Summoned to court by Northern Rail!!!
Options
Comments
-
somethingcorporate wrote: »Did you intend to quote my post?
Sorry! Did not mean to refer to you. I was just adding to what you had already said.0 -
No. Definitely not.
Let me clarify that.
It does not prove intent to avoid payment.
I agree. The OP had tried to buy a ticket at the window but no one was there. How long is one expected to wait in case a member of staff might arrive? It's not like stealing drink from Tesco's. The OP had to get to the new job by train and might have been late. If this had happened, would the new boss have accepted the excuse that it wasn't possible to buy a ticket?0 -
"And you were caught in the first class section. Plenty of us would like to sit there when space is short in ordinary class. Why do you think that we don't. The OP had made attempts to buy the right ticket."
Why is this relevant, where did I say I don't think others don't want to sit in first class when space is short in ordinary class. Nowhere did I say this! Again your misrepresenting my advice, distorting what I said and not helping the OP.
My point is simply that you were sitting in First Class so your ticket wasn't valid for the journey.0 -
No.Doesn't getting on the train having not paid prove intent?
The OP would have his/her letter proof read by me if he/she desires, and I'd be confident that a good solicitor could defend a RoRA prosecution (less confident with a Byelaw prosecution, though).
In your case, you'd not get any help from me other than advise to settle out of court. The First Class compartments on these trains is well marked, and trains which are Standard Only are clearly advertised as such on the screens (I know; I used the line in question earlier this week!), and you gave false details. That said, while it's too late now, I would ask you to clarify the exact time and destination of the train (as it is not unknown for FCC RPIs to make mistakes with regards which trains convey 1st class accommodation, in general Brightons do and Suttons do not).
Your case is about as similar to the OPs as chalk is to cheese!0 -
Seem to me that you plead not guilty on the basis that you attempted to purchase a ticket but there was no opportunity to do so.
The problem with such a lengthy argument is that you are at risk of admitting the offence.
It may be simpler if you stated some clear facts (rather than opinions and emotions).
e.g.
(1) I attempted to purchase a ticket at the station however the window was unmanned.
(2) There was no opportunity to purchase a ticket on the train
(3) As soon as I reached my destination I asked a member of staff where I could purchase a ticket for the full journey, while doing so I and was approached by another member of staff.
(4) I explained the situation to the staff member and made sure that he was aware that I was unable to purchase a ticket, but he insisted that he would have to take my details.
(5) I wrote to the train company on [give date] to explain that I was unable to purchase a ticket. I also made a complaint regarding the customer service.
(6) I received no response and therefore believed that the matter was resolved.
I do have one question though. Did you buy a ticket in the end? Because if you did not then your argument is weaker. point (3) above may need to be amended to suit.
My point is that you need to make it very simple and not go into detail, as it is the detail that they will make assumptions from (i.e. you were tired, stressed, ill, upset and did not know what was going on). You need to make it easy for anyone reading it to get a picture of what actually happened.
I would not even mention the fact that you complained, as it could make it seem like you were being difficult.
The main issue would be whether the station was 'manned' or not, and how this would be interpreted. That is the point I would want to investigate. If (as the case may be) the station is considered 'manned' then you may just have to plead guilty with the mitigating factor that there was nobody there to serve, and you immediately took action to pay.
None of this should be taken as anything other than an opinion. It's just what I would do. As I would not want to plead guilty if it I did not believe I had committed an offence.0 -
Just to be clear, not being in possession is 'attempt to avoid payment'. The duty of care is with the passenger not the TOC to provide manned ticket offices. Would you walk out of Tesco with a bottle of whiskey if the tills weren't staffed?
No, but with supermarkets they have to wait until someone attempts to leave the building.
As described she did not leave the station before paying, she actually asked about making payment and went to pay.
In some stations they even have 'excess fares' areas for this. So if you could not buy a ticket you are o.k. as long as you have (of your own accord) volunteered to pay.
It seems to me she has actually shown intent to pay, by actually asking to pay and going to the place where she could pay.
I am not a lawyer though, so I am interpreting this in a specific way based on similar situations (e.g. supermarket). Where the equivalent would be someone walking past the manned tills, then asking a security guard where the self service tills were because the manned tills are busy.0 -
What annoys me about this case is that the reason he decided to pay is because if he had been convicted of an honesty offence he could have lost his job.
In my opinion he should be required by law to inform the financial regulator of this situation, and therefore let them decide if he can be trusted to work in financial services.
The regulator should also be allowed to request his name from the train company (under the part of the data protection act regarding exceptions to combat crime) and they should find out who he is and act appropriately.
I am less annoyed about him 'buying his way out' of being named, as arguably all that would do is start a witchhunt. However I am annoyed that he gets away without the financial regulator having to assess his conduct, and potentially consider his position.0 -
What annoys me about this case is that the reason he decided to pay is because if he had been convicted of an honesty offence he could have lost his job.
In my opinion he should be required by law to inform the financial regulator of this situation, and therefore let them decide if he can be trusted to work in financial services.
The regulator should also be allowed to request his name from the train company (under the part of the data protection act regarding exceptions to combat crime) and they should find out who he is and act appropriately.
I am less annoyed about him 'buying his way out' of being named, as arguably all that would do is start a witchhunt. However I am annoyed that he gets away without the financial regulator having to assess his conduct, and potentially consider his position.
I agree but that's why he paid up!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards