Arriva Fare Evasion

esuhl

timbo58 wrote: »

Originally Posted by timbo58
IF the machine is checked and found it DIDN'T accept payments by an advertised means then this is permissible to allow for.
-I am not sure what you mean; can you clarify?

I mean if the machine is not accepting payments via a method it was supposed to then this will not be counted as an opportunity to pay.

Are you really saying that anyone without the sufficient credit rating to obtain an accepted credit/debit card is effectively banned from travelling from that station...?

I find that hard to believe. Do you have any proof?

tehone

timbo58 wrote: »

snipped for brevity.

sounds like everyone's ignorant expect for you?

Well we could always be ignorant together

Do you not accept the validity of any of my points that you snipped?

wealdroam

esuhl wrote: »

Are you really saying that anyone without the sufficient credit rating to obtain an accepted credit/debit card is effectively banned from travelling from that station...?

I find that hard to believe. Do you have any proof?

I am not speaking on behalf of Timbo58, but I think/hope he is trying to say that if a ticket vending machine(TVM) that normally only accepts cards is not doing so, it is perfectly reasonable for the passenger to board the train and buy his ticket at the next opportunity.

What he did not say, and perhaps should have also said, was that if a prospective passenger turns up at any TVM expecting to pay with cash and that machine is not accepting cash for whatever reason, then again, it is perfectly reasonable for the passenger to board the train and buy his ticket at the next opportunity.

All the above assumes there is no other means of buying a ticket at that station, e.g. no open ticket office, ticket seller with machine, etc.

timbo58

tehone wrote: »

Well we could always be ignorant together

Do you not accept the validity of any of my points that you snipped?

Nope, although I accept you have an opinion.
I didn't call you ignorant though.

and thanks wealdroam, I appreciate that as it was exactly as I wanted to put it.

WickedWolfie

timbo58 wrote: »

He didn't if it had been advertised that the toc didn't accept that payment type at that station.

Sorry: bit it is entirely up to the TOC (as with a shop) whether they accept a particular payment type or not.

*of course there may be some legislative reason in the TOCs contract with the Government why they should be obliged to accept another type of payment.

Methinks you really need to read the National Rail Conditions of Carriage before spouting......

Stigy

yorkie2 wrote: »

I don't always agree with what you say, but I certainly do agree with your post above. The law in this country is extremely biased towards the Train Operating Companies, and it's about time that MPs did something about it.

I've been ignoring this thread because Geordie sounds like a broken record, but I felt the need to reply to the above statement.

I agree in certain situations the law could appear biased towards the TOCs, however, it's worth noting that when they settle out of court with somebody, this is to offer a final warning to the offender and to have their costs covered, and usually applies to first offences and where only one offence has been committed at the time. Should they proceed to court, they only get a contribution of their costs awarded (assuming the case is proved), and the fare paid as compensation (if applicable). I fail to see how this isn't deemed as fair practice? Bearing in mind that the CPS dictates that all court proceedings are to be in the public interest, what better way to keep things out of court than offering to settle the matter administratively, without the need for a court case? Not forgetting the Penalty Fare too! This, surely keeping the courts free for no doubt the long list of more serious offences in the queue. If the TOC do proceed to court it will be a fair trial, as that's the whole idea of the system, surely? (and lets not limit it just to the TOC, as the CPS do bring BTP cases to court for Byelaw infringements when they're not dishing out cautions like sweeties).

Bear in mind we're only touching on ticketing here, there are obviously numerous other Byelaws to consider, as well as other railway legislation. The railway is protected by Byelaws, and I'd imagine that if they suddenly disappeared, those complaining about them would actually see that they were a very good thing, most of the time. Also, Railway Byelaws aren't the only offences of Strict Liability of course.

The railway has always been and will continue to be, vulnerable to acts of anti-social behaviour, ticketless travel and fare evasion, and that is why we need the Byelaws, Regulation of Railways Act and British Transport Commissions Act to name a few. There seems to be the mentality in this country that it's acceptable to travel on a train without first buying a rail ticket, when there were places you could have bought one. Why?

timbo58

WickedWolfie wrote: »

Methinks you really need to read the National Rail Conditions of Carriage before spouting......

and I'm sure you are capable of pointing out exactly where that comment came from?

wealdroam

Stigy wrote: »

The railway is protected by Byelaws, and I'd imagine that if they suddenly disappeared, those complaining about them would actually see that they were a very good thing, most of the time.

We seem to be going a little off topic here, but why do you think that railways in particular need the protection of byelaws when other commercial enterprises do not?

Stigy

wealdroam wrote: »

We seem to be going a little off topic here, but why do you think that railways in particular need the protection of byelaws when other commercial enterprises do not?

I'm not saying that other businesses don't need such protection, and in a way all businesses have protection under civil recovery etc. Admittedly the Byelaws hold more weight in that it's criminal legislation as opposed to civil though. Having said that, incidents such as theft can be dealt with using criminal proceedings, albeit orchestrated by Police.

Your average TOC probably deals with more anti-social behaviour and non-payment than your local Tesco (more so on the Anti-Socail Behaviour part I'd imagine...), and thus the Byelaws/Regulation of Railways Act 1889 are great in that respect. Also, the railway is a far more dangerous place than the local Tesco supermarket, and that's another reason for the level of protection it has. Much the same as why Airlines/Airports and Military sites have stringent legislation. Another reason why lineside/airside Trespass is a criminal matter as opposed to using the 'actual' trespass legislation that is civil.

You are right though, we're venturing off topic now. :A

TomFTJ

re this needless ticket squabble and outrageous treatment of a young person . . . (which. . . actually is the point).



(a) Since when has it been a criminal offence of strict liability to not be in a possession of a train ticket on a train?


(b) Any prosecution (in this example, in 2011) would fail because it could not be proved that the boy had no intention to pay for his ride.


(Judicial review would rapidly straighten out any 'carrier's' bullying powers, if required.)


In any event, bullying corporate employees forget that they, in fact, break the law by their abusive and intimidatory behaviour.


No one rational would tolerate bullying behaviour from an individual. Why put up with it from a grubby rail company? Power drunk leeches who are a disgrace to the UK.


Ring any bells? (Pun intended.) MP anyone? !!!!