I’m 19 and going to court

[AlterEgo]

So, effectively, we are arguing that anyone caught under said bylaw must simply argue “the ticket machine didn’t accept my money” whether it the OP saw so or not, and leave it for the company to prove otherwise?

 

[Watershed]

So, effectively, we are arguing that anyone caught under said bylaw must simply argue “the ticket machine didn’t accept my money” whether it the OP saw so or not

It is a defence which could, theoretically, be raised in any case. In this case it may be appropriate, as the OP has good reason to believe that the ticket machine would not have accepted their cash.

You've got to keep in mind that the offence is not:

failing to try and buy a ticket

... but, in effect:

failing to use available facilities to buy a ticket

Therefore if the facilities were not in working order, OP's actions simply do not fall within the scope of what Byelaw 18 criminalises. If the machine was broken, it might as well not exist.

and leave it for the company to prove otherwise?

The company is not obliged to prove anything.

But where the defendant pleads 'not guilty', it falls to the judge/magistrate to determine whether they nevertheless believe the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

In doing so, they must take into account any defences that have been raised, judging whether the evidence supports them.

If the company wants to increase the likelihood that such a defence is rejected, then of course they would try and adduce evidence of the machine functioning.

 

[najaB]

There is no requirement to have tried to use the machines.

I agree. However it definitely would help a defence on the basis that there were no ticketing facilities available.

Where one's defence rests on a fact it's up to you to prove that fact.

So, effectively, we are arguing that anyone caught under said bylaw must simply argue “the ticket machine didn’t accept my money” whether it the OP saw so or not, and leave it for the company to prove otherwise?

No even that "it didn't accept my money", but rather "I didn't think it would accept my money".

 

[221129]

If the company wants to increase the likelihood that such a defence is rejected, then of course they would try and adduce evidence of the machine functioning.

If I were the prosecution I would just wheel out the fact that the OP stated under caution that they were in a rush and didn't go near it to try it.

 

[Watershed]

Where one's defence rests on a fact it's up to you to prove that fact.

The duty of disclosure requires the prosecutor to disclose any evidence which may harm their case, or assist the defendant's defence. Rule 15.5 of the Criminal Procedure Rules also entitles the defendant to apply for material to be disclosed.

In this case, GTR are likely to hold records of repairs, functionality etc. of the ticket machine. Given that this is a fact on which the defence rests, it would be highly relevant material.

If I were the prosecution I would just wheel out the fact that the OP stated under caution that they were in a rush and didn't go near it to try it.

Again, that is irrelevant. The offence is not 'not trying to pay'. It is 'not using available facilities'.

The fact that OP was in a rush means they are unlikely to be able to give useful evidence as to the state of the machines on the day they travelled.

That doesn't stop them from providing witness testimony as to the state of the machines on others days, which, in conjunction with records held by GTR, may help decide the matter.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

How does all of this help the OP?

She passed an opportunity to pay. She admitted that she didn't have time to go over to the other side. In it's defence, that isn't the railway's problem

And if she knew previously that the ticket machine didn't take cash, why did she not bring her card on this occasion?

 

[Watershed]

How does all of this help the OP?

I am outlining the kind of defence which OP may choose to bring. And pointing out that it is not necessarily an open and shut matter.

She passed an opportunity to pay.

If the machine was not working, it was not an opportunity to pay.

She admitted that she didn't have time to go over to the other side. In it's defence, that isn't the railway's problem

But again, that is not relevant.

If you were boarding at a station without a ticket machine, would you allow time to use the inexistent machine? Of course not.

The fact that there is physically a machine is neither here nor there, if it was not working.

And if she knew previously that the ticket machine didn't take cash, why did she not bring her card on this occasion?

She is quite entitled to use cash if she wants. Failing to carry a card is not an offence.

 

[Mimi369]

Thanks for sharing that copy of the document.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think your only real course of action to minimise this now is as per my post above #12 and write to the railway and try to secure a settlement (or go to the court on the day, seek out the Prosecutor and ask if they will accept a settlement - there are cases on here where that happens). From other recent threads you may be looking at paying in the region of £100 to £150 perhaps to do that, but I think it is worth a try.

I think this because as I understand it you are guilty because you got on a train without attempting to buy a ticket which is an offence. Your only reason to challenge it would be if you can proove that the ticket machines at the station were not working properly and would not take cash, and I think it will not be feasible for you to proove that.

Sorry about this but good luck. As I said if you want to write to the railway (Govia Thameslink) to apologise and ask for a settlement it would be a good idea and if you get to work on a draft. People here will help you with any suggestions if you wish it post your draft before sending it.

Alternatively if you are a student your students union may have an advice person or an arrangement with a local solicitor that can help you write such a letter without an expensive legal fee. You may want to ask them about that ASAP.

Also - Have any of your other friends from that day had similar letters, or was it only yourself who did not have a ticket?

The sort of letter (obviously amended as per what happened to you) that you might want to write is as per the suggested draft in post #61 here:

Southeastern Bylaws report​

Perhaps I can suggest some amends for you to consider - I have struck through the train time you have used as I don't think there is a train at or around 20.15 hours from Strood to Maidstone on 14 oct so you may want to correct that or delete it if you are not sure of the exact train you were on...
www.railforums.co.uk

Thank you for replying. Yes that’s the problem I don’t have any way of proving that the ticket machine wouldn’t take cash. Everyone else got post saying to pay £60 fine but I was the only one who didn’t get that option I feel as though it is very unfair

 

[Islineclear3_1]

If the machine was not working, it was not an opportunity to pay.

But surely, the OP can't assume it wasn't working at the time of travel because she didn't arrive early enough to go and check?

She is quite entitled to use cash if she wants. Failing to carry a card is not an offence.

This is definately a grey area.

Not directly relevant but lots of car parking machines don't accept cash any more. The coffee shop and canteen where I work don't take cash. I have no option but to pay by card. Choice has been taken away

 

[najaB]

In this case, GTR are likely to hold records of repairs, functionality etc. of the ticket machine. Given that this is a fact on which the defence rests, it would be highly relevant material.

I stopped contributing to this section of the forum because I tired of arguments about the number of fairies that could dance on the head of a pin.

@Watershed, can you hand on heart say that if you were in this situation you would attempt to mount a defence based on the chance that you might, possibly be able to show that the ticket machine which you didn't even attempt to use might not have been working, or would you seek to stop it going to court in the first place?

The point of this sub-forum is to provide useful advice, not to role-play Perry Mason.

 

[Watershed]

But surely, the OP can't assume it wasn't working at the time of travel because she didn't arrive early enough to go and check?

It's a dangerous assumption to make, yes. But if the assumption was correct, they did not commit an offence.

This is definately a grey area.

Not directly relevant but lots of car parking machines don't accept cash any more. The coffee shop and canteen where I work don't take cash. I have no option but to pay by card. Choice has been taken away

Cash is becoming less prevalent in many areas across society - but it remains an accepted method of payment on the railways.

I stopped contributing to this section of the forum because I tired of arguments about the number of fairies that could dance on the head of a pin.

@Watershed, can you hand on heart say that if you were in this situation you would attempt to mount a defence based on the chance that you might, possibly be able to show that the ticket machine which you didn't even attempt to use might not have been working, or would you seek to stop it going to court in the first place?

The point of this sub-forum is to provide useful advice, not to role-play Perry Mason.

I quite agree that there are arguments that are dancing on the head of a pin. But this is not one of them. OP has been charged with, in effect, not using ticketing facilities. They contend the facilities were not functioning. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

If you regularly used a station that you knew had no ticket machines - would you check all around the station every time you travelled, just to make sure none had been installed since your last visit?

Personally, I would suggest that the "devil's advocate" arguments which you have raised are unhelpful to the OP. But either way, they now have a choice.

They can grovel for a settlement/plead guilty. That guarantees they will, at the very least, pay a lot of money. They may also receive a criminal record.

Alternatively they can plead not guilty. That carries the possibility they are found not guilty. It also carries the possibility they are found guilty, and receive a slightly larger fine than they would if they had pleaded guilty.

If I knew I was not guilty, I know which approach I would go for.

 

[Gloster]

Although I am not any sort of legal expert, as far as I am aware, there is no actual legal right to pay in cash. If a trader decides that they will not accept cash, they are free to do so. (There may be an exception related to the settling of debts.)

 

[RPI]

Although I am not any sort of legal expert, as far as I am aware, there is no actual legal right to pay in cash. If a trader decides that they will not accept cash, they are free to do so. (There may be an exception related to the settling of debts.)

Yes, but, all TOC'S state that they accept cash as a method of payment (except Lumo obviously! But that's irrelevant here)

 

[furlong]

Although I am not any sort of legal expert, as far as I am aware, there is no actual legal right to pay in cash. If a trader decides that they will not accept cash, they are free to do so. (There may be an exception related to the settling of debts.)

We discuss the railways here - where often different rules apply. TOCs have to sign up to the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement which states:

7-1 REQUIREMENT TO ACCEPT CERTAIN METHODS OF PAYMENT
(1) Generally applicable methods of payment
Each Operator must accept the following methods of payment for Rail Products:-
(a) cash denominated in pounds sterling;

 

[AlterEgo]

We discuss the railways here - where often different rules apply. TOCs have to sign up to the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement which states:

No issue with cash being an acceptable payment method. But does a customer have the right to insist of paying in cash if they have an alternative method of payment with which to discharge their fare? Would that amount to a defence in the magistrates’ court where the Bylaw makes no such distinction at all?

 

[Gonzoiku]

You should also ask the forum moderators to change your username; using your real name is not wise on a public forum where you need to give details, which may be incriminating, about an offence you may or may not have committed.

Too late for that thoughtful advice, once the OP has been quoted. By yourself, as it happens - as you can see.

GZ

 

[island]

We discuss the railways here - where often different rules apply. TOCs have to sign up to the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement which states:

Customers are not party to the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement so have no rights under it.

 

[WesternLancer]

It's a dangerous assumption to make, yes. But if the assumption was correct, they did not commit an offence.


Cash is becoming less prevalent in many areas across society - but it remains an accepted method of payment on the railways.


I quite agree that there are arguments that are dancing on the head of a pin. But this is not one of them. OP has been charged with, in effect, not using ticketing facilities. They contend the facilities were not functioning. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

If you regularly used a station that you knew had no ticket machines - would you check all around the station every time you travelled, just to make sure none had been installed since your last visit?

Personally, I would suggest that the "devil's advocate" arguments which you have raised are unhelpful to the OP. But either way, they now have a choice.

They can grovel for a settlement/plead guilty. That guarantees they will, at the very least, pay a lot of money. They may also receive a criminal record.

Alternatively they can plead not guilty. That carries the possibility they are found not guilty. It also carries the possibility they are found guilty, and receive a slightly larger fine than they would if they had pleaded guilty.

If I knew I was not guilty, I know which approach I would go for.

In post #1 the OP says that they have returned the papers to the court and pleaded guilty - If i understand the post correctly.

 

[221129]

Inn post #1 the OP says that they have returned the papers to the curt and pleaded guilty - If i understand the post correctly.

They pled Not Guilty for some unknown reason.

Edit I'm thinking of a different thread my apologies. (No I'm not)

 

[furlong]

No issue with cash being an acceptable payment method. But does a customer have the right to insist of paying in cash if they have an alternative method of payment with which to discharge their fare?

If they offer to pay in cash the operator seems to be obliged to accept that means of payment, both under the TSA (i.e. they agreed to accept cash payments from passengers as a condition of being permitted to run trains) and train company "advertising" (e.g. website information). (Actually it's card payments that are much more problematic - train companies no longer seem to be obliged by the TSA to accept them, though of course they are permitted to do so. But if you were only offering to pay by card and not cash, the TSA would no longer help you and you would need to rely on the payment methods advertised amongst other train company publications, as RPI mentioned.)

 

[ta-toget]

They pled Not Guilty for some unknown reason.

Edit I'm thinking of a different thread my apologies.

No, they appear to say they plead Not Guilty (see the passage I made bold):

Hello,

I really need some help. About a month ago me, my brother, my boyfriend and 2 other friends got on a train at east Worthing and got off at worthing the side we got on had no ticket machine and we had no time to go to the other side also the ticket machine on the other side only ever takes card and I only had cash.

We ended up getting on the train and we had a look to see if we could buy a ticket on the train but we couldn’t find anyone so we said we will buy one when we get off. We got off and then as we were walking to the ticket machine we all got stopped by railway officers there was about 8 of them we asked if we could buy a ticket an explained the situation. We all wanted to buy a ticket but they were not having it.

The railway officers then got me to take a survey and said this will all go away but it didn’t and now they are saying I’m going to court.

I sent the letter back to the courts saying I plead not guilty but realised I have made a big mistake and I don’t know what to do I’m really scared and stressed about the whole situation.

Im only 19 and so scared about having a criminal record and having to pay a big fine I cannot afford.

I would really appreciate some advise.
Thank you.

 

[AlterEgo]

If they offer to pay in cash the operator seems to be obliged to accept that means of payment, both under the TSA (i.e. they agreed to accept cash payments from passengers as a condition of being permitted to run trains) and train company "advertising" (e.g. website information). (Actually it's card payments that are much more problematic - train companies no longer seem to be obliged by the TSA to accept them, though of course they are permitted to do so. But if you were only offering to pay by card and not cash, the TSA would no longer help you and you would need to rely on the payment methods advertised amongst other train company publications, as RPI mentioned.)

Thanks. The problem here is the OP made no “offer” to pay in cash and instead made no effort at all to purchase a ticket before travelling, and admitted so under caution.

I’m a bit hesitant to tag along with the legalese here, mostly because we are charged with giving practical advice to the OP.

The OP has said they entered a Not Guilty plea by return and I am not certain this is wise. If the OP wanted to try arguing their corner on the law, I’d recommend they get professional legal advice and representation in court. However, I am not sure if the OP’s resources or will extend to getting a solicitor.

 

[221129]

No, they appear to say they plead Not Guilty (see the passage I made bold):

Thanks, I re read it and missed it.

 

[najaB]

They contend the facilities were not functioning.

They didn't. They contend that they weren't working on another occasion and assumed they weren't working on this occasion.

 

[furlong]

I’d recommend they get professional legal advice and representation in court. However, I am not sure if the OP’s resources or will extend to getting a solicitor.

I would also think that professional legal representation would be advantageous in a case like this one where knowledge of interpretation as well as disclosure procedures, and the way in which arguments are presented could affect the outcome.

 

[pedr]

I don't know if it works this way in practice - or if there are many contested trials which turn on the point - but it seems that the onus is on the defendant to prove that it's more likely than not that there were no available/working ticketing facilities at the origin station, to avoid conviction under bylaw 18 (Magistrates Act 1980, s 101) - presumably because of the very issue that otherwise those exceptions would make the offences very difficult to prosecute.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Does Worthing have barriers?

Yes

 

[zwk500]

I quite agree that there are arguments that are dancing on the head of a pin. But this is not one of them. OP has been charged with, in effect, not using ticketing facilities. They contend the facilities were not functioning. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

They didn't. They contend that they weren't working on another occasion and assumed they weren't working on this occasion.

My reading is that the OP does not comment on the correct functioning of the machine (or not), but is instead contending that their only available payment method wasn't accepted.

the side we got on had no ticket machine and ... also the ticket machine on the other side only ever takes card and I only had cash.

I've never been to East Worthing station, but GTR have 2 styles of ticket machine I am familiar with (although it's been a long time since I had the opportunity to look closely). 1 accepts cash but the other does not appear to: https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-automated-railway-travel-ticket-machine-dispenser-126930709.html

If the OP is accurate, and it is only the 2nd type of machine present at East Worthing (that does not take cash), that they only had cash and the ticket office was closed, is their defence more hopeful or would it still be better to attempt to limit their losses by requesting an out-of-court settlement?

 

[najaB]

My reading is that the OP does not comment on the correct functioning of the machine (or not), but is instead contending that their only available payment method wasn't accepted.

You've read it wrong. The OP said:

yeah we were in quite a rush and I always get trains from east Worthing to Worthing but usually always pay by card because it won’t ever let me pay cash as it just says no accepting cash at this moment.

Important point is that the message on the machine doesn't say that it will never accept cash, just that it has displayed that message when the OP has tried to use it. Further, the fact that they say:

Worthing let’s you pay cash always though

indicates that they know it is possible to pay using cash using a similar machine.

If the OP is accurate, and it is only the 2nd type of machine present at East Worthing (that does not take cash), that they only had cash and the ticket office was closed, is their defence more hopeful or would it still be better to attempt to limit their losses by requesting an out-of-court settlement?

If that was the case, then they wouldn't have a case to answer at all since there would have been no opportunity to pay. Same as if the machine was one that did allow cash payments but at the time they attempted to use it was displaying a message saying that it could not accept cash.

 

[zwk500]

You've read it wrong. The OP said:

Important point is that the message on the machine doesn't say that it will never accept cash, just that it has displayed that message when the OP has tried to use it. Further, the fact that they say:

Thanks for drawing my attention to this follow-up post, the wording of which is perhaps what led me to be confused.