Transport investigations ltd, - brought ticket after travelling without one.

[Smurftastic]

they say that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute us for the 2005 byelaw section 5 OR regulation railways act 1889,now i would have thought that with all that evidence they would be able to decide which offence she had supposidly breached!

 

regulation railways act 1889 5.3a requires that they prove that your wife deliberately tried to avoid payment ... which would be really really hard to prove on the basis that she has evidence that she had already paid.

 

The 2005 railway byelaws section 5 refer to being unfit to be on the railway which isn't what I think they are talking about either

 

5. Unfit to be on the railway

No person shall enter or remain on the railway if, in the reasonable opinion of

an authorised person, he is in an unfit or improper condition or his clothing

may soil or damage any part of the railway or the property or clothing of any

person on the railway.

 

 

Another byelaw is 18

 

18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas

(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter

any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a

valid ticket entitling him to travel.

 

This byelaw an absolute offence. Either you did it or you didn't and from your posts, well your wife did board the train without a valid ticket and so they can prosecute. The fact that they took your ticket to be proof that you only paid after you had travelled is well, amazing.

 

I would wait for the statement(s) that the company will supply because, assuming that everything that you said is true, and that you can provide that return portion of the ticket I think they are trying for a cheap settlement out of court.

 

For anyone else reading this, railway companies don't act like this normally and generally an out of court payment is a good idea. I just can't see it in this case.

[dx100uk]

urm........

 

so this lot might well be like the RLP DCA's.

 

they chase cases that the TOC know they stand no chance on.

 

i wonder if their 'winnings' goto their pocket or the org toc...

 

i have my doubts.

 

dx

[SRPO]

TIL operate independently of the TOC, they are contracted to run the prosecution dept & the TOC will have no knowledge of individual cases until the passenger makes them aware,

[RPI]

I very much doubt that byelaw 18(1) can be charged as a ticket was purchased, providing that the ticket covered the entire journey made then the offence has been disposed of by the TOC as the OP was sold a ticket.

[seb1970]

Scanned_by_c719688_from_U00505 - Secure_on_22112011_1771_001.pdfim not sure if you can see this but yes she were in receipt of a return ticket when spoken to and here on the arriva web site it says no penalty notices are in force!

RPI,at the end of the journey 2 tickets were bought,for the trip that was taken and the return.my wife never showed the inspector the return ticket as she was affraid it would be taken off her!she was also not asked about perchasing a ticket for the cost of travel.as for the penalty fares you can see that the web page says they are not in operation,

Can anybody tell me the address of the TOC and who my wife can write to?

1 more thing, for a prosecution i thought you had to prove actus reus and means rea at no time was there the intent to defraud the rail company so it shouldn't get that far!

Edited November 22, 2011 by seb1970

[Nystagmite]

1 more thing, for a prosecution i thought you had to prove actus reus and means rea at no time was there the intent to defraud the rail company so it shouldn't get that far!

 

How would that be proven? She travelled without a valid ticket = actus reus.

[MrGates]

she travelled without a ticket but brought a ticket before being stopped, the return portion would prove this with times printed on ticket etc and the portion the revenue staff kept would say out. an offence could only have been reported if she was spoken to before buying the ticket or the ticket was a short offer etc.

[andydd]

There are guidlines about how long someone should be expected to queue to get a ticket, (i.e clearly if you went to your station and there was a queue of hundreds of people and would take an hour to get a ticket, i believe it would be acceptable to board a train assuming you searched out an inspector on the train (if there was one) or buy a ticket at the other end).

 

i believe the waiting time guidelines are 3 mins offpeak and 5 mins peak, but Im not sure how they tie in with exisiting legislation.

[seb1970]

Nystagmite,but you also need means rea the intention to do the act for a succesful prosocution!

[Nystagmite]

Why? I was taught you didn't.

[seb1970]

Scanned_by_c719688_from_U00505 - Secure_on_23112011_1787_001.pdfnot sure if criminal is the same as civil but,in addition to actus reus it must usually be proved that the person had the requisite mens rea at the time.

Also read the caution, these goons are not the police!

1,If it was me that was stopped at the gate as i was leaving and not my wife i would have asked what offence they belived i had commited,the minute they told me the offence i would have asked to be cautioned,these goons seem to think that they can get your name and address before cautioning you!

2,After the caution say you dont understand it and ask for it in leymans terms,youll be suprised how many investigaters can't describe the caution in leymans terms.

3,point out to them that the first line of the caution says 'you do not have to say anything'at this point DO NOT give your date of birth,they will need this to prosecute.

4,Remined the goon that he does not have the powers of arrest and if he tries to stop you it will be on camera and you will file for assult,

5,Scan your ticket and walk away,

6,this will not work if you are on the train,but if they do caution you on the train APPLY THE RIGHT TO SILENCE.the longer they are dealing with you they are not harrasing other travellers!

Scanned_by_c719688_from_U00505 - Secure_on_23112011_1786_001.pdf

[honeybee13]

not sure if criminal is the same as civil but,in addition to actus reus it must usually be proved that the person had the requisite mens rea at the time.

Also read the caution, these goons are not the police!

 

Hello. I see Old-CodJA has been back on the forum recently, I shall be interested to see if he has views on this.

 

They may not be police, but aren't they covered by PACE if I remember rightly?

 

Fwiw, we see a lot of people here who want to tell TIL or the TOC where they have gone wrong, but I don't remember any of them being successful. I believe you've already written though, so it's a bit late to suggest how you might handle this.

 

My best, HB

[seb1970]

PACE is a number of codes that an investigator can use to gain information and not to detain people!

[Old-CodJA]

As SRPO says, there does seem to be some inconsistencies in the OPs posts, but in effect, if the booking office was open it is up to the traveller to get a ticket before getting on a train.

 

Anyone who gets on a train without a ticket and who does not have formal permission from staff at the station where they could have bought a ticket is in breach of Railway Byelaw 18.1.

 

I think you are referring to section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act (1889). There is an important phrase in that section which says '..having not previously paid his fare..' the key word is previously. Buying a ticket after being reported does not prevent prosecution, but the TOC (or their agents as in this case) would have to prove that your wife knew she should by a ticket and got on the train intending not to pay unless she was asked by the guard.

 

To prove the strict liability breach of Byelaw charge, they would not have to prove intent and only need to show that she could have bought a ticket and chose not to do so.

 

There is no fixed penalty notice system in operation between Radyr and Cardiff

[seb1970]

Hi old-codJA, i am still confused as to what section they want to do her for,its either a fixed penalty notice,(but they are not in operation on the line) or where you have to pay for a full fare ticket or fixed penalty(at the time of being stopped she was in reciept of a ticket and a return ticket for that day.i believe that as soon as she gave her date of birth she was trapped,NEVER GIVE DATE OF DIRTH!

i totally understand what you are saying!

[Old-CodJA]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]31657[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]31658[/ATTACH]not sure if criminal is the same as civil but,in addition to actus reus it must usually be proved that the person had the requisite mens rea at the time.

Also read the caution, these goons are not the police!

1,If it was me that was stopped at the gate as i was leaving and not my wife i would have asked what offence they belived i had commited,the minute they told me the offence i would have asked to be cautioned,these goons seem to think that they can get your name and address before cautioning you!

2,After the caution say you dont understand it and ask for it in leymans terms,youll be suprised how many investigaters can't describe the caution in leymans terms.

3,point out to them that the first line of the caution says 'you do not have to say anything'at this point DO NOT give your date of birth,they will need this to prosecute.

4,Remined the goon that he does not have the powers of arrest and if he tries to stop you it will be on camera and you will file for assult,

5,Scan your ticket and walk away,

6,this will not work if you are on the train,but if they do caution you on the train APPLY THE RIGHT TO SILENCE.the longer they are dealing with you they are not harrasing other travellers!

 

Some very dangerous advice there I'm afraid.

 

I think it very important to recognise that the people who are often referred to as 'goons' will have a much better understanding of the procedure and rules than a great many of the travellers that they are dealing with. It is clear from the post above that is the case.

 

Section 5 of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889) makes absolutely clear that if a traveller is questioned by rail staff about a journey by train without having previously paid the fare, they are obliged to give their name and address if asked. In addition, in those areas where penalty fares can be levied, the staff have the right to record the name and address of the traveller even if the traveller is paying the penalty on the spot. Giving false details is an additional, and more serious offence.

 

There is NO law that says you have to be cautioned before the rail staff can ask your name and address.

 

Yes, by all means ask for the 'caution' to be explained in simple terms. If a traveller persists in claiming they don't understand an inspector will normally explain the caution in simpler terms, perhaps more than once and will make a note that the explanation has been given. Unless there are differing language considerations this will allow the report to continue.

 

If a traveller has not previously purchased a valid ticket, fails or refuses to give their name and address and fails or refuses to pay the fare demanded, the RPI or ticket inspector DOES have a power of arrest in accordance with Section 5.2 of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889).

 

At many stations, spot checks made by teams of inspectors are very frequently supported by Police, whether in uniform or plain clothes. The traveller who becomes obstructive or unco-operative will frequently find themselves being deal with more severely.

 

If you decide to accept the advice given in the quoted post, please remember why the opening part of the caution is phrased in the way that it is. This says:

 

'You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned, something that you may later rely on in court....'

 

The Magistrates are entitled to draw any inference that they wish from a suspects' failure to give answers to legitimate questions. If answers are not given at the time, don't be surprised if Magistrates don't believe a story at a later date.

 

You might be surprised at how many people think that saying 'No comment' or simply saying nothing is a failsafe defence. It isn't I'm afraid and many thousands have people have found out to their cost since the caution was reworded by the Police & Criminal Evidence Act in 1984 (We have the former West Midlands Police Serious Crimes Squad to thank for that).

Edited November 23, 2011 by Old-CodJA

[seb1970]

Sorry for the rant!

Section 5 of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889) makes absolutely clear that if a traveller is questioned by rail staff about a journey by train without having previously paid the fare,

A fair and return fair were paid for before being spoken to by the investigator so a ticket was previously paid for,

There is NO law that says you have to be cautioned before the rail staff can ask your name and address.

if you are being accused of an offence criminal or civil then a caution should be given before being asked name and adress incase a false name and adress are given,

[Old-CodJA]

if you are being accused of an offence criminal or civil then a caution should be given before being asked name and adress incase a false name and adress are given,

 

Not so I'm afraid.

 

The reporting officer (whether Police or Rail inspector, or any other person such as RSPCA insp etc) is required to assume the 'suspect' will be truthful.

 

P.A.C.E guidelines say that as soon as an officer has evidence that an offence is suspected, the officer must caution.

 

It may be that an offence is only suspected when the person being interviewed is found to have given a false name or address.

[timbo58]

Just a couple of points, forgive me if you have already covered these but I just wanted to ensure that some of the more 'impressionable' readers of this thread know the dangers of reading poor advice, or advice that has no relevance to them:

 

Yes, it is indeed YOUR responsibility to find the guard/ticket collector on the train, it maybe their job to check your ticket but please bear in mind:

It IS their job (if they have time after the myriad of other duties they have, some of which will have priority over his/her time i.e. safety), if they deliberately don't do it they'll answer to their TOC.

 

It IS the passengers legal responsibility (allowing for pregnant/disabled considerations) to obtain the ticket at their earliest opportunity, if they have already gone past the first place they should have obtained a ticket (no matter what the reason) then they should make finding the ticket seller their first consideration.

 

It is one of the most common excuses for not having a ticket when questioned that the guard/ticket collector did not physically challenge them on the train (sorry: the guard 'didn't come round'), unfortunately this is a daily reason given by deliberate fare evaders.

-In these cases it generally translates as 'I kept my head down and ignored the guard in the hope I wouldn't be asked, safe in the knowledge all I'd pay normally is a full single fare, this is cheaper than buying a season ticket if I can get away with it for at least 2 days out of 5.

 

A member of staff on a ticket barrier or an RPI check can soon find out if the guard really didn't come round as they will get lots of these 'reasons' given by lots of passengers from the same train, or/and they would have advance warning by the ticket collector ringing stations ahead to warn them his machine had packed up etc.

 

There's nothing 'new under the sun' as far as fare evasion goes, most staff who've been there more than a year or so would have seen most circumstances, RPI's would have certainly heard most and IME 90% have a very keen 'nose' for what could be a genuine excuse, what is probably dodgy but probably not prosecutable and what is grade A bullsh*t.

 

None of this, I am sure pertains to the case in this thread, but I felt it needed to be pointed out 100% for some readers.

 

On this thread: when the ticket was bought before the RPI questioned the lady in question, was it bought from a ticket office before the barrier line or from a machine?

 

As surely all ticket machines only issue tickets FROM the station, not TO it?

therefore the ticket (even if bought as a return) would be useless for either journey? i.e. the RTN half can't be used to get out and can't be used before the OUT in any case?

 

If there was a ticket office that sold it I would see that as a slip up by the RPI team as there is no need to have a ticket office that side of the barrier, unless it was an excess fares office in which case the staff should have been told to refuse to sell tickets from manned stations and to refer anyone asking directly to the RPI team.

[MrGates]

Or the ticket brought was a short offer? A true case of never knowing/hearing both sides.

Edited November 24, 2011 by MrGates

[Old-CodJA]

Hi old-codJA, i am still confused as to what section they want to do her for,its either a fixed penalty notice,(but they are not in operation on the line) or where you have to pay for a full fare ticket or fixed penalty(at the time of being stopped she was in reciept of a ticket and a return ticket for that day.i believe that as soon as she gave her date of birth she was trapped,NEVER GIVE DATE OF DIRTH!

i totally understand what you are saying!

 

Spot on observations from both timbo58 and MrGates of course.

 

On a forum like this we only get to hear one side of a story.

 

As you yourself pointed out, there is no fixed penalty in operation on that line. There is no fixed alternative such as you suggest either. The common misconception held by many people is that if you get on a train where there are booking facilities, which includes ticket offices or a self service machine and choose not to get a ticket, the worst that can happen is that you have to pay full fare. Not so I'm afraid, an inspector may choose to exercise discretion and charge the full single fare & warn the traveller, or where s/he believes evidence supports such action, may make a report.

 

Judgement in the appeal court (Corbyn 1978) made clear that a traveller is guilty of an offence if s/he gets on a train without a ticket knowing that a fare is due and at a station where s/he could have bought a ticket, but travels with the intention of paying the fare only if asked to pay if/when a guard/inspector comes through the train. The Judges decided that the traveller was 'intending to avoid his fare unless he was challenged to pay'. Failing to give correct details, or giving misleading details when asked is a dangerous mistake, which can actually double the penalty that Magistrates can impose.

 

There are queueing guidelines, but these are just that, guidelines that are not legally binding. The Railway Byelaws are binding.

 

Railway Byelaw 18.1 makes clear that where facilities are available to the traveller s/he must get a ticket before boarding any train.

 

When a report is made the TOC (train operating company) will usually assess the information and decide whether there is evidence to continue. It is very easy these days to see if queues were as long as travellers claim. CCTV covers almost all stations nationally and the timed transaction record from booking office machines will also show how busy the office was. It is quite common for people to make the claim 'I waited 10 minutes in the queue' only for any check to show that they walked into the station and straight past the booking office.

 

If queues really were excessive it is normal for the correct fare to be charged and no other action.

 

So far as your wifes case is concerned, without seeing both sides of the argument it is impossible to give a definitive answer, but if she has already written you'll just have to await an answer for now

Edited November 25, 2011 by Old-CodJA

[andydd]

With reference to the queuing guidelines, are there any circumstances where it is deemed 'ok' to board a train without a ticket ?, such as the aforementioned very long queues, machine at station is broken/wont accept cards/notes, ticket office is closed, staff at station have said borad train and pay later, all the above have happened to me.

 

Andy

[Old-CodJA]

Yes, if the traveller genuinely cannot get a ticket because there really was no facility to do so, it is in order to board the train and seek an opportunity to pay the fare immediately on boarding. Boarding the train creates an implied contract. The intending traveller must have acceptable means to pay the fare with them in order to complete that transaction and discharge their part of the bargain at the earliest opportunity by seeking a facility to pay.

 

If staff at a station say 'get on and pay on the train' ALWAYS take the name of the member of staff and note the time s/he was spoken to, and better still get them to give you a short note confirming permission was given to board without a ticket. It's no good just saying 'the chap at the station said it was OK'.

 

Where queueing times in excess of the times referred to in the 'aims' defined by any specific Company Passenger Charter are encountered, it will be logged by the rail company. Revenue staff should check and then if satisfied should exercise discretion to allow a traveller to purchase the cheapest ticket, but travellers who roll up one minute before a train is due to depart are not meeting their obligations as confirmed in the National Conditions of Rail Carriage either and may be reported for breach of Byelaw.

 

CCTV covers virtually all stations and covers all booking offices and a great many train carriages too. Additionally all ticket issuing facilities are continuously computer monitored these days so it is relatively easy to pick out the opportunist 'chancer'. If there is no booking office at a station and the only machine is broken the revenue staff will be informed and act accordingly.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Old-CodJA

[andydd]

If staff at a station say 'get on and pay on the train' ALWAYS take the name of the member of staff and note the time s/he was spoken to, and better still get them to give you a short note confirming permission was given to board without a ticket. It's no good just saying 'the chap at the station said it was OK'.

 

Where queueing times in excess of the times referred to in the 'aims' defined by any specific Company Passenger Charter are encountered, it will be logged by the rail company. Revenue staff should check and then if satisfied should exercise discretion to allow a traveller to purchase the cheapest ticket, but travellers who roll up one minute before a train is due to depart are not meeting their obligations as confirmed in the National Conditions of Rail Carriage either and may be reported for breach of Byelaw.

 

CCTV covers virtually all stations and covers all booking offices and a great many train carriages too. Additionally all ticket issuing facilities are continuously computer monitored these days so it is relatively easy to pick out the opportunist 'chancer'. If there is no booking office at a station and the only machine is broken the revenue staff will be informed and act accordingly.

 

The couple of times my card didnt work and was told to board the train I only had seconds to spare so alas not really time to start taking names/notes, etc.

 

I agree about not turning up a minute before, but i have been at stations 10 minutes before and still been unable to purchase a ticket, due to faulty machines/not accepting notes and/or cards,long queus/no staff,etc, not long ago I tried to purchase a ticket on a monday morning and the machine just froze on me, worried that my card had been debited I phoned the TOC (C2C in this case) and was told it was quite common on a monday morning as there are lots of people buying season/weekly/daily tickets and sometimes the sytem crashes.

 

Anyway all academic as I havnt not had to pay a penalty fare or been charged with evasion BUT for the regular traveller it is quite likely that due to the cuircumstances I mentioned you may find yourself in the situation of the OP here, that despite your best efforts and willingness to buy a ticket (as the OP did the other end) you are still at risk of penalty fares or prosecution and your fate may lay in the hands of a 'ticket inspector', now whilst many perhaps most are fair and reasonable, forums like this are full of horror stories of passangers being treated unfairly.

 

I'm not entirely convinced that station staff do indeed keep logs of the times when queues have built up nor ticket inspectors contacting the station to check, at least not in the first instance.

[Old-CodJA]

Yes Andy, we should all understand that occasional exeptional incident do occur, but the point is that if a genuine problem has arisen whereby a failure of infrastructure can be identified and the traveller goes straight to staff on train and explains the problem they should never be penalised.

 

It's when the traveller adopts the attitude 'it's their job to come and find me' that they will find their interpretation and the law at odds and may not get the result they expect. Sadly for some, that will result in prosecution.

 

As long as the traveller genuinely could not get a ticket before travelling, can show that they made every effort to do so and has sought out an opportunity to pay before being asked they should never be penalised.