My Letter to the Prosecutions Manager, First Capital Connect

[bb21]

I can certainly understand your frustration. The system is complex and it is unfortunate that sometimes innocent people with perfectly good intentions get caught up in it. It's not good enough, but the cost of mounting a challenge, and the potential loss if defeated, shifts the balance of power firmly towards the rail companies.

What I have always done with a letter written in the heat of the moment (which can occasionally last a couple of days) is sleep on the letter for a night (or possibly two) and revisit it afterwards. You will then be able to think about it with a clearer head and come up with something that is far more preferrable.

 

[AMT]

I can certainly understand your frustration. The system is complex and it is unfortunate that sometimes innocent people with perfectly good intentions get caught up in it. It's not good enough, but the cost of mounting a challenge, and the potential loss if defeated, shifts the balance of power firmly towards the rail companies.

What I have always done with a letter written in the heat of the moment (which can occasionally last a couple of days) is sleep on the letter for a night (or possibly two) and revisit it afterwards. You will then be able to think about it with a clearer head and come up with something that is far more preferrable.

good advice! thanks again.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The existence of a paid-for, but inappropriate ticket, is of no consequence - that ticket has no value.

How do you figure that? it did have value because i could have used it to travel later in that day if i didn't have to leave earlier. i still paid for it and it was still valid as far as the date is concerned. also, if i wasn't in an area that was a penalty zone then i would have only been liable to pay the excess. so to say that it had "no value" isn't really true. if that was the case then you wouldn't be able to pay an excess in ANY location.

Perhaps I should have said that it had no value in respect of the journey you were making at the time, and which is the subject of your discussion on here.

I "figure that" by reference to the Regulation of Railways Act and Railway Clauses Consolidation Act and by reference to case law [*] under each of these, in which passengers holding a ticket which they have paid for but which is not valid for the actual journey being made have, on prosecution, been convicted. In your case, I hope that the details which were noted by the inspectors do not suggest that you tried to insist that the invalid ticket was valid for travel; because if they don't suggest that, then I'll expect that the very worst that the Company would consioder is a Byelaw offence. But the procedure of selling a new full fare ticket is the routine way of dealing with a passenger not presenting a valid ticket where an Excess is not available.


[*] In a prosecution, the Company would probably also cite the clarifications in Covington v Wright (1963) under the London Passenger Transport Act in which the phrase "pay his fare" is defined as 'pay the full fare' and the words "with intent to avoid payment" is clarified that they 'do not necessarily imply a dishonest intent but merely that the passenger intended not to pay what, in fact, turned out to be the proper fare', and which under S.5 of the Regulation of Railways Act, is a fare which must be evidenced by a ticket "showing that his fare is paid".

 

[jon0844]

i use the train almost everyday and i always buy tickets, i'm not the sort of person to purposefully try to avoid paying. it just didn't seem fair to me at the time.

I don't picture you as a fare evader, but you've simply misunderstood the rules.

You can excess an off-peak ticket to a peak one, but not a railcard discounted ticket to a non-railcard discounted ticket.

It was your mistake, but you've stuck to the argument and have that noted down when you spoke to the RPI. Your best bet now is to apologise and say you genuinely, honestly, believed you were correct.

The most important thing is that you can convince FCC that there was no intent, and having attempted to sort this before travel helps your case.

A PF can't be offered to you now, but FCC has discretion and the ability to drop the case. FCC could still ask for a hefty out of court settlement (and it might be a gamble as they might not wish to take it that far and hope you go for it) but if you write in and appeal - and enclose a cheque for the original penalty fare or the ticket price doubled, they might just say 'sod it' and bank the cheque and stop it going any further.

I expect they have quite a few other cases to deal with, and I honestly don't think they'll just go after you for the sake of it.

 

[maniacmartin]

I can understand your frustrations here and commend you for researching the regulations, please understand that railway ticketing is much more complex than many people realise. It's very easy to read a few documents and think you have the full picture, even when you don't.

I'd advise you to have a read on sections 10 and possibly 8 of our Fares & Ticketing Guide, but I'll summarise:

Penalty Fares are issued on the spot, and can only be issued on certain trains by certain companies for certain journeys. They are intended to be used for genuine mistakes, and the SRA guidelines apply.

If you don't accept or pay the Penalty Fare, the Train Operating Companies will not persue a civil case, because they would prefer to use special criminal legislation, totally unrelated to the Penalty Fares legislation, which other companies such as bus companies don't have the option of.

They can bring a criminal prosecution under the Railway Byelaws. Traveling without a valid ticket is a strict liability offence, so they don't need to prove intent to avoid the fare. There are very few excuses, one of which is boarding at an unmanned station with no ticket machines. Although criminal, this offence is not recordable.

Another option is a criminal prosecution under the Regulation of Railways Act. They would have to prove intent to avoid the fare, which they could argue your refusal to accept the Penalty Fare constituted. This is more serious than a Byelaw offence - the penalties are harsher and it is recorded.

It is a very common misconception that a Penalty Fare is the worst that can happen to you, but that is not the case.

 

[Haywain]

You can excess an off-peak ticket to a peak one, but not a railcard discounted ticket to a non-railcard discounted ticket.

Only where an appropriate peak fare for the journey exists. If it doesn't, you must buy a new ticket.

I had expressed on five different occasions, to five different staff (three of which were First Capital Connect staff), my willing to pay the difference (as underlined below).

You might help yourself here if you consider how many people are telling you the same thing, and whether that increases the likelihood of them being right. The five at (presumably) Kings Cross have been added to by a significant number on here.

 

[jon0844]

The number of times you're told might not matter, or else I'd have been expected to believe my Z1-3 and Z4-6 Travelcard combination was invalid as a Z1-6 ticket.

Sure, most staff didn't sound entirely sure, but still supported the RPI trying to prosecute me.

 

[AMT]

The number of times you're told might not matter, or else I'd have been expected to believe my Z1-3 and Z4-6 Travelcard combination was invalid as a Z1-6 ticket.

Sure, most staff didn't sound entirely sure, but still supported the RPI trying to prosecute me.

Well this was my concern. None of them actually explained why, they just kept repeating themselves. My guess was that they knew that the situation was such that I had to pay for a new full fare ticket, but they didn't really know why. I'm usually reluctant to abide if I haven't had an adequate explanation. If one of the two RPI's actually had a copy of the Conditions of Carriage on them then it would have resolved the matter there and then. Perhaps this is something that I can suggest as constructive feedback? It would certainly help the RPI's in these sort of situations.

I will make it clear that it was never, and still isn't, my intention to avoid paying what i'm liable to pay. The reason I didn't want to pay there and then was because I wanted the opportunity to look into the rules myself so I could have a better idea of what applied to my situation (as none of the staff would explain it to me). And it's common knowledge that paying, and then trying to appeal afterwards (if it wasn't justified), in the hope of getting the money back is pretty much a lost cause. I just wanted to know WHY before I paid. I don't think that's unreasonible, especially considering how confusing it all is.

I understand the situation much better now than I did before coming to this site. But I still don't think the principle of my expectation was entirely unreasonable. This is due to the fact that if I happened to be travelling in a different area I would have only been liable to pay the difference. It just so happens that I was in a penalty fare zone (I think). Before this incident I would never have thought that it was subjective in that respect. It's good to know now though.

I would say that, on reflection, I think I only officially refused the full fare, not the penalty. This is because when I got to Letchworth, the RPI there said that the RPI on the train should have given me a notice (even though she didn't issue one either). I was surprised when I opened the letter. I was under the impression that the letter would be regarding whether or not I was liable to pay a penalty, not whether or not I should be prosecuted.

Anyway, when I read through my initial letter now it does make me laugh at my over confidence. It's now almost completely different lol.


Thanks again for all your guidance and support. I guess I can just explain the situation, apologise and hope for the best.

 

[jon0844]

Good luck!

And as for RPIs carrying the NRCoC, even if they did - would they willingly get it out if they were in any doubt and thought it might make them look silly? This forum is full of examples where staff dig themselves into a hole because they won't backtrack.

When I wanted to see the NRCoC while I was being dealt with by the RPI for the above mentioned charge, the lady at the Finsbury Park window refused to let me see it, saying it wasn't for public viewing! The day was quite surreal, as all the FCC staff I got to speak to (while the RPI was filling in pages and pages of notes in his notebook), seemed to rally together and treat me like a criminal, presumably as they saw the RPI taking the statement and so assumed, as a member of their fraud investigation team, he couldn't possibly be wrong.

His partner did later admit he thought it was wrong, but hadn't dared say anything.

I still defend FCC on a number of things (and they did sort my problem out in a matter of hours) and I don't think it's a badly run train company for the most part, but boy can you find yourself in trouble if someone makes up their mind and gets it wrong. I suppose it's like the police would call red mist.

In your case, while I don't know how adamant you were at the time (they might have concluded you weren't willing to listen at the time, if you failed their 'attitude' test for example), they could have asked you, politely, to shut up and listen - and then explained the rules clearly to you... You'd have then been in a position to say 'Oh, fair enough' and get a new ticket or pay the penalty fare. You'd have been left a bit red faced, but would have forgotten about it soon after and not had this hassle.

So, again, good luck and let us know the outcome. I hope that FCC will redeem themselves and see that it was a misunderstanding and there was no intent to evade the fare.

 

[Flamingo]

NRCoC are not available in printed form any more, are they?

On the few occasions I have offered to show a copy of the old ones to passengers when they were insisting they were right & I was wrong, they have refused to look at them.

 

[jon0844]

She showed me a copy (from memory, it was just printed out on A4 paper), but wouldn't let me read it (in order to see condition 19 and show it to the RPI) but you're probably right that they don't have copies to give out permanently.

I think she simply refused to help me at all, and when I asked for her name she really got angry - and came outside to tell me close up not to involve her whatsoever. But this isn't a thread about me, so I'll leave it at that!

 

[trentside]

NRCoC are not available in printed form any more, are they?

No, the booklets are no longer produced, but print-outs should be available on request from ticket offices. I believe (as in jonmorris0844's case) that some forum members have experienced difficulties obtaining NRCoC copies in the past.