Fines to under 18's

Stigy

Livingthedream wrote: »

Total agree Penalty fare/Unpaid fares notices are ways to keep minor breaches out of court, but they are a civil issue which should be pursed in a small claims court, however, train companies don't want their Terms and conditions challenged in a court of law as this could set a legal legal president against the train company, a prime example of this was the 'Professor and his advance tickets'. So what's the easiest thing for the train company to do, cancel the Penalty fare/UFN and prosecute under bylaw 18.1.

If you ignore a Penalty fare/UFN it's easier for the train company to prove that you are a 'fare dodger', correct. However, if you have 'mitigating circumstances' and appeal your Penalty fare both to the train company and passenger focus this can be used as a defence to prove that your not a 'fare dodger'

Speaking in railway terms here, byelaw 18.1 isn't rerseved for 'fare dodgers' that's what 5.3(a) RRA 1889 is for, and wouldn't or at least shouldn't, be dealt with by way of a Penalty Fare (At the very least the offender should be reported in the first instance, what you can prove under questioning is another matter though). Why should the Penalty Fare itself be challenged in court if it goes unpaid? It's not only sensible, but benificial for the TOC to cancel the PF and submit an MG11 for the 18.1 merely because one's civil and one's criminal! The Byelaws are extreamly powerful, as I'm sure you are aware.

If you do have mitigating circumstances and these are rejected at appeal, I agree that they can be used as a defence. Chances are, even though the Independent Appeals Service isn't really independant, if you really have been PF'd "illegaly" you should be refunded or have the unpaid amount scraped. Most people in these circumstances find evidence of TVMs not working and Ticket Offices being closed, before presenting their appeal. Simply saying "I ran for the train" will more than likely be rejected, and if still not paid, then there's not really a reason for Magistrates find said defendent not guilty!

Livingthedream

Appoligies for taking this off topic, but

Stigy wrote: »

The Byelaws are extreamly powerful, as I'm sure you are aware.

Agreed, so with regards to the 'Professor' why didn't East Coast cancel the UFN and prosecute under 18.1. Because and I think you will agree with me here, he was a chancer, 'who know the system and how to avoid paying the correct fare'

Stigy wrote: »

If you do have mitigating circumstances

Every case is different and I'm not going to mention some of the cases I've seen for obvious reasons.

Stigy

Livingthedream wrote: »

Appoligies for taking this off topic, but



Agreed, so with regards to the 'Professor' why didn't East Coast cancel the UFN and prosecute under 18.1. Because and I think you will agree with me here, he was a chancer, 'who know the system and how to avoid paying the correct fare'



Every case is different and I'm not going to mention some of the cases I've seen for obvious reasons.

I agree. I can't remember the whole case though. Did they not just cancel the UFN to keep them from yet more bad publicity? That being the case, I have said this to everybody that questions the RPI or Guard's actions, that they, nor did the traincrew, know this guy, and he used his position in society to an advantage. East Coast admited, wrongly, that they were in the wrong in the first place by cancelling the UFN and taking no further action. What people tend not to look at is that certain tickets are heavily discounted for a reason, that they have very strong T&Cs!

If East Coast had stuck to their guns, they never would have ended up in court, and the Proffessor would probably have settled the matter either by paying the UFN, or, if it East Coast wanted to take it to court, he probably would have settled the matter out of court. Lets not forget, this wasn't somebody who was reported for prosecution, or even PF'd, so the UFN was probably the most consistant thing to do given the circumstances!

Livingthedream

Stigy wrote: »

If East Coast had stuck to their guns, they never would have ended up in court, and the Proffessor would probably have settled the matter either by paying the UFN, or, if it East Coast wanted to take it to court, he probably would have settled the matter out of court

I think he would have taken it to court, due to his arrogance and the fact that the Daily Mail stated they would cover his Legal fees.

Thanx for the debate stigy, hopefully bevmanchester will post back later telling us what she intends on doing.

jd82

No sympathy as somebody who spends over £40 a month on Metrolink tickets.

They have prosecuted over 10,000 people for this over the last year and many of them were taken to court.

The Metrolink is run by Stagecoach for GMPTE but the important bit is all revenue is collected by GMPTE, Stagecoach just run the trams for GMPTE on a flat fee basis.

GMPTE is a government department.

She needs to pay up or the fine will get bigger and she will end up with a crinimal record.

To anybody that knows the Manchester Metrolink system every station has lots of posters up warning people they will get caught without a ticket. I have seen major police operations involving this and they do come down very hard on people without tickets.

They seem to be a lot more leniant with people with the wrong tickets and just give them for a warning if they believe it was a genuine mistake.

The fine will only be quite small but I believe the standard rate is £100 and it can be much bigger if it goes to court.

It should perhaps also be pointed out that the Metrolink system is nothing to with the railways. It is a completly seperate system which has its own by laws.

Stigy

jd82 wrote: »

It should perhaps also be pointed out that the Metrolink system is nothing to with the railways. It is a completly seperate system which has its own by laws.

I must admit, although I am well aware of this fact, I did jump straight in with my railway head on, hence why I edited my initial post several times!

@ Livingthedream,

I'm not sure he'd want to risk a court appearance given his current profession. Having said that, it's not the end of the world these days unless being charged under a RRA offence which is frowned up on more than a byelaw!

geordie_taxi

geordieracer wrote: »

What a very familiar thread. And if i was the OP i would stop listening to the very bad advice from sassy-one

and if i was sassy-one id stop giving out very bad and very wrong advice.

Stigy wrote: »

No, and I appologise if it looked that way. The only reason I quoted you, was explained in the main body (second paragraph) of my post.

I believe it was aimed at Sassy!

i think you too need to stop bullying sassy she made a valid point and didnt deserve to be slated like that. I once wrote back complaining about 2 penalty fare i got in the past then ignored all other letters the train companys sent me and i still haven't been to court

geordie_taxi

Livingthedream wrote: »

he was a chancer, 'who know the system and how to avoid paying the correct fare'

you dont even know the person so how can you make that claim. he was a honest passenger who got bullied by a train revenue bloke who saw the pound signs when he walk by

corbyboy

Don't the ticket machines take cards?

Stigy

corbyboy wrote: »

Don't the ticket machines take cards?

It depends what type of card it was...