Yet Another Penalty Fare Thread

geordie_taxi

robt wrote: »

There is some irony

Do you have anything on topic you would like to add as your first contribution to this thread?

i wanted to make a point then post something on topic see my post above

geordieracer

geordie_taxi wrote: »

wot a load of rubbish. the train company will be very reluctant to prosecute anybody with a valid season ticket even for bylaw 18.1

for starters any good defence lawyer would rip any prosecution to bits with the 'how can it be an offence when the passenger had a season ticket it was a simple mistake and an over zealous revenue bloke'

next this could easily turn into a media nightmare for south west trains if this got to the papers im sure south west trains would rather aviod this bad publicity.

Steady there son

Just because your grumpy you seem to have missed some vital facts out.

A train company can prosecute anyone for not having a valid when asked to produce one. That is the most vital stipulation of the very bylaw that you have quoted.

And also as i have said there are some TOCs like Chiltern who will let you pass a couple of times a year if you dont have it with you and can prove that you have one - name address and such like.

You really think stagecoach care about PR? Like any other TOC? Most of these stories get one quarter a page and then no follow up so you dont know who it goes.

A defence lawyer would not be able to rip anything to shreds as the National conditions of carriage - which you enter into when you buy a ticket clearly state

2. Requirement to hold a ticket
Before you travel you must have a ticket or other authority to travel which is valid for the train(s) you intend to use and for the journey you intend to make. If you travel in a train:

(a) without a ticket; or
(b) the circumstances described in Conditions 10, 11, 12, 18, 19, 22, 30, 35 and 39 apply;

you will be liable to pay the full single fare or full return fare or, if appropriate, a Penalty Fare (see Condition 4) for your journey. You will not be entitled to any discounts or special terms unless either:

(i) at the station where you started your journey:

there was no ticket office or no ticket office was open
and
there were no self-service ticket machines or no self-service ticket machines were in full working order
and
in Penalty Fares areas you bought a Permit to Travel unless no Permit to Travel issuing machine was in full working order
or
(ii) the notices and other publications issued by the Train Company in whose train you are travelling indicate that you can buy tickets in that train. In circumstances where (i) or (ii) apply, you only need to pay the fare that you would have paid if you had bought a ticket immediately before your journey.

Special arrangements may apply if you are disabled. You will find details of these arrangements in each Train Company’s ‘Disabled People’s Protection Policy’.

For the purposes of this Condition, and Conditions 4, 39 and 41, "full single fare or full return fare" means the highest priced single or (if requested by the passenger) return fare appropriate to the class of travel for the journey you are making.

Now considering the NCoC and the railway bylaws are legal documents and enforced by the courts should the TOC want to take them there then how on earth would a lawyer get around them.

Answer me this when you have read the above:-

did they have a ticket when asked to provide one - the answer is no, so it is prosecutable. Whether or not they had a ticket at home it is the same as buying a ticket and then losing it even though you have proof you have bought one. You still do not hold a valid document to enable you to travel.


Im assuming you are a lawyer and know so much more then those who work on the railway so im going to tell the OP to follow your !!!!!! advice and then sit back and wonder if your sassy-one in disguise.

geordieracer

geordie_taxi wrote: »

who made u forum police!!!!!!! i think u should keep ur nose out of other peoples threads unless u have something on topic to post. :mad:

Brilliant bit of irony.. And even your post after this one is full of crap.

geordie_taxi

geordieracer wrote: »

Brilliant bit of irony.. And even your post after this one is full of crap.

a bit like yours then. we all know the railway laws but we also know that train companys only like to take people to court when they are 100% sure to get a prosecution.

in this case the defence could make a reasonable case for dismissal and therefore the train company will think twice before even letting this one get as far as a court.

yes very grumpy at mo something to do will Alan Pardew

geordieracer

geordie_taxi wrote: »

a bit like yours then. we all know the railway laws but we also know that train companys only like to take people to court when they are 100% sure to get a prosecution.

in this case the defence could make a reasonable case for dismissal and therefore the train company will think twice before even letting this one get as far as a court.

yes very grumpy at mo something to do will Alan Pardew

And in this case they would get 100% conviction.

christ you really like giving terrible advice dont you. I just read the bus thread too..

geordie_taxi

geordieracer wrote: »

And in this case they would get 100% conviction.

christ you really like giving terrible advice dont you. I just read the bus thread too..

are you sure? ur a station manager not a solicitor. your advice on railway bylaws is correct but u havent taken into account the mitigation of the valid season ticket only a solicitor could give a full answer to this.

Gosh! but then i would expect a bit of arogance from yourself when in another thead you told another railway worker that you manage more stations than he does so hes wrong.

but please keep calm its only an internet forum.

geordieracer

geordie_taxi wrote: »

are you sure? ur a station manager not a solicitor. your advice on railway bylaws is correct but u havent taken into account the mitigation of the valid season ticket only a solicitor could give a full answer to this.

Gosh! but then i would expect a bit of arogance from yourself when in another thead you told another railway worker that you manage more stations than he does so hes wrong.

but please keep calm its only an internet forum.

I have taken into account the season ticket. If you had bothered to read my posts properly I have said that some TOCs allow you to have days where you can not have it with you and some dont. And the fact still remains that as he was not in possession of a valid ticket when travelling that he is punishable under the bylaw.

The reason why i said that is because i was informing him that i knew what i was on about as i have been doing this for many many years and the position i am in now leads me to know a little bit more due to me having to much more Laws to enable me to do my job correctly to look after the safety of not only my passengers but also my staff and contractors as should something serious happen then its more then likely i along with my chairman would be prosecuted unless we showed that we had done everything and kept records of everything.

And one other point which i missed out on last night about you saying that you dont hear of TOCS taking people to court - Thats because people get scared and dont want to end up with a criminal conviction against their name so they pay up and out of court. When we set up our fraud team last year we found one bloke who had been cheating us for many years who worked in the Home Office. Promptly paid £6K within days. Another we got £8K out of within days.

But dont let that sort of thing get in the way of your sterling advice.

geordie_taxi

geordieracer wrote: »

But dont let that sort of thing get in the way of your sterling advice.

Thank U. im happy that u see my side of the debate.

deed02392 get legal advice. what about UKYP? u must know a post graduate law student on there to help u.

newfoundglory

geordieracer wrote: »

Now considering the NCoC and the railway bylaws are legal documents and enforced by the courts should the TOC want to take them there then how on earth would a lawyer get around them

I can see your point on the bylaws, but don't assume that the NR Conditions of Carriage are legally enforceable - they are not. That is for a court to decide.

While the CoC can be considered a contact, that contract contains several bits which could be regarded by a court as "unfair" contractual terms (under The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999).

Examples of terms which could be considered "unfair", include the fact it states the CoC can be changed/updated at any time and that supposedly you are bound by the new conditions (whether you agree with those or not).

As a contract, it doesn't create any criminal offences.

Stigy

LOL, I'm having visions of a couple of Geordies scrapping whilst shouting in their lingo...:beer:

deed02392 wrote: »

Would you have been surprised if I hadn't and he still refused to sell me a ticket?

No. He was doing his job, as his JD dictates.

deed02392 wrote:

I'm neither a student or spotty. As I have already said, I would have no intention of changing them alone. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels the byelaws allow prosecution of innocent TOC customers and who knows, with some persuation 'someone important enough to worry about' might assist.

Okay then, at what point were you reported for summons? Oh, that's right, you weren't reported for summons using the byelaws, you were issued with a Penalty Fare, and no further action. Trouble is, you're too bone idle to let it go and pay up. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, however narrow minded it might be. You seem to be of the belief that the TOCs benefit financially from successful prosecutions, too. They don't. That being said, what makes the byelaws so annoying to you? Yes, they benefit finacially from the PFs they issue, but they don't get the whole £20 a pop!

deed02392 wrote:

Your stereotypical view of students is precisely something UKYP was founded to combat. If you're one of those who doesn't know what it is, you could Google it. That is assuming you're not too old to operate a search engine. Oops, did I just stereotype? How hypocritical of me.

I'm 20 something actually.

For the record, SWT are quite within their rights to seek to prosecute anybody for any breach of Byelaws where they believe an offence might have been committed. As is any other TOC. If somebody doesn't have a ticket for their entire journey without a valid reason (this case unfortunately not being said valid reason I'm afraid), they can seek prosecution. deed doesn't seem to realise he's got it quite good at the moment.