Penalty ticket already paid - **resolved nothing more to pay**

[ankel22]

Hi everyone.

 

Any advice greatly appreciated.

 

A month ago i was on a short journey on southern railways and didnt have a ticket.

 

When i got off the train i was confronted by Revenue Protection Officers,

 

i really wasnt paying attention as i had a meeting with a client and was already late.

I refused the offer of a penalty ticket and asked them to send me the ticket.

I gave an incomplete address as i wanted to think later about whether i would pay it or not.

 

they became suspicious when the name and address didnt check out and they threatened me with getting the railway police and possible arrest.

 

At this point i started to pay more attention,

i immediatley admitted that my details were incomplete and gave my full details.

 

The RPI then said i would probably be prosecuted and asked me to sign twice on a form which i did.

 

I was then also given a penalty ticket by his colleague which i paid some cash

i think £2.50

which as it turns out covers the short journey i think

 

i did pay the full penalty ticket before the 21 day timeline.

 

I have recieved no other letter so far it has been 1 month.

 

My question is what happens now,

will the fact i paid the fare at the time and paid off the penalty ticket help to close the case or are the two issues completely seperate.

 

I mean if the charge is trying to avoid a fare then i did pay the fare and the penalty notice.

 

Or should i expect a summons or letter regarding the other issue ?

 

thanks

[BazzaS]

Inadvertent duplicate post deleted.

[BazzaS]

Hi everyone.

 

Any advice greatly appreciated.

 

A month ago i was on a short journey on southern railways and didnt have a ticket.

 

When i got off the train i was confronted by Revenue Protection Officers,i really wasnt paying attention as i had a meeting

with a client and was already late.

I refused the offer of a penalty ticket and asked them to send me the ticket.

I gave an incomplete address as i wanted to think later about whether i would pay it or not.

 

Anyway they became suspicious when the name and address didnt check out and they threatened me with getting the railway police and possible arrest.At this point i started to pay more attention,i immediatley admitted that my details were incomplete and gave my full details.The RPI then said i would probably be prosecuted and asked me to sign twice on a form which i did.

I was then also given a penalty ticket by his colleague which i paid some cash i think £2.50 which as it turns out covers the short journey i think.Anyway i did pay the full penalty ticket before the 21 day timeline.

 

I have recieved no other letter so far it has been 1 month.My question is what happens now,will the fact i paid the fare at the time and paid off the penalty ticket help to close the case or are the two issues completely seperate.

I mean if the charge is trying to avoid a fare then i did pay the fare and the penalty notice.Or should i expect a summons or letter regarding the other issue ?

 

thanks

 

Possible offences :

Byelaw 18 : failure to show a valid ticket on demand.

S5.3a RRA 1889 : intent to avoid a fare (the fact that you later paid it is immaterial to both of the above, and also to: )

possibly S5.3c RRA 1889 : giving false details when questioned : were the details you gave merely "incomplete" or "false"?

 

S5.3:

If any person—

 

(a)Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or

 

(b)Having paid his fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeds by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or

 

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

 

(Fine, only imprisonable on repeat offence)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/52-53/57/section/5#commentary-c574454

 

They have up to 6 months to lay a summons.

[dx100uk]

Hi everyone.

 

Any advice greatly appreciated.

 

A month ago i was on a short journey on southern railways and didnt have a ticket.

 

When i got off the train i was confronted by Revenue Protection Officers,

 

i really wasnt paying attention as i had a meeting with a client and was already late.

I refused the offer of a penalty ticket and asked them to send me the ticket.

I gave an incomplete address as i wanted to think later about whether i would pay it or not.

 

they became suspicious when the name and address didnt check out and they threatened me with getting the railway police and possible arrest.

 

At this point i started to pay more attention,

i immediatley admitted that my details were incomplete and gave my full details.

 

The RPI then said i would probably be prosecuted and asked me to sign twice on a form which i did.

 

I was then also given a penalty ticket by his colleague which i paid some cash

i think £2.50

which as it turns out covers the short journey i think

 

i did pay the full penalty ticket before the 21 day timeline.

 

I have recieved no other letter so far it has been 1 month.

 

My question is what happens now,

will the fact i paid the fare at the time and paid off the penalty ticket help to close the case or are the two issues completely seperate.

 

I mean if the charge is trying to avoid a fare then i did pay the fare and the penalty notice.

 

Or should i expect a summons or letter regarding the other issue ?

 

thanks

 

await a letter before you do anything further

 

dx

[Stigy]

Possible offences :

Byelaw 18 : failure to show a valid ticket on demand.

S5.3a RRA 1889 : intent to avoid a fare (the fact that you later paid it is immaterial to both of the above, and also to: )

possibly S5.3c RRA 1889 : giving false details when questioned : were the details you gave merely "incomplete" or "false"?

 

S5.3:

If any person—

 

(a)Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or

 

(b)Having paid his fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeds by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or

 

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

 

(Fine, only imprisonable on repeat offence)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/52-53/57/section/5#commentary-c574454

 

They have up to 6 months to lay a summons.

I read it that he was issued with a Penalty Fare in the end as he states he paid the full penalty ticket within 21-days?

 

That being said, I'm assuming the matter was dealt with by way of PF in the end, and no report to Southern was made in the end by the RPI....Unless I misread of course, because we went from him not accepting the PF, to having paid it within the 21 day deadline. It does seem strange that one staff member issued a PF and his colleague said he might be prosecuted though...

 

Regardless, he can't be prosecuted under 5(3)c regarding the details without the accompanying 5(3)a, as this is not a 'stand alone' offence, therefore I'd say it's case closed here. Also, as he'd been issued a PF, the matter is resolved so no other either Byelaw or RRA 1889 offence regarding the fare would be applicable. Regarding the details, incomplete or downright false, if he meant to avoid further contact with the TOC by providing such details, these can be seen as false, even if just incomplete.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Stigy

[BazzaS]

I read it that he was issued with a Penalty Fare in the end as he states he paid the full penalty ticket within 21-days?

 

That being said, I'm assuming the matter was dealt with by way of PF in the end, and no report to Southern was made in the end by the RPI....Unless I misread of course, because we went from him not accepting the PF, to having paid it within the 21 day deadline. It does seem strange that one staff member issued a PF and his colleague said he might be prosecuted though...

 

Regardless, he can't be prosecuted under 5(3)c regarding the details without the accompanying 5(3)a, as this is not a 'stand alone' offence, therefore I'd say it's case closed here. Regarding the details, incomplete or downright false, if he meant to avoid further contact with the TOC by providing such details, these can be seen as false, even if just incomplete.

 

Given the :

(a) or (b) or ©, I would take the statutory interpretation of "or" to mean any section can stand on its own.

The fact that he later paid his fare doesn't mean that a 5.3c couldn't proceed if he (at that time hadn't paid his fare) and gave false details.

[Stigy]

Given the :

(a) or (b) or ©, I would take the statutory interpretation of "or" to mean any section can stand on its own.

The fact that he later paid his fare doesn't mean that a 5.3c couldn't proceed if he (at that time hadn't paid his fare) and gave false details.

The 'or' relates to sub sections 'a' and 'b' really which can only be used alone as they are different variations regarding a journey. Whereas 'c' needs either 'a' or 'b' to work. That's why 'c' emphasises 'having failed to pay his fare...'. I agree it's not as clear as it should be.

 

You cant prosecute someone for a 5(3)a/b or Byelaw 17/18/19 etc AND issue a penalty fare.

 

Edit: After reading the act in some depth, I can see what you mean, however I wouldn't want to use 'c' by itself as it's an offence of dishonesty amd as such wouldnt want to explain to the mags why I reported for the false details but didn't for the fare evasion, as it brings the whole incident in to question.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Stigy

[BazzaS]

The 'or' relates to sub sections 'a' and 'b' really which can only be used alone as they are different variations regarding a journey. Whereas 'c' needs either 'a' or 'b' to work. That's why 'c' emphasises 'having failed to pay his fare...'. I agree it's not as clear as it should be.

 

You cant prosecute someone for a 5(3)a/b or Byelaw 17/18/19 etc AND issue a penalty fare.

 

Edit: After reading the act in some depth, I can see what you mean, however I wouldn't want to use 'c' by itself as it's an offence of dishonesty amd as such wouldnt want to explain to the mags why I reported for the false details but didn't for the fare evasion, as it brings the whole incident in to question.

 

How about : (as a general concept, rather than any particular case .....)

Unable to prove intent to the criminal standard of proof :

Use of Bylaw 18, as no valid ticket shown. Even paying a penalty fare (later) wouldn't preclude this.

No valid ticket & false details : S5.3c

 

I accept that with no other prosecution a Magistrate might ask why a 5.3c on its own.

 

Back to the OP : if the Penalty Fare precludes a Byelaw prosecution the OP might hear nothing further.

If the OP gets a letter from the TOC they should post back with the details.

[ankel22]

Thanks guys for the quick replies,the knowledge of the members here is impressive.

 

When i admitted to the incomplete details which i understand would qualify as false details the RPI started filling out his form regarding that issue,his lackey then asked him "do u still want me to give him a PF ? " he said yes and said something to the effect that they were seperate.

 

I suppose its up to the OP whether they want to pursue it in light of the fact the penalty fare was paid but what i was wondering was that under S5.3 © it states that "Having failed to pay his fare, gives in reply to a request by an officer of a railway company a false name or address" but could it be argued that i did pay the fare to the amount of £2.50 as a cash contribution to the PF ?

I have noticed in some other online news regarding this issue that it is sometimes recommended to pay only the full single fare amount at the time if you are in a dispute over a PF, i suppose this is because in any subsequent action they cant claim that the fare was unpaid or even maybe that you tried to avoid it,the question then is does the phrase "failed to pay his fare" refer only to the time before coming into contact with the RPI inspectors.

 

 

Thanks again

[BazzaS]

Thanks guys for the quick replies,the knowledge of the members here is impressive.

 

When i admitted to the incomplete details which i understand would qualify as false details the RPI started filling out his form regarding that issue,his lackey then asked him "do u still want me to give him a PF ? " he said yes and said something to the effect that they were seperate.

 

I suppose its up to the OP whether they want to pursue it in light of the fact the penalty fare was paid but what i was wondering was that under S5.3 © it states that "Having failed to pay his fare, gives in reply to a request by an officer of a railway company a false name or address" but could it be argued that i did pay the fare to the amount of £2.50 as a cash contribution to the PF ?

I have noticed in some other online news regarding this issue that it is sometimes recommended to pay only the full single fare amount at the time if you are in a dispute over a PF, i suppose this is because in any subsequent action they cant claim that the fare was unpaid or even maybe that you tried to avoid it,the question then is does the phrase "failed to pay his fare" refer only to the time before coming into contact with the RPI inspectors.

 

 

Thanks again

 

At the time you gave those (false?) details, had you paid your fare?.

If not and the details were false, the fact you later paid your fare would not prevent a S5.3© offence from having been committed : the issue is not "was the fare ever paid" but "was the fare paid at time false details were given, bearing in mind details were requested as the fare had not been fully paid at that time"

[Old-CodJA]

Earlier comments are correct in that, without either an allegation of offence contrary to Section 5(3)(a) or 5 (3)(b), a charge of breach of 5 (3)© should not be laid as a stand alone offence

 

5(3)© opens by saying 'Having failed to pay his fare....' therefore either (a) or (b) will be relevant and © is supplemental

[ankel22]

Bazza S wrote

 

Earlier comments are correct in that, without either an allegation of offence contrary to Section 5(3)(a) or 5 (3)(b), a charge of breach of 5 (3)© should not be laid as a stand alone offence

 

5(3)© opens by saying 'Having failed to pay his fare....' therefore either (a) or (b) will be relevant and © is supplemental

 

There seems to be a split of opinion as to whether section 5 (3) © can stand on its own.I tend to agree with BazzaS and Stigy that it would look odd going to the magistrates and being prosecuted for not paying the fare and also giving false details when the fare issue had been settled by way of PF,it would mean that half the charge would be historical and no longer relevent.

 

Its possible that i was being threatened with an escalation to section © as a way to pressure me into settling the PF,something to be held in reserve if i got arsy or ignored the PF.But thats just a guess i'll wait and see if i recieve a letter.

[firstclassx]

Section 5(3c) can definitely be a "standalone" offence, without prosecuting for (a) or (b).

 

Whilst it would be unusual to do so alone, there is nothing preventing a prosecutor from doing so.

 

It is quite simple.

 

If any person having failed to pay his fare, gives in reply to a request by an officer of a railway company a false name or address he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine.

 

The OP, having failed to pay his fare, gave a false name and address.

 

The TOC only needs to prove:

 

1) The OP failed to pay his fare in the first place - regardless of reason why;

2) When requested to do provide his name & address, a false one was provided.

 

Section 5(3) Starts: If any person-

 

then after 5(3)a says "or"

then after 5(3)b says "or"

then 5(3)c...

he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine.

 

It can be "or" as well as "and".

 

AFAIK South West Trains (not relevant to the OP), prosecute in an unusual style-

They use Byelaw 18 for the ticket offence AND

Then use RoRA 5(3c) for the false details.

 

They don't use 5(3a) AND 5(3c) together.

[Stigy]

AFAIK South West Trains (not relevant to the OP), prosecute in an unusual style-

They use Byelaw 18 for the ticket offence AND

Then use RoRA 5(3c) for the false details.

 

They don't use 5(3a) AND 5(3c) together.

 

I'm interested to find out what makes you say this? I will drop you a PM.

 

Still baffled as to why anybody would want to report for the 5(3)c and not the 5(3)a in the first place here anyway, as the whole reason sub section 'c' exists is because it relates to dishonesty involving a fare, and if you can reasonably prove a 5(3)c, a 5(3)a should go hand in hand quite nicely by default.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Stigy

[Old-CodJA]

I'm interested to find out what makes you say this? I will drop you a PM.

 

Still baffled as to why anybody would want to report for the 5(3)c and not the 5(3)a in the first place here anyway, as the whole reason sub section 'c' exists is because it relates to dishonesty involving a fare, and if you can reasonably prove a 5(3)c, a 5(3)a should go hand in hand quite nicely by default.

 

Correct

[BazzaS]

Correct

 

Proof of intent to the criminal standard?.

 

5.3(a) relies on intent to avoid a fare.

5.3© relies on false details with the fare not previously paid : there doesn't have to be proof of intent to avoid paying the fare.

Mind you, giving false details may make it easier to demonstrate there was intent to avoid a fare .......

[Old-CodJA]

Proof of intent to the criminal standard?.

 

5.3(a) relies on intent to avoid a fare.

5.3© relies on false details with the fare not previously paid : there doesn't have to be proof of intent to avoid paying the fare.

Mind you, giving false details may make it easier to demonstrate there was intent to avoid a fare .......

 

Exactly so.

 

The good prosecutor will simply say something along these lines:

 

"I note that you have advised the Court that you did not intend to avoid your fare, however I put it to you that, by giving false details when asked for your name (and/or) address, it was your intention to avoid further contact with the rail company and thereby avoid payment of the fare due?"

Edited January 4, 2013 by Old-CodJA

[firstclassx]

My point is that 5(3)c is not dependent on the use of (a) or (b), in my opinion, you could, quite easily, prosecute © alone, as you don't need to prove any intent.

 

I agree, however, that it is not standard practice to do so.

 

Think I might look into this. Can see a useful application for the offence for a common scenario which I hadn't previously considered.

[ankel22]

hi everyone.

 

The matter has now been resolved without a court case.

 

I did get a letter several weeks later asking me to pay an extra £20 fine,the letter did not refer to any particular offence it just mentioned that i had been caught travelling without a ticket,no mention of any regulations or the issue of giving false details.

 

Although i was pleased to get this offer to settle for £20 i thought the letter was odd as it was pretty vague.Any way i called them up on the phone number provided and politely queried what i was being charged £20 for as the pf had already been paid ? The lady then brought up the dishonesty issue which i had admitted to,i told her yes but i was confused why there was no mention of dishonesty on the letter and she made some incomprehensible waffle as to why this was.

Anyway she then put me on hold and spoke to her boss and then came back and agreed to waive this £20 as long as i didnt do it again and that sort of thing.

 

So a good result it seems they were not willing or unable to take the matter to court with the pf already paid.But had tried to get an extra £20 which i guess most people would pay.So my advice to people facing possible prosecution would be to take the offer of a pf and pay it on time.

 

Thanks again to everyone who contributed.this forum is excellent.

[dx100uk]

hey great result!!

 

thread title updated.

dx