Prosecuted by Xcountry despite having valid ticket

Stigy

Quentin wrote: »

It will depend what you are charged with (whether it's a bye law offence or not).

But (to repeat!), if you are considering taking this to court, get advice from a solicitor first!

Agreed, although it would be highly unlikely given what the OP says, that the TOC would go with a RRA1889 charge...Unless there's more to this.

fivetide

wealdroam wrote: »

I'm confused.


How are you going to 'wave the valid ticket in the court' if you have already thrown it away?

I suspect, being a e-ticket he'll simply print off another one.

5t.

jackpease

OP here. No, there's not more to this. I printed off receipt, had the barcode print out for the outgoing, on the return, I had receipt, not the barcode bit, she checked the credit card against the ticket, she confirmed i was sitting in my booked seat, but said she was doing me for not possessing the barcode print out. I refused to pay the full fare because she said i was evading the fare, which i objected to. It is now clear that it is a byelaw summary offence not to show ticket. But it all seems so pointless.

And if there was more to it, they would be doing me for intention to avoid paying a fare, not the byelaw summary offence of not showing valid ticket.

Waving the ticket in court, its a figure of speech, but with these e-tickets you can indeed keep printing them out, they are not valid without the credit card to prevent fraud.

I have sent grovelling apology and offer to pay reasonable costs, and will post here what they say, up to now they have resisted settling.

yorkie2

I agree that they would be unlikely to be successful with a prosecution under the Regulation of Railways Act, which requires intent. However the Byelaws are archaic, unfair and biased laws that effectively allow them to persecute/prosecute people who are innocent of any ill intent, and as they are 'strict liability' all they have to do is show that you did not comply and a court may then find you guilty. In this case if they can prove to the court that the ticket was not valid then they may succeed.

I'd absolutely love to see someone fight this, either by winning the case or taking it to a further court to get the law changed or deemed unfair, however being realistic you have to ask is this really worth the risk of a guilty verdict? I would seek legal advice if you do wish to challenge it.

Sadly it's all far too easy for them to find you guilty for a strict liability offence. I am not saying that it is guaranteed for you to be found guilty, and I'd absolutely love it if they lost the case, but just be careful what you are getting yourself into.

Livingthedream

yorkie2 wrote: »

I agree that they would be unlikely to be successful with a prosecution under the Regulation of Railways Act, which requires intent. However the Byelaws are archaic, unfair and biased laws that effectively allow them to persecute/prosecute people who are innocent of any ill intent, and as they are 'strict liability' all they have to do is show that you did not comply and a court may then find you guilty. In this case if they can prove to the court that the ticket was not valid then they may succeed.

I'd absolutely love to see someone fight this, either by winning the case or taking it to a further court to get the law changed or deemed unfair, however being realistic you have to ask is this really worth the risk of a guilty verdict? I would seek legal advice if you do wish to challenge it.

Sadly it's all far too easy for them to find you guilty for a strict liability offence. I am not saying that it is guaranteed for you to be found guilty, and I'd absolutely love it if they lost the case, but just be careful what you are getting yourself into.

Nicely put and I too share your sentiment. However, the train companies ain't daft, if their prosecution case isn't 100% winnable then they'll drop it like a hot potato, as they won't want their favorable bit of legislation tested in court.

vax2002

If you can afford a solicitor, they are a thousand and one ways out of the noose, the first is if they only send a representative to court and not the inspector, they can ask for the witness to identify the defendant in court, if they can not, because they did not turn up, out goes the case.
Second is wait and see what evidence they drum up at disclosure, if they simply alleged you had no ticket, then ask the representative of the train company what they have been presented with, is this a valid ticket for this journey ?

Rover_Driver

vax2002 wrote: »

If you can afford a solicitor, they are a thousand and one ways out of the noose, the first is if they only send a representative to court and not the inspector, they can ask for the witness to identify the defendant in court, if they can not, because they did not turn up, out goes the case.
Second is wait and see what evidence they drum up at disclosure, if they simply alleged you had no ticket, then ask the representative of the train company what they have been presented with, is this a valid ticket for this journey ?

The OP is not disputing he was there, so there is no requirement to identify him.

The OP is not disputing he didn't have a ticket, he had lost it, but he had evidence that he had paid for the ticket, which the ticket inspector would not accept.

Muscle750

Rather annoying when ive heard of the son of one of the richest people in the uk and owns a rather large retail chain hides in the toilet to save paying on the trips to and from uni

esuhl

Just a thought, but if this is a criminal case, the prosecution would be done by the CPS rather than the rail company, wouldn't it? And the CPS only prosecute if it's "in the public interest". I don't see how prosecuting someone on this "technicality" could be in the public interest...

Personally, I wouldn't be making any out of court settlement offers -- I'd be seeing a solicitor and getting legal advice. Yeah, it's expensive, but I'd rather spend the money on that than throw free money at a train company for (what I would consider) a vexatious claim... At the end of the day, they haven't lost out, so why are they interested in pursuing you?

Have you tried contacting Passenger Focus (the passenger watchdog) to see if they can help in any way?

Maybe the local press would be interested in how rail companies are going after soft targets, rather than dealing with fare evasion responsibly...?

yorkie2

esuhl wrote: »

Just a thought, but if this is a criminal case, the prosecution would be done by the CPS rather than the rail company, wouldn't it?

No, that is not the case.