South West Trains Summons Recieved!

[Tony Dixon]

Hi All,

I have recieved a summons for the 20th August 2013 accused of...

 

'..On Monday 4th February 2013 between Guildford and Aldershot stations

did travel or attempt to travel, upon the railway without having previously paid the fare and with the intention to avoid the payment thereof:

contrary to S.5 (3) (a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 as amended by section 84 (2) of the Transport Act 1962 and section 18 of the British Railways Act 1977.'

 

Here's the background:

I arrived at the station and there were long queues for all of the ticket machines - I queued for 15-20 minutes (I believe - could have been less though) reached the machine but decided to make a run for it to catch my train (to arrive at work on time - I would have missed it otherwise).

(There are cameras everywhere in the station so I guess there would be video evidence showing that I was queuing and intended to buy a ticket).

 

I asked the man at the barriers for a 'bridge pass' so I could enter the station so I could catch the train and buy a ticket from the guard on board (I dishonestly entered the station but with the right intent (to buy a ticket on board) - a mistake I know - but I can hardly believe that it's come to this).

 

On the bridge pass it says 'this is a permit to cross the bridge and must not be used for travel on any train - penalties applied may be: prosecution under the following legislation: s. 5 (3) (a)...' as above.

 

I boarded the train and went through it to the back end where the guard usually is to buy a ticket - however, there were a group of 4 inspectors there - I asked them if I could buy a ticket...

 

In his statement the guard who reported me said :

 

'Tony Dixon approached & asked to buy a ticket and I informed him that he must buy a ticket before you board the train and advised him to leave the train but the train doors started to close so he could not get off'.

 

In his new statement he says I hesitated for a while before the doors closed but I don't think anyone (even Usain Bolt!) would have been fast enough to get through those doors.

 

I explained what had happened - he seemed sympathetic and to accept that I fully intended to buy a ticket but he refused to sell me one and insisted on taking my details and reporting the matter.

 

I gave the details, signed a statement saying the I 'absolutely intended to buy a ticket' and then bought a full return to cover my journey as I had intended to in the first place.

 

 

I received a letter from SWT, responded to it and assumed they'd accepted my explanation - however...

 

I recently received a summons with the charge above and responded to plead 'not guilty' - the case was then adjourned till 20th August.

 

I decided to plead not guilty as it is fairly obvious (to me at least!) that the 'the intention to avoid the payment thereof' part of the accusation was/is false.

So, have I done the right thing in pleading not guilty?

Do you have any tips as to anything I need to do say before or when I'm in court?If you could give me any advice it will be much appreciated - I can't believe that this incident has gone this far - I'm losing sleep!

 

I look forward to recieving your feedback and suggestions!

Thanks in advance for any help.

Tony

[filrobbo]

Is it an proper court summers

[Bazooka Boo]

It's a shame you signed anything! I wholly agree that your 'not guilty' plea was correct, the only argument that they will use is that your timekeeping is not their problem.

 

So, you were able to purchase a ticket when you were onboard, yet the jobsworth still reported you? Did they make you pay the penalty charge?

[Tony Dixon]

Yes it's definitely a proper court summons

[Tony Dixon]

No - he refused to sell me a ticket - he wanted to report it (maybe these guys are on commission) - the train stops halfway to my destination so I left the train and bought one at the first opportunity...

 

Yep, total jobsworth - people like that make me want to withdraw from the human race!

 

I need to write a letter to disclose my defense - here is what I've written so far....

 

This is my response to your letter dated Wednesday 3rd July 2013.

 

 

 

To paraphrase I have been accused of the following:

 

 

'...did travel, or attempt to travel upon the railway without having previously paid the fare and with the intention to avoid payment thereof'.

 

(quoted from the court summons)

 

 

 

Below is my explanation of why I pleaded not guilty.

 

 

 

My defence is based on the fact that I fully intended to purchase a ticket for the train - therefore I disagree with the assertion that I had an 'intention to avoid payment'.

 

 

The evidence for this is in the fact that I queued up for a substantial amount of time for a ticket for my train but realised that, if I had waited to complete the transaction to buy a ticket, I would have missed the 8.00 train and would have been late for work.

 

 

Video evidence from the main hall (I entered the station by the main entrance) will prove the fact that I queued up for a ticket for a considerable amount of time.

 

Queuing up for a ticket for a considerable length of time is, I believe, not to my mind consistent with an intent to avoid payment.

 

 

 

I believe that contrasting video footage of the queues in the main hall on Monday 4th Feb with queues on other random Mondays (i.e. if not carefully selected by SWT) would, I believe, prove this assertion.

 

I'm sure that SWT could produce videos of queues of other Monday morning queues being similarly large but these would need to be selectively chosen and would therefore not be truly representative.

 

My point being that it would have been at least very difficult to anticipate the scene in the main hall at Guildford station on that 4th February.

 

 

Video evidence would also, I believe, show the time each individual transaction was taking longer than usual (usual meaning on average) at each of the machines - If memory serves me correctly these transactions were very slow on that day - over 2 minutes each?

 

I am confident that video footage could prove this.

 

 

 

It is true that I made a conscious decision to request and use a bridge pass - however, I did so with the intention to purchase a ticket on board the train.

 

Mr [edit]'s incident notes (IC1 JB 470 - attached with your 3rd July letter) state (in his own words):

...'Just prior to departure when a person I now know as Anthony Dixon approached and asked to buy a ticket...'

 

This is further evidence of my intent to purchase a ticket.

Walking the length of a train to locate a guard and then to approach him to ask to buy a ticket is also, I believe, not consistent with an intent to avoid payment.

 

 

The fact that I purchased a ticket (a photocopy of this ticket was attached to my letter of 08/04/2013 to Mrs [edit] (also attached to your letter dated Wednesday 3rd July 2013.) from Aldershot station immediately after speaking with Mr [edit] is also, I believe, not consistent with an intent to avoid payment.

 

 

For the record I was travelling to my workplace in Frimley - the train stops in Aldershot and sits still for 15 minutes before leaving for Frimley.

 

I took the first opportunity to purchase a ticket by leaving the train to purchase a ticket at the ticket office in Aldershot - I did not leave the station (as Mr [edit] asserts in his March 1st statement).

 

 

In your letter (dated Wednesday 3rd July) you asked:

 

'...why did you not purchase an advanced ticket given that you would be aware of the possible volume of passengers using the train service on a Monday Morning?'

 

 

As noted above, I did not anticipate the size of the queues on Monday 4th being unusually large on Monday 4th February.

I also did not purchase and advanced ticket because I was not aware that they were/ are available though I have since become aware as a guard offered to sell me one after checking my ticket on a recent train.

 

 

Nonetheless, my defence is based on my intent to buy a ticket.

 

In your letter (dated Wednesday 3rd July) you also assert that '...you were given the opportunity to leave the train before it departed and you decided not to'.

 

I disagree with this assertion - as my [edit]'s notes (IC1 JB 470 - attached with your 3rd July letter) state (in his own words):

 

'I advised him to leave the train, but the train doors started to close so he could not get off'.

 

I see that in his later notes (dated March 1st - almost one month after the incident) Mr [edit] asserts that I 'hesitated for a short while, then the doors started to close and he did not get off'.

However, I believe it is true to assert that his original notes were accurate and that video evidence from the train would prove this.

 

In summary, I boarded the train with the intent to buy a ticket. I actively sought out and a guard to buy a ticket and approached Mr [edit] and his colleagues to purchase a ticket. They had the equipment to issue me with a ticket but Mr [edit] ignored my request and started to explain how I needed to buy a ticket before boarding the train and asked me how I got into the station - at this point the doors closed before I could leave the train.

 

In the circumstances I believe it is not fair or accurate to say that I decided not to leave the train.

 

 

 

This makes up the bulk of my defence.

Edited July 5, 2013 by honeybee13
Removing staff names.

[firstclassx]

BUT, to summarise:

 

1) You couldn't be bothered to queue for your ticket like everyone else;

2) You decided to gain access to the platform by deception (despite being handed a written warning that you COULD NOT do so and you would be prosecuted)

3) You then boarded a train without a valid ticket and now face prosecution.

 

Now, regardless of whether the case will succeed or not - you've only got yourself to blame for this.

 

The problem you have is this:

 

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

 

1. You admit that you travelled, or attempted to, on a railway, without previously paying your fare.

2. The fact that you wanted to pay later is irrelevant to your defence. You intentionally avoided paying the fare until a later time, for your own convenience.

 

Guilty IMO. Fare was due before boarding, you intentionally deceived staff into allowing you access to the platform, you boarded a train without a ticket.

 

You remind me of a chap by the name of Mr. Corbyn... I'm sure another regular will explain further.

Edited July 4, 2013 by firstclassx

[BazzaS]

BUT, to summarise:

 

1) You couldn't be bothered to queue for your ticket like everyone else;

2) You decided to gain access to the platform by deception (despite being handed a written warning that you COULD NOT do so and you would be prosecuted)

3) You then boarded a train without a valid ticket and now face prosecution.

 

Now, regardless of whether the case will succeed or not - you've only got yourself to blame for this.

 

The problem you have is this:

 

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

 

1. You admit that you travelled, or attempted to, on a railway, without previously paying your fare.

2. The fact that you wanted to pay later is irrelevant to your defence. You intentionally avoided paying the fare until a later time, for your own convenience.

 

Guilty IMO. Fare was due before boarding, you intentionally deceived staff into allowing you access to the platform, you boarded a train without a ticket.

 

You remind me of a chap by the name of Mr. Corbyn... I'm sure another regular will explain further.

 

Corbyn v. Saunders ; but was not the case law in that case regarding "I intended to pay, later, so offered my name and address" not being held to be sufficient defence, rather than "I approached the guard to pay"?.

 

The OP MIGHT be able to offer a defence of lack of intent to the S5.3 RRA offence, but I would offer 2 areas of caution:

1) As 1stclass has pointed out : the use of the "bridge pass" with its attached warning might point to intent to avoid a fare, and

2) what if the TOC brings an alternate summons under the strict liability Bylaw?.

[BankFodder]

BUT, to summarise:

 

1) You couldn't be bothered to queue for your ticket like everyone else;

2) You decided to gain access to the platform by deception (despite being handed a written warning that you COULD NOT do so and you would be prosecuted)

3) You then boarded a train without a valid ticket and now face prosecution.

 

Now, regardless of whether the case will succeed or not - you've only got yourself to blame for this.

 

The problem you have is this:

 

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

 

1. You admit that you travelled, or attempted to, on a railway, without previously paying your fare.

2. The fact that you wanted to pay later is irrelevant to your defence. You intentionally avoided paying the fare until a later time, for your own convenience.

 

Guilty IMO. Fare was due before boarding, you intentionally deceived staff into allowing you access to the platform, you boarded a train without a ticket.

 

You remind me of a chap by the name of Mr. Corbyn... I'm sure another regular will explain further.

 

Don't worry too much about firstclassx. He is one of our local characters and likes to make moral judgments - which is not what we are here for. We welcome all sorts here and it brings a little colour to our discussions.

 

On the issue of the summons which you have received it seems to me that you have excellent evidence of your intention to pay. I find it rather careless of them that they decided to use this offence against you because it seems to fly in the face of the evidence and there were other actions which they could have taken which would have a better chance of success because there would have been no need to prove any intention.

 

Of course, your difficulty is that this will be heard by magistrates who are not well-known for making rational decisions according to the evidence.

You have to be given the benefit of the doubt and if you were convicted by magistrates, I think that you would stand a very good chance on appeal.

 

On balance, however, you have been a bit silly - and maybe that will appease firstclassx a little.

[Tony Dixon]

Thanks Bazza,

Video evidence would prove I queued (showing intent to purchase), also the fact that I actively sought and found the guard by walking the length of the train (internally) also demonstrated that I intended to pay.

not sure about point 2.

Thanks Again

Tony

[dreadpiratesteve]

I don't think you would be able to gain access to the CCTV footage - These are usually kept for about 40 days before being deleted.

 

Also, whilst you intended to buy a ticket on board the train, it is still boils down to failing to purchase a ticket prior to boarding a train.

 

I think your best bet now is to write to the prosection department accepting that you were in the wrong and that you would be happy to pay the fare due plus any reasonable administration costs to avoid the court appearance/ criminal record.

 

Nitpicking at the inspectors report is only going to make them more determined to bring before court and if you are going to fight this and stick with your "not guilty" plea then I would suggest seeking a solicitor's advice.

[Old-CodJA]

Firstly, in respect of assessing intent in a case such as this it is worth pointing out that the Magistrates judgment must be based on not what you say was in your head, but by your actions.

 

I understand that you may say that you always intended to pay the fare, but the Court must look at your actions in reaching the point where you were reported and subsequently Summonsed to Court.

 

I am surprised that if there is no previous history of warnings or penalties, the TOC has not considered offering you an opportunity of resolving this administratively

 

I note that you say you 'paraphrase' your initial replies to SWT. If your response to their letter was highly critical, or came over as dismissive or threatening in any way, you may well have hardened the Rail Company's resolve to prosecute.

 

What is seemingly certain is the fact that, if SWT have also summonsed an alternative charge of breach of National Railway Byelaw 18.1 (2005), then conviction is virtually guaranteed. They could still apply for that, or ask for amendment, if they have not already done so.

 

Let's look at what will be put before the Magistrates.

 

The prosecutor will show that you were aware that you had to pay the fare and obtain a ticket before travelling, instead of doing so you asked for a 'bridge pass' with the intention of using it to gain access to the train without having previously paid the fare due.

 

That bridge pass, which you knew all about and why it existed was handed to you at your request, had printed on it the instruction that it must not be used to gain access to any train and could only be used to cross the bridge over the station. The pass also clearly warned in print that prosecution might ensue if this condition were not observed.

 

Your suggested defence hinges on 'Mens Rea', the state of mind that you say indicates no guilty intent, but the Magistrates will be asked to consider the fact that intent can occur at any time.

 

If I were the prosecutor in this case, I would argue that you exhibited the necessary 'Mens Rea' the moment that you decided to avoid the liability that you knew existed.

 

You did this by making a conscious decision to deceive the issuer of the Bridge Pass with the intention of getting past the ticket check and boarding the train without having paid the fare that you knew was due and without already holding a valid ticket.

 

I would very seriously consider whether you might choose to seek an out of Court disposal in this case. If it can be shown conclusively that you approached the guard, not that you simply got in at the door where he was standing, it may help your case, but if that evidence also shows that when asked to alight and get a ticket you delayed and failed to do so, that would be counter-productive

 

As an aside, both Bazza and Firstclassx are partially right in respect of the Corbyn judgment (1978). That judgment refers to 'boarding a train without having previously paid and knowing that a fare was due', which you clearly did and Bazza makes the point that you say that you did not intend to pay later, but the Act makes clear the charge is 'Having not previously paid'.

 

That judgment made clear that it was not necessary to prove the traveller intended to permanently avoid payment, but that he had committed the offence at the alleged time.

 

The payment of a fare after having been reported does not prevent the possibility of prosecution because the Act says it must be previously paid.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Old-CodJA

[Tony Dixon]

Thanks Bankfodder,

 

Yes - I definitely mad a mistake - I WILL NEVER BOARD A TRAIN WITHOUT A VALID TICKET AGAIN - however, interestingly, on other occasions (maybe 2 that I can remember) when the queues have gotten out of hand someone with a high vis jacket instructed everyone to go through and buy a ticket on the train.

 

The reason I asked for a 'bridge pass' on the fateful day was that on a previous occasion (again due to the irregular occurrance of very large queues and very slow machines) I had asked to women guarding the gate if I could board the train to buy a ticket and they refused - which meant I missed my train for work.

 

***Perhaps more interestingly, on another occasion (18th March 2013 - before I received the summons) I asked the guy guarding the gate if, because of the long queues, I could board the train and buy a ticket on there. He said yes - I boarded the train and bought a ticket as I planned to without any issue. I explained this and attached a copy of my ticket / proof of purchase with my reply to the original letter I received from SWT.

 

So, on this occasion I also boarded a train with the intent to buy a ticket - should I be prosecuted for that too (even though the guard sold me a ticket? - don't worry it's a rhetorical question) - just shows the inconsistency.

[Old-CodJA]

Thanks Bankfodder,

 

Yes - I definitely mad a mistake - I WILL NEVER BOARD A TRAIN WITHOUT A VALID TICKET AGAIN - however, interestingly, on other occasions (maybe 2 that I can remember) when the queues have gotten out of hand someone with a high vis jacket instructed everyone to go through and buy a ticket on the train.

 

The reason I asked for a 'bridge pass' on the fateful day was that on a previous occasion (again due to the irregular occurrance of very large queues and very slow machines) I had asked to women guarding the gate if I could board the train to buy a ticket and they refused - which meant I missed my train for work.

 

***Perhaps more interestingly, on another occasion (18th March 2013 - before I received the summons) I asked the guy guarding the gate if, because of the long queues, I could board the train and buy a ticket on there. He said yes - I boarded the train and bought a ticket as I planned to without any issue. I explained this and attached a copy of my ticket / proof of purchase with my reply to the original letter I received from SWT.

 

So, on this occasion I also boarded a train with the intent to buy a ticket - should I be prosecuted for that too (even though the guard sold me a ticket? - don't worry it's a rhetorical question) - just shows the inconsistency.

 

 

This doesn't show inconsistency in application of the law at all.

 

On that occasion you asked for permission to board without a ticket, you were given that permission in accordance with National Railway Byelaw 18.3 and complied

 

In the latter case, you chose to deceive the person making ticket checks at the entrance into believing that you only wanted to cross the footbridge. Having done so you boarded a train without a ticket, which you knew you were not permitted to do on that occasion.

 

I agree that it might be galling that sometimes discretion may be applied differently, but that is the nature of discretion I'm afraid. If a special check is being made and the staff are instructed not to let anyone have access to the train who does not hold a valid ticket that is the policy they will be required to adopt.

 

It is clear that there is a major problem at Guilford with people travelling without tickets and it may be that at times, demand can exceed supply at the booking office, although there are self service machines and there are a plethora of ways of buying tickets in advance these days. Online for one.

 

You said you were going to work, maybe you do not travel every weekday, but if you do travel 4 or more days a week, the purchase of a weekly or various period season tickets can resolve this and make substantial saving in most cases. (Not all)

Edited July 5, 2013 by Old-CodJA

[Tony Dixon]

Thanks Old-CodJA,

 

I would very seriously consider whether you might choose to seek an out of Court disposal in this case - how would I go about that?

To complicate matters I am going out of the country on vacation for 2 weeks from this Sunday and will not have access to my mail.

 

To your point: 'If it can be shown conclusively that you approached the guard, not that you simply got in at the door where he was standing, it may help your case, ...'

 

How could I conclusively show that I sought out, found & approached the guard (without access to video evidence)?

-----------

As for the second part '... but if that evidence also shows that when asked to alight and get a ticket you delayed and failed to do so, that would be counter-productive'

 

In your letter (dated Wednesday 3rd July) you also assert that '...you were given the opportunity to leave the train before it departed and you decided not to'.

 

I would refer to Mr Thompson's (the guard's) notes that state (in his own words):

 

'I advised him to leave the train, but the train doors started to close so he could not get off'. (he modified this in his later statement to say I 'hesitated for a short while, then the doors started to close and he did not get off'.

However, I believe it is true to assert that his original notes were accurate and that video evidence from the train would prove this.

 

Any further thoughts on these matters?

 

Thanks Tony

[Old-CodJA]

Thanks Old-CodJA,

 

I would very seriously consider whether you might choose to seek an out of Court disposal in this case - how would I go about that?

To complicate matters I am going out of the country on vacation for 2 weeks from this Sunday and will not have access to my mail.

 

To your point: 'If it can be shown conclusively that you approached the guard, not that you simply got in at the door where he was standing, it may help your case, ...'

 

How could I conclusively show that I sought out, found & approached the guard (without access to video evidence)?

-----------

As for the second part '... but if that evidence also shows that when asked to alight and get a ticket you delayed and failed to do so, that would be counter-productive'

 

In your letter (dated Wednesday 3rd July) you also assert that '...you were given the opportunity to leave the train before it departed and you decided not to'.

 

I would refer to Mr [edit]'s (the guard's) notes that state (in his own words):

 

'I advised him to leave the train, but the train doors started to close so he could not get off'. (he modified this in his later statement to say I 'hesitated for a short while, then the doors started to close and he did not get off'.

However, I believe it is true to assert that his original notes were accurate and that video evidence from the train would prove this.

 

Any further thoughts on these matters?

 

Thanks Tony

 

 

I suggest that you either, seek the advice of a criminal lawyer who is acquainted with the Court at which your Summons is returnable if you wish to contest the charge, or if you wish to try to settle straight away, avoiding prosecution then write to the Prosecutor's office and ask if they are prepared to withdraw their Summons on condition that you pay their reasonable costs in bringing the matter to Summons.

 

they may not agree, if they feel they have a strong case, and they are not obliged to do so.

 

Your challenge of the statement will effectively be your word against his in Court. I suggest that given the provable actions preceding that, I would not be confident of acquittal.

 

As a further aside, it is totally wrong to publish the guard's name on here and your real name if that is so, especially as you refer to the staff as a 'total jobsworth' - it doesn't look good I'm afraid and in my opinion (for what that's worth) it doesn't add anything of value to the debate.

Edited July 5, 2013 by honeybee13

[Tony Dixon]

Sorry for that - I didn't mean to cause any offence - I was responding to Bazooka Boo and though I found the guard to be really unhelpful you're correct, name calling is wrong and doesn't add anything of value to the debate - I hope you can appreciate my frustration though...I buy tickets every day (I can prove that) and got caught out like this on one occasion which has brought about this nightmare scenario.

Strictly speaking what I did was wrong and, as I can't prove I queued and actively sought out the guard/s without video evidence I guess it would boil down to his word against mine - in which case I'm stuffed.

[firstclassx]

Sorry for that - I didn't mean to cause any offence - I was responding to Bazooka Boo and though I found the guard to be really unhelpful you're correct, name calling is wrong and doesn't add anything of value to the debate - I hope you can appreciate my frustration though...I buy tickets every day (I can prove that) and got caught out like this on one occasion which has brought about this nightmare scenario.

Strictly speaking what I did was wrong and, as I can't prove I queued and actively sought out the guard/s without video evidence I guess it would boil down to his word against mine - in which case I'm stuffed.

 

You can always change your plea and secure a sentencing discount if you can't arrange for it to be dealt with outside of court.

 

Something to think about anyway.

[Old-CodJA]

Sorry for that - I didn't mean to cause any offence - I was responding to Bazooka Boo and though I found the guard to be really unhelpful you're correct, name calling is wrong and doesn't add anything of value to the debate - I hope you can appreciate my frustration though...I buy tickets every day (I can prove that) and got caught out like this on one occasion which has brought about this nightmare scenario.

Strictly speaking what I did was wrong and, as I can't prove I queued and actively sought out the guard/s without video evidence I guess it would boil down to his word against mine - in which case I'm stuffed.

 

 

Thanks for your reply, I can understand what you are saying, but in order to try to help you, we have to explain how this would be viewed from 'the other side'

 

Firstclassx is right, a plea can always be changed at the last minute

 

I would write to try to resolve it, add an apology and an undertaking not to travel without a valid ticket in future (try getting there a bit earlier if you need to buy one) and hope to appeal to the better nature of the prosecution manager. If they don't accept it, then maybe trying through a solicitor will be worthwhile but there are no guarantees

[Tony Dixon]

Thanks All,

Let me put something together and let me know what you think...

 

Thanks Again

Tony

[honeybee13]

Hello there.

 

As suggested by Old-CodJA, I'm editing out the name of the guard from this thread, also another member of staff.

 

My best, HB

Edited July 5, 2013 by honeybee13

[Tony Dixon]

Thanks HB,

I tried but couldn't work out how.

Thanks Again

Tony

[honeybee13]

It's OK. I'd appreciate you not putting any more names in though.

 

As OC says, if this is your real name, it would be wise to change it. If you want another name, PM me and something can be sorted.

 

HB

[Stigy]

Tony,

 

This is interesting, and one I've come up against before. Normally, obtaining a Bridge Pass is clear intent to avoid payment of the fare due, as it's clearly only for use in crossing the footbridge, and states as much on the pass itself. There are also warnings on the entrance to all platforms telling passengers they must NOT pass this point with a Bridge Pass. However, in your case, although quite frankly stupid on your part, SWT could be on a sticky wicket with a charge of 5(3)a, as you evidenced the fact that you wanted to buy a ticket by approaching staff on the train. If you'd sat down straight away and not approached them, or dived straight in the toilet, it would have obviously been clear what your intentions were (I presume you didn't only approach the staff because you saw 4 of them standing there? You can imagine how it might look....). It's a risky business, as we've only been privy to your version of events, Tony, but a business that could go in your favour, especially if you have legal representation. As has been said though, you are guilty of at the very least a Byelaw charge, so be careful if you want to play the game...

 

I noticed earlier you referred to the staff member as a Jobsworth?....maybe with a little goading, but still. Bear in mind how your actions looked on the face of it on that date. They were doing their job and very well to be fair, in protecting the company's revenue. They believed you had committed and offence, and lets face it, they were correct. You're aggrieved that you were reported, but what makes you any more important than all the others queuing to buy their rail tickets? You ought to bear this in mind before labelling people.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Stigy