from the Act in these posts as you know. However, this version really is written that way to encourage questioning and debate and I am grateful that you picked it up.

 

You are right that 'fail to show' is a breach of Byelaw 18.2 and that is a stand alone, strict liability offence

 

S.5.1 requires that a traveller shows a valid ticket or pays the fare if asked to do so.

 

If he has failed to pay the fare due when asked a breach of S.5.1 is clear and if he gives false details a breach of 5.3.c is evident.

 

5.1 says 'if asked'. Giving an address instead of paying is not an option for the traveller. It is an option that may given by the inspector.

 

A ticket may only be accepted as valid for travel if presented when requested at the time of that journey. This is to minimise the likelihood of the unscrupulous traveller presenting a ticket used by another person at a later date.

 

If Mr X has a valid ticket, genuinely lost or left at home, why would he wish to give a false name and address?

 

If the traveller proves to the satisfaction of a good inspector that he has a valid ticket, or had paid his fare, the question does not arise because he should not be reported.

[Wriggler7]

I think Old Codja is right to tell us what the Act says in 'modern English'. There is that wonderful line that says 'and if so requested, surrender up' (I haven't got the book in front of me, please feel free to correct me). The IQ of the average 'ordered' attender at Court is such that he, she or it will say 'wot duz vat meen'.

 

The wording of the Act was wonderfully comprehensive when written, and was very clearly drafted by Victorian gentlemen.

 

Some of their foresight is excellent. In 'BR' days, the distinction between 'officers' and 'servants' of the railway seemed a bit pointless. However, with the awful drift towards using contractors for averything, it makes sense.

 

I have just discovered that the new station at Southend Airport will be entirely staffed by 'Stobartrail' people, not 'NXEA' folk at all. So there will be truck drivers working as 'servants' of a bus company that operates trains owned by a bank.

 

The 'Stobartrail' staff will be entitled to sieze a ticket if there is something wrong with it. I wonder what contractual arrangements will be put in place for the investigation and prosecution of offences discovered by Stobart people?