Received a Pre-court Action but would like to contest it

[Wolfie]

I find the Artic Troll/Talltim debate fascinating. What AT's comments prove is how easy TOCs have it within the current legal framework. At the same time I can see why the TOC would at least wish to investigate further.

ah ok, so we have now been able to establish that there is in fact a TVM at Oldfield Park and NRE is in fact incorrect.

But we are told that NRE is the definitive source of information....

AS such why would anyone even look for a TVM at Oldfield Park?

You didn't board the train at Oldfield Park so what has the ticket machine there got to do with this?

You boarded at Bath Spa which does have ticketing facilities, that is what is relevant!

Being pedantic, what you write is inaccurate if the OP did indeed get off the train (ie descend to platform level) at Oldfield Park and then reboard.

I suppose that depends on if you consider the journey to be complete when you step onto the platform or when you exit the station.

If the former then the OP started a new journey when they stepped off the train at Oldfield Park, however I personally subscribe to the latter view so it was one journey for which they didn't have the correct ticket.

Agreed. I would, as a lay person, tend to the former interpretation. After all it's also been posted that a ticket can be expecces prior to arrival at the stated destination but not once at that destination...

 

[455driver]

I should be interested to know whether, on 29 September, the GWR Gloucester-Weymouth service (dep. Filton 1723, arr. Keynsham 1755) was, in fact, running 20 minutes late. This information appears to be no longer available on the Real Time Trains website, but presumably can be requisitioned from Network Rail if it has relevant evidential value.

Raildar is no good, it shows the train ran 20-40 minutes early all the way!

 

[Tetchytyke]

If however, this is something a train company usually give some weight to, then I will probably do it, even if it will not make any difference to the final result.

If you were genuinely intending to travel to Oldfield Park then you complied with the law, as you had a ticket from Bath to Oldfield Park. Rebooking due to a change of plans is permitted, but you couldn't at Oldfield Park because there's no way to buy a ticket there.

If you were actually intending to travel to Keynsham then you didn't comply with the law, as you were supposed to buy all tickets (i.e. either a Bath-Keynsham ticket or separate Bath-Oldfield Park and Oldfield Park-Keynsham tickets) before boarding at Bath.

The issue you have is that FGW know you live in Keynsham, and that the fare is more expensive to Keynsham than to Oldfield Park.

I'm sure you can see why they might think you were actually intending to travel to Keynsham.

 

[455driver]

Being pedantic, what you write is inaccurate if the OP did indeed get off the train (ie descend to platform level) at Oldfield Park and then reboard.

Would being pedantic stand up as a defence in Court? :roll:

 

[Miafey]

The facts, as the OP has given them, are:

• He lives in Keynsham, not Oldfield Park
• He arranged to meet his friend in Oldfield Park
• He jumped up and got off the train when the ticket inspector came round
• He immediately reboarded the same train and walked away from the ticket inspector
• He says this happened because he saw his plans had changed in the few seconds immediately after getting off
• The fare from Bath to Oldfield Park is two quid less than the fare from Bath to Keynsham.

Intent is about how your behaviour appears to a reasonable observer.

I'm all for giving people the benefit of the doubt, but I think FGW are justified in claiming he was attempting to avoid payment of the fare due because of where he lives. You yourself have said similar in the past when people "forget" to touch their Oyster card out when they're travelling outside their Travelcard zones at a station that is conveniently closer to where they live.

I'm not saying he shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt, but if his plans changed his argument would be a lot more believable if he could prove it.

You are supposed to buy all tickets for the journey you are intending to make before boarding when at a staffed station. FGW think a man who lives in Keynsham was intending to travel to Keynsham. He can try and argue otherwise, but his argument will be a lot stronger if he can prove that he was originally intending to travel to Oldfield Park.

Thanks for your analysis.

I certainly understand that when everything adds up it does look very suspicious. I don't know what I could say about it. It just happened that when the train was approaching oldfield park when he came to inspect tickets. It was not me getting off the train when I saw him. Again I do not dispute that they were just doing their job in this case and to them I just looked like another fare dodger.

In fact if my destination were indeed Keynsham wouldn't it be much easier if I just abandoned my plan of dodging the fare and just purchased a ticket from him? I jumped on the same carriage and there was no doubt that he'd see me. I never have the confidence that I'll hide very well in the crowd.

Anyway it's a bit off. I'm not disputing that they were doing the right thing of investigating this. Just not sure what to do next.

 

[Wolfie]

Would being pedantic stand up as a defence in Court? :roll:

In isolation no, absolutely not. I was cosntructing a message in parts and have yet to master anyway other than building in stages of using multiple quotes - I hope the whole arguement I have now posted gives a little more sense of my logic.

 

[Geronimo]

Let me clarify:

11) he called me about three weeks later on my mobile, accusing me of giving wrong information, asked me to confirm my name and address

That seems very very odd. Is it standard practice to have RPIs contact the person under investigation themselves?

OP, was there anything wrong with the address you first gave?

 

[ian959]

I might be dense, but if Oldfield Park has a limited opening hours ticket office, would a ticket machine be by the ticket office. There is no ticket office in the photos from what I can see?

 

[Miafey]

That seems very very odd. Is it standard practice to have RPIs contact the person under investigation themselves?

OP, was there anything wrong with the address you first gave?

Nothing wrong with the address.

I left with him my name in the form of Initial.Surname (which was entirely true, I did not make up a different name or anything, just not as complete as my name appearing on a passport, but I did not think that matters at the time of writing that down).

He had my driving licence for sometime and I believe he checked the information I wrote down against my licence. If he was not happy that only my initial is there he could have either noted it down himself or asked me to write down my full name. He did not and he returned my driving licence to me.

In the phone conversation he said I gave him a wrong name because he could not associate my name with this address.

 

[Geronimo]

I might be dense, but if Oldfield Park has a limited opening hours ticket office, would a ticket machine be by the ticket office. There is no ticket office in the photos from what I can see?

I'm pretty sure there is no "fixed" ticket office, but although I have never seen it, I was told that a "mobile" ticket office is in place during the morning (blokes with avantix?)

Apologies, wrong information. Never noticed the thing (never been there in the morning though).

 

[Miafey]

I might be dense, but if Oldfield Park has a limited opening hours ticket office, would a ticket machine be by the ticket office. There is no ticket office in the photos from what I can see?

The ticket office is the blue booth in the first picture. The pictures were taken this morning at around 9am. There are NO ticket machines by the office. I was on the opposite platform this morning so it might not be utterly clear from the picture but I could take another one if it helps.

 

[talltim]

I might be dense, but if Oldfield Park has a limited opening hours ticket office, would a ticket machine be by the ticket office. There is no ticket office in the photos from what I can see?

Is the ticket office the little prefab building the middle of this pic? http://www.railforums.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=24244&d=1445590520
Edit: Beaten to the answer

 

[Miafey]

I'm pretty sure there is no "fixed" ticket office, but although I have never seen it, I was told that a "mobile" ticket office is in place during the morning (blokes with avantix?)

There is one fixed I believe. Although I never get to use it as I have never been in oldfield park on that side of the platform during the opening hour of the ticket officer. I have been on that side a couple of times during the evening (that is the side for trains travelling in the direction to Bristol so this is the right direction for me going home) and this booth is closed in the evening, with no ticketing facilities nearby.

There is a similar one at Keynsham. There will be one guy sitting in the booth during the opening hours issuing tickets.

 

[John Palmer]

Raildar is no good, it shows the train ran 20-40 minutes early all the way!

I find this puzzling. Raildar shows the train at Filton 28 minutes ahead of schedule, and at Keynsham 37 minutes ahead of schedule. Can this be a reliable indication of this train's actual performance on 29 September? Hard luck on those holding Advance tickets for travel on this train!

I am still having difficulty in understanding what offence the OP can be said to have committed. In particular, I see difficulties in establishing 'intent' for the purposes of a prosecution under RORA S.5(3)(a) or (b).

 

[455driver]

I find this puzzling. Raildar shows the train at Filton 28 minutes ahead of schedule, and at Keynsham 37 minutes ahead of schedule. Can this be a reliable indication of this train's actual performance on 29 September? Hard luck on those holding Advance tickets for travel on this train!

I am still having difficulty in understanding what offence the OP can be said to have committed. In particular, I see difficulties in establishing 'intent' for the purposes of a prosecution under RORA S.5(3)(a) or (b).

The OP (effectively) boarded a train with a short ticket, now whether that was intentional or (as the OP states) due to a change of plan I cannot comment, GWR have offered the OP a chance to set the situation aside or the OP could decide to let a Court decide but as the OP has no real evidence to back up their statement I don't think that would be a good idea.


I looked for that service on Raildar over 2 weeks and it is completely wrong every day.

 

[bb21]

I find this puzzling. Raildar shows the train at Filton 28 minutes ahead of schedule, and at Keynsham 37 minutes ahead of schedule. Can this be a reliable indication of this train's actual performance on 29 September? Hard luck on those holding Advance tickets for travel on this train!

RTT does indeed show that the train ran about half an hour late on that day. All you need to bring up records for the past 28 days is the Train UID (P03565 in this case), which can be manually typed into the address.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I am glad that we resolved the issue regarding ticket-purchasing opportunities at Oldfield Park.

Except he then immediately reboarded the same train to continue onwards to Keynsham. I don't think FGW are being unreasonable in believing this to be a continuation of a journey and therefore an attempt to avoid paying the fare due from Oldfield Park to Keynsham.

I very much agree with this.

This is not to say that I agree with the heavy-handed approach in this case, however it is a possible complication I can see. It may help if you could demonstrate that your circumstances changed en route, but even then they might ask the question as to why you did not ask the RPI when you first encountered him before getting off at Oldfield Park if you could change your ticket to finish at Keynsham. Of course I have no reason to doubt that you only realized when you were getting off the train that the plan had changed, however there is no way to prove when you actually read that message, assuming that you didn't only just receive it. If it showed a timestamp several minutes before you arrived at Oldfield Park then it is another possible complication I can see.

The question is whether you consider it worthy of the risk of the court finding against you and siding with the train company on their interpretation of the events that day, and the subsequent financial implications, plus the added stress for attending court, in order that you do not pay £80 right now.

It is a horrible decision to have to make and I would hate to be in your position. I would like to think that you are in the clear in this case, but I simply cannot be sure that it is how the court will see it, and it is not my money at stake.

 

[John Palmer]

The OP (effectively) boarded a train with a short ticket, now whether that was intentional or (as the OP states) due to a change of plan I cannot comment, GWR have offered the OP a chance to set the situation aside or the OP could decide to let a Court decide but as the OP has no real evidence to back up their statement I don't think that would be a good idea.


I looked for that service on Raildar over 2 weeks and it is completely wrong every day.

The problem for the OP with GWR’s offer is that it comes with a price tag of £83.70. For an innocent traveller, that would be a high price to pay for a change in travel plans.

I do not follow the argument that the OP boarded the train with a short ticket. He paid the fare for the journey to Oldfield Park and, on his account, alighted there. What is the explanation for him alighting at Oldfield Park if in reality he intended to travel onward to Keynsham?

The extent and quality of the evidence available to establish what took place and what the intentions of the OP were remains an unknown quantity. But the starting point is that it is for the prosecution to prove the elements of the offence – the defendant has to prove nothing.

That state of affairs may well change in the course of a trial if the prosecution shows there is a case to be answered. But I see nothing in the OP’s account that is inconsistent with the notion that he embarked upon a fresh journey after learning of the delay to his friend’s train.

RTT does indeed show that the train ran about half an hour late on that day. All you need to bring up records for the past 28 days is the Train UID (P03565 in this case), which can be manually typed into the address.

Thank you, bb221. This supplies objective, extrinsic evidence of the context in which the OP says that his intentions changed. And, as Bayum’s post #54, observes, additional evidence may be available in the form of the friend’s Whatsapp message record.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I am still having difficulty in understanding what offence the OP can be said to have committed. In particular, I see difficulties in establishing 'intent' for the purposes of a prosecution under RORA S.5(3)(a) or (b).

There is no way of proving what was in the OP's mind, therefore we would look at the OP's actions and try to work out intent from that.

In this case we have someone who lives in Keynsham getting on a train to Keynsham but only holding a ticket to Oldfield Park. They got on at a staffed station, Bath Spa, which has ticket barriers. The ticket they bought is the cheapest ticket that will get them through the barriers at Bath Spa. The ticket they bought is half the price of the ticket from Bath to Keynsham. They got off the train at Oldfield Park as the ticket inspector came to check their ticket, before immediately reboarding the same train and continuing to Keynsham, where they live.

If it went to court, the court would essentially be asked to decide whether the OP's plans genuinely changed in the 30 seconds between his ticket being inspected and him getting back on the same train he had just got off, or whether the OP was actually heading home to Keynsham and was attempting to evade the fare.

I've no reason to disbelieve the OP, but I wouldn't share the confidence of others that the court would take his side. Most people caught short-faring either "forget" where they got on a train or had plans that "changed" after getting on the train. The fact the train was late partially corroborates what the OP is saying, but don't forget train running records are a matter of public record.

FWIW I think, given the lack of ticketing facilities at Oldfield Park, that it would have been better to simply sell the OP the ticket, especially as two singles are more expensive than one through ticket. But I wouldn't want to be the one arguing in court that it was a change of plan and not an attempt to short-fare.

 

[bb21]

What is the explanation for him alighting at Oldfield Park if in reality he intended to travel onward to Keynsham?

I believe I outlined a possible argument FGW may use in Post 15.

Not to say that a court will side with it, but it is difficult to second-guess in this case who the court will side with in my view.

 

[Miafey]

The question is whether you consider it worthy of the risk of the court finding against you and siding with the train company on their interpretation of the events that day, and the subsequent financial implications, plus the added stress for attending court, in order that you do not pay £80 right now.

It is a horrible decision to have to make and I would hate to be in your position. I would like to think that you are in the clear in this case, but I simply cannot be sure that it is how the court will see it, and it is not my money at stake.

Thank you for understanding this. As you said going to court means a lot of money (at least to me) on stake for something unpredictable. Financially, on one side is 83.7 and on the other is potentially hundreds or thousands plus all the stress, etc. And I'm not sure even if I win the case will I be rewarded anything towards costs on my side. On balance I should just pay the fine.

I'm fully aware of this situation and very much like to avoid it going that way.

On the other side, just paying the fine and doing nothing will make me feel that I'm confessing to the accusation they made. They've accused me of fare dodging on purpose and, by accepting their offer and paying the fine I'm effectively saying yes I did and I agree to pay for my wrongdoing.

If they were fining me for travelling without a ticket then yes I did. If they were fining me for intending to travel without a ticket then no I did not. Whether I can prove it is one thing, whether proving it would make any difference is a different thing.

Again thank you for your words. I understand my situation much better now and, as you said, at the end of the day I'll have to make the decision.

 

[talltim]

Its often been said in this forum that intent is proved by actions as you cannot read someone's mind.
So the actions are.
Bought a ticket at Bath valid for the journey he was making
Made the journey with a valid ticket
Alighted the train at his destination (the fact that he got off the train just before the guard got to him is neither here nor there, could he have been accused of fare dodging if this happened and his plans hadn't changed?)
Boarded a train at a station with no ticket selling facilities
Attempted to buy a ticket at the first opportunity

Anything else is attempting to guess what he is thinking.

 

[CheesyChips]

Its often been said in this forum that intent is proved by actions as you cannot read someone's mind.
So the actions are.
Bought a ticket at Bath valid for the journey he was making
Made the journey with a valid ticket
Alighted the train at his destination (the fact that he got off the train just before the guard got to him is neither here nor there, could he have been accused of fare dodging if this happened and his plans hadn't changed?)
Boarded a train at a station with no ticket selling facilities
Attempted to buy a ticket at the first opportunity

Anything else is attempting to guess what he is thinking.

Actions are really only one way prove intent, a court needs to look at the context of the actions too. Had his plans changed because his partner had been taken to hospital and he couldn't feasibly wait an hour for the next train then there's a clear argument that there was no attempt to fare dodge, even though the actions are the same.

 

[bb21]

Its often been said in this forum that intent is proved by actions as you cannot read someone's mind.
So the actions are.
Bought a ticket at Bath valid for the journey he was making
Made the journey with a valid ticket
Alighted the train at his destination (the fact that he got off the train just before the guard got to him is neither here nor there, could he have been accused of fare dodging if this happened and his plans hadn't changed?)
Boarded a train at a station with no ticket selling facilities
Attempted to buy a ticket at the first opportunity

Anything else is attempting to guess what he is thinking.

I fail to see your point.

From a court's point of view, the following would be more accurate:

Bought a ticket at Bath to Oldfield Park;
Made the journey with said ticket;
Alighted the train at destination printed on ticket, with an RPI in full view near by;
Boarded train again immediately after;
Attempted to buy a ticket, with the RPI turning back to this section of the carriage;

The court then has to rule on the basis of these facts, with possibly a small variation in terms of how well the OP can prove that his circumstances changed that day.

 

[talltim]

I don't understand why the the OP has to prove anything to do with reasons for his actions. Again, that's to do with what he was thinking, which no-one can prove or disprove.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don't understand why the the OP has to prove anything to do with reasons for his actions.

Because you have to buy all tickets for a journey before you start it, where your journey starts at a staffed station. The journey was Bath Spa to Keynsham, and the nanosecond he was standing on the platform at Oldfield Park doesn't change that.

 

[talltim]

So again, how long do you have to be at a place before it becomes a new journey?
Looking at the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (current version) 3(b) it says:

(3)If any person—
(b)Having paid his fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeds by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or

It gives no time limitation. In theory, taking just the first half of the sentence, once you have arrived at an station with no open ticket-selling facilities (previously paying the additional fare) by train, you can never leave it in the same direction.
However it is the AND operator that is crucial here. I think I'm right in saying that it is the 'and with intent to avoid payment thereof' part that allows for purchasing at the first opportunity rather than the 'previously' which covers such stations. So you can 'knowingly and wilfully proceed by train beyond that distance' because the other part of the AND operator doesn't apply.

 

[Tetchytyke]

So again, how long do you have to be at a place before it becomes a new journey?

I would say that if you alight from a train and then immediately re-board the same train that you would struggle to argue it is two separate journeys.

 

[najaB]

I would say that if you alight from a train and then immediately re-board the same train that you would struggle to argue it is two separate journeys.

I agree (not that it matters much) but more importantly I believe a court would see it that way too. If I get on a train at station A and get off that train at station C it is very hard to say that is anything other than a single journey regardless of standing momentarily on the platform at station B.

An example - say I hold an Advance ticket from Inverness to Thurso. For argument's sake this train is booked to stop for 5 minutes at an intermediate station to cross another train. I step out onto the platform to get a breath of fresh air. Am I guilty of breaking the terms of my Advance ticket by breaking my journey at an intermediate station? No. It's seen as a single journey because I never left the station and re-boarded the same train.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It gives no time limitation. In theory, once you have arrived at an station with no open ticket-selling facilities (previously paying the additional fare) by train, you can never leave it in same direction.

Why should it have to give a time limitation? We can take the usual and normal meaning of journey.

If you get off the train at an intermediate station and immediately reboard the same train, I don't see how you can argue that your journey was really to that intermediate station.

If you get off the train at an intermediate station, go across the road to the pub, have two pints and then get the next train an hour later, I don't see how you can argue that your journey was not to that intermediate station.

 

[talltim]

The Regulation of Railways Act doesn't mention a journey at all, so the definition of it is irrelevant (I know I used the word myself ) it talks in terms of distance/s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Or put it another way and ignoring the stepping onto the platform issue completely.
Intent is proved by actions not mind reading.
The first time that intent can be proved* is when someone carries on beyond the distance of the validity of their ticket. Until then the section pre-AND operator of 3(b) is not contravened. So when does the section post-AND operator become contravened? As this section does not include the word 'previously' you can only ascertain this from actions after an opportunity to pay has been passed. You could argue that the opportunity to pay was when the original ticket was bought. However until travel on the additional distance is commenced intent cannot be proved as you cannot mind read when the decision to carry on was made.
As the sentence contains an AND operator both sections of the sentence have to be contravened at the same.

*unless they say that they are going to do it