First Capital Connect prosecuting

vax2002

was any kind of caution read ?

thescouselander

To be honest this kind of thread makes me sick. Now that the railways are commercial enterprises all railway laws should he scrapped and ticketing etc should come under normal consumer contract law with the usual protections for the general public. It's about time something was done about this.

knightstyle

Just to say good luck and how great it is to see forum members offering lots of good advice and not bring nasty!
Oh and belated Christmas greetings to all.

Stigy

yorkie2 wrote: »

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.

I was referring to Byelaw Offences in general, where no intent need be proved. As with most legislation, ignorance cant be a defence. I wasn't referring specifically to this set of circumstances.

ikati5

My daughter had something very similar, she had a valid Oyster card but was on train not covered by Oyster.

She was fined £200.00 and no it does not show on Crb, she works with small children.

Stigy

ikati5 wrote: »

My daughter had something very similar, she had a valid Oyster card but was on train not covered by Oyster.

She was fined £200.00 and no it does not show on Crb, she works with small children.

Arguably not really very similar, just the same Byelaw used I'd imagine.

Assuming it was Railway Byelaw 18(1) that your daughter was prosecuted under, it's non-recordable, and as I said earlier, shouldn't show up on a CRB assuming it's only the PNC used to check. Prosecutions under the Regualtion of Railways Act 1889 are recordable, and will often show up, as long as the courts and TOCs communicate with each other.

Glittermonkey

I had a new employee who had not paid his fare on a train, got caught and went to court.

He was charged with "making off without payment" and this showed up on his basic CRB check

Stigy

Glittermonkey wrote: »

I had a new employee who had not paid his fare on a train, got caught and went to court.

He was charged with "making off without payment" and this showed up on his basic CRB check

I think maybe your employee was either charged under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, or there was more to this than meets the eye. "Making off Without Payment" sounds strangely like theft to me....Although I think you are probably just not certain on the actual offence and just using the offence in it's literal term. A conviction under the legislation I mentioned is recordable and will show up if unspent.

Glittermonkey

Stigy wrote: »

I think maybe your employee was either charged under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, or there was more to this than meets the eye. "Making off Without Payment" sounds strangely like theft to me....Although I think you are probably just not certain on the actual offence and just using the offence in it's literal term. A conviction under the legislation I mentioned is recordable and will show up if unspent.

No, I'm not 100% certain of the actual offence. I saw his CRB and it did say "Making off without payment" and I can't remember anything else listed. The train story is what he said it was for so I cant be certain he was telling the truth.

Stigy

Glittermonkey wrote: »

No, I'm not 100% certain of the actual offence. I saw his CRB and it did say "Making off without payment" and I can't remember anything else listed. The train story is what he said it was for so I cant be certain he was telling the truth.

I see. To be honest I've not seen the exact wording on a CRB of a conviction, but have heard it can be a tad misleading. In an ideal world it would state in laymans terms, what the offence was, such as "Railway Ticketing offence". Making off without payment makes it sound like a petrol station drive off (Theft basically...). RRA 1889 offences are on a par with theft/fraud offences though, so I guess it's six of one and half a dozen of the other really, lol.