Prosecution - Lost Ticket

[Tom S]

TFL is prosecuting me for not having a ticket when on a bus.

The offence cited is:

Public Passenger Vehicle Act 1981 s.25(d) and Public Service Vehicles Regulations 1990 s.7(2)(e)

The facts are that in June 2019 last year, I paid for a travelcard in cash at a tube station.

I was on a bus when two inspectors came on board.

One of them asked to see my oyster card or ticket, I looked in my bag and got out my various identifications which the inspector was looking at it.

The inspector then walked off to presumably inspect other tickets.

I then waited for him to return, he didn't.

I never said I didn't have a ticket, nor did I sign anything admitting my guilt.

I then got a letter from TFL stating that I had been reported for not having a ticket, however we had a house fire in the intervening period, all provable and on record (3 fire engines tried to save the house, people all safe and well in case anyone wanted to know). but obvioulsy the copy of the travelcard was lost in the fire.

I had a preliminary case management hearing last month and TFL refused to back down, and the magistrates at westminster magistrates court said it was a "trial issue".

What I am seeking is an opinion is what is the proof required here?

I know that fare evasion under these provisions is a strict liability offence, however if you say you bought a ticket, and there is exceptional circumstances in why that cant be demonstrated so its just going to be my word against the ticket inspector? is that a case that I am likely to win as if I understand the law correctly, I am saying I did have a ticket, the inspector is saying i didn't produce one, so its one word against another and by implication the case can't be proved as the prosecution must be beyond a reasonable doubt, correct?

Also is there any guidance, case law on what constitutes a reasonable time for a inspector to ask you to produce a ticket, what is a reasonable time?

Any advice on what TFL would have to prove in this particular case?

Thanks

 

[londonbridge]

Other members are more knowledgable than me, but to the best of my understanding no, you wont win. The offence is failing to produce a ticket on demand, which you failed, or were unable, to do.

 

[1955LR]

Did you actually have the travel card on you at the time in question ?

 

[WesternLancer]

One of them asked to see my oyster card or ticket, I looked in my bag and got out my various identifications which the inspector was looking at it.

so the key question to ask is - did you get out a valid ticket for the inspector to look at (or valid oyster card)? Because that is not what you have written here - so please can you clarify.

Your 'various identifications' could have been a work ID badge, library card, driving licence etc etc - none of which are tickets entitling you to travel.

Also - if you bought a travelcard (on paper?) that got destroyed in the fire - how does TfL know your address to take this action against you as described? Was that from the ID maybe?

Or did you have the ticket validity on Oyster card in which case there must be an electronic record of the oyster balance at the time and when you touched on on the bus. Have you sought that info?

It would be helpful if you could give more details.

Thanks

 

[Tom S]

Yes, had the travelcard on me at the time.

Yes I got out my wallet thinking my ticket was in there and said I couldn't find it and said it must be at the bottom of my bag but he then saw my driving license, which had my details.

Yes they obtained my details from my driving license.

There was no oyster card, it was a paper ticket travelcard paid for in cash, which after searching for 30 seconds, I got out the bottom of my bag, by which time the inspector had gone, I waited for him to come back, but I saw him disembark the bus, so i thought no more of it.

Hope that helps, thank you for your assistance so far.

 

[221129]

So the offence is complete.

Any advice on what TFL would have to prove in this particular case?

That you didn't produce a ticket on demand. That's it.

 

[Western Sunset]

Notwithstanding your fire, I doubt anyone would actually keep a paper Travelcard for well over a year unless maybe they were a rail enthusiast. You say you bought the card at a tube station with cash. Any CCTV of that transaction is now probably long gone. Presumably, TfL would have data on selling the card, but it wouldn't be linked to you. Can't really see a way out, harsh though it may be.

 

[221129]

Notwithstanding your fire, I doubt anyone would actually keep a paper Travelcard for well over a year unless maybe they were a rail enthusiast. You say you bought the card at a tube station with cash. Any CCTV of that transaction is now probably long gone. Presumably, TfL would have data on selling the card, but it wouldn't be linked to you. Can't really see a way out, harsh though it may be.

None of which is really relevant anyway.

 

[mikeg]

Is the offence under the psv regulations summary only? If so its out of time if they didn't lay papers before the court within six months of the alleged offence.

 

[221129]

Is the offence under the psv regulations summary only? If so its out of time

Depends when the paperwork was laid.

 

[Tom S]

Yes it was within 6 months.

Don't ticket inspectors require you to sign anything?

What is the technical requirements of "on demand", so for argument sake, a ticket inspector runs on a bus "tickets and oysters please" goes through the bus in 15 seconds, those that haven't had time to get it out the bags and wallets and he can see identification are open to prosecution even though they had a ticket, and by the time they do, the ticket inspector leaves the bus.

I am not trying to be witty or clever here, i know the law is the law, I am just asking is there any guidance on what constitutes the "on demand" section of the relevant legislation?

How quick must a passenger comply with an "on demand" request.

Thanks everyone

 

[WesternLancer]

Yes it was within 6 months.

Don't ticket inspectors require you to sign anything?

What is the technical requirements of "on demand", so for argument sake, a ticket inspector runs on a bus "tickets and oysters please" goes through the bus in 15 seconds, those that haven't had time to get it out the bags and wallets and he can see identification are open to prosecution even though they had a ticket, and by the time they do, the ticket inspector leaves the bus.

I am not trying to be witty or clever here, i know the law is the law, I am just asking is there any guidance on what constitutes the "on demand" section of the relevant legislation?

How quick must a passenger comply with an "on demand" request.

Thanks everyone

Sorry - don't know the answer to that.It may be that you need to seek some legal advice - you may be able to get that through your Union or student union if you are a member of one, or free initial advice from a solicitor.

Is this the 1st you heard of it or did TfL seek further info off you earlier?

Have you got anything to lose by going to the court and making your case to the Magistrate? If they are not offering to settle with you prior to that maybe not.

Lesson I take from this is don't carry any ID with you! It's not required in UK so maybe why bother.... come to think of it I don't usually have ID with my address on it when I'm out and about (not intentionally, just had a think about what I usually have on me!)

 

[221129]

Don't ticket inspectors require you to sign anything?

No they dont.

 

[najaB]

How quick must a passenger comply with an "on demand" request.

It needs to be a "reasonable" period. I'd say that the time it takes to copy name and address from your ID would pass the reasonableness test.

 

[crablab]

I'd say that the time it takes to copy name and address from your ID would pass the reasonableness test

I would disagree in the case that someone was searching in their bag to find it...

In that case, it would seem reasonable to wait for them to rummage a bit and then if they still insisted they had a ticket to produce, alight with them for a more thorough search.

I don't think this is a particularly fair outcome for the OP, even if it is by the letter of the law.

 

[bb21]

Yes, had the travelcard on me at the time.

Yes I got out my wallet thinking my ticket was in there and said I couldn't find it and said it must be at the bottom of my bag but he then saw my driving license, which had my details.

Yes they obtained my details from my driving license.

There was no oyster card, it was a paper ticket travelcard paid for in cash, which after searching for 30 seconds, I got out the bottom of my bag, by which time the inspector had gone, I waited for him to come back, but I saw him disembark the bus, so i thought no more of it.

Hope that helps, thank you for your assistance so far.

It all sounds very odd to me if I may. Are you saying that during the 30 seconds (there or thereabouts) it took you to locate your ticket, the inspectors managed to record your details, check the rest of the bus, and disembark? If you waited for him to come back, but saw him disembark, why did you not try and catch his attention? Was the bus stationary during the ticket inspection?

What did you say exactly when asked for your ticket? Did you say you needed some time to find your ticket? I find it very odd if you said that but he did not even allow you 30 seconds to try and locate it, especially if he had other passengers to check.

 

[jumble]

Yes, had the travelcard on me at the time.

Yes I got out my wallet thinking my ticket was in there and said I couldn't find it and said it must be at the bottom of my bag but he then saw my driving license, which had my details.

Yes they obtained my details from my driving license.

There was no oyster card, it was a paper ticket travelcard paid for in cash, which after searching for 30 seconds, I got out the bottom of my bag, by which time the inspector had gone, I waited for him to come back, but I saw him disembark the bus, so i thought no more of it.

Hope that helps, thank you for your assistance so far.

I would disagree in the case that someone was searching in their bag to find it...

In that case, it would seem reasonable to wait for them to rummage a bit and then if they still insisted they had a ticket to produce, alight with them for a more thorough search.

I don't think this is a particularly fair outcome for the OP, even if it is by the letter of the law.

I would suggest that a decent defence lawyer would have fun in court if the scenario is exactly as described


I suspect however that there are three versions of what happened
The OP'S
The TFL inspector's
The truth

 

[najaB]

I would disagree in the case that someone was searching in their bag to find it...

In that case, it would seem reasonable to wait for them to rummage a bit and then if they still insisted they had a ticket to produce, alight with them for a more thorough search.

And wait how long?

 

[Haywain]

One of them asked to see my oyster card or ticket, I looked in my bag and got out my various identifications which the inspector was looking at it.

How did the inspector record your details? Did he write them down or just take a photograph of the driving licence? And did he do all this without saying anything at all?

 

[crablab]

And wait how long?

I don't think this is really the issue here; the problem is the RPI walked off whilst the OP was still engaged in retrieving their ticket having formed the opinion they did not have one and thus reported them for prosecution.

It does not appear that the RPI effectively communicated to the OP that they considered the OP could not present their ticket and thus was due a penalty fare (or whatever).

Had the OP been informed the RPI was taking that course of action, no doubt they would have provided further explanation and a reasonable compromise could have been reached.

"reasonable" is something that can be tested in court, and I would think that the defence would argue that the RPIs behaviour in this instance did not allow a "reasonable" time for the OP to find their ticket.

 

[Haywain]

no doubt they would have provided further explanation and a reasonable compromise could have been reached.

Like the OP producing their ticket?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

On the basis of what we have written here, the OP's chances at court seem to rely on the precise meaning of 'reasonable' and 'on demand'. This sounds like the sort of thing that it would help to have a lawyer to argue. But that comes at a cost.

The only other avenue that occurs to me is for the OP to give evidence on oath, explaining that they did have a ticket, but just didn't find it fast enough. The magistrates may decide that this is good evidence (because giving evidence on oath is a serious matter) but the OP would open themselves up to cross-examination, which might well challenge them on points such as why it was easier for them to find their driving licence (not something that you need on a bus in the ordinary course of events) rather than a travelcard that they presumably had to hand to show the driver when they boarded the bus.

 

[[.n]]

I don't think this is really the issue here; the problem is the RPI walked off whilst the OP was still engaged in retrieving their ticket having formed the opinion they did not have one and thus reported them for prosecution.

It does not appear that the RPI effectively communicated to the OP that they considered the OP could not present their ticket and thus was due a penalty fare (or whatever).

Had the OP been informed the RPI was taking that course of action, no doubt they would have provided further explanation and a reasonable compromise could have been reached.

"reasonable" is something that can be tested in court, and I would think that the defence would argue that the RPIs behaviour in this instance did not allow a "reasonable" time for the OP to find their ticket.

This (based on the telling of the incident) seems like it would have been sensible.

 

[najaB]

I don't think this is really the issue here; the problem is the RPI walked off whilst the OP was still engaged in retrieving their ticket having formed the opinion they did not have one and thus reported them for prosecution.

It does not appear that the RPI effectively communicated to the OP that they considered the OP could not present their ticket and thus was due a penalty fare (or whatever).

Had the OP been informed the RPI was taking that course of action, no doubt they would have provided further explanation and a reasonable compromise could have been reached.

It would be very odd for a RPI to record identity information without saying why it was needed...

 

[Alteran Ancient]

It would be very odd for a RPI to record identity information without saying why it was needed...

Indeed. It does seem highly irregular than the RPI would ask to see your ID and make no implication that they were going to report you "on suspicion of not presenting a ticket on demand when asked to do so". I would argue that to fail to do this is improper, as they've not given the OP an opportunity to produce the ticket and prevent this course of proceedings.

 

[crablab]

Like the OP producing their ticket?

Yes

It would be very odd for a RPI to record identity information without saying why it was needed...

I would argue that to fail to do this is improper, as they've not given the OP an opportunity to produce the ticket and prevent this course of proceedings.

Quite. Which I suppose is why we have courts, to test the evidence of both parties.

This (based on the telling of the incident) seems like it would have been sensible.

Yes, however we are hearing just one side of the story. The function of the court is to hear both and to allow evidence to be examined and challenged.

 

[Haywain]

we are hearing just one side of the story.

Based on what we haven't been told, I think we are hearing rather less than one side.

 

[Tom S]

The facts I have stated are true. The RPI confirms this in his account.

 

[Haywain]

The facts I have stated are true. The RPI confirms this in his account.

It's not a question of whether what you have told us is true, it's about what you haven't told us. There have been a number of questions which have remained unanswered, such as this:

How did the inspector record your details? Did he write them down or just take a photograph of the driving licence? And did he do all this without saying anything at all?

 

[Tom S]

The inspector recorded my details by writing them down, he asked me for my ticket as I was getting my belongings out of my bag, including my driving license (which incidentally was my old address not my current one, the summons was to my old address, I got notified by old address sending it to me).

To get to the bottom of the bag, my items as I got them out I put on the ledge of the front of the bus (as shown in the red diamond on the photo)

He said nothing as I was looking for my ticket, was just writing in his notebook, only after getting the summons did I realise he was writing down the details from my driving license without saying anything.