• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

I paid for my journey before hand, yet am being prosecuted !!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,530
I believe @Bletchleyite is referring to this recent case: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/merseyrail-prosecution.229114/ (see posts #24/#25 initially) - it was an interesting case to read and a positive outcome for the passenger.
An interesting read, to be sure, but it seems to remain the position that there is no reported case (i.e. a court decision) as to the interpretation of section 5(1) on this point.

And that is a potential problem because I can envisage circumstances in which an interpretation adverse to passengers (generally) could be adopted if the accused has acted in a sufficiently egregious obstructive manner.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

AlbertBeale

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2019
Messages
2,690
Location
London
An interesting read, to be sure, but it seems to remain the position that there is no reported case (i.e. a court decision) as to the interpretation of section 5(1) on this point.

And that is a potential problem because I can envisage circumstances in which an interpretation adverse to passengers (generally) could be adopted if the accused has acted in a sufficiently egregious obstructive manner.

Surely RORA section 5 is very clearly ... or ... or ... ; so no court run by anyone literate would ever convict if the person had satisfied just one of the three options given to them? There is no other rational way a court could interpret this.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
6,025
Location
West Wiltshire
Ive just done a quick search on google,

in the few minuets I have been looking, I Cant understand the prosecution,

I have committed no crime as I have not evaded the fair

it is not a offence to not provide your ticket, so what can they prosecute me for when not showing a ticket is not a crime and has no need for a court

What you did was correct if you were unable to get verification of person (eg no ID) and held a ticket.

A different set of rules apply if you are using contactless pay as you go (because there is no ticket), and it says you are required to put the payment card on a portable reader (you don’t need to hand over your card, can hold your card).

As I see it the offence stems from refusal to allow your card to be read to confirm you had touched in.

Having re-read the rules, it clearly states portable reader, these are smaller devices because unlike portable payment machines do not have a roll of payment and mini printer. Therefore can only read and not charge you (if had to sell you a ticket due to no working machines at boarding station, would need to use different machine that was not a reader only)

One potential gap I have just thought of, is that the reader doesn’t appear to need any form of rail company logo, presumably because the person offering it is supposed to be easily identifiable as a railway servant (in uniform or with clear ID), so if couldn’t get indication of genuine (not an imposter) from either person or machine then possibly got grounds for a complaint.
 

Urge38

Member
Joined
9 Aug 2022
Messages
10
Location
london
Hi Every one,

I logged off before the majority of the reply's started coming.

thanks every one for your time

I few key points if I may,

We all have the right to protect our self and our property, that is our right

The inspector only had a badge saying Thameslink, this in my opinion only at best shows he is wearing a uniform advertising a logo etc

The inspector did not provide me with any identification for him self.

I did explain this to the inspector, I told him the touch in, touch out machines are something I recognise, and am happy to present my credit card to, some person who I've never meet before, nor can show my identification, I am not willing to tap my credit card on a reader I do not recognise.

I an not trying to be awkward.

say something had gone wrong, can some one please explain to me how I identify the inspector, ??? the train operator may be able to if they are willing, but I cant identify him,
with out the inspectors id, I was not willing to put my property at risk.

I know we see a lot of people just being awkward for awkward sake, but I genuinely did not feel safe tapping this reader being handed to me by a random person who I had no means of identifying should I latter have to
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,865
How does he know it was an authorised person as the person refused to show company ID?

That's the thing. In an age where we're at constant risk of card fraud, can you really blame people for not tapping their card against a reader carried by someone without proper ID?

Are Thameslink really naive enough not to realise this? To not realise that people might be reluctant to tap their card on a reader held by some random ID-less person? Maybe Thameslink need to ensure their staff have proper ID. In my opinion, while technically an offence has been committed by the OP, Thameslink are morally in the wrong here. It's a shame they cannot apply some kind of common sense rather than inflexibly reading the letter of the law.
 
Last edited:

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
6,025
Location
West Wiltshire
That's the thing. In an age where we're at constant risk of card fraud, can you really blame people for not tapping their card against a reader carried by someone without proper ID?

Are Thameslink really naive enough not to realise this? To not realise that people might be reluctant to tap their card on a reader held by some random ID-less person? Rather than this confrontational and aggressive attitude, maybe Thameslink need to ensure their staff have proper ID. In my opinion, while technically an offence has been committed by the OP, they are morally in the wrong here. It's a shame they cannot apply some kind of common sense.

That is my thoughts as well, might not have had any ID on display initially (don’t want to risk anyone trying to grab it), but then not showing it sounds wrong.

It also seems the rule about those travelling with contactless need to touch a reader, was not communicated to the Op which sounds less than professional, when Op was unhappy with being confronted by a stranger (who may or may not have worked for the railway).

Possibly the process was captured on in carriage cctv (although might not be retained even though there is a dispute), a body cam tends not to show how the person carrying it was behaving.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Surely RORA section 5 is very clearly ... or ... or ... ; so no court run by anyone literate would ever convict if the person had satisfied just one of the three options given to them? There is no other rational way a court could interpret this.

That was the thrust of the discussion, yes. I suggested that it might have been intended to mean that the officer of the railway could choose which of the three needed to be done, not the passenger, and the general view was very much that that was not what it said.

Merseyrail withdrawing a prosecution doesn't of course set precedent, but it does give a very good indication.
 
Last edited:

Urge38

Member
Joined
9 Aug 2022
Messages
10
Location
london
I was dreading this

Please let me explain, I was born dyslexic, I dread writing, It is like asking a person in a wheel chair to get up and run, my Mind still crams up even today a 55 years off age.
I am trying so hard to type, I sometimes use words I wish I hadent,
I dont do this to mislead, I use other words because they are easier to spell and they fit

please give me a little timne and I will do my best to do a account to the journey

ok
so as said, I started my journey by tapping my credit card at the station in North London, on my return journey home.
I do this trip nearly every day, ever since I moved into my farthers house after he died a year or so ago.
I am from north London, and I work in north London, my farther lived in south London, hence the daily commute.

so ive tapped in, I am sitting on the train, one stop before the end of my journey, what aperies to be a ticket inspector asked for my ticket, I say I've paid by card, he asks for me to tap his card reader, so I explain I have no way of knowing the card reader is genuine, I explain, I trust the ticket machines/ turnstiles , and have tapped in and I will tape out, he askes if I am refusing to tap his reader, I don't remember saying no, I remember saying that I just have no way off knowing if his reader or he is genuine,

I do not believe a specifically asked to see his identification, I am not verse in these matters, I was arguing that I had no way of knowing he was genuine, He on the other hand made NO attempt to convince me, or to reassure me.

too every one who questions why I gave my details to some one I was unsure about, I would have thought that obvious, giving my details is a way off dealing with this latter, IF he is legitimate AND there is no way he can extract money from my name and address if he is not legitimate

so I was asked for me details as we were coming into my station, he said he would get off with me, we actually finished before we pulled in, and I got off and tapped my card, he was behind me, but I was un a where. he then spoke out to me and said, I see you have tapped, I don't know if that was sarcasm, him thinking I didn't tap in, and tapping out wouldn't help me, But I repeated, I recognise this card reader, I don't recognise you or your card reader. and that is the most off it, bad spelling ad all
 
Last edited:

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,530
Surely RORA section 5 is very clearly ... or ... or ... ; so no court run by anyone literate would ever convict if the person had satisfied just one of the three options given to them? There is no other rational way a court could interpret this.

That was the thrust of the discussion, yes. I suggested that it might have been intended to mean that the officer of the railway could choose which of the three needed to be done, not the passenger, and the general view was very much that that was not what it said.

Merseyrail withdrawing a prosecution doesn't of course set precedent, but it does give a very good indication.
This is the issue: the legislation is not clear and is capable of multiple interpretations. Absent legislative reform or a definitive ruling from a court of record we are left with this mess.
 

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
14,875
I have to be honest and say that in this case I think you are going to need assistance in dealing with this, as you acknowledge that writing is something you are not at all comfortable with. You may have a trusted friend who can assist but you may need to think about engaging a solicitor*, even though this will incur not insignificant expense. The fact is that you are going to have to engage with GTR in writing and set out your arguments in detail, and the correct wording matters - for example, saying you "don't recognise" the inspector or his reader can be taken in different ways, sothis concern needs to be clearer.

*If you are a member of a trade union, or have household insurance, you may have access to free legal advice so this is something to look into.
 

LAX54

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2008
Messages
3,753
I cannot see where it says the OP 'asked' for further ID, just that he had a badge (and assume uniform) and said he was an employee of Thameslink, did he ask to see his ID card ? also surely just providing your address, just means in a worse case scenario that you have been 'caught' and details taken for further action.
to me, tapping in / out does not mean it was for that journey.
 

John Palmer

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2015
Messages
244
so ive tapped in, I am sitting on the train, one stop before the end of my journey, what aperies to be a ticket inspector asked for my ticket, I say I've paid by card, he asks for me to tap his card reader, so I explain I have no way of knowing the card reader is genuine, I explain, I trust the ticket machines/ turnstiles , and have tapped in and I will tape out, he askes if I am refusing to tap his reader, I don't remember saying no, I remember saying that I just have no way off knowing if his reader or he is genuine,

I do not believe a specifically asked to see his identification, I am not verse in these matters, I was arguing that I had no way of knowing he was genuine, He on the other hand made NO attempt to convince me, or to reassure me.
Taking this to be an accurate account of the interaction, I cannot see why the Thameslink official would not have recognised that the OP had reservations about his authenticity, or, if he did realise that this was the OP's concern, he then failed to produce evidence that he was lawfully engaged on the railway's business – the more so since failure to produce such evidence was bound to strengthen those reservations.

It would still be helpful to know with what offence the OP has been charged, and what facts the prosecutor relies upon as showing that such an offence has been committed. If, as claimed, the OP has provided the prosecutor with adequate evidence that his fare had already been been paid when he was accosted by the official, the implication seems to be that the offence being pursued is failure to produce his ticket for inspection, notwithstanding that the railway has suffered no loss of revenue. What worthwhile purpose is served by a prosecution in those circumstances?

Regarding the application of Section 5(1) Regulation of Railways Act, I have to say that I don't find this provision unclear, and would be interested to learn what would constitute a sufficiently egregious obstructive manner of acting that would warrant an interpretation adverse to the accused after he had availed himself of one of the three courses of action prescribed by the subsection. Is the decision in Huffam available online, as it doesn't seem to be available via Bailii, and might clarify how Section 5(1) would be interpreted in the unlikely event of it becoming the issue to be determined by a superior court?
 

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,530
Regarding the application of Section 5(1) Regulation of Railways Act, I have to say that I don't find this provision unclear, and would be interested to learn what would constitute a sufficiently egregious obstructive manner of acting that would warrant an interpretation adverse to the accused after he had availed himself of one of the three courses of action prescribed by the subsection.
One scenario might be where the passenger does have a ticket (leaving aside the complexity of contactless payments, so let’s assume that it is a traditional paper ticket), but refuses to produce it for inspection or to hand it over.

If he nevertheless provides his name and address, it is not clear that the policy of the statute is such as to require the railway company to carry out a subsequent investigation with the associated cost and trouble.

In such circumstances, I could see a court (if it considers the passenger has been deliberately obstructive so as to waste the company’s and the court’s time, which is not in the public interest) potentially being willing to interpret section 5(1) in such a way that the passenger is obliged to provide (and deliver up) his ticket on request if he has one as an independent obligation and that the provision of his name and address would not in those circumstances enable him to ‘wriggle out’ of the offence if he defaults in complying with that independent obligation.

In the absence of definitive authority this is of course somewhat conjectural, but there is precedent for additional nuance being interpolated into section 5 in this way in other cases so I don’t think it can necessarily be ruled out in any absolute fashion.
Is the decision in Huffam available online, as it doesn't seem to be available via Bailii, and might clarify how Section 5(1) would be interpreted in the unlikely event of it becoming the issue to be determined by a superior court?
Huffam is not publicly available in electronic format as far as I am aware.

As I mentioned, whilst this is the only reported case I am aware of with this fact pattern (i.e. ticket not produced, but name and address given) the conviction in that case was quashed for other reasons and there were private byelaws in the mix too so it is not a binding authority on section 5(1) in any event.

I rather suspect that it suits operators like Merseyrail for the matter to remain in the murk though.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,035
Location
No longer here
That's the thing. In an age where we're at constant risk of card fraud, can you really blame people for not tapping their card against a reader carried by someone without proper ID?
We haven’t ascertained whether the inspector actually had ID nor if the OP asked to see it. It seems the OP didn’t actually ask and has a very hazy recollection of what happened.

too every one who questions why I gave my details to some one I was unsure about, I would have thought that obvious, giving my details is a way off dealing with this latter, IF he is legitimate AND there is no way he can extract money from my name and address if he is not legitimate
I wouldn’t give my name and address to someone I suspected was a fraudster. Nor would most people. I wouldn’t like to defend this course of action - giving your personal details but not tapping your card for verification - in court. This will prove to be an expensive lesson in How Life Works, I’m afraid.

As you’ve found out, it was a real revenue protection inspector, a matter of fact. And I’m sure he would have furnished ID had you asked for it.
 
Last edited:

John Palmer

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2015
Messages
244
One scenario might be where the passenger does have a ticket (leaving aside the complexity of contactless payments, so let’s assume that it is a traditional paper ticket), but refuses to produce it for inspection or to hand it over.

If he nevertheless provides his name and address, it is not clear that the policy of the statute is such as to require the railway company to carry out a subsequent investigation with the associated cost and trouble.

In such circumstances, I could see a court (if it considers the passenger has been deliberately obstructive so as to waste the company’s and the court’s time, which is not in the public interest) potentially being willing to interpret section 5(1) in such a way that the passenger is obliged to provide (and deliver up) his ticket on request if he has one as an independent obligation and that the provision of his name and address would not in those circumstances enable him to ‘wriggle out’ of the offence if he defaults in complying with that independent obligation.

In the absence of definitive authority this is of course somewhat conjectural, but there is precedent for additional nuance being interpolated into section 5 in this way in other cases so I don’t think it can necessarily be ruled out in any absolute fashion.

Huffam is not publicly available in electronic format as far as I am aware.

As I mentioned, whilst this is the only reported case I am aware of with this fact pattern (i.e. ticket not produced, but name and address given) the conviction in that case was quashed for other reasons and there were private byelaws in the mix too so it is not a binding authority on section 5(1) in any event.

I rather suspect that it suits operators like Merseyrail for the matter to remain in the murk though.
Thanks for that. I can just about see a court striving for such an interpretation in the case of the prosecution being ambushed by production of the relevant ticket at trial, but even then I would be thinking in terms of a costs penalty being applied, e.g. a wasted costs order against a represented defendant. Otherwise conviction for a Section 5(1) offence looks very much like imposition of criminal penalty merely for being uncooperative in an investigation even though the strict letter of the legislation has been duly observed by supply of name and address. If the ticket-holder had produced his ticket during the course of a follow-up investigation and thereby established no loss of revenue to the railway, a decision thereafter to proceed with a prosecution nonetheless looks like an attempt to secure a criminal sanction just for being uncooperative. If presiding over such a case I would be extremely reluctant to find for a prosecutor who thought this an appropriate use of court time.

I do wonder whether this might be such a case, given that the OP had apparently paid his fare.
 

Mak1981

Member
Joined
25 Jan 2019
Messages
218
Although not mentioned by the op, and by no way of accusing the op

Non production of a ticket and then producing a ticket at a later date does not in fact 100% demonstrate no loss to the railway, I can think of a few scenarios where that may not be the case

1 being given a penalty fare, subsequently find a discarded ticket on the ground and appeal saying they did in fact have a ticket

2 2 people traveling one pays by contactless the other doesn't, then when the one without a ticket is issued a penalty fare produces the journey history of their friend, to "prove" they had a ticket all along(or the friend takes the hit knowing he can prove he had a ticket later with same name on the contact less history as the penalty)

3 or variations on 2 with one ticket bought for 2 passengers and then that being offered up as evidence of ticket at a later date.
 

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,530
Thanks for that. I can just about see a court striving for such an interpretation in the case of the prosecution being ambushed by production of the relevant ticket at trial, but even then I would be thinking in terms of a costs penalty being applied, e.g. a wasted costs order against a represented defendant. Otherwise conviction for a Section 5(1) offence looks very much like imposition of criminal penalty merely for being uncooperative in an investigation even though the strict letter of the legislation has been duly observed by supply of name and address. If the ticket-holder had produced his ticket during the course of a follow-up investigation and thereby established no loss of revenue to the railway, a decision thereafter to proceed with a prosecution nonetheless looks like an attempt to secure a criminal sanction just for being uncooperative. If presiding over such a case I would be extremely reluctant to find for a prosecutor who thought this an appropriate use of court time.

I do wonder whether this might be such a case, given that the OP had apparently paid his fare.
I am inclined to agree. The key point to my mind is which of the parties a court is more likely to view as a time-waster if this type of situation ended up before the bench.

And I’m not convinced (to bring it back to the OP’s situation) that this is necessarily the ideal test case in which to press the point given the circumstances (insofar as they have been disclosed in this thread).
 

Coolzac

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2014
Messages
307
Whilst I find it a bit strange that the OP gave their details but not let their credit card be scanned, is there really a point is pursuing this prosecution, given that the OP paid for their journey and can prove it? as others have stated think if this went to court I don't think most magistrates would view this as a valuable use of their time, especially given that there seems to be some justification for the OPs reluctance to hand over their credit card.

And I agree that ticket inspectors should absolutely be required to have proper ID when doing these checks!
 

Urge38

Member
Joined
9 Aug 2022
Messages
10
Location
london
sorry guys,

I work during the day, I cant be here to answer questions until the evening

Please ask me what ever you think is relevant, and I will do my best to answer.

lets not go off topic with my next bit, but a few people have mentioned the two people traveling under one payment and latter producing a log of payment,

This could NOT possible work!!!

If I (say person one) was traveling with person two, I have paid on my credit card as a contactless payment, person two gets asked for a ticket, they have non, but only give details off there id (name and address Etc), If they they give there own detail, they are liable (person two) and not me

if person two gives my details, I am still not liable for person, but if they have my details, and they belive it was me, and I am being held to account, I still have paid,

please try and work out in your head a situation where this would work.

for obvious reasons, I wish to stay on topic

fire away
 

Urban Gateline

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2011
Messages
1,644
Is it common for Thameslink inspectors to check tickets on their own? I recall an inspection on a morning commuter train between London Bridge and Blackfriars a few years ago. After the "inspector" had checked bank cards, etc there were mutterings as to whether he was genuine. He was by himself and though in uniform hadn't any visible ID, plus his interpersonal skills were pretty poor - mumbling and lacking eye contact. On reflection I wondered if he was genuine myself!
Yes, during morning/daytime hours their risk assessment does allow them to lone work trains, only after 1800 they need to be paired up for safety reasons. So it's entirely plausible that it was a genuine inspector!
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,398
Location
UK
I do not believe a specifically asked to see his identification, I am not verse in these matters, I was arguing that I had no way of knowing he was genuine, He on the other hand made NO attempt to convince me, or to reassure me.

At any point did you actually ask to see any ID?

It was answered upthread.
 

Urge38

Member
Joined
9 Aug 2022
Messages
10
Location
london
How do you people see this!!???

as I did not evade paying my fair, (having tapped in and out correctly)

there was no fair evasion and no loss to the rail compony

I did provide the revenue officer with my name and address, one of my requirements

what have i done wrong that justifies a court hearing

remembering I did provide my name and address in the event of failing to provide a valid ticket

Wasn't he wearing a uniform?
yes he was,

this was mentioned earlier
 

Fawkes Cat

Established Member
Joined
8 May 2017
Messages
2,943
what have i done wrong that justifies a court hearing
Apologies for repeating myself, but what have you been charged with? If you can hide your personal details, it would be really useful to see what you have been sent.
 

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,530
what have i done wrong that justifies a court hearing

remembering I did provide my name and address in the event of failing to provide a valid ticket
You have not explained what charge has been laid against you so as to necessitate a court hearing.

It is not possible to give you any useful, informed advice unless you provide this key information.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,945
Location
UK
How do you people see this!!???

as I did not evade paying my fair, (having tapped in and out correctly)

there was no fair evasion and no loss to the rail compony

I did provide the revenue officer with my name and address, one of my requirements

what have i done wrong that justifies a court hearing

remembering I did provide my name and address in the event of failing to provide a valid ticket


yes he was,

this was mentioned earlier
It's an offence to fail to hand over your ticket for inspection and verification of validity under Railway Byelaw 18(2). The fact that you did not, in fact, avoid any fare, is irrelevant and doesn't negate this offence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top