Suddenly got terrifying legal letters re: train penalty fare!

Glasseye

Do you feel like you've ever played a role in improving the design of something that affects people?

I can't lie. I'm not much sold by the argument that thousands of other upset, frustrated travellers 'manage' to get by with the way things are. Let me know if you're interested in me showing you an insight into the scale of this issue & the number of people being fined due to a poorly designed discounting system, despite making no intentional error.

Also, the train company has a monopoly over that line; there's no competition or alternative.

peachyprice wrote: »

Oh for goodness sake, stop trying to make yourself out as a victim of an unfair process.

Millions of people manage, all over the UK, to use a railcard properly, what's so special about you that you can't manage it?

If you don't like the rules of the railcard system don't buy the railcard in the first place, then you won't be 'trapped' into being a fare evader.

d123

Those advocating not paying the prosecution costs will see the OP in court, they are not the Court costs, they are the costs for processing the prosecution, that is, the letter and file produced already.

IF he goes to trial, the court costs will be in the region of £600. The fine could also be imposed at a higher level.

The OP is guilty, messing about when it is a criminal matter is not the best idea.

wealdroam

Glasseye wrote: »

Think about it; it's so easy to pretend you've got a railcard when you don't, with this system...

Are you talking about the current system here?

If so, why didn't you do that and avoid the potential prosecution?

If I've missed your point, I am sorry, but that in part is probably because you haven't explained it very well.

Glasseye

I mean at the point of purchase (at a machine or online) it's obviously completely effortless to pretend you have a railcard when you don't and I'm not sure if people here reaslise this, but many, many people do this, and many of them get away with it, and the rest waste everyone's time and money.

None of this is necessary. Option 1: Obey the rules without questioning them. Option 2: Improve the design, so that this situation can't actually happen anymore + it's much more convenient for everyone, saving everyone time & money.

Use a discount code on railcards > only require ID (of any kind).
I'm getting a bit tired of some of the repetition here so I'm going to call it a day on this thread unless anyone's interested in talking about developing ideas for systemic change to actually help stop this growing problem - thanks once more to those who tried to be of use.

wealdroam wrote: »

Are you talking about the current system here?

If so, why didn't you do that and avoid the potential prosecution?

If I've missed your point, I am sorry, but that in part is probably because you haven't explained it very well.

Cornucopia

d123 wrote: »

Those advocating not paying the prosecution costs will see the OP in court, they are not the Court costs, they are the costs for processing the prosecution, that is, the letter and file produced already.

The letter itself obfuscates this. Obfuscation always makes me suspicious.

Either way, the OP is at the stage of pre-trial negotiation. He is free to make an offer of £53, and they are free to say no.

d123

Cornucopia wrote: »

The letter itself obfuscates this. Obfuscation always makes me suspicious.

Either way, the OP is at the stage of pre-trial negotiation. He is free to make an offer of £53, and they are free to say no.

They will say no (and he will get a court summons), the penalty they are demanding to prevent court is the fine + their costs, if it does go to trial it becomes the fine + costs + court costs (and possible a victim surcharge), the OP will be lucky to get change from £1000 for a Railways Bylaws conviction (and of course, a criminal record).

He will be a fool to ignore or mess about thinking he is dealing with something similar to a PPC.

If he doesn't pay the requested amount the next correspondence will be a court summons and the offer is off the table.

wealdroam

Glasseye wrote: »

I mean at the point of purchase (at a machine or online) it's obviously completely effortless to pretend you have a railcard when you don't and I'm not sure if people here reaslise this, but many, many people do this, and many of them get away with it, and the rest waste everyone's time and money.

None of this is necessary. Option 1: Obey the rules without questioning them. Option 2: Improve the design, so that this situation can't actually happen anymore + it's much more convenient for everyone, saving everyone time & money.

Use a discount code on railcards > only require ID (of any kind).
I'm getting a bit tired of some of the repetition here so I'm going to call it a day on this thread unless anyone's interested in talking about developing ideas for systemic change to actually help stop this growing problem - thanks once more to those who tried to be of use.

Ok, I now understand the point you were making, but it certainly wasn't clear before.

Before you go, can I ask you to consider this hypothetical situation:

I am planning a journey in late March.
I am eligible for a 16-25 railcard, but do not hold one at the moment.
I do not plan to use the train between now and late March so buying a railcard now would be a waste of approx two months validity.

Under your proposed scenario, I would not be able to buy good value Advance Single tickets with a railcard discount because I do not hold a railcard yet.

Under the current system I can purchase those good value tickets before I invest in a railcard, as long as I buy the railcard before travelling, and of course carry the railcard on the journey.

You probably don't have the answer yet to how that issue might be overcome in your new world, but I am pointing out just one of the things you might have to 'fix' before everyone jumps up and accepts your proposal with open arms.

I won't bother with more distractions, as obviously you will need a lot of time to put the finishing touches to your proposal.

Good luck.

esuhl

Glasseye wrote: »

I think it's unfair because of the reason I gave in my previous post. Partly that it was an honest mistake, and that she offered to accept a photo of the railcard, but not my friend bringing me my actual railcard from my house a couple of minutes away, but mostly because the entire railcard system is hideously designed.

I suspect that there's little drive for them to change it to the system I proposed in my previous post (ie. Just like NUS cards with Spotify - Applying the railcard number to your 'account', which allows you to buy discounted tickets. Then you merely need to prove your ID if challenged, with anything from a driver's licence to a bank card - Think about it; it's so easy to pretend you've got a railcard when you don't, with this system, aside from removing all this fining & legal action, people wouldn't be able to buy a ticket without a railcard having been purchased) because then the train companies would lose lots of money in penalty fares.

I would love to see some open data on what penalty fares earn train companies.

Passenger Focus agrees that it's a ridiculous system and that people like you, who can prove they had a valid ticket shouldn't be fined.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18149047

There's some interesting advice from Citizens' Advice Bureaux on appealing penalty fares and the court process.
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/travel_leisure_and_food_e/consumer_transport_e/consumer_public_transport_e/consumer_trains_e/appealing_against_a_train_penalty_fare.htm
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/travel_leisure_and_food_e/consumer_transport_e/consumer_public_transport_e/consumer_if_you_are_taken_to_court_e/if_youre_taken_to_court_for_avoiding_paying_a_fare.htm

And this news article suggests that penalty fares are a civil (not criminal) matter, and they make it sound like your chances of winning the prosecution against you quite good. (But I'm not a lawyer!)

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/10-ways-to-avoid-penalty-fares-on-trains-6762684.html

d123

esuhl wrote: »

And this news article suggests that penalty fares are a civil (not criminal) matter, and they make it sound like your chances of winning the prosecution against you quite good. (But I'm not a lawyer!)

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/10-ways-to-avoid-penalty-fares-on-trains-6762684.html

They can be either, some TOCs operate a civil penalty scheme, others still prosecute through the courts using the Railway Bylaws. The OPs letter shows they are prosecuting via the Bylaws, unfortunately for him.

wealdroam

esuhl wrote: »

And this news article suggests that penalty fares are a civil (not criminal) matter, and they make it sound like your chances of winning the prosecution against you quite good. (But I'm not a lawyer!)

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/10-ways-to-avoid-penalty-fares-on-trains-6762684.html

Yes, my understanding is that a true Penalty Fare is just a higher fare that is issued when the issuer believes that the traveller has made a genuine mistake. This is a civil debt recoverable via a county court.

If the ticket inspector believes that the traveller has deliberately tried to avoid paying a fare, then prosecution in a criminal court is more likely.

Now, in the first case, the civil debt, if that remains unpaid the train company will cancel it and instead consider prosecution via the criminal courts.

It will be easier to avoid being found 'guilty' in the civil case, simply because the case is decided on the balance of probabilities.

With the criminal prosecution it will be quite easy for 'the railway' to show that the traveller did not have a valid ticket, simple because the ticket is not valid without the railcard.
Also, travelling without a valid ticket is an absolute offence, i.e. there is not defence... you either have a valid ticket or you don't.

I too am not a lawyer, and may have used the wrong terms in places, but OP you need to think seriously about the situation you are in.