Rail caution/prosecution - one stop over on monthly season ticket

[MedStudentUK]

Im glad that for you that TOC decided it would allow you to settle out of court and has allowed you to put this in the past and for you to be able to move on with your life but why exactly are you planning on seeking legal advice? couple of points here in relation to your post, Your season ticket was confiscated of you as the RPI suspected fraudulent use and was fully entitled to do as the relevant ticket remains property of the TOC/railway at all times. You were not detained unless this was explained to you by the RPI and you were free to leave at any time you wished and i believe the RPI was right to tell your friend to leave as the matter didnt concern them.

 

I can see how the regulations of the railway can seem a bit daunting to most but as you pointed out ignorance is no defence, Most things in life have T&C's and national conditions of carriage are readily available at any ticket office, And as harsh as it sounds your situation was you travelled over distance on a season ticket, At what point did you not realise this may have been an issue and how it looks in the eyes of an inspector?

 

The question you were asked were more than likely standard question such as, Do you have a valid ticket? If you had not been stopped how would your fare have been paid? etc, you were asked questions to ascertain the facts of the matter. I hope you can see that you have a good result here and have come off quite lightly.

 

TBH, I don't feel that I have got off lightly. To be put through a process like that, with all the added pressure and stress I really didn't need. No way. This situation could have been dealt with in a much more human way and a line drawn under an honest mistake so we could both move on. Instead the spectre of a criminal record loomed large and scared the bejeezus out of me.

 

I had a season ticket. I would have been a full committed and honest train traveller for years to come. I made an honest error on a one-off trip. Now the train company doesn't get my revenue and I'm too fearful to use the train.

 

I take on board what you say, but the prospect of counting my blessings doesn't sit lightly with me, when I feel it was unjustified. A person gets bullied, would you say 'Got a beating, but at least you didn't get stabbed. Move on.'?

 

In this scenario I had everything to lose, and the TOC had nothing to lose - therefore the big bully could make me pay their fine, knowing they hold all the cards and are too big.

 

I'll not go through all Mr Gates responses, except to say that you are making an assumption about my point 5 above. This was a particular phrasing and mumbling that was repeatedly used and I count my blessings I was accompanied because I could have made an (incorrect) admission of guilt. It was an atrocious experience that I hope others don't have to go through, and I will look at my options to see how I can promote this cause.

[MrGates]

In my view you have got off lightly, the TOC had stated that it was prepared to prosecute under sec 5 part B of the regs of railway act, For them to offer an admin charge of 50 quid is in your favour, remember they didnt have to offer this option to you.

 

In relation to part 5 of your post and without accusing the OP, how are we to know if it was a one off offence or a repeated offence as we only get 1 side of any story? I was merely pointing out that that the questioning is standard procedure and any admission of guilt would have been in the answers given at the time of questioning as only YOU were being questioned in relation to the issue.

 

As for the TOC holding anything against you in future is again in my opinion wrong, if you abide by the rules and regultions then why would you have anything to fear?

[MedStudentUK]

I don't think I can say any more that isn't repeating what I've said previously. Everything I have put up here is an accurate description of what happened, and has an independent witness to it.

 

To touch on your final point. No, this is not correct.

 

There are two main reasons I feel I cannot travel by the TOC again.

 

First, out of principle I will not give my money to a company that is capable of treating customers the way I was treated - then request payment for the privilege.

 

Secondly, seeing as the onus is so bluntly on the customer to be infallible, I cannot risk a criminal record for the mere fact that I am, at times, fallible.

[watchinginvestigation2011]

They are not likely to cry over the loss of your business under the circumstances so dont worry, so happily travel how you want to and do what makes you happy

[MedStudentUK]

It doesn't make me happy to hold on to this situation. But if I genuinely intended to defraud the TOC I would take my punishment, count myself lucky and move on.

 

This is what lots of 'experts' on here seem to suggest I do.

 

But they don't take into account the fact that I didn't intend to defraud the TOC and my every intention was to pay. Therefore my treatment was extreme, and I want to know why TOCs are able to threaten such punitive action when the circumstances don't demand it.

 

I also want to investigate my point 5 above, since the allegation I am making is that the RPO's intention was malicious. It cannot be beyond the bounds of imagination that rules get manipulated in order to hit targets and make the stats look good.

 

I know there are genuine fare evaders on here: this next sentence is not for them. I would urge all travellers who make 'honest mistakes' on public transport and are treated like criminals or are subject to potentially malicious practices, to highlight it to your MP and/or Passenger Focus.

 

Lots of the experts on here are extremely helpful in terms of the process, but ultimately they will only tell you what is within the realm of their experience and the law. Sometimes you need to think outside the box, and say 'The law's an ass' and perhaps we need to change it.

[Nystagmite]

But they don't take into account the fact that I didn't intend to defraud the TOC

 

How do they know that? It's not as if you can prove it.

[MrGates]

They are able to do such as actions as there are relevant laws that they can use and I don't think these are likely to change any time soon, if your angry in relation to your treatment when you were questioned then you perhaps should take it up with the TOC. Can I just ask what you call malicious treatment and why you don't think you were treated fairly? And at what point is an honest mistake not?

Edited November 19, 2011 by MrGates

[Old-CodJA]

I am sorry if this seems uncharitable, but sometimes it is necessary to be blunt to make a point stick.

 

I do believe that you have been treated fairly. The administrative penalty is a very low charge in comparison with what you would have been likely to have faced if this had proceeded to court. That is clearly why your legal advisor gave you the guidance they did. You chose to accept it.

 

For someone who states that they are under great stress dealing with exams etc. and simply wanted to dispose of it quickly and get on with your life, you seem to be spending an enormous amount of time trying to rewrite history.

 

I think you are best advised to learn from the experience and move on.

[Engelbert]

MedStudentUK,

 

I agree with all your points, and good on you for standing up to the bullies. Please don't listen to all the people here telling you to give up your fight for a fairer system. Don't forget that many of the regulars here work in the rail prosecutions industry and thus have a vested interest in the continuation of the status quo. I also can't help feeling there's something dodgy about the following process:

1. Passenger makes ticket mistake
   
2. RPI refers to prosecution department
   
3. Get scary prosecution letter in post
   
4. Google for help and find this forum
   
5. Get advised (often by rail industry insiders) to pay £100+ to avoid prosecution
   
6. Pay the ££££££
   
7. Rinse and repeat.
   

 

Do please keep us updated.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Engelbert

[watchinginvestigation2011]

MedStudentUK,

 

 

 

I agree with all your points, and good on you for standing up to the bullies. Please don't listen to all the people here telling you to give up your fight for a fairer system. Don't forget that many of the regulars here work in the rail prosecutions industry and thus have a vested interest in the continuation of the status quo. I also can't help feeling there's something dodgy about the following process:

1. Passenger makes ticket mistake
   
2. RPI refers to prosecution department
   
3. Get scary prosecution letter in post
   
4. Google for help and find this forum
   
5. Get advised (often by rail industry insiders) to pay £100+ to avoid prosecution
   
6. Pay the ££££££
   
7. Rinse and repeat.
   

Do please keep us updated.

 

Funny enough I was searching a question on another issue recently and up came this forum which of course I am familiar with re that issue as someone had obvious same issue on that other thread not transport, bit like this transport thread is used for what it is there for advice. I would not think because my other issue raised this forum that the replier in that case was doing anything other than trying to help also.

 

Dodgy, NO.

If you suspect in this issue anything is dodgy, perhaps contact the site team for reasurance !!!!

People give their experienced advice for free and do not represent any company unless they state rep in their user name which is authorised by the site team in advance

 

Thing is advice is offered, if you do not wish to follow it, it is up to you. If that advice is thought of no value, why ask?

Normally its a case of not wanting to hear the answer to what asked.

Edited November 25, 2011 by watchinginvestigation2011

[watchinginvestigation2011]

Point 5 in your post englebert is ridiculous by hinting there are INSIDERS poss manipulating threads and your suggestion is bad advise for vulnerable readers seeking advice.

 

Spies/insiders are about on the transport thread apparantly:lol: CARP:wink:

 

Anyone who is in the industry posts freely in their own time offering asked for advice, why diss that?

[dx100uk]

i too must disagree & utterly refute the infurance that CAG members give advice with a personal vested interest in mind.

 

CAG is about getting & giving Fair, Honest and realistic advice.

sadly some people don't like that.

 

we do not and never will condone or allow advice concerning avoidance or loopholes either.

 

 

dx

[Old-CodJA]

I make no secret of the fact that I have worked in this industry for more than 30 years and regularly suggest ways in which posters seeking help on here might minimise the potential penalty for travelling without valid rail tickets.

 

I will not give specific guidance, or direct suggestions for action on any post that I can identify as a case that I have involvement in. That would be unethical.

 

I will provide general information on the legislations in force and the potential penalties for breaching them to anyone who asks

 

Englebert if you prefer that those of us who actually have that experience, should not respond to requests for help, and should leave all those users who clearly have no knowledge of what might happen to take a misguided fight before the Courts based on your often flawed interpretation and your personal crusade, then I'll happily leave you to it.

 

I have a great many other interests that can fill my free time.

 

Good luck.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Old-CodJA

[honeybee13]

Spies/insiders are about on the transport thread apparantly:lol: CARP:wink:

 

Hi Watching. As an avid viewer of 'Spooks', I'm flattered by that description.

 

OC - we know you're a good person and regularly advise people how to achieve the best outcome for them and not the TOC.

 

My best, HB

[Old-CodJA]

Thank you for the unnecessary kindness HB,

 

I am sorry if that came over as a rant, but I cannot see any value in someone seeking free advice from many many people,

 

i) making their own decision to act on a consensus view,

ii) without doubt getting the best result achievable in their case

 

and then seeking support to revisit the matter, which will never be re-opened.

 

It's simple, if you don't like the suggestions that are made, don't treat it as advice given and don't act on it.

[Old-CodJA]

Thank you for the unnecessary kindness HB,

 

I am sorry if that came over as a rant, but I cannot see any value in someone seeking free advice from many many people,

 

i) making their own decision to act on a consensus view,

ii) without doubt getting the best result achievable in their case

 

and then seeking support to revisit the matter, which will never be re-opened.

 

It's simple, if you don't like the suggestions that are made, don't treat it as 'advice given' and don't act on it.

[watchinginvestigation2011]

Spies/insiders are about on the transport thread apparantly:lol: CARP:wink:

 

Hi Watching. As an avid viewer of 'Spooks', I'm flattered by that description.

 

OC - we know you're a good person and regularly advise people how to achieve the best outcome for them and not the TOC.

 

My best, HB

 

[Grotesque]

MedStudentUK,

 

I agree with all your points, and good on you for standing up to the bullies. Please don't listen to all the people here telling you to give up your fight for a fairer system. Don't forget that many of the regulars here work in the rail prosecutions industry and thus have a vested interest in the continuation of the status quo. I also can't help feeling there's something dodgy about the following process:

 

1. Passenger makes ticket mistake
   
2. RPI refers to prosecution department
   
3. Get scary prosecution letter in post
   
4. Google for help and find this forum
   
5. Get advised (often by rail industry insiders) to pay £100+ to avoid prosecution
   
6. Pay the ££££££
   
7. Rinse and repeat.
   

 

 

Do please keep us updated.

 

Mr. Humperdink, your continuing war against intelligence is impressive. And only slightly off-set by complete ignorance. Welcome!

Now to the actual subject.

 

they were prepared to close my case for the payment of over £50 admin fee.

 

So about £300 less and minus a criminal record than was otherwise likely?

 

I have paid, to avoid legal action and the case is closed.

 

So you accept the offer that the TOC was not required to make?

 

1. I could have taken an 'unguarded' exit at my destination, but I didn't. I went up to a member of staff and requested to pay. For this honesty, my season ticket was taken from me (no explanation) and I was treated like a criminal, my every word disputed and questioned over and over again for half an hour and a security guard patrolling right in front of me. I felt detained and extremely vulnerable. The assumption was that I did this every day, hence it was also prejudicial. Tell me another service industry that would treat it's customers like this?

 

ANY industry which suspects fraud and / or theft from its customers.

 

2. My plan when moving to the UK was to use the train every day, which would have been over £1000 to the TOC. But now the risk too great. I need a clean record for my future career, and it's clear that an honest mistake is not dealt with on a human level - but by punitive measures by this TOC. Now I am 'known' to them, if I make a mistake (lose my ticket?) I'm in big trouble. Not worth it to me, so I no longer travel by train (which is not good for me, not good for the TOC).

 

If you intended to save money by defrauding the railway in future then you hav acted wisely in your decision making. It may not be good for you; but it's really no problem for the TOC.

 

3. All actions have consequences: Speeding. Parking outside school gates. Smoking in front of your children. However, none of these examples (unless extreme cases) pose the risk of prosecution and a criminal record. So my question is, why is it that train companies are able to take such punitive action against honest mistakes? If it is for the greater public good, then look at the examples I've just listed. These have far greater consequences than a loss of revenue to a train company!

 

Successive Governments (democratically elected by us all, we presume) have repeatedly renewed the relevent legislation since the 1840's. Do you understand that? The 'rules' -Laws, as they are known- regarding your case are OVER ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY YEARS OLD.

 

4. Travelling by train can be confusing. This is not a defence, and I know a lot of the knowledgeable people on here have a tendency to pass the blame onto the customer for not knowing railway regulations. In a strict legal sense, they're correct. But it's pedantic. When I was questioned, I asked if I was being cautioned for a criminal offence, and the RPO/I didn't know. Why not? This is her job, and she didn't know the law. Yet I'd been in the country 2 months, and was expected to know railway regulations.

 

It's made pretty clear, in plain English, when you walk into a station that all tickets must be paid for in advance and that all passengers (NOT customers) must be in possession of a valid ticket for the whole of their journey prior to boarding a train.

 

5. Finally, I believe my dealings have sinister undertones. While I'll not go into specifics here, I believe I may have been questioned in a way which was specifically intended to trick me into answering incorrectly and bring about a prosecution. When my colleague pointed out the question was vague and misleading, the RPO/I got agitated and shouted at my colleague then called for security to take her away. She has written a corroborating account of this and is the most concerning aspect of all.

 

So the most concerning aspect of all, to you, was that someone who (presumably) had a ticket and was NOT being questioned under caution for potential fare-evasion was asked to leave a private interview between you and the TOC?

 

Anyway, I am talking to a solicitor now about next steps, and am in consultation with a number of bodies about my case.

 

Surely this will impact on your 14+ hours a day studying?

 

What a welcome back to the UK! I am happy to update if anyone is interested?

 

I would be interested to hear that your 'case' goes anywhere. No offence.

[MedStudentUK]

Wow, thanks for the barbed comments since I last checked. I suppose that's the internet for you, civility goes out the window and trolls come in.

 

Your logic, Grotesque, is faulty. You can't justify a law by saying it's really old. Laws change all the time, and are different wherever you go. In some countries, it's illegal for women to drive. I'm pretty sure public carriages in the UK are, by law, meant to carry a bail of hay. The fact that a law exists doesn't mean the law is right, or wrong, simply that it is the law. Similarly, I don't dispute the railway byelaws exists, nor am I disputing they serve a purpose. But a lot's changed since the 1840s, and I'm not sure private companies with shareholders and bottom lines are the best people to be bandying around criminal records.

 

Anyway, I've not come on here to repeat everything I've posted in the past, except to say (again) that I've given an honest account of my initial mistake and subsequent appalling treatment. I am pursuing this matter only because I feel it was unjust and I don't think others should suffer the same. Passenger Focus (read their letter below) have considered all my evidence and have themselves concluded that I've been on the end of some heavy-handed treatment and lo and behold I'm not the only one!

 

They have also negotiated some money back on my behalf (but I am disputing this as it's not enough).

 

So: for railway customers (not railway employees) if you're ever caught in this sort of situation, and people on this forum tell you to roll over because it could be much worse, then remember there are avenues open to you to deal with it. I have the support of my MP, and am liaising with her about some of the questions that need to be asked about how train companies are able to wield such power for such minor offences.

 

I'll post again some time in the future and I anticipate some more lovely comments in the future!

 

*** Passenger Focus email ***

 

Dear Mr XXX

 

Thank you for your email.

 

Firstly I would like to advise that XX have agreed to issue a rail travel voucher for the remaining validity of Mr XXX season ticket...

 

In relation the fine I have since been advised that Mr XXXX wasn't issued with a Penalty Fares Notice (PFN), but an MG11. This is a form to go straight to prosecution under the railway byelaws. The byelaw contains the requirement to have a valid ticket and to produce this when asked. This does not require any intent to defraud or avoid payment, it is simply a case of whether you have a valid ticket on you when asked. Failure to do so can constitute a breach of the byelaw and a breach of a byelaw becomes an offence enforceable under law.

 

Personally we think jumping straight to prosecution is heavy handed. We would prefer they used prosecution as more of a last resort - either for when a person has shown a deliberate attempt to defraud, or is a 'repeat offender'. BUT this is simply our opinion rather than any obligation on their part.

 

XXX have informed me that they waived the fare of £1.10 and the fee of £XX was the settlement before it went to prosecution.

 

I await your reply.

 

Kind regards

XXX

[MedStudentUK]

One more thing I should have mentioned. Passenger Focus have also advised that they are building a case to take to the Dept of Transport regarding my report and similar reports of this particular TOC.

 

Does anyone know if any action groups already exist to raise awareness of this issue?

[Old-CodJA]

The byelaw contains the requirement to have a valid ticket and to produce this when asked. This does not require any intent to defraud or avoid payment, it is simply a case of whether you have a valid ticket on you when asked. Failure to do so can constitute a breach of the byelaw and a breach of a byelaw becomes an offence enforceable under law.

 

Personally we think jumping straight to prosecution is heavy handed. We would prefer they used prosecution as more of a last resort - either for when a person has shown a deliberate attempt to defraud, or is a 'repeat offender'. BUT this is simply our opinion rather than any obligation on their part.

 

All very clear it seems, the Byelaw is clear and Passenger Focus confirm that their comments have no authority, but whilst entitled to express them, they remind you that they are simply their opinion.

 

As for the laws being 'old', the last test and amendment of the National Railway Byelaws was as recent of 2005. Hardly archaic is it?

 

It is also clear that you chose to accept the offer to settle that the TOC were never obliged to allow. YOUR decision.

 

It seems that you did so rather than risk the conviction that you knew was certain to ensue, otherwise you would surely have had the courage of your conviction and had your opinion tested by the Magistrates wouldn't you?

 

After all, it is those independent arbiters of right and wrong (not the TOCs Directors) who decide whether a conviction is justified isn't it?. You may well labour the point that the TOCs decide who to prosecute, but if the Court does not think that there is justification they will certainly make that clear to any prosecutor.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Old-CodJA

[MedStudentUK]

OC, you know better than to make such a simplistic assessment about court proceedings having been to many yourself. There are no guarantees, there is always risk.

 

I have said this many times before, but the consequences (a criminal record) were too big a risk for me to chance it, no matter how strong my convictions or how big my bank balance. And the financial loss I incurred, even though it didn't progress to court, was out of sorts with the severity of mistake I made.

 

I've said this earlier, and you choose to ignore it and just repeat the same old arguments.

 

So to set the matter straight, let me clarify once more: I made a mistake by believing I could buy a ticket en route or at the destination. The railway byelaws serve a purpose to prevent this sort of behaviour and remind people of their duties. However, the railways (either culturally or individually) need to be held to account for any abuse of those powers.

 

You say the rules are clear, and passengers/customers should be aware of the rules. I say the rules are unclear, or at least unspecified; at worst abused.

 

This should be called into question, and cannot be judged by people like you who have a biased opinion due your employer and the work you do.

[Old-CodJA]

I say the rules are unclear, or at least unspecified; at worst abused.

 

This should be called into question, and cannot be judged by people like you who have a biased opinion due your employer and the work you do.

 

I say the rules are clear, specified, and I agree, they are abused.

 

Our difference is that I believe (and the record shows) they are mainly abused by a minority of the public who are quite often called to account by them

 

These rules have been called into question, many times so far over 7 generations and yet they remain. Not diminished, but strengthened.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Old-CodJA

[MrGates]

There are some characters out there! At what point do you use a service and to expect to pay when halfway through using it? The rules are there in plain black and white english, people just choose to ignore it, and then come back to complain when these rules are actioned on them. It's like anything in life, if in doubt ask or read the small print.

[Old-CodJA]

There are some characters out there! At what point do you use a service and to expect to pay when halfway through using it? .

 

Absolutely right Mr Gates. The collective wisdom of the Appeal Court came to exactly the same conclusion in the Corbyn case in 1978.