received letter threatening summons - no valid ticket

[Old-CodJA]

Since the 1980s it has become a more common habit in many areas for travellers to board trains without first buying a ticket and only paying if challenged to do so despite facilities being available. Frequently, there are considerable numbers of travellers who do not declare their journey unless asked directly and if not, walk away from the railway at their destination without paying. There is clear legislation and case precedent that show this to be an offence that, if reported and prosecuted, can be very expensive in terms of the fine and conviction does carry a criminal record, which will show on basic CRB checks.

 

It is not the rail company's responsibility to chase and find travellers without tickets, it is the travellers responsibility to get a ticket before travelling, or, only if travelling from a station without facilities, board the train and pay the staff on board at the first opportunity.

 

There is also a strict liability offence of failing to obtain a ticket before boarding at a station where facilities are available to pay. (National Railway Byelaw 18.1 [2005]). If convicted, this carries the same level of fine, but is a non-recordable offence, meaning that although there is a record of conviction with the Magistrates Court, this is a lesser offence and will not show on a basic CRB check.

 

At Crewe there is a staffed station ticket office with 4 windows and there are also 4 self service ticket machines, so it is rare that there is genuinely no opportunity to pay before travelling.

 

There is currently a concerted effort by many TOCs to re-educate the travelling public and these companies are running 'inspector spot-check' exercises to detect and report offenders. There are frequently Police Officers in attendance to deal with any public order offences that may arise when travellers become less than co-operative, but it is the TOCs inspectors who have the authority to interview and report for prosecution so far as the travel offences are concerned.

 

It appears likely that your husband has been detected at one of these checks.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Old-CodJA

[Old-CodJA]

It is always difficult to give direct definitive advice on these matters and my understanding is that is not the purpose of CAG to do so. I am not suggesting that firstclassx's post is wrong, but I think another perspective might be valuable.

 

I believe that the purpose of the forum is to allow voluntary suggestions from those of us who have experience of dealing with these matters added to a concensus of opinion of other readers, with the aim of informing the OP in such a way as to assist them in deciding on what action to take.

 

We only ever have the OPs version of events and to give definitive answers as to what action should be taken, or will be successful, really isn't possible from a one-sided assessment of any case

 

I am not suggesting that you have not been entirely clear in what you understand happened when your husband was reported, nor that he has withheld anything from you, I am just making clear that I think we should always remember the inspector's report will undoubtedly contain more precise details and may therefore differ from the account we have here.

 

Your husband should certainly reply to the letter that he has received and in sending his apology, he may offer to make recompense for his actions if he wishes to do so, but I never advocate sending a cheque for any particular sum with a first reply. This is for no other reason than the simple fact that you may well offer more than might otherwise be accepted. Agreed, the sum offered may also be less than the company will accept, but we frequently see posts from users who have been able to settle first time matters for much less than three figures.

 

That is not to say that any offer to settle should not be made if he chooses. In fact it is not unheard of that your husband may be fortunate enough to get away with just a warning if there is anything wrong in the inspector's report, so why guarantee that he will pay more than might be necessary if they agree to such a course of action?

 

The company is never obliged to accept settlement in any case and firstclassx is right to suggest your husband is only one of a great many who are, or have been in this position.

Edited January 14, 2013 by dx100uk
HEHE changed GAG to Cag - nice one OC - dx

[Old-CodJA]

A part of the problem lies in the fact that so few people seem to be taking any notice of re-education campaigns. FCC, Northern and others have been known to be taking a hard line for several years, but continue to report considerable numbers of offenders daily. It is a sad fact that Arriva put up new posters at stations and have been handing out leaflets at key locations for 18 months and yet nothing much seems to change. These signs & leaflets make clear that it is only acceptable to buy a ticket on train if there are no pre-purchase facilities at your boarding station and that, if boarding at a station without ticket facilities, the traveller must declare their journey and pay the guard at the first opportunity.

 

I know that there are some people who have made genuine mistakes because of some inconsistencies between companies and networks, but this cannot be the case where a traveller uses the same service several days a week. In the main we all know that if we wish to travel by train we have to pay the fare due and if there is an open ticket office at the station where we start our journey, it has always been the case that we need to make time to use it.

 

Most of the legislation was framed in the middle of the 19th century and has been continually reviewed and updated where necessary. More recently the various Railways Acts 1993 - 2005 have strengthened legislation further and it simply isn't practical to erect signs at all access points to the railway that list all possible offences (there are too many). Back in 1989 the then British Rail introduced legislation that created a penalty for people who fail to get a ticket from the booking office, or machine, before boarding trains to make short journeys. Since privatisation of the network that process has been extended to many other areas, but not all. If the traveller fails to sucessfully appeal, or pay, the penalty the normal course of action is for the TOC to revert to the legislation that has always been in place and proceed to prosecution of the offender. In areas where penalty fares are not in operation, it is always the case that if a booking facility is available at the station, the traveller must use it unless specifically instructed otherwise, or risks prosecution under National Railway Byelaw 18.

 

I understand your comment regarding printing on the back of tickets and recorded announcments on train and sympathise to a point, but once a traveller has bought a ticket, or boarded a train, it's too late. Signs directing travellers to ticket offices and / or self-service machines have always been in place, but the fact is that travellers frequently ignore them. As you rightly say, ignorance of legislation is not a defence and few if any travellers will succeed in avoiding conviction with 'I didn't know' as a response to the Court if they have walked past an open ticket office with a big sign saying 'Tickets for immediate travel', or words to that effect. Magistrates may well treat that as mitigation when deciding the penalty, but not as a defence to the charge.

 

The TOCs do listen to the complaints made by the general public who for a very long time have been saying that 21st century Railways should be more like the Airlines and to some extent, it is that which has lead to a confusing proliferation of ticket types, but the major difference is that none of us expect to board a plane to travel without first paying the appropriate fare.

 

Frequently it is the case that where a traveller is reported for the first time, if that traveller writes with an apology and offers to recompense the company for the fare and costs incurred, the TOC may allow the matter to be closed with a warning. There is no obligation on the TOC to do so, but they will normally give it serious consideration.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Old-CodJA