What happens if you don't buy a ticket and aren't offered one by a guard?

geordie_taxi

Stigy wrote: »

I'm not saying a defendant can't present them as their evidence, but you'll find that the Byelaw being charged, or the more serious Regulation of Railways Act 1889 will over rule them. If you've been sent a summons for an offence on the railway, then the TOC believes you to be in breach of either a Byelaw or the RoRA 1889. For Byelaws specifically, there's very little deffence. Either you had a ticket or you didn't, as long as the facilities etc were available to buy one. Everything else is mitigation i'm afraid.

Thank you, I'm happy that your acknowledging the fact that NrCoC's can be used as evidence and I agree with what you've said about the bylaws & RRA but that is down to the magistrate to sum up along with the prosecution's evidence. I also acknowledge the fact you stated there is very little defence to a strict liability offence, perhaps NrCoC's could be used as that defence especially the part you mentioned about 'facilities to purchase tickets' but that is a can of worms I ain't opening on this forum, as I've stated before on this forum, I don't support fare dodging and I always have a valid ticket.

As to yorkie2's ranting and raving, it is best to ignore, as his blinkered and biased opinions are best keep on his certain dedicated forum were he thinks he's god and nobody is allowed to challenge his incorrect opinions.

miss_scrooge

I wouldn't of jumped fence not that I would of been able to short legs ha ha.I would of faced up to my responsibilities and explained the situation at the station when trying to get through barrier with no ticket there's no excuse not to get a ticket though.At the start I would of just queued however long queue is there's always another train to get on unless there's engineering works.Also wouldn't he be caught on cctv going over fence.

Altarf

yorkie2 wrote: »

I have seen people be prosecuted when the guard didn't get to them, even when boarding at unmanned stations, because they were alleged to have avoided payment at the destination station. It has happened. It can happen. It will happen again.

So ironically you are suggesting that the action of the OPs friend (in running away) was actually the sensible course of action.

Had they tried to be honest and attempted to pay, then they could easily have been accused of dishonesty by one of the many poorly trained rail staff, and due to the one sided nature of the railway laws, even if they were innocent are still likely to be convicted.

Stigy

Altarf wrote: »

So ironically you are suggesting that the action of the OPs friend (in running away) was actually the sensible course of action.

Had they tried to be honest and attempted to pay, then they could easily have been accused of dishonesty by one of the many poorly trained rail staff, and due to the one sided nature of the railway laws, even if they were innocent are still likely to be convicted.

Staff opened the barriers and allowed people to board without paying, therefore he was entitled to travel before buying a ticket, or at least that's how the OP reads. Although by rights he should approach the Guard so as to avoid any confusion when he reaches his destination, it's commonplace to be able to pay at your destination in this way, when given permission to board without a ticket. Certainly for the benefit of a Byelaw prosecution, as far as these are concerned you're not in breech of any subject to Byelaw 18(3).

He could have been accused of fare evasion, but if the evidence isn't there to support this accusation, it won't go anywhere.

Altarf

Stigy wrote: »

He could have been accused of fare evasion, but if the evidence isn't there to support this accusation, it won't go anywhere.

Are you 100% certain that if there were no ticket selling facilities at your origin stationand you did not avoid the guard on the train (if there was one) and you went straight to pay, you would never be accused of fare evasion.

Even you don't seem to believe that since you say "it won't go anywhere".

That seems to imply that it would start somewhere, but someone somewhere before conviction would stop it.

Again, that seems to support the advice to run away.

mrg9999

You can buy most tickets online and collect from any station machine. I often collect my ticket at night, or some allow at home printing.

Stigy

Altarf wrote: »

Are you 100% certain that if there were no ticket selling facilities at your origin stationand you did not avoid the guard on the train (if there was one) and you went straight to pay, you would never be accused of fare evasion.

Even you don't seem to believe that since you say "it won't go anywhere".

That seems to imply that it would start somewhere, but someone somewhere before conviction would stop it.

Again, that seems to support the advice to run away.

You can usually tell if somebody is acoiding their fare, and in circumstances where there were no facilities available, unless you get a blatant confession or if the passenger demonstrates intent by their action (such as jumping a fence or tailgating through a barrier), the most appropriate and common sense based action would be to sell a ticket.

If the staff believe there may be more too the situation, this is where further questions will be asked. It's rarely a case of accusations flying about, but if they do accuse passengers of such, it's clearly unprofessional.

Jeff_Bridges_hair

geordie_taxi wrote: »

Thank you, I'm happy that your acknowledging the fact that NrCoC's can be used as evidence and I agree with what you've said about the bylaws & RRA but that is down to the magistrate to sum up along with the prosecution's evidence. I also acknowledge the fact you stated there is very little defence to a strict liability offence, perhaps NrCoC's could be used as that defence especially the part you mentioned about 'facilities to purchase tickets' but that is a can of worms I ain't opening on this forum, as I've stated before on this forum, I don't support fare dodging and I always have a valid ticket.

As to yorkie2's ranting and raving, it is best to ignore, as his blinkered and biased opinions are best keep on his certain dedicated forum were he thinks he's god and nobody is allowed to challenge his incorrect opinions.

You have to prove him wrong first. Something you nor goater have done. Even though I asked him and still awaiting his answer.

As usual, I don't expect him, nor you to do so.

geordie_taxi

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

You have to prove him wrong first. Something you nor goater have done. Even though I asked him and still awaiting his answer.

As usual, I don't expect him, nor you to do so.

His own quote proves him wrong, this is a forum to discuss money saving ideas, sometimes people post ideas that might be in a grey area legally like the OP's post, I have my thoughts on the matter and so do others like stigy, goater78 and altarf. Stigy was prepared to discuss this and has with altarf put across some valid points. But people who quote;

Posts written in the style of geordie taxi would not be permitted on a certain forum dedicated to railway ticketing matters.

shows arrogance and a blinkered and biased opinions who would rather delete posts and ban members than have a frank debate on the subject, that to me means ignore as you will only hear one side of the story.

System

Sorry jeff I have you on ignore so didn't realise you had actually asked me a question