Forgot my Y/P Railcard when I bought a discounted travelcard

[holaboo]

Hey guys,

 

Just found this forum when I was searching about appealing Southern Rail Prosecutions Hope you guys can give me some advice.

 

I was recently prosecuted for forgetting my Young Persons Railcard while using a discounted travelcard to travel from London Victoria to East Croydon. I explained to the officer at the station that I do have one and I can prove it online as the Y/P website keeps a record of ur railcard. I also told him that the reason I did not realise I had forgotten it was because I usually keep it in my wallet and I had taken it out for something but forgot to put it back. The difference in fare was only around 3 pounds and he wanted to charge me a £20 fine. When I said I did not have that much money on me he just told me to give him whatever I had, by which point I found it quite fishy. Therefore I refused to pay the fine and offered to ask my mother to drive over with my railcard, which he also declined because "I do not have it on person".

 

Anyways he proceeded with sending me a prosecution notice which I replied to with my version of things and the reply I got back was that they will let me off for a fine of £35, which is pretty ridiculous. If I don't pay the fine will they prosecute me in court? (I read on the news somewhere that it is not a criminal office to evade fare so one cannot get a criminial record for it, is this true?) Also is there anything I can do/say to them to try and reason or will my effort be in vain because they simply want to make money from unsuspecting passengers?

 

Any help will be greatly appreciated

[SRPO]

The inspector appears to have offered you the option of a part payment toward the PFN, by refusing this you become liable for prosecution.

The prosecution will take place in a criminal court & if convicted, depending on the charge will have a criminal conviction or record.

Its a gamble that only you can decide on.

[holaboo]

ok thanks for your reply. So I have no case against this? I mean it just feels really unfair to pay £35 (worth more than a years worth of railcard) just because I left mine at home... the rail company sure knows how to make money...

[honeybee13]

Hello there. SRPO is from the rail industry and knows his/her stuff, sorry. You are learning an early lesson in travelcard rules, I fear. Have a read around the forum if you don't believe us.

 

My best, HB

[holaboo]

okay thanks guys, I'll pay the fine and if next time I've forgotten my railcard, I think it would be alot easier to just not have a ticket and make up a bull**** story lol xD

[MrGates]

The T&C's of your card that you signed or ticked for clearly state that your discounted ticket is only valid upon producing the relevant railcard, you clearly could not produce the supporting document so you should count yourself lucky its only £35 and nothing more.

[honeybee13]

The T&C's of your card that you signed or ticked for clearly state that your discounted ticket is only valid upon producing the relevant railcard, you clearly could not produce the supporting document so you should count yourself lucky its only £35 and nothing more.

 

Hello Bill . How are things in Microsoft land? I hope I'm allowed to post that.

 

My best, HB

[Old-CodJA]

I think it would be alot easier to just not have a ticket and make up a bull**** story lol xD

 

Well that's one way of guaranteeing the prosecution! Seriously, as others have said, the conditions were made clear when you applied for the railcard and this should be taken away as a lesson learned.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Old-CodJA

[honestcitizen]

Sorry to bang on about this, but what about 4.29 in the 2002 rules on the sticky:

"Season-ticket left at home. We expect allowances to be made for season-ticket holders

who, for one reason or another, fail to carry their season-ticket or photocard. The system

used by most operators is that a penalty fare notice will be issued, but no payment will be

taken. On two occasions for each person in any 12-month period, the penalty fare will be

cancelled when the passenger appeals. Some operators have procedures for cancelling

penalty fares notices without having to go through the appeals process and we want to

encourage this. The instructions given to authorised collectors must explain what the

authorised collector and the season-ticket holder must do in this situation."

[Grotesque]

....The difference is that, curiously, a season ticket and a railcard are two different things. Hence the difference in names. One is a ticket; the other a supporting document to a ticket.

[Old-CodJA]

Sorry to bang on about this, but what about 4.29 in the 2002 rules on the sticky:

"Season-ticket left at home. We expect allowances to be made for season-ticket holders

who, for one reason or another, fail to carry their season-ticket or photocard. The system

used by most operators is that a penalty fare notice will be issued, but no payment will be

taken. On two occasions for each person in any 12-month period, the penalty fare will be

cancelled when the passenger appeals. Some operators have procedures for cancelling

penalty fares notices without having to go through the appeals process and we want to

encourage this. The instructions given to authorised collectors must explain what the

authorised collector and the season-ticket holder must do in this situation."

 

Grotesque is spot on of course. The season ticket reference is completely irrelevent in this case I'm afraid

 

The OP refers to a Railcard and there are very specific terms and conditions that must be met to make a railcard discounted ticket valid

 

Guidelines relating to season tickets and penalty fares have absolutely no relevence to a traveller who shows a ticket claiming a discount, but cannot qualify entitlement to that discount by failing to show a valid railcard.

[Grotesque]

Thanks OC. I think honestcitizen (I'm glad there's at least one left!!!) is confusing photocards with railcards.

[honeybee13]

Thanks OC. I think honestcitizen (I'm glad there's at least one left!!!) is confusing photocards with railcards.

 

I like to think I'm one, grotesque, thought you were too .

 

Speaking as someone who doesn't use public transport very much, I think these distinctions do go to show that the system can take some understanding. You might well say if I used the system I would understand more, but it does seem more complicated than when I used to commute on London Underground 100 years ago.

 

I'm not saying that I condone evading fares btw.

 

My best, HB

[honestcitizen]

....The difference is that, curiously, a season ticket and a railcard are two different things. Hence the difference in names. One is a ticket; the other a supporting document to a ticket.

 

It does say "season ticket or photocard". Is there a difference between a photocard and a railcard then?

 

Thanks honeybee, for pointing out how complicated this all is.

[honeybee13]

Hello again. If you're lucky, our techy grotesque here may post up a facsimile of one or both cards. I don't know either.

 

My best, HB

[Old-CodJA]

Yes HC.

 

A photocard is a photographic identity card that must accompany a season ticket and without it the season ticket is invalid

 

A Railcard is a card that must be purchased by a person entitled to do so and which, subject to strict conditions, can be used to obtain a discount off the normal price of daily tickets. To allow the traveller to use a discounted ticket the Railcard must be carried and shown at every ticket check.

 

Hope that helps

[Engelbert]

(I read on the news somewhere that it is not a criminal office to evade fare so one cannot get a criminial record for it, is this true?)

Have you been told what criminal offence they are charging you with? I suspect it will be breach of Railway Byelaw 18, which is a criminal offence, but not serious enough to go on the police national computer which is what a "criminal record" usually means. This is a "strict liability" offence which means you do not need to have intent (mens rea); simply making an honest mistake such as yours is enough. The other, more serious, offence is section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act which requires intent to avoid the fare and does result in a criminal record. Legally speaking, "fare evasion" requires intent and is only this 2nd case.

 

they simply want to make money from unsuspecting passengers?

Sure, welcome to the train companies' legalised extortion racket. Other people pay hundreds of pounds to avoid a criminal prosecution for ticket problems, so you could count yourself lucky they "only" want £35.

[Old-CodJA]

Englebert is of course correct regarding the distinction between the strict liability breach of Byelaw and the more serious offence of fare evasion contrary to Section 5 of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889) and that latter has the ultimate sanction of attracting a custodial sentence in very serious and persistent cases.

 

I think the perception of it being a 'legalised extortion racket' is somewhat misplaced however. The punishment and original tariffs were determined back in the 19th Century, long before our modern railway structure and were actually strengthened during the time of public ownership in the middle of the 20th Century.

[Engelbert]

In the 19th Century it was not a criminal offence to not have the correct ticket if that was the result of an honest mistake, intent was required. It was only recently that the strict liability byelaw offences were created, abandoning the centuries-old principle that mens rea is a fundamental requirement of a crime. The manner in which rail companies use the threat of criminal prosecutions (and indeed scaring people into thinking they will get a criminal record for the byelaw offences) to extract sums of money entirely out of proportion to a mistake such as leaving a railcard at home does appear tantamount to extortion to me.

[SRPO]

I think it follows the progression of society, the enforcement of 'law & order' is being undertaken by agencies other than the police now, just visit your local court & see how many prosecuting agencies are listed.

This is, in my view, a consequence of various govt policies that attempt to massage crime figures & cut costs for political means.

It will get worse as enforcement is further devolved due to budgetary cuts.

[Engelbert]

Indeed, I doubt the Crown Prosecution Service would bring a prosecution in this case. The CPS is staffed by higher calibre lawyers than train companies' prosecution departments who will have a greater appreciation of the wider principles of law, remembering that the mere commission of an offence does not warrant a prosecution unless it is in the public interest. It is this public interest judgement that I believe the TOCs fail at, being an interested party out for vengeance. Am I being unusually lenient in thinking leaving a railcard at home does not deserve to make you a convicted criminal? I think not: everyone I told that I was facing a criminal prosecution in a similar situation to holaboo's (my railcard had expired rather than left at home) laughed incredulously "They prosecute you for that?!". But having a criminal conviction is no laughing matter: the TOC's are ruining the lives of honest citizens who, after years of paying thousands of pounds for the correct fare, make a simple mistake.

[Old-CodJA]

In the 19th Century it was not a criminal offence to not have the correct ticket if that was the result of an honest mistake, intent was required. It was only recently that the strict liability byelaw offences were created, abandoning the centuries-old principle that mens rea is a fundamental requirement of a crime.

 

 

We've gone through all this before, but I don't suppose it will hurt to remind ourselves what the legal position actually is.

 

Many thousands of cases of 'Fail to show a ticket', or 'Fail to pay the fare before travelling' strict liability breaches are prosecuted every year and all where there is no penalty fare scheme. (Byelaw 18.1 & 18.2)

 

Railway Byelaws were first authorised under the Regulation of Railways Act 1840.

 

This allowed Railway Companies to set out strict rules governing the behaviour and conduct of people (including staff) on their trains and on their property.

 

It gave the railway companies the right to impose specific penalties for breaches of these Byelaws. (Strict liability)

 

In 1840 each of the separate Railway Company's Byelaws were authorised by the then Board of Trade and later, with nationalisation of the railways in 1949 The British Transport Commission became involved.

 

The later Regulation of Railways Act (1889) introduced a Criminal offence to deal with those people who deliberately travel, or attempt to travel without paying the fare.

 

This has been added to over time and the Penalty Fares Act 1989 was introduced as stand-alone legislation, but has been amended several times and now the Penalty Fares rules form a part of the Transport Act. The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations were made under section 130 of the Railways Act 1993 and amended by the Transport Act. A Penalty Fare is a civil remedy and that is why there is no fine indicated for breach of Byelaw 17. The remedy is either a penalty fare and the fare due, OR a prosecution for an offence under Section 5 of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889).

 

The manner in which rail companies use the threat of criminal prosecutions (and indeed scaring people into thinking they will get a criminal record for the byelaw offences) to extract sums of money entirely out of proportion to a mistake such as leaving a railcard at home does appear tantamount to extortion to me.

 

That comment is a personal view and it may surprise you to know that I agree in part in SOME cases, and I certainly agree with SRPOs analysis, but it is entirely wrong to say this is the case in all instances.

 

We all have to learn that our actions have consequences and if we do not like the consequences, the best way to avoid them is not to undertake the action.

[Old-CodJA]

Indeed, I doubt the Crown Prosecution Service would bring a prosecution in this case. The CPS is staffed by higher calibre lawyers than train companies' prosecution departments who will have a greater appreciation of the wider principles of law, remembering that the mere commission of an offence does not warrant a prosecution unless it is in the public interest. It is this public interest judgement that I believe the TOCs fail at, being an interested party out for vengeance. Am I being unusually lenient in thinking leaving a railcard at home does not deserve to make you a convicted criminal? I think not: everyone I told that I was facing a criminal prosecution in a similar situation to holaboo's (my railcard had expired rather than left at home) laughed incredulously "They prosecute you for that?!". But having a criminal conviction is no laughing matter: the TOC's are ruining the lives of honest citizens who, after years of paying thousands of pounds for the correct fare, make a simple mistake.

 

I would agree with all that you say (except the bit about standard of CPS Lawyers) if it were not for the one thing that ALL of the posts on this and other forums have in common

 

Yes, of course you are right, being prosecuted for leaving a Railcard at home does seem OTT, but leaving it at that only tells part of a story doesn't it?

 

What usually happens in these circumstances?

 

Mr X shows a railcard discounted ticket and Inspector A asks to see the Railcard qualifying the discount. Mr X says 'I left it at home'. The Inspector doesn't know whether X actually has one and is therefore entitled to the discount, or Mr X's mate Mr Y has used his card to buy a ticket and pass it to his pal. remember too that it is rare that any of these do not get an opportunity to send in proof that they held a valid railcard at the time although that doesn't preclude prosecution

 

When you apply for a Railcard you sign acceptance of the conditions that state if you do not show your Railcard with a discounted ticket when asked, you will be charged a full single fare as if no ticket is held.

 

Insp A asks Mr X for the fare and he says 'I'm not paying'. Insp A reminds Mr X of the conditions that he accepted and Mr X refuses to accept that and pay.

 

He gets reported, not for forgetting his Railcard, but for failing to show a valid ticket and for refusing to pay the fare due.

 

If you don't like the conditions, don't sign up to accept them and do without a Railcard

 

Remember also, that the principle has been tested by CPS many times, and you also need to remember that if they did not think such cases have merit the CPS have the right to 'adopt and drop'.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Old-CodJA