Small vs Train company to overturn Unpaid Fare Notice

[Conniff]

The train companies are always in court, they spend more time there than judges, so I don't think your claim will worry them.

[mere]

You are right. It won't worry them at all. They won't want the aggro of going to court for a 100 quid. There's nothing in it for them, their lawyers won't look at it the way you guys do.

 

That's if it gets beyond Customer Services to the legal team at all.

 

As a matter of fact I think I will ask for the 16 quid extra I paid for being given the wrong ticket while I am at it.

Edited October 5, 2014 by mere

[Ganymede]

You are right. It won't worry them at all. They won't want the aggro of going to court for a 100 quid. There's nothing in it for them, their lawyers won't look at it the way you guys do.

 

That's if it gets beyond Customer Services to the legal team at all.

A judge won't make any sweeping judgments or comments on the ticketing machines etc in a small claim hearing.

 

The judge won't look at "what ifs" and made up scenarios, only the facts of what happened in your case.

 

Their solicitor will look at it the way we have and defend your claim on the basis that you have clearly breached a bye law.

 

You're seriously over estimating the the Court and what they'll say/do.

[Ganymede]

The specifics you mention aren't relevant.

 

The Court are not going to see me as a fare evader on the facts and are entitled to sympathetically rule in my favour due to the closed ticket office.

 

Even if they rule against me they are perfectly entitled to and may well pass legal commentary in their judgement on any or all of the issues that you are calling irrelevant herel.

 

That is they could say the Claimant loses on the facts of this case but in these scenarios he would have won because that is how laws are made.

 

So I don't need a winnable case, just one that East Coast don't want tried in court, because even if they win it there may be a ruling that will stop them exploiting all the [problem]s that currently allow them to charge penalty fares against honest mistakes and technological and mechanical failures.

 

East Cosat are not going to allow this one to go to court.

What technological failure was there in your case?!

[BazzaS]

The specifics you mention aren't relevant.

 

The Court are not going to see me as a fare evader on the facts and are entitled to sympathetically rule in my favour due to the closed ticket office.

 

Even if they rule against me they are perfectly entitled to and may well pass legal commentary in their judgement on any or all of the issues that you are calling irrelevant herel.

 

That is they could say the Claimant loses on the facts of this case but in these scenarios he would have won because that is how laws are made.

 

So I don't need a winnable case, just one that East Coast don't want tried in court, because even if they win it there may be a ruling that will stop them exploiting all the [problem]s that currently allow them to charge penalty fares against honest mistakes and technological and mechanical failures.

 

East Cosat are not going to allow this one to go to court.

 

County court cases aren't binding on other courts.

 

"The TOC won't let this get to court as the court will issue a ruling binding against them, even if the TOC win", for a county court case - is entering the realms of "far fetched and fanciful"

 

If you don't pay the penalty fare (and don't successfully appeal it) : expect to be prosecuted.

If you pay it and issue a county court claim:

a) expect to lose

b) don't expect the TOC to be scared of any obiter comments, as

i) there aren't likely to be any, as

ii) they wouldn't be persuasive let alone binding to any other court......

[mere]

If you don't pay the penalty fare (and don't successfully appeal it) : expect to be prosecuted.

 

Prosecuted for what. There is no way they will successfully prove any intent to avoid the fare due.

 

If you pay it and issue a county court claim:

a) expect to lose

b) don't expect the TOC to be scared of any obiter comments, as

i) there aren't likely to be any, as

ii) they wouldn't be persuasive let alone binding to any other court......

I lose. There are no costs. So what.

 

The ruling doesn't have to be binding. if issues like this get tested in court and different courts make different ruling at some point it will get to a higher court where binding ruling will be made.

 

Please leave off with the scaremongering. East Coast will see this as a commercial issue not a legal one. The worse case scenario is a 150 quid loss to me. Thats only 50 quid more than I would be out if I accepted what you guys are suggesting. Nobody is going to prosecute me because it is abundantly apparent that I am not a fare evader.

[mere]

A judge won't make any sweeping judgments or comments on the ticketing machines etc in a small claim hearing.

 

The judge won't look at "what ifs" and made up scenarios, only the facts of what happened in your case.

 

Their solicitor will look at it the way we have and defend your claim on the basis that you have clearly breached a bye law.

 

You're seriously over estimating the the Court and what they'll say/do.

 

No. You are seriously over-estimating the willingness of a train company to contest a small claim like this.

[Ganymede]

Prosecuted for what. There is no way they will successfully prove any intent to avoid the fare due.

 

I lose. There are no costs. So what.

 

The ruling doesn't have to be binding. if issues like this get tested in court and different courts make different ruling at some point it will get to a higher court where binding ruling will be made.

 

Please leave off with the scaremongering. East Coast will see this as a commercial issue not a legal one. The worse case scenario is a 150 quid loss to me. Thats only 50 quid more than I would be out if I accepted what you guys are suggesting. Nobody is going to prosecute me because it is abundantly apparent that I am not a fare evader.

 

Have a read in this very forum. The train company will take you to the Magistrates Court to prosecute if you don't pay the penalty or appeal.

 

There is no need to prove intent. It is enough to board a train without possessing a valid ticket.

[Ganymede]

No. You are seriously over-estimating the willingness of a train company to contest a small claim like this.

 

Please read this transport subsection of the forum and get an idea of how the train companies operate.

[mere]

From http://www.eastcoast.co.uk/customer-service/revenue-protection-policy/

 

If you get on a train without a ticket you will have to pay the anytime single fare for your journey. In these circumstances you will not be able to use a Railcard, unless you have a Disabled Persons Railcard.

The exceptions to this are:

 

• If you are unable to buy a ticket because the ticket office is closed.
  
• If a self-service ticket machine that accepts cash is not working.
  
• If you are unable to access our ticket retail facilities as a result of your disability.
  
• If you’re entitled to concessionary fares without a Railcard, such as permanent wheelchair users.
  

In these circumstances you can buy any ticket available on the train, on the day of travel, including Railcard discounts if applicable.

 

 

Travelling without a valid ticket

 

If you travel without a ticket, where none of the exceptions above are applicable, you will be requested to purchase a ticket at the full Standard or First Class single rate. No Railcard discount will be given.

 

If the ticket you hold is not valid for the journey you are making, depending on the ticket held, you will be requested to either pay an excess fare or purchase a new ticket. Below are examples of some of the situations where you may be asked to pay an excess fare or purchase a new ticket.

 

• You hold an Advanced Purchase ticket, but board an alternative service to the one shown on your reservation coupon, or you do not hold the corresponding seat reservation coupon to validate your ticket.
  
• You travel on a peak time service with an off-peak ticket.
  
• You hold a ticket purchased with Railcard discount but are unable to produce a valid Railcard during your journey to validate the discount applied to your ticket, or you have not met the conditions of the Railcard.
  
• You travel in First Class accommodation but hold a Standard class ticket.
  
• You are aged 16 years or older, but hold a Child rate ticket.
  
• You travel beyond the destination of your ticket.
  
• You travel with a ticket valid only on an alternative Train Operator.
  

If you are unable to make payment immediately, an authorised member of staff will issue you with an Unpaid Fare Notice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How can you appeal?

 

 

If you wish to appeal against the Unpaid Fare Notice you should do this within 21 days of its issue. Your appeal must be made in writing, please include the following information:

 

• A copy of the Unpaid Fare Notice
  
• Why you could not produce a valid ticket or authority to travel when requested
  
• Where you started your rail journey
  
• The exact date and time you were travelling
  
• Any other relevant information or documents such as tickets and booking confirmations
  

[mere]

Please read this transport subsection of the forum and get an idea of how the train companies operate.

 

You were saying....

[mere]

So as I was sayiing train companies should not issue an unpaid fare notice when a ticket office is closed.

[citizenB]

It is my understanding that if someone launches an unreasonable claim that extra costs can be awarded to the other side - even in a small claims court. So please do think carefully about your claim.

 

If you do decide to litigate, would you please update your thread, irrespective of the outcome

[mere]

I don't need to litigate. The Unpaid Fare Notice was issued in contravention of East Coast Revenue Protection Policy. See above or read the link yourself http://www.eastcoast.co.uk/customer-...ection-policy/

[BazzaS]

Prosecuted for what. There is no way they will successfully prove any intent to avoid the fare due.

 

Nobody is going to prosecute me because it is abundantly apparent that I am not a fare evader.

 

Prosecuted for intent to avoid the fare due that you got the UFN for, if they decide to go for the S5 RRA 1889 prosecution.

Or, for a Byelaw 18 prosecution, they don't have to show intent, it is strict liability : it isn't "are they a fare evader", but "dud they have a valid ticket, shown on demand"

You never had a valid ticket for THAT train.

If you had purchased a ticket for that train, so be it : but if your ticket was valid only on the service 3 hours earlier - it wasn't then a valid ticket for the travel you undertook.

You then had the opportunity to buy a valid ticket for that later service (either from a ticket machine, or from the onboard staff, and you didn't).

 

You need to stop looking at it purely from your point if view, and from the TOC's point, but most importantly from the statute & bylaws (and case law) viewpoints.

 

You can have your day in court for a Byelaw 18, and I'm sure the Magistrates will sympathise no end. The TOC prosecutor can then ask them "but considering the law, is the defendant guilty or not of the offence for which they have been summonsed?".

 

The Magistrates will sympathise, but find you guilty.

 

You can then go down the county court route, at which the TOC will note the effect of the Civil Evidence Act. Your case will be dismissed, and due to it's hopeless nature : they can seek costs on an indemnity basis.

 

As for "they wouldn't go to court for such a measly sum" : they can & do.

[mere]

Please read the East Coast Revenue Protection policy above and for the benefit of other future consumers stop posting scaremongering misleading information.

[BazzaS]

Please read the East Coast Revenue Protection policy above and for the benefit of other future consumers stop posting scaremongering misleading information.

 

Which bit of the policy, then? (Bearing in mind:)

 

You didnt have a valid ticket for THAT service, and were issued with a UFN.

Your choices are pay the UFN or appeal.

 

You might appeal on the basis you bought a ticket for the earlier service, and they might take pity, or they might say : "Your error, ticket never valid for the service you took"

 

If you don't pay it (unless your appeal is successful) they can prosecute.

Those facts aren't scaremongering.

[BazzaS]

So as I was sayiing train companies should not issue an unpaid fare notice when a ticket office is closed.

 

Re-read that section.

They can issue a UFN if the ticket office was closed but there was a working ticket machine that would take cash.

 

Additionally, by your own admission, there was an open "ticket office" : the "unpaid fares" window that "doubled" as a ticket window.

 

You should however, consider dealing with ECT in the same "tone" you've used to respondents here.

They will no doubt be endeared to your approach, and minded of your quoting "the rules" back at them.

The hazard in misapplying those rules (vis presence of working ticket machines, and an available ticket window") will likely be any sympathy you might have had evaporating, and they'll apply "the rules"

 

They'll be applied as they are written though, not as you'd like them to be ......

 

 

So:

1) are you going to appeal the UFN?

2) if you aren't going to appeal the UFN, or your appeal is unsuccessful : are you going to pay it?

 

I can't see how a county court claim for an action in contract law can be considered until you've paid the UFN..... "I'm claiming the difference between the £26 I paid for a ticket (that I booked for the wrong train) and the £96 that I haven't paid"......

[mere]

Re-read that section.

They can issue a UFN if the ticket office was closed but there was a working ticket machine that would take cash.

 

Additionally, by your own admission, there was an open "ticket office" : the "unpaid fares" window that "doubled" as a ticket window.

 

You should however, consider dealing with ECT in the same "tone" you've used to respondents here.

They will no doubt be endeared to your approach, and minded of your quoting "the rules" back at them.

The hazard in misapplying those rules (vis presence of working ticket machines, and an available ticket window") will likely be any sympathy you might have had evaporating, and they'll apply "the rules"

 

They'll be applied as they are written though, not as you'd like them to be ......

 

The Revenue Protection policy published by East Coast is consistent with the objective of protecting revenue and pursuing fare evaders and that is how it will interpreted both by the company and by the courts.

 

It should be quite clear from the policy that boarding a train without being in physical possession of a valid ticket is not prima facie evidence of an intent to evade fares.

 

The only way anything you are now saying holds any water is if you construe the actions of a person boarding a train in the belief that was the one he was booked on as the actions of a fare evader.

 

No matter how you cherry pick and shoe-horn the facts of that day no rational person will believe much less prosecute somebody on that.

 

Again please stop scaremongering.

[Conniff]

Please read the East Coast Revenue Protection policy above and for the benefit of other future consumers stop posting scaremongering misleading information.

 

 

I'm not sure why you are here mere if you go against everything that has been said. If you know you are right, then just go ahead and issue a summons, but don't just dismiss everything with 'I'm right and you are wrong' posts.

[BazzaS]

The Revenue Protection policy published by East Coast is consistent with the objective of protecting revenue and pursuing fare evaders and that is how it will interpreted both by the company and by the courts.

 

It should be quite clear from the policy that boarding a train without being in physical possession of a valid ticket is not prima facie evidence of an intent to evade fares.

 

The only way anything you are now saying holds any water is if you construe the actions of a person boarding a train in the belief that was the one he was booked on as the actions of a fare evader.

 

No matter how you cherry pick and shoe-horn the facts of that day no rational person will believe much less prosecute somebody on that.

 

Again please stop scaremongering.

 

"The only way anything you are now saying holds any water is if you construe the actions of a person boarding a train in the belief that was the one he was booked on as the actions of a fare evader."

 

Not at all ; it isnt about what I believe or construe, but the TOC's instructions to its staff.

 

I am aware: The on-train staff are instructed not to issue a UFN or penalty fare if they believe there is fare evasion. A report to allow consideration of prosecution is the correct response where there staff believe there was intent to avoid a fare. Your ignorance of that basic premise highlights that you don't actually understand the TOC's policy and intent.

 

So, are you going to appeal the UFN? pay it??. Skirt around the issue all you like, but in the end it will come down to what you do or don't do, and your actions to date, rather than "this is how I believe they should act"!.

 

I suggest it is you that seems intent on arguing the toss, and if you don't pay a UFN [or don't pay if appealed and you loose the appeal(s)], we'll see if "prosecution is scaremongering" holds true or not.

[Vauban]

You seem very sure of your position. I had always understood that a successful prosecution in such circumstances does not require the train company to demonstrate intent. But I'm not an expert. It will be very interesting to hear how this plays out, though.

[mere]

"The only way anything you are now saying holds any water is if you construe the actions of a person boarding a train in the belief that was the one he was booked on as the actions of a fare evader."

 

Not at all ; it isnt about what I believe or construe, but the TOC's instructions to its staff.

 

I am aware: The on-train staff are instructed not to issue a UFN or penalty fare if they believe there is fare evasion. A report to allow consideration of prosecution is the correct response where there staff believe there was intent to avoid a fare. Your ignorance of that basic premise highlights that you don't actually understand the TOC's policy and intent.

 

So, are you going to appeal the UFN? pay it??. Skirt around the issue all you like, but in the end it will come down to what you do or don't do, and your actions to date, rather than "this is how I believe they should act"!.

 

The instructions to the staff are in the Revenue Protection Policy.

 

They are to not issue a UFN if the ticket office was closed. If you want to argue that there was an open ticket office at the excess fare window, well I went there and wasn't given my tickets and wasn't told I had to buy new ones.

 

You haven't got anything to argue about.

 

Give it a rest. If you won't I will.

[mere]

You seem very sure of your position. I had always understood that a successful prosecution in such circumstances does not require the train company to demonstrate intent. But I'm not an expert. It will be very interesting to hear how this plays out, though.

 

The UFN I was issued with states It is a criminal offence to make a rail journey with intent to avoid payment of the fare due.

 

I boarded the train thinking I had booked the 23:30 and that no fare was due. You can say it was due to my own carelessness if you like in not checking my tickets. Thats not intent and given that I had booked the 23:30 on every other rail journey I made I will be believed.

[mere]

I'm not sure why you are here mere if you go against everything that has been said. If you know you are right, then just go ahead and issue a summons, but don't just dismiss everything with 'I'm right and you are wrong' posts.

 

If I had read the Revenue Protection Policy before I would not have come here at all. But the arguments presented to me here drove me to find it and read it so coming here has served a very useful purpose indeed.

 

It never made sense to me that a train company would engage in the pursuit of penalties for honest mistakes which is what the arguments i was being presented with were suggesting. So I sought and found more authoritative information. It seems we are now moving into a phase were I am about to be called a fare dodger and that is the point where I will ask a moderator to intervene.