CentralTrainer
Member
- Joined
- 1 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 359
Just picked up this story from yesterday:
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/man-no-train-ticket-told-5008091
I assume the costs levied are correct in accordance with this as the defendant did not attend?
Just one question - how would the £2.90 go up to £220?
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/man-no-train-ticket-told-5008091
Robert Raynor handed hefty penalty for not paying £2.90 to travel
A Southmead man who failed to pay a £2.90 train ticket has been handed a penalty 150 times greater.
The case of Robert Raynor was heard at Bristol Magistrates' Court on February 8.
The 49-year-old was not present at the prosecution brought by First Great Western.
It was proved in his absence that, on June 30 last year, he travelled on the railway without paying a £2.90 fare with the intention to avoid payment.
The offence is contrary to the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.
Magistrates fined him £220 and ordered him to pay £2.90 compensation.
They also handed him a £34 victim surcharge and told him to pay £180 prosecution costs.
It brought the total penalty to £436.90 - 150 times more expensive than the train ticket - which is to be paid by March 8.
A spokesman for First Great Western said: "Fare evasion costs the rail industry about £240 million a year."
I assume the costs levied are correct in accordance with this as the defendant did not attend?
Just one question - how would the £2.90 go up to £220?