GTR are threatening to take me to court unless I pay a penalty fare, but I'm certain I'm within the rules as a disabled passenger?

[John R]

I am saying how the OP's response looks to GTR. When they say:-

"On this particular day I was not able to get a mobile phone signal at my departure station, but as outlined above, this did not concern me as I knew I would be able to purchase a ticket on the app when I had a signal, so I got on the train as normal. Since there is almost no signal for much of the first half of a train ride to my destination, I decided I would sort the ticket out later in the journey."

is it any surprise that they suspect the OP is not being honest with them. And unfortunately, when they suspect someone of not being honest, then it will throw into question their whole explanation, as to why they were not able to buy a ticket, and may well have triggered the response the OP received, whether or not that was the right response.

 

[AlterEgo]

I am saying how the OP's response looks to GTR. When they say:-

"On this particular day I was not able to get a mobile phone signal at my departure station, but as outlined above, this did not concern me as I knew I would be able to purchase a ticket on the app when I had a signal, so I got on the train as normal. Since there is almost no signal for much of the first half of a train ride to my destination, I decided I would sort the ticket out later in the journey."

is it any surprise that they suspect the OP is not being honest with them. And unfortunately, when they suspect someone of not being honest, then it will throw into question their whole explanation, as to why they were not able to buy a ticket, and may well have triggered the response the OP received, whether or not that was the right response.

Are you suggesting GTR believe the (I assume quite detailed) medical evidence the OP sent of their disability - above and beyond what the OP is required to do under the law - is fraudulent?

How can a disabled passenger in these circumstances possibly be viewed with suspicion for buying a ticket *before they even needed to*??

It’s very simple, no offence was committed because they are allowed to board the train without a valid ticket. Everything else subsequent to that action is immaterial. I don’t know how plainly this can keep being stated, and I don’t like the recurring theme that it has to be the disabled person’s fault and not a barely literate employee at one of Britain’s most capricious railway companies.

 

[MotCO]

Are you suggesting GTR believe the (I assume quite detailed) medical evidence the OP sent of their disability - above and beyond what the OP is required to do under the law - is fraudulent?

I'm of a similar mind - GTR do not seem to accept that the OP has a disability, and until they can be persuaded otherwise, the OP does not stand a chance. Hence the suggestions by others to get disability associations (is there one for OCD?) and/or their MP on board to try to get GTR to accept the disability and change their minds.

I’d leave it with them to decide to either drop it entirely or progress to prosecution. If they very foolishly chose the latter, I would be pleading not guilty and having the day in court.

But again, there is the possibility of the Judge or Magistrate (or whoever) not accepting the disability. OCR is known about by many, but not often considered or classified as a disability - usually it is just an inconvenience. The OP seems to be at the extreme (higher) end of the OCD 'scale', but getting others to accept this seems to be the stumbling block. (I am not an expert on OCD, and hope the OP is not offended by my use of non-technical language.)

 

[AlterEgo]

But again, there is the possibility of the Judge or Magistrate (or whoever) not accepting the disability. OCR is known about by many, but not often considered or classified as a disability - usually it is just an inconvenience. The OP seems to be at the extreme (higher) end of the OCD 'scale', but getting others to accept this seems to be the stumbling block. (I am not an expert on OCD, and hope the OP is not offended by my use of non-technical language.)

The OP intimates that they would qualify for a Disabled Railcard but just haven’t decided to get one - which by implication means they probably receive PIP. They are clearly disabled and clearly covered by the Equality Act here as well as the railway’s myriad own well publicised policies.

 

[MrJeeves]

With regard to TVMs they are all capacitive touchscreens and you do not need to press them hard, a tap with a knuckle certainly works and I've done this.

I have had many many experiences with S&B (I usually use a different spelling of "Scheidt" when referring to them) machines refusing to register 9 out of 10 touches, no matter how soft or firm they are.

If I get frustrated trying to use a TVM as someone with nothing preventing me from doing so, someone who already finds it difficult to interact with a ticket machine facing problems like these is only going to make any future attempts much more off-putting.

 

[Alex365Dash]

The Disabled Railcard has no time restriction and holding one automatically entitles one to board without a ticket if the ticket issuing facilities are inaccessible to you, regardless of the TOC’s accessibility policy.

Whilst the Disabled Railcard has quite a good amount of advantages over a 26-30 Railcard, it is worth pointing out that you are already automatically entitled to board without a ticket if ticket issuing facilities are inaccessible to you as per Condition 6.1.3.3 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel:

6.1: You must hold a valid Ticket or authority to travel before you board a train where there was the opportunity to buy one unless of the following circumstances applies:
- […]
- 6.1.3: At the station where you start your journey, there is no means of purchasing a Ticket, because:
- 6.1.3.1: the Ticket office is closed; or
- 6.1.3.2: a self-service Ticket machine is not in working order, or will not accept your preferred method of payment (card or cash); or
- 6.1.3.3: You have a disability and Ticket purchasing arrangements at the station you are departing from are not accessible to you.

In these cases, you must, as soon as you are reasonably able, buy an appropriate Ticket to complete your journey. The price of the Ticket you purchase will be the same as if you had bought a Ticket at the station from which you first departed.

 

[MikeWh]

With regard to TVMs they are all capacitive touchscreens and you do not need to press them hard, a tap with a knuckle certainly works and I've done this.

May I invite you to meet with me at Crayford station with a TOD reference to collect. I'll buy you a pint if every single one of your touches works first time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

May I invite you to meet with me at Crayford station with a TOD reference to collect. I'll buy you a pint if every single one of your touches works first time.

Some of them don't work very well (for anyone), but pushing on a capacitive touchscreen achieves absolutely nothing as that's not how they work. The most common issue appears to be misalignment in my experience.

 

[AlterEgo]

Whilst the Disabled Railcard has quite a good amount of advantages over a 26-30 Railcard, it is worth pointing out that you are already automatically entitled to board without a ticket if ticket issuing facilities are inaccessible to you as per Condition 6.1.3.3 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel:

Thanks. So absolute clarity then that the OP has committed no offence.

 

[BostonGeorge]

Some of them don't work very well (for anyone), but pushing on a capacitive touchscreen achieves absolutely nothing as that's not how they work. The most common issue appears to be misalignment in my experience.

Absolutely. There's one at Finsbury Park which I have mastered. You have to jab at the screen two centimetres north-east of your target letter. A newcomer to this particular machine would lose the will to live after a couple of attempts.

 

[John R]

Interestingly 6.1.3.3 goes on to say that a ticket should be purchased at the earliest opportunity by one of three methods, being:-
- onboard staff
- interchange station
- at destination.

The OP of course used none of these and chose to purchase online, but arguably not at the earliest opportunity. This seems a situation whereby the NRCoT needs to be tightened to consider what obligation is there on the passenger if they choose to buy online. (This is also true of the other situations where someone cannot buy at the station eg no ticket issuing facilities.)

 

[saismee]

Interestingly 6.1.3.3 goes on to say that a ticket should be purchased at the earliest opportunity by one of three methods, being:-
- onboard staff
- interchange station
- at destination.

The OP of course used none of these and chose to purchase online, but arguably not at the earliest opportunity. This seems a situation whereby the NRCoT needs to be tightened to consider what obligation is there on the passenger if they choose to buy online. (This is also true of the other situations where someone cannot buy at the station eg no ticket issuing facilities.)

It should specify that it is NOT a requirement to purchase online, even if available. That is how it is currently interpreted and how people currently use it. I don't see a good reason to change how the rules impact people, but they should be made more specific.

Again however, this is not currently helpful to the OP and it should probably be moved to its own thread to be further discussed.

 

[enyoueffsea]

And from knowing folks with OCD, it's almost always the case that they know it's entirely irrational, and it can be quite exhausting trying to repeatedly explain why things - which, to you and I - don't obviously make sense / can "obviously" be worked around, can and do trigger such intense distress and present a real blocker to activities that other people can go about easily.

But practically and sensibly, buying on a phone in sight of an inspector with it having asked them if that is the right action is a very poor choice of action because of what it looks like, and because most people who do that are intending to evade.

The quoted post directly above very eloquently explains the errors in yours/GTR’s thought process. People with OCD (or anyone with neurodivergence) do not think or behave in the same way as other people. What may appear to be ‘suspicious’ should be immediately discredited as soon as the disability is made known. It’s just a clear lack of knowledge around disabilities on behalf of the Inspector and TOC.

I’d go as far as saying as the TOC are discriminating against the OP by failing to accept the OP’s diagnosed disability has an impact on their ability to purchase tickets and behaviour/actions.

The OP of course used none of these and chose to purchase online, but arguably not at the earliest opportunity

I agree there could be areas of phone signal in between the stations of the journey but is there any obligation that the passenger must consistently check for signal and attempt to purchase during periods of infrequent coverage?

Personally I wouldn’t make any purchase online if I knew signal was intermittent and only would do so when I was confident I would have signal throughout the transaction.

Pointing back to AlterEgo’s very accurate posts that there is no obligation for the OP to order online and even if they choose to do so, there is no obligation on when they must do so. The phone and signal element of this is completely redundant.

As far as we know the OP has never been stopped for failure to buy a ticket previously. I just don’t see any evidence they’ve done anything wrong.

 

[John R]

I agree there could be areas of phone signal in between the stations of the journey but is there any obligation that the passenger must consistently check for signal and attempt to purchase during periods of infrequent coverage?

It may be that having failed to follow the process laid out in 6.1.3.3, GTR will claim that the OP was required to follow the normal process when a ticket is purchased online. ie, a ticket should be bought before boarding.

I find it highly improbable that the mobile coverage at Preston Park, a built up area a mere 1 mile north of the centre of Brighton, is so poor as to prevent a ticket purchase before boarding as claimed. Having checked Three, it says that there is excellent coverage. EE says it has excellent coverage. O2 - guess what? In which case, there is no reason why a mobile ticket could not have been purchased before boarding, other than the fact that the OP said they were short of time (which is not an acceptable excuse under normal circumstances.)

So, I appreciate that I am in the minority here, but ultimately the OP needs to decide whether to pay the £85 or risk being taken to court. Whilst the disability argument is strong, I feel there are enough inconsistencies in the story and behaviour that will a) encourage GTR to pursue it, and b) make the result not quite as certain as others are suggesting. In summary the case would be "You chose to buy online - you should have done so before boarding."

I'll leave it there.

 

[BostonGeorge]

It may be that having failed to follow the process laid out in 6.1.3.3, GTR will claim that the OP was required to follow the normal process when a ticket is purchased online. ie, a ticket should be bought before boarding.

I find it highly improbable that the mobile coverage at Preston Park, a built up area a mere 1 mile north of the centre of Brighton, is so poor as to prevent a ticket purchase before boarding as claimed. Having checked Three, it says that there is excellent coverage. EE says it has excellent coverage. O2 - guess what? In which case, there is no reason why a mobile ticket could not have been purchased before boarding, other than the fact that the OP said they were short of time (which is not an acceptable excuse under normal circumstances.)

So, I appreciate that I am in the minority here, but ultimately the OP needs to decide whether to pay the £85 or risk being taken to court. Whilst the disability argument is strong, I feel there are enough inconsistencies in the story and behaviour that will a) encourage GTR to pursue it, and b) make the result not quite as certain as others are suggesting. In summary the case would be "You chose to buy online - you should have done so before boarding."

I'll leave it there.

One quick question. Would you be going to this length to question the OP's story if they had a more visible disability, like Down's syndrome or Cerebral Palsy?

 

[JordR]

If GTR are going to push this, and they may decide not to do so based on a joint assessment of the merits and reputational impact of the case, would they potentially run that this ticket was not purchased "as soon as you are reasonably able"?

The ticket was purchased on a basis that would usually be considered 'when challenged' and it does stretch credulity a bit that there was no phone signal for the entire journey through an area populated that densely.

One quick question. Would you be going to this length to question the OP's story if they had a more visible disability, like Down's syndrome or Cerebral Palsy?

I would, disability isn't a blanket right to get away with anything. I hold a Disabled Persons Railcard but my disability makes no difference whatsoever to my ability to buy tickets, so it should be irrelevant.

 

[enyoueffsea]

It may be that having failed to follow the process laid out in 6.1.3.3,

I don’t agree they have failed to follow the process as there is no requirement to purchase a ticket by mobile.

The wording “…you must, as soon as you are reasonable able…”

This is sufficiently vague that the OP could argue they were unable to up until the point they made the purchase due to signal.

I find it highly improbable that the mobile coverage at Preston Park, a built up area a mere 1 mile north of the centre of Brighton, is so poor as to prevent a ticket purchase before boarding as claimed. Having checked Three, it says that there is excellent coverage. EE says it has excellent coverage. O2 - guess what?

In any event, OP’s explanation that they lacked signal could not be feasibly challenged by GTR as signal coverage varies by both operator and device but also user experience.

In which case, there is no reason why a mobile ticket could not have been purchased before boarding, other than the fact that the OP said they were short of time (which is not an acceptable excuse under normal circumstances.)

There is no requirement to purchase a ticket by mobile. 6.1 only refers to ticket purchasing facilities at the station.

The OP does not need to hold a valid ticket to board as the ticket purchasing facilities at the station are inaccessible to them.

I feel there are enough inconsistencies in the story and behaviour

Already explained clearly by Adam Williams earlier in this thread. Any dispute by GTR on this point would be discriminatory and against vast medical evidence and research.

In summary the case would be "You chose to buy online - you should have done so before boarding."

Would be a bizarre stance for GTR to take as there is no requirement to support this.

If GTR are going to push this, and they may decide not to do so based on a joint assessment of the merits and reputational impact of the case, would they potentially run that this ticket was not purchased "as soon as you are reasonably able"?

The ticket was purchased on a basis that would usually be considered 'when challenged' and it does stretch credulity a bit that there was no phone signal for the entire journey through an area populated that densely.

I don’t see how they can as the ‘reasonably able’ explanation under 6.1 refers to purchasing from the conductor or at the destination or an interchange station.

The OP purchased a ticket before any of these events and therefore purchased a ticket before they were required to do so, which is actually evidence that they purchased one as soon as they became able to do so.

 

[JordR]

There is no requirement to purchase a ticket by mobile. 6.1 only refers to ticket purchasing facilities at the station.

In the paragraph dealing with purchasing "as soon as you are reasonably able" it makes no mention of any method of purchasing a ticket. I don't see why that precludes mobile if a passenger is "reasonably able" to use it. This one is.

Edit: Thanks for pointing out above that there is an 'information' note that mentions specific methods and omits online. That's probably a really unhelpful attempt to clarify by saying something that the condition itself doesn't!

 

[enyoueffsea]

In the paragraph dealing with purchasing "as soon as you are reasonably able" it makes no mention of any method of purchasing a ticket. I don't see why that precludes mobile if a passenger is "reasonably able" to use it. This one is.

Watershed explains this on the previous page. The omission of a mobile from 6.1 and Bylaw 18(3)(i) means there is no obligation for the OP to use it to purchase a ticket.

The “IMPORTANT:” information section clearly points out how the OP should purchase a ticket. This does not direct the OP to use a mobile and therefore the OP is going above and beyond what is expected by using it to do so.

I also don’t think they could ever include a mobile purchasing in the wording as there are so many variables that would make it impossible for the TOC to prove or disprove how accessible ticket purchasing is (signal a prime example).

Byelaw 18(3)(i) refers:

A mobile phone does not issue or validate tickets, nor is it "at" a station.

Nor, if we are taking a purposive interpretation, is a mobile phone the kind of "facility" the defence in the legislation is alluding to.

 

[AlterEgo]

It may be that having failed to follow the process laid out in 6.1.3.3, GTR will claim that the OP was required to follow the normal process when a ticket is purchased online. ie, a ticket should be bought before boarding.

It doesn’t matter. Please state the offence which has been committed by the OP failing to do this. Cite the law.

So, I appreciate that I am in the minority here, but ultimately the OP needs to decide whether to pay the £85 or risk being taken to court. Whilst the disability argument is strong

No, it’s an absolute defence to a Bylaw 18 offence.

, I feel there are enough inconsistencies in the story and behaviour that will a) encourage GTR to pursue it, and b) make the result not quite as certain as others are suggesting.

The only inconsistency which could make any difference here is the OP falsely claiming to have a disability which renders using ticket purchasing facilities at a station inaccessible. It’s irrelevant if you think they had phone signal or not to any offence. It doesn’t form part of any offence.

In summary the case would be "You chose to buy online - you should have done so before boarding."

This is, categorically, not an offence in the circumstances. The defence is fully made out and there is absolutely no wiggle room in this case for ambiguity.

It is profoundly daft to insist the OP has done anything wrong by buying at an earlier opportunity than that which they are legally entitled.

We are now in the very dark weeds of reading the NRCoT which is the passenger contract and *not the criminal law*. Why are people citing this now?

If GTR are going to push this, and they may decide not to do so based on a joint assessment of the merits and reputational impact of the case, would they potentially run that this ticket was not purchased "as soon as you are reasonably able"?

…for which offence please?

The ticket was purchased on a basis that would usually be considered 'when challenged' and it does stretch credulity a bit that there was no phone signal for the entire journey through an area populated that densely.

Irrelevant. It’s been stated many many times that this is not an offence and the OP bought the ticket before they even had any obligation to do so.

This is actually the most frustrating thread I’ve seen in a long time, and this notwithstanding the general themes of questing the OP’s disability, telling the OP that the facilities were accessible if they put their mind to it, people telling the OP how to manage their own disability, and a distracting theme that the OP must in some way be at fault.

This is the last time I will contribute unless the following gets answered. Please will someone state on what grounds the company might prosecute the OP, and cite the relevant law. Please do not work backwards from a presupposition that the disabled passenger here is at fault.

 

[Egg Centric]

This is the last time I will contribute unless the following gets answered.

I hope this is only about this thread as you're a really valued contributor

 

[Alex C.]

I find it highly improbable that the mobile coverage at Preston Park, a built up area a mere 1 mile north of the centre of Brighton, is so poor as to prevent a ticket purchase before boarding as claimed. Having checked Three, it says that there is excellent coverage. EE says it has excellent coverage. O2 - guess what? In which case, there is no reason why a mobile ticket could not have been purchased before boarding, other than the fact that the OP said they were short of time (which is not an acceptable excuse under normal circumstances.)

Mobile signal in this country is terrible and getting worse. The o2 checker will quite happily tell me I can get an excellent signal in the City of London but for the past few months I've been lucky to be able to make a phone call when I'm in a particular part of it. This might have been fixed now but Portsmouth city centre had no o2 signal at all for at least a year, despite showing as excellent with o2. EE is a little better but on a typical journey along the south coast through to Croydon I might have a usable signal for ~50% of it. A few weeks ago I bought a ticket at Waterloo and couldn't download it in time for the train because the 5g in the area is so congested.

 

[Falcon1200]

I’d go as far as saying as the TOC are discriminating against the OP by failing to accept the OP’s diagnosed disability has an impact on their ability to purchase tickets and behaviour/actions.

Yes - But what proof of disability, even if diagnosed, is required? If none, is this not then an exploitable loophole (but not in this particular case of course).

 

[Wolfie]

This is the sort of case which both the media and a MP would absolutely love to get their teeth into. GTR have an absolutely abysmal reputation as it is.

Perhaps GTR need the "delights" of a full-on Equalities Commission investigation. That'll keep several of their senior managers busy for some time....

 

[talldave]

As a non-disabled person who's spent a fair amount of my career furthering accessibility for those less able, I'm with @AlterEgo and find this thread somewhat depressing. GTR are precisely £0.00 out of pocket and their actions are tasteless and potentially illegal.

 

[enyoueffsea]

Yes - But what proof of disability, even if diagnosed, is required? If none, is this not then an exploitable loophole (but not in this particular case of course).

The OP has already said they’ve sent in medical documents to confirm their diagnosis as part of their appeal, which was rejected.

 

[BingMan]

Absolutely. There's one at Finsbury Park which I have mastered. You have to jab at the screen two centimetres north-east of your target letter. A newcomer to this particular machine would lose the will to live after a couple of attempts.

I have never managed to purchase a ticket from the NR ATM ay Whaley Bridge. It always refuses to accept touches at some point.
Fortunately the train guards seem aware of the ATM's fallibility and happily sell a ticket

 

[Falcon1200]

The OP has already said they’ve sent in medical documents to confirm their diagnosis as part of their appeal, which was rejected.

As part of the appeal, yes - Which absolutely should succeed - But what about when purchasing a ticket on board?

 

[jumble]

For context, I have a disability - Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. I have had this condition since I was a child and a long detailed medical history through the NHS; my GP is fully aware of my condition and how it manifests.

My OCD means that I really struggle with using anything in public that you have to touch - for example, I can't press the bell to signal to a bus driver my stop is upcoming, nor hold poles on tubes/buses or escalator handrails etc. This also means using terminals for buying tickets etc is problematic. Fortunately when I'm (for example) shopping, the self-checkout terminals can be operated by quick jabs of the knuckle, so I don't have to 'touch' them; but ticket machines are not so forgiving and tend to need firm hard presses with your fingers.

This has not been a problem up until this incident - I buy tickets on the trainline app which has barcodes I can use.

And in the event that I have to catch a train at the last minute, or cannot get signal at my departure station (both apply to the case in question), GTR's Accessible Travel Policy makes clear that if people with disabilities can't buy tickets before they board, they are free to purchase a ticket on the train, or at their destination. From The Accessible Travel Policy:



I sent this (and a fuller background) of what happened to GTR when they sent me a letter threatening legal action. I included letters detailing my history of OCD including my diagnosis, and a recent letter from the GP explaining that this was a condition they knew I had suffered with for over a decade and that issues around being unable to touch things like ticketing terminals was something they were aware of. Despite this, GTR are asking me to pay £85 (they say 'including the fare owed' - which is obviously completely wrong because I sent them my ticket that I had on the day). I have disputed this again, but they are standing firm, including on the 'fare owed' bit - which makes me think they're barely paying attention to the case.

Please, could anyone advise me what I should do in this scenario? Honestly £85 is not much money to me at this point in my life, but it's the principle that bothers me. I acted in accordance with their rules, and I'm being penalised for that - and next time it could be a disabled person who is only just getting by financially who is put in this situation.

Many thanks for any help

I personally would be contacting Vincent Duffy and ask very politely for their advice

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/vincent-duffy-3209931a4

 

[enyoueffsea]

As part of the appeal, yes - Which absolutely should succeed - But what about when purchasing a ticket on board?

Neither the bylaws or NRToC specify a person must ‘prove’ their disability when purchasing a ticket “at the earliest opportunity”.

Most disabled passengers will have a disabled railcard and the minority that do not may either have a physical disability that is apparent to the RPI or the passenger is likely to be able to explain their circumstances sufficiently to be seen as credible.

In any event, if a fare evader attempts to follow the process as a disabled passenger, they’ll still buy a ticket for the journey.

The ability to abuse this process would be limited to avoiding a report for prosecution if caught whilst on the train, and only whilst on the train, as disabled passengers will know to purchase a ticket at their destination or interchange if they were not able to from a conductor. Most fare evaders are attempting to avoid paying any fare and will attempt to leave the station and be caught there without a reasonable excuse.

Therefore to suggest the process could be abused - we are speaking about an incredible small amount of people, with a specific knowledge of railway bylaws, being caught at a specific point in their journey and being able to clearly articulate a disability as their rationale.

As we have seen with this case, a report for prosecution will potentially still be made. I can only assume the RPI did not believe the OP was credible. I can just about understand that and I wouldn’t object to a report being made in those circumstances. The biggest failure is GTR not immediately withdrawing as soon as the OP submitted their evidence.

Maybe 1 fare evader out of every 10,000 may get through the net as a result of this. But are they likely to do it again? Yes. Will the odds forever be in their favour? Absolutely not.

To suggest this is a wide open loophole for fare evasion is inaccurate.