Forgot my railcard discussion thread

[mere]

You probably have nothing to worry about. Read this.

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/10-ways-to-avoid-penalty-fares-on-trains-6762684.html

[timbo58]

Unfortunately Mere as the OP stated she had already been asked to pay the full standard fare therefore the PF was only levied after she could not/would not pay the full fare.

 

Even the evening standards article states very clearly: ''Provided always that you do pay the normal single fare, the chances are that any threats made against you, particularly of criminal prosecution, are hollow'.

 

The rest of the article is nothing new, although it may well be useful to the more savvy traveller, any half decent inspection staff will also know all of this and wouldn't demand a PF if they were not confident this was the appropriate action anyway, but you never know -I'm sure some have been issued incorrectly over the past 20 years.

 

I am not sure of the validity of their claim that as long you you pay the full std fare you can refuse a PF however since PF stations make it part of the conditions of travel everyone has to agree to to accept they are in force, if passengers can pick & choose which conditions or bylaws they agree to it seems farcical to even have them?

 

Since the OP has not paid the full standard fare which was required at the point her invalid ticket was detected, she was issued a PF for failure to show a valid ticket and failure to pay the full fare due.

This means the threat of prosecution is still valid, the fare hasn't been paid and neither has the penalty fare.

 

'Castle Cary' and 'June' means 'Glasto festival' to me -forgive me if I'm wrong- and that means enhanced ticket checks with proper full time RPIs etc so if the PF was levied there it will in all probability be absolutely correct.

YP railcard fraud is rife at travel to such festivals and I am sure IF it was the case the OP was dealt with at CCary by such staff at this festival then they would have 1st have satisfied themselves that no fraud was intended.

 

The TOC asked for a the full fare at the time and it wasn't paid.

They levied a penalty fare

If that isn't paid what else would you expect them to do?

 

I would again urge the OP to contact the TOC regarding this and ask for time to pay, it's worth going Rebel11s route of course also -they may well deal with it as a goodwill gesture you never know.

[mere]

Well I read the article differently and my interpretation is that no court is going to criminalise the OP for forgetting a railcard so where does that leave the TOC.

 

That said it's how the OP reads it and feels about the situation that really counts.

 

I am happy to have put the info out there and leave it at that.

[Old-CodJA]

You probably have nothing to worry about. Read this.

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/10-ways-to-avoid-penalty-fares-on-trains-6762684.html

 

 

That article was written by Mr Gilligan more than 5 years ago and many people since have found to their cost that relying on a journalists' 'advice' concerning how to avoid a Penalty Fare, which is flawed in some areas, does not equate to a defence for an offence of failing, or refusing to pay a rail fare.

 

The best thing that I can suggest the OP considers first is the Terms & Conditions accepted when they applied for and obtained a Railcard.

 

Condition 6. You must carry your Railcard with you on your journey and when asked by rail staff, you must show a valid ticket and valid Railcard. If you fail to do so, you will be required to pay the full price Standard Single fare for your journey as if no ticket was purchased before starting the journey and in some cases a Penalty Fare.

 

Leaving aside any argument as to whether any of us feel it is morally justified, the fact is that an opportunity was given for the OP to pay the fare due under the rules (which had been previously advised and accepted) and that opportunity was not taken up. The next thing that the rail company will consider will be the travellers' reaction to being asked to pay the fare due.

 

Legislation makes clear that if any traveller fails, or refuses to pay the fare due, action may be taken to pursue that matter.

[mere]

That article was written by Mr Gilligan more than 5 years ago and many people since have found to their cost that relying on a journalists' 'advice' concerning how to avoid a Penalty Fare, which is flawed in some areas, does not equate to a defence for an offence of failing, or refusing to pay a rail fare.

 

The best thing that I can suggest the OP considers first is the Terms & Conditions accepted when they applied for and obtained a Railcard.

 

Condition 6. You must carry your Railcard with you on your journey and when asked by rail staff, you must show a valid ticket and valid Railcard. If you fail to do so, you will be required to pay the full price Standard Single fare for your journey as if no ticket was purchased before starting the journey and in some cases a Penalty Fare.

 

Leaving aside any argument as to whether any of us feel it is morally justified, the fact is that an opportunity was given for the OP to pay the fare due under the rules (which had been previously advised and accepted) and that opportunity was not taken up. The next thing that the rail company will consider will be the travellers' reaction to being asked to pay the fare due.

 

Legislation makes clear that if any traveller fails, or refuses to pay the fare due, action may be taken to pursue that matter.

 

What you are quoting is terms and conditions right. Let's be absolutely clear that doesn't mean they are lawful. I bet Wonga had terms and conditions that applied to all those loans they wrote off.

 

Terms and conditions are a nice little earner for the operators of monopolies. It makes no commercial sense for a TOC to rock that boat by having their legality scrutinised in court for the sake of screwing one traveller.

[BazzaS]

What you are quoting is terms and conditions right. Let's be absolutely clear that doesn't mean they are lawful. I bet Wonga had terms and conditions that applied to all those loans they wrote off.

 

Terms and conditions are a nice little earner for the operators of monopolies. It makes no commercial sense for a TOC to rock that boat by having their legality scrutinised in court for the sake of screwing one traveller.

 

Mere, have you considered that OCJ speaks from the position of "having the legalities scrutinised in court" on a regular basis?

Additionally that each case involves "one traveller" and the court looks at each case and the situation regarding each case?

 

If you were correct, the TOC's would never take any individual to court, or if they did, would never succeed in a prosecution.

Yet, they can, and do, suggesting your logic is flawed.

 

I have no intention of re-opening your thread (which was closed by the site team) either directly or by proxy.

I (merely?) wish to point out ;

a) your thread got closed down way more quickly on the other forum

b) 6 pages of poorly argued contradiction shows you have a "bee in your bonnet" that might be blinding you to reason

c) OCJ has many years experience of doing just what you claim the TOC's won't do.

 

Additionally, since I noticed elsewhere about the vague nature of your posting : when you cite that journalists article : precisely which means / point of law do you feel the OP of THIS thread should the OP rely on for your advice to be valid?. Go ahead, be precise & "put your money where your mouth is". Anyone can post a link, why not justify why, by the details.......

 

It is is fair enough if you choose to put yourself at risk by refusing to listen to good advice : your choice at your risk.

 

Others should have the relevant info to judge your advice against OCJ's ..... before they rely on the risk of following your poor advice.

[Vauban]

Without getting involved in any spat, it strikes me as fundamentally unfair if a passenger has a ticket, forgets their railcard, but can subsequently prove they do have the entitlement to travel at the reduced rate. Whatever the T&Cs, one ought be able reasonably to rely on the train company to demonstrate some common sense: these are not fare dodgers. I don't think the CAG community should be unsympathetic in these circumstances.

[BazzaS]

Without getting involved in any spat, it strikes me as fundamentally unfair if a passenger has a ticket, forgets their railcard, but can subsequently prove they do have the entitlement to travel at the reduced rate. Whatever the T&Cs, one ought be able reasonably to rely on the train company to demonstrate some common sense: these are not fare dodgers. I don't think the CAG community should be unsympathetic in these circumstances.

 

I'm not unsympathetic.

 

I can see a case for why the TOC should take "a strict line".

Bear in mind I'm not suggesting for a moment that the OP has done this.

 

Person A has a railcard, and buys a reduced rate ticket.

Person B then gets person A to buy a 2nd ticket, again at reduced rate.

They travel on the same service, in seperate carriages.

 

Person B, when their ticket is inspected, says "I've forgotten my railcard", and gives person A's details.

Person A shows their railcard.

 

The TOC then writes to person A, who says "but I have a railcard!", and sends in a copy.

The TOC can't tell that it was person B who didn't show the railcard, not person A, as they don't compare photos.

 

Possibly why the TOC have the T&C's they do, and act as they do.

They should apply common sense & leniency, but will look at the whole scenario, which might include asking "is that service known high risk for railcard abuse". Given the comments in timbo's post : that assessment for that service might be hardening their attitude.

[mere]

Mere, have you considered that OCJ speaks from the position of "having the legalities scrutinised in court" on a regular basis?

Additionally that each case involves "one traveller" and the court looks at each case and the situation regarding each case?

 

If you were correct, the TOC's would never take any individual to court, or if they did, would never succeed in a prosecution.

Yet, they can, and do, suggesting your logic is flawed.

 

I have no intention of re-opening your thread (which was closed by the site team) either directly or by proxy.

I (merely?) wish to point out ;

a) your thread got closed down way more quickly on the other forum

b) 6 pages of poorly argued contradiction shows you have a "bee in your bonnet" that might be blinding you to reason

c) OCJ has many years experience of doing just what you claim the TOC's won't do.

 

Additionally, since I noticed elsewhere about the vague nature of your posting : when you cite that journalists article : precisely which means / point of law do you feel the OP of THIS thread should the OP rely on for your advice to be valid?. Go ahead, be precise & "put your money where your mouth is". Anyone can post a link, why not justify why, by the details.......

 

It is is fair enough if you choose to put yourself at risk by refusing to listen to good advice : your choice at your risk.

 

Others should have the relevant info to judge your advice against OCJ's ..... before they rely on the risk of following your poor advice.

 

I don't know where your experience of commercial life comes from but companies don't go to court on points of principle which is often the only thing at stake when the amount is (for them) trivial. If it involved something like assault on staff that's an entirely different thing altogether.

 

You seem to be bringing past baggage to this discussion. I'm not going there with you.

[BazzaS]

I don't know where your experience of commercial life comes from but companies don't go to court on points of principle which is often the only thing at stake when the amount is (for them) trivial. If it involved something like assault on staff that's an entirely different thing altogether.

 

You seem to be bringing past baggage to this discussion. I'm not going there with you.

 

Yup, I've definitely got past baggage from your previous thread : either you are a troll, or are stupid enough to ignore good advice. That deserves to be brought to any thread where you are putting other people (rather than you) at risk by your poor advice.

 

Moving back to this thread : you still can't get past the fact that TOC's do take people to court in just those circumstances you say they wouldn't.....

Assault on staff should be prosecuted, but it isn't prosecuted under Bylaw 18 or S5 RRA 1889.

According to you : they won't prosecute "on principle" where the amount is trivial .... Yet we have seen the threads here where the fare avoided was £1.60

 

You keep reiterating "they won't!", yet the evidence is that they can, and do.

Why? Even for small amounts?? As "it is the principal form of dishonesty to affect public transport", and "pour discouragee les autres".

[mere]

Without getting involved in any spat, it strikes me as fundamentally unfair if a passenger has a ticket, forgets their railcard, but can subsequently prove they do have the entitlement to travel at the reduced rate. Whatever the T&Cs, one ought be able reasonably to rely on the train company to demonstrate some common sense: these are not fare dodgers. I don't think the CAG community should be unsympathetic in these circumstances.

 

There is a legal basis for that "sympathy" and that "common sense". It's call a purposive interpretation of the law.

What you seem to get in this forum is a literalist interpretation given context free which seems to extend now to terms and conditions which mean jack if they are unlawful (google "office of fair trading unfair terms in consumer contracts").

 

Under a purposive interpretation of the law (which judges are free to apply) a judge can ask whether the law the TOC is trying to benefit from is being put to it's intended purpose. i.e was this law enacted to enable a TOC prosecute and criminalize a person who forgot their railcard and if he takes that approach and doesn't think it was the TOC are not going to win.

[Conniff]

Your might think your not paying is just a trivial amount but add together all those that do as you have done and you can bet the total is in the millions.

 

 

What you are saying is I can help myself to a packet of Polo from the local grocer as he wont' miss that much.

 

 

P.S. I don't think it's called 'common sense' I think it's called, not being ripped off by the public.

[mere]

No

 

You are equating outright theft with forgetting a railcard.

[Conniff]

Oh sorry, I forgot my wallet so I took the Polo but they won't take me to court for such a piddling amount and I won't be paying.

[rebel11]

Guys, can I ask everyone to take a time out. Can I also ask everyone to respect each other. We aren't helping the OP if we carry on in this manner.

[mere]

I don't know how else I can put it. The circumstance you describe with the polo is theft.

[dx100uk]

discussion thread created here

 

 

dx

[mere]

Oh sorry, I forgot my wallet so I took the Polo but they won't take me to court for such a piddling amount and I won't be paying.

 

Or as a counterexample.

 

People die, or have their livelihoods ruined as a consequence of the operation of a motor vehicle by an unlicensed person. It almost trivialises the consequences of fare evasion.

 

Yet in this country you are not criminalised/prosecuted for forgetting your drivers license , you are given a chance to produce it.

[Conniff]

Instead of just arguing and getting nowhere, can't we just wait to see what happens and take it from there ??

[BazzaS]

Yet in this country you are not criminalised/prosecuted for forgetting your drivers license , you are given a chance to produce it.

 

Poor example.

Neither the law (nor the "terms & conditions" I accept a driving licence under) require me to carry my driver's license.

 

Hence you can't compare the two situations.

[mere]

and neither is there a law requiring you to carry a railcard.

[mere]

Poor example.

Neither the law (nor the "terms & conditions" I accept a driving licence under) require me to carry my driver's license.

 

Actually I'm pretty sure you are required to carry your driver's license. It's just that the prescription for what happens when you don't is a producer.

[Old-CodJA]

What you are quoting is terms and conditions right. Let's be absolutely clear that doesn't mean they are lawful. I bet Wonga had terms and conditions that applied to all those loans they wrote off.

 

Terms and conditions are a nice little earner for the operators of monopolies. It makes no commercial sense for a TOC to rock that boat by having their legality scrutinised in court for the sake of screwing one traveller.

 

 

 

What this response ignores is the fact that it is not the T&Cs that will be tested in a Magistrates Court, it is the alleged offence that may be charged which will be examined there.

 

As the man widely recognised as 'the people's Judge' and a former Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning put it, the defendant will only be judged on his words & actions at the time of an alleged offence. (It might also be worth remembering that his Lordship spent a considerable part of his early career as a Barrister dealing with railways fare evasion matters.)

 

In the OP's case, at the time of travel, the traveller failed to show a valid ticket when asked (discounted ticket without supporting Railcard = no valid ticket) and also failed to pay the fare due when asked.

 

If a Penalty Fare Notice was issued, that means that the traveller was handed a printed notice giving 21 days to pay that fare, or successfully appeal the liability. If the traveller has failed to do either within the 21 days, the TOC is at liberty to cancel the civil remedy (the Penalty Fare) and to pursue an offence. If the fare is unpaid after 21 days, the TOC's agents will usually send a reminder letter, although they are not obliged to do so, and that letter will advise that the right to appeal has no been forfeit, but the company will seek payment.

 

If that remains unpaid, the Penalty Fares Rules as defined by The Railways Act makes provision for such a notice to be cancelled and prosecution may ensue.

 

Now, let's return to Lord Denning's words and examine the example here because that is the crux of what might be alleged by summons and in any ensuing Court action

 

The traveller may well say that they had paid the correct fare due

 

The prosecutor may say that the traveller failed to show a ticket confirming that the correct fare had been previously paid and showed a ticket indicating only that a lesser fare had been paid, but did not produce evidence of entitlement to that lesser fare. They will also say that the traveller was asked to pay the correct fare due in the circumstances, but failed to do so.

 

The prosecutor will say that the traveller was also handed a notice asking them to pay the fare a for second time and that the notice, which the traveller accepted and signed as understood, remained unpaid.

 

If the traveller had paid the fare when asked, or successfully appealed the notice within the 21 days allowed, the matter would have been dealt with and no action could ensue.

 

I do believe that in attempting to give guidance for a user's query on a forum such as this, we should explain what the letter they have received appears to indicate

 

I think my earlier post made clear that we ought to leave aside any personal beliefs regarding moral justification and should recognise that a Magistrates Court is not the place which will examine and rule on commercial terms & conditions, although comment might be made by the Bench in delivering their verdict.

 

Whether the OP has reached the point at which a Summons might be issued and if so, whether or not they decide to pay any penalty option that may still be available to them, or wait to see if a Court date is notified and then mount their defence is entirely a matter for the OP.

 

All we can do really is to put forward from experience what has happened in the past and therefore, what may happen in the future.

 

Maybe the TOC will decide not to pursue action, but we cannot be sure.

[mere]

It is not a personal belief that a purposive interpretation (under which the TOC is unlikely to succeed) can be applied to the law in this area. It's a fact.

[stu007]

Just for clarification on this discussion could you please provide us with a link to your fact