We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
First Capital Connect prosecuting
Comments
-
Was the ticket from London Terminals or elsewhere? Sometimes the RPIs do make mistakes and declare tickets "invalid" when they are valid. Unlikely, and a long shot, but worth finding out.The reason for the invalidity was that the ticket was the return portion of an off-peak day return ticket purchased with a railcard, and there is a period in the evening when the return cannot be used.
It would be interesting to know how the conversation went. For example, the RPI may attempt to distinguish between a customer deliberately trying to avoid the correct fare, and a customer being confused by the complex conditions.. She immediately admitted her mistake when it was pointed out.
The correct action for a passenger who is either travelling by a route for which the ticket is not valid but for which a higher priced route ticket exists, or on a time restricted ticket at a barred time, would be an excess fare to the appropriate ticket, including Railcard discount if the original ticket is discounted. This is much more lenient than a Penalty Fare. In my experience, the excess is normally issued without fuss..
In my experience from seeing RPIs at work, the usual solution is to ask the passenger to pay the fare difference, or issue a Penalty Fare.
However on trains that do not have guards and were RPIs do occasional checks, there is a greater chance that the RPI may try to 'catch out' the customer. If the customer admitted they knew the ticket was invalid and indicated they would have not paid the extra unless challenged, and facilities were available, then the RPI may make a dim view of that scenario.
That is utterly bizarre. Does she have any witnesses? Shocking behaviour, if true. FCC cannot decide to "fine" someone. If the RPI believed it was genuine he should have charged her the excess, not taken a witness statement!.
FCC's RPI declined to take a payment from her (she explicitly offered). He said that he believed her mistake was genuine, that he would not take a payment, but would take her details, and then she would just have to respond to a letter from FCC who would decide whether to fine her or take no action. At no time was any other possible action mentioned.
FCC will believe whatever their RPI says over what a customer says. Some FCC RPIs cannot be trusted, but FCC will not see it that way. Sadly, I fear a Court will also believe the FCC RPI over the customer too..
Two months later, she received a notice of intention to prosecute from FCC. She has since written and telephoned them to try and convey what the RPI said, but as far as she can tell they have ignored everything.
I would say so, yes..
She has now received a magistrates' court summons for the offence under section 18(2) of the railway Bye-Laws.
(Q1) Am I right to think that it is out of proportion and abnormal for an offence of this type to be prosecuted?
I am not sure, but you need to ask a legal specialist that question.(Q2) The "Statement of Facts" provided to the Court by the prosecution is factually untrue, in a demonstrable and material way. It states, as a matter of fact, "she did not have the means to pay". This is directly contradicted by their RPI's witness statement, in which he asks if she had means to pay, and she replied "yes". To me, this shows a misunderstaning by the prosecutor of the most basic facts of the case, and casts into doubt whether the case should have been prosecuted. What are the implications of this error? If she points this out to FCC, can they just edit it and proceed anyway (thereby changing "facts")?
In this case there is no question of intent, so they do not have to prove any intent. I do not agree with the law, I think it is disgraceful, but sadly that is how it is.(Q3) There are other regulations under which the charge could have been brought (Regulation of the Railways section 5(3)(a)). Those regulations specifically state that there has to be an "intent" to avoid paying (so this case would fail, because there is clearly no intent). The Bye-Law is essentially the same as the other law, but without any mention of intent. Do the prosecution still need to prove intent?
I'm not sure, it would be nice to think she could be found innocent due to a technicality due to FCCs incompetence, but this should be checked with a legal expert(Q4) FCC have also omitted to provide her with their complete evidence. They sent "page 1 of 3" and "page 2 of 3" of their RPI's witness statement, but no "page 3 of 3". Implications? Should she ask them for the missing page?
It is very difficult to fight 'strict liability' cases. Sometimes it is better to offer to settle out of court, as much as I'd like you to win. The law is absolutely disgraceful and allows RPIs who lie, and private train companies who treat their customers with contempt well beyond any other company would, to have unfair victories over passengers who have not intended any wrongdoing.0 -
Interesting, as this conflicts with what I have been told by experts. Can you recall where you remember this from?Livingthedream wrote: »If I remember correctly; basic and standard CRB No, enhanced CRB Yes and most employers only required basic or standard, enhanced if working with kids or vulnerable adults.
However what is a concern is that, although a guilty verdict in this case would not result in a criminal record, it could mistakenly be recorded in the PNC (an entry in which does not denote a criminal record), and this is the database from which a Criminal Record is determined.
There are no guarantees that people who enter data into the PNC, will not make mistakes, and likewise people who read data from the PNC in order to respond to a CRB check request, will not make a mistake.0 -
Interesting, as this conflicts with what I have been told by experts. Can you recall where you remember this from?
Hello yorkie, the course I'm on the moment has an ex-copper on it and part of the requirements for the course is a CRB check and he told me this bit of info.
But after a quick check on 'google' it came up with this as well posted by a Barrister apparently;
Probably they will summons him to court under a breach of the railway bye laws. That carries a fine but its not a criminal record as railway bye laws are civil. It will show on enhanced checking though unless, of course, they fail to record it. Errors do happen sometimes.Whoa! This image violates our terms of use and has been removed from view0 -
Sometimes the RPIs do make mistakes and declare tickets "invalid" when they are valid.
That happend to someone I know recently, when an FCC RPI declared the return half of an off peak ticket invalid as they were travelling out of London at 5pm. The only problem is they were traveling from zone B to C and their ticket was valid...and a customer being confused by the complex conditions.
It would be interesting to present FCC's evening peak leaflet to the magistrates and ask if they can understand it.In my experience, the excess is normally issued without fuss.
However on trains that do not have guards and were RPIs do occasional checks, there is a greater chance that the RPI may try to 'catch out' the customer.
As you would be aware, FCC don't have guards and ony have occasional RPI checks.
I find most FCC staff are quite pleasant to deal with, but I know that of one of their ticket barrier staff that will always try to get someone prosecuted for using a an off peak ticket on a peak train, irrespective of the circumstances. This person seems to have the skill to not only wind up all of FCC's customers, including those who do have tickets, but also their colleagues who have to work with them.0 -
Yes, I think that's it; a misunderstanding by the ex-copper who perhaps encountered someone who had been victim of a mistake.
I put this to an expert on another forum (you can probably guess who & where!) and he said he thought that a mistake (or two!) could be how it happened, the first mistake would be the recording of it on the PNC, and the 2nd mistake would be the person reading it for the enhanced CRB check and putting it down on the record (without realising it should not have been recorded).0 -
Yes, most concerning.That happend to someone I know recently, when an FCC RPI declared the return half of an off peak ticket invalid as they were travelling out of London at 5pm. The only problem is they were traveling from zone B to C and their ticket was valid...
The rules are confusing, but if a member of rail staff encounters a ticket they think is invalid, they should immediately look it up, informing the customer "Excuse me, while I check something" (or similar).
Indeed! This could be presented at the same time as the "Simple fares" page on the ATOC site. However I would not rely on the magistrates agreeing it is confusing and throw the case out on that basis (though if our legal system is fully just and sensible, they should - but I am not entirely satisfied that it is )It would be interesting to present FCC's evening peak leaflet to the magistrates and ask if they can understand it.
Indeed.As you would be aware, FCC don't have guards and ony have occasional RPI checks.
FCC do not appear interested in dealing with rogue RPIs, as I discovered when I heard various horror stories by regular FCC customers (e.g. JonMorris0844 on Railforums has been persecuted by an FCC RPI).I find most FCC staff are quite pleasant to deal with, but I know that of one of their ticket barrier staff that will always try to get someone prosecuted for using a an off peak ticket on a peak train, irrespective of the circumstances. This person seems to have the skill to not only wind up all of FCC's customers, including those who do have tickets, but also their colleagues who have to work with them.
The last time I used FCC, I purposefully sat in declassified First Class, because it would not have surprised me if an RPI had claimed the train (going to Sutton and designated Standard Class only) conveyed First Class and tried to issue PFs, as I have heard this does happen from time to time. I've never been able to catch FCC RPIs acting badly, though I'd love to catch the rouge ones out, it's not my area. FCC allow some of their staff to get away with things that no other industry would tolerate.0 -
Yes, I can guess who you asked (Forth bridge on his avatar?) and he is a good font of knowledge, but it's strange that both an ex-copper and a Barrister would say different?
But anyway we digress again, any more info to help the OP?Whoa! This image violates our terms of use and has been removed from view0 -
Thanks everyone for your help. Just to follow up on some of the questions raised:Was the ticket from London Terminals or elsewhere? Sometimes the RPIs do make mistakes and declare tickets "invalid" when they are valid. Unlikely, and a long shot, but worth finding out.
It was from King's Cross to out here in Cambridgeshire, and the inspection was at or near Hadley Wood. We believe that the assessment that the ticket was invalid is correct.It would be interesting to know how the conversation went.
You're telling me! I wish I'd been there.For example, the RPI may attempt to distinguish between a customer deliberately trying to avoid the correct fare, and a customer being confused by the complex conditions.
It's a clear-cut case of confusion about the conditions, and the RPI acknowledged that - at least by his words if not by his actions. My friend has subsequently read through all the terms and conditions and been amazed.If the customer admitted they knew the ticket was invalid and indicated they would have not paid the extra unless challenged, and facilities were available, then the RPI may make a dim view of that scenario.
I have absolute faith that she acted perfectly properly and that she had no idea of her mistake. She remembers that the RPI was friendly and understanding, and assured her he believed her error was innocent. Not at all the signs of the RPI taking a dim view. The Prosecution Department seem to have picked up and run with the dim view, for some reason.That is utterly bizarre. Does she have any witnesses? Shocking behaviour, if true. FCC cannot decide to "fine" someone. If the RPI believed it was genuine he should have charged her the excess, not taken a witness statement!
No contactable witnesses. It was not a regularly repeated journey for her, and she was on her own, and even if she did find someone by taking the same train again, well, it was over 5 months ago ...0 -
It could be argued that it's out of proportion, although it's a Strict Liability offence, therefore what would deem it 'proportionate'? It's not uncommon for an offence of this type to be prosecuted.(Q1) Am I right to think that it is out of proportion and abnormal for an offence of this type to be prosecuted?
If untrue you should contact FCC and let them know, although they're using the Byelaw and not the RRA 1889, so it would appear they know that.(Q2) The "Statement of Facts" provided to the Court by the prosecution is factually untrue, in a demonstrable and material way. It states, as a matter of fact, "she did not have the means to pay". This is directly contradicted by their RPI's witness statement, in which he asks if she had means to pay, and she replied "yes". To me, this shows a misunderstaning by the prosecutor of the most basic facts of the case, and casts into doubt whether the case should have been prosecuted. What are the implications of this error? If she points this out to FCC, can they just edit it and proceed anyway (thereby changing "facts")?
No intent need be proved, as Livingthedream has said, as Byelaws are Strict Liability matters. Still criminal, just Strict Liability.(Q3) There are other regulations under which the charge could have been brought (Regulation of the Railways section 5(3)(a)). Those regulations specifically state that there has to be an "intent" to avoid paying (so this case would fail, because there is clearly no intent). The Bye-Law is essentially the same as the other law, but without any mention of intent. Do the prosecution still need to prove intent?(Q4) FCC have also omitted to provide her with their complete evidence. They sent "page 1 of 3" and "page 2 of 3" of their RPI's witness statement, but no "page 3 of 3". Implications? Should she ask them for the missing page?
Thanks! I'll keep you posted.
If computerised MG11, page three is often a blank page if ours are anything to go by. This is only if the text on the previous page had neared the very bottom of the page. Just a glitch. However, good practice would be to include the blank page, but cross it out and the RPI to sign it so no changes can be made. Saves confusion all round.
The norm might be for the TOC to issue a PF in these circumstances, but that doesn't mean they are obliged to by any means.
The norm would be to offer to pay all reasonable admin costs incurred to remain out of court. FCC don't have to accept, but it saves court time.
The offence is non-recordable, so if it did go to court, it wouldn't show on a CRB check, assuming the check in question ONLY uses the PNC to check data.0 -
If it's not uncommon among some TOCs then that should really be exposed, investigated, and put a stop to. Certainly any TOC near me would simply excess the fare with no fuss whatsoever. Only if the person refused to pay the excess would there be any prospect of criminal charges. If FCC (or similar companies who operate PF schemes) are misusing the law I'd like further information so that the practice can be investigated and stopped.It could be argued that it's out of proportion, although it's a Strict Liability offence, therefore what would deem it 'proportionate'? It's not uncommon for an offence of this type to be prosecuted.
If they do, that's a misuse of the Penalty Fare legislation, as PFs should not be used in the circumstances described.The norm might be for the TOC to issue a PF in these circumstances, but that doesn't mean they are obliged to by any means..0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards