Southeastern Bylaws report

[WesternLancer]

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 - there was a 20.04 and a 20.34 I believe. Of course make any changes to my suggestions that you wish to make:

INSERT your postal address


Dear Sir / Madam

Ref Number: LSE............[INSERT SE Trains CORRECT REFERENCE NUMBER/CODE]

Thank you for your letter of 15 October 2021.

This incident relates to the train journey you have specified. I am sorry that you have had to investigate this. This is my statement about the incident.

I arrived at Strood station in time to buy a ticket for my journey. I needed to pay with cash (£20 bank note) as that was the only payment method I had with me. The ticket office was closed and I attempted to purchase a ticket from a ticket machine, but it would not accept the bank note I had with me. I therefore had no alternative but to board the train and pay on board.

I honestly wanted to purchase my ticket before boarding the train at 20:15pm, and I was ready to purchase on board. I also gave the ticket inspector the same £20 note after explaining why I didn't get a ticket before boarding, but he said that unfortunately the train company are not selling tickets on board anymore since the covid pandemic started, and he asked for my personal details and a proof of identity. I did refuse to give my personal details at first as I saw no reason to do so, since I had tried to buy a ticket, and still wanted to do so. But I then did give him my driving licence as ID, which on reflection I should have done when asked, and I genuinely apologise for not doing so at first.

I hope that you can therefore see that I was fully intending to purchase a ticket, I have not sought to evade my train fare, and that you will allow me to make a payment for the train fare between Strood and Maidstone Barracks which I understand to be £6.30.

Yours faithfully

[INSERT NAME]

 

[30907]

To the OP: I don't think you should apologise right at the start. The apology at the end is enough.

Just start with the facts of what you did, in (with the extra details mentioned earlier - and the names of the two stations!).

Also, try and write your reply in shorter sentences - it makes it easier to read, and you don't want the person reading it to get annoyed.

PS I see Western Lancer has suggested some changes - that looks good to me.

 

[island]

Seems cheeky in the extreme to request your occupation, National Insurance number and date of birth. Your name and address, with email address or telephone number should be sufficient.

It’s a standard form that’s used across several train companies.

On another thread some time ago it was suggested that the data could be used to provide additional evidence in the case the traveller later decided to pursue a mistaken identity defence.

It is up to the traveller whether to provide the data or not, though failure to do so may in turn be perceived as uncooperative and might militate against the possibility of a settlement eventually being offered.

 

[MotCO]

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 - there was a 20.04 and a 20.34 I believe. Of course make any changes to my suggestions that you wish to make:

INSERT your postal address


Dear Sir / Madam

Ref Number: LSE............[INSERT SE Trains CORRECT REFERENCE NUMBER/CODE]

Thank you for your letter of 15 October 2021.

This incident relates to the train journey you have specified. I am sorry that you have had to investigate this. This is my statement about the incident.

I arrived at Strood station in time to buy a ticket for my journey. I needed to pay with cash (£20 bank note) as that was the only payment method I had with me. The ticket office was closed and I attempted to purchase a ticket from a ticket machine, but it would not accept the bank note I had with me. I therefore had no alternative but to board the train and pay on board.

I honestly wanted to purchase my ticket before boarding the train at 20:15pm, and I was ready to purchase on board. I also gave the ticket inspector the same £20 note after explaining why I didn't get a ticket before boarding, but he said that unfortunately the train company are not selling tickets on board anymore since the covid pandemic started, and he asked for my personal details and a proof of identity. I did refuse to give my personal details at first as I saw no reason to do so, since I had tried to buy a ticket, and still wanted to do so. But I then did give him my driving licence as ID, which on reflection I should have done when asked, and I genuinely apologise for not doing so at first.

I hope that you can therefore see that I was fully intending to purchase a ticket, I have not sought to evade my train fare, and that you will allow me to make a payment for the train fare between Strood and Maidstone Barracks which I understand to be £6.30.

Yours faithfully

[INSERT NAME]

One thing I am not clear about - please can @Kate Anthony clarify. Did you refuse to give your address, or did you give your address but refused to supply ID to support your stated address? It's a subtle but important difference.

 

[Kate Anthony]

The building was not lock it was the one in the building that I tried

One thing I am not clear about - please can @Kate Anthony clarify. Did you refuse to give your address, or did you give your address but refused to supply ID to support your stated address? It's a subtle but important difference.

The inspector was asking for both at the same time...I refuse to give to give both at first but later gave I'd

 

[Kate Anthony]

One thing I am not clear about - please can @Kate Anthony clarify. Did you refuse to give your address, or did you give your address but refused to supply ID to support your stated address? It's a subtle but important difference.

Thanks very much I appreciate

Good morning, I got this letter this morning and i am happy it ended fast...Thanks for all your contributions I appreciate

 

[WesternLancer]

Thanks very much I appreciate

Good morning, I got this letter this morning and i am happy it ended fast...Thanks for all your contributions I appreciate

Thanks for update and glad you are happy with this.

However, if the ticket machine was not working to accept your valid money then a penalty of £135 is pretty steep.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

However, if the ticket machine was not working to accept your valid money then a penalty of £135 is pretty steep.

I concur. Be mightly aggrieved if the TVM really hadn't taken my money and I then got rinsed for £135.

 

[MotCO]

Would the best course of action be to pay the penalty, but then lodge an appeal with customer services?

 

[Watershed]

Would the best course of action be to pay the penalty, but then lodge an appeal with customer services?

OP has already paid the penalty and Customer Services are unlikely to refund it. No harm in trying, of course.

 

[Jackofspades]

Guys it’s not a penalty, it’s a settlement figure, if the OP wants to contest it it would most likely be through the courts at OP cost with good change of losing

 

[AlterEgo]

I would not want to go to court and have a defence of "I had a twenty pound note to pay for my trip, but even though I was going ten miles from home I didn't have any other means of payment and no, I did not have a bank card with six pounds thirty pence on it either".

That's not to say it couldn't be true, it's just not a defence I'd like to wheel out in front of the magistrates.

 

[Watershed]

Guys it’s not a penalty, it’s a settlement figure, if the OP wants to contest it it would most likely be through the courts at OP cost with good change of losing

It's not a fine but its amount certainly qualifies it as a penalty - perhaps analogous to a Penalty Fare, though under a very different legal framework.

We will never know how OP would have done in Court, but it is deeply wrong that the railway has the ability to extract arbitrary penalties from people who have done nothing wrong.

 

[AlbertBeale]

It's not a fine but its amount certainly qualifies it as a penalty - perhaps analogous to a Penalty Fare, though under a very different legal framework.

We will never know how OP would have done in Court, but it is deeply wrong that the railway has the ability to extract arbitrary penalties from people who have done nothing wrong.

Yes - it's outrageous. Unless the rail company have evidence that the machine couldn't/didn't refuse to accept a note, then they have no right to demand anything apart from the fare. I don't understand how they can get away with something like this. I certainly wouldn't pay a penalty (or admin cost or whatever they dress it up as) if I'd done nothing wrong.

And even the point some have made about "surely they must have had a card too" puzzles me - why is it relevant anyway? I understood that you had a right to choose your payment method. if you planned/wanted/intended/needed to buy your ticket in cash, that's your right. In that situation, if there's no way to buy your ticket in cash at the station, you surely have every right to get on the train and offer to pay the person on the train, as happened here.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes - it's outrageous. Unless the rail company have evidence that the machine couldn't/didn't refuse to accept a note, then they have no right to demand anything apart from the fare. I don't understand how they can get away with something like this. I certainly wouldn't pay a penalty (or admin cost or whatever they dress it up as) if I'd done nothing wrong.

And even the point some have made about "surely they must have had a card too" puzzles me - why is it relevant anyway?

Because the offence is complete if you had an opportunity to pay and passed it.

Offering up a defence that you had a twenty pound note, the machine did not accept it and despite going ten miles from home you had no bank card with £6.30 available on it may well be true in some cases but it would not be a defence I would feel comfortable inviting a magistrate to believe uncritically. I feel that if I went to court and said that, the prosecution may well ask questions about, for example, my means, my lifestyle, the purpose of my journey, which would lead them to think that I, personally, am not the sort of person who carries cash only and no debit or credit card with £6.30 on it.

"Do you have a bank card?" "Why did you not take it with you?" "Are you sure you had no means to pay for your ticket?"

Unfortunately, claiming the machine didn't accept your note, or coins is also not a guaranteed "out". Imagine if everyone who was caught tried that defence: claiming only to have cash, yet no bank card or other method of payment, particularly for small fares. We are unfortunately left, when faced with court appearances, to consider not only the truth but also what magistrates are likely to accept as a defence.

 

[FenMan]

Because the offence is complete if you had an opportunity to pay and passed it.

Offering up a defence that you had a twenty pound note, the machine did not accept it and despite going ten miles from home you had no bank card with £6.30 available on it may well be true in some cases but it would not be a defence I would feel comfortable inviting a magistrate to believe uncritically. I feel that if I went to court and said that, the prosecution may well ask questions about, for example, my means, my lifestyle, the purpose of my journey, which would lead them to think that I, personally, am not the sort of person who carries cash only and no debit or credit card with £6.30 on it.

"Do you have a bank card?" "Why did you not take it with you?" "Are you sure you had no means to pay for your ticket?"

Unfortunately, claiming the machine didn't accept your note, or coins is also not a guaranteed "out". Imagine if everyone who was caught tried that defence: claiming only to have cash, yet no bank card or other method of payment, particularly for small fares. We are unfortunately left, when faced with court appearances, to consider not only the truth but also what magistrates are likely to accept as a defence.

People do have joint bank accounts and may have a reason why they are not keen for a particular ticket purchase to show up on a bank statement.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Lots of people don't have much money. There have been times in my life when £6.30 would be declined by the bank. Easily enough proved with a bank statement. If you've got to travel to a job centre or job interview, you can sometimes borrow cash off someone. I really don't see only having a £20 note as unreasonable.

 

[AlterEgo]

Lots of people don't have much money. There have been times in my life when £6.30 would be declined by the bank. Easily enough proved with a bank statement. If you've got to travel to a job centre or job interview, you can sometimes borrow cash off someone. I really don't see only having a £20 note as unreasonable.

Only the OP will know if they have a valid defence. But the prosecution are entitled to cross examine the accused to ascertain whether that is likely in their case. We don’t know if the OP has settled yet although they intimated they would. In addition, nobody is questioning the *reasonableness* of going about your daily life with no bank card to hand, but rather whether a magistrate might believe you are the sort of person who does this.

People do have joint bank accounts and may have a reason why they are not keen for a particular ticket purchase to show up on a bank statement.

Of course, but only the OP will know this. In court, the magistrate will be invited to form a view of the defendant as to whether their defence is likely.

I am sure the court would not believe I personally am the sort of person who carries only cash and not a credit or debit card. But they may form that view of a different person.

We are not here to think up defences for the OP that they have not suggested, but it is good advice for us to suggest what may or may not happen in a court to let them know where they stand.

Note that Bylaw 18’s defence is:


3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if:
(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey

The wording is important. There is no right to choose your payment method, nor am I convinced that a machine refusing a note is “not in working order”. I read this defence relating to TVMs as meaning that they are totally out of order. I would not feel confident trying to argue that a machine which refused one customer’s £20 note was “not in working order for the issue of *any* ticket”.

 

[WesternLancer]

Guys it’s not a penalty, it’s a settlement figure, if the OP wants to contest it it would most likely be through the courts at OP cost with good change of losing

That's why I did not use a capital 'P' but I'd certainly feel penalized if I had to hand over £135 on top of may fare. I don't know about how good TVMs are at recognizing bank notes, and I don't know if the OP was being fully honest about machine rejecting their note - we have no way of knowing. I do know plenty of vending machines that are not very good at recognising coins however (BT payphones, for anyone who ever uses them will almost always not accept 'newer' 20 p coins but will accept older ones easily - I suspect the weight of the 20p coin has altered in recent times with some variation of the alloy mix the coin is made up of - so I am prepared to beleive that TVMs will not always accept every bank note).

Only the OP will know if they have a valid defence. But the prosecution are entitled to cross examine the accused to ascertain whether that is likely in their case. We don’t know if the OP has settled yet although they intimated they would. In addition, nobody is questioning the *reasonableness* of going about your daily life with no bank card to hand, but rather whether a magistrate might believe you are the sort of person who does this.

Of course, but only the OP will know this. In court, the magistrate will be invited to form a view of the defendant as to whether their defence is likely.

I am sure the court would not believe I personally am the sort of person who carries only cash and not a credit or debit card. But they may form that view of a different person.

We are not here to think up defences for the OP that they have not suggested, but it is good advice for us to suggest what may or may not happen in a court to let them know where they stand.

Note that Bylaw 18’s defence is:


3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if:
(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey

The wording is important. There is no right to choose your payment method, nor am I convinced that a machine refusing a note is “not in working order”. I read this defence relating to TVMs as meaning that they are totally out of order. I would not feel confident trying to argue that a machine which refused one customer’s £20 note was “not in working order for the issue of *any* ticket”.

I suspect compared with people in many walks of life, magistrates are actually very used to dealing with people who live, shall we say, on the margins of society, and indeed don't have any sort of bank card or even bank account. For the rest of the bank's customers and shareholders it may well be no bad thing that the bank does not welcome them as customers. Whether the OP is such a person is not for speculation here of course,and I'm not suggesting they are.

Even when you might have a bank account, you may have one with no access to any overdraft, so if you don't have any balance in it you do not have a working bank card. This is the reality for more people than is commonly believed - a world where the payphone, the PAYG mobile, a pre payment electricity card and cash are very much part of daily life. A subset of those people will be well known in the Magistrates Courts, if they turn up that is (which come to think of it may be correlated with the existence of cash receiving TVMs and cash payment systems on buses.....)

 

[AlbertBeale]

Only the OP will know if they have a valid defence. But the prosecution are entitled to cross examine the accused to ascertain whether that is likely in their case. We don’t know if the OP has settled yet although they intimated they would. In addition, nobody is questioning the *reasonableness* of going about your daily life with no bank card to hand, but rather whether a magistrate might believe you are the sort of person who does this.

Of course, but only the OP will know this. In court, the magistrate will be invited to form a view of the defendant as to whether their defence is likely.

I am sure the court would not believe I personally am the sort of person who carries only cash and not a credit or debit card. But they may form that view of a different person.

We are not here to think up defences for the OP that they have not suggested, but it is good advice for us to suggest what may or may not happen in a court to let them know where they stand.

Note that Bylaw 18’s defence is:


3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if:
(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey

The wording is important. There is no right to choose your payment method, nor am I convinced that a machine refusing a note is “not in working order”. I read this defence relating to TVMs as meaning that they are totally out of order. I would not feel confident trying to argue that a machine which refused one customer’s £20 note was “not in working order for the issue of *any* ticket”.

That's what I don't understand - other threads in the past have talked about people's right to choose whichever allowed method they prefer when buying a ticket. I always understood there was a right to be able to pay "by your chosen method"? It's not anyone else's business why I might sometimes need/intend to pay by cash and nothing else.

In many situations I very much want to use cash - for reasons of my own - and sometimes I have no option but to pay in cash. In those situations (if on a rail journey), then if there's no available and working method for me to pay for a ticket in cash, I don't consider myself to be doing anything wrong if I travel anyway and offer the money at the next opportunity.

 

[Deafdoggie]

That's what I don't understand - other threads in the past have talked about people's right to choose whichever allowed method they prefer when buying a ticket. I always understood there was a right to be able to pay "by your chosen method"? It's not anyone else's business why I might sometimes need/intend to pay by cash and nothing else.

In many situations I very much want to use cash - for reasons of my own - and sometimes I have no option but to pay in cash. In those situations (if on a rail journey), then if there's no available and working method for me to pay for a ticket in cash, I don't consider myself to be doing anything wrong if I travel anyway and offer the money at the next opportunity.

I've always thought, from what people have posted on other threads, that you should pay at the first opportunity you can that takes your payment method. So if a machine doesn't take cash and you pay cash it's fine to board without a ticket.
I guess, however, the argument then becomes if you're paying by card and have a smartphone, your first opportunity is to buy online.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I've always thought, from what people have posted on other threads, that you should pay at the first opportunity you can that takes your payment method. So if a machine doesn't take cash and you pay cash it's fine to board without a ticket.
I guess, however, the argument then becomes if you're paying by card and have a smartphone, your first opportunity is to buy online.

Probably for many people, including the OP, the first opportunity to attempt to pay is the "ticket person on the train". If the SE conductor isn't able to sell tickets, for whatever reason, why should the OP be penalised?

I personally do not do any financial transactions on my mobile phone (for reasons personal to me) and I'm sure the same is for many other people.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Probably for many people, including the OP, the first opportunity to attempt to pay is the "ticket person on the train". If the SE conductor isn't able to sell tickets, for whatever reason, why should the OP be penalised?

I personally do not do any financial transactions on my mobile phone (for reasons personal to me) and I'm sure the same is for many other people.

If you pay by card on board the train, it's exactly the same technology as paying on your phone. Just, in effect, using someone else's phone instead.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

If you pay by card on board the train, it's exactly the same technology as paying on your phone. Just, in effect, using someone else's phone instead.

Indeed. Happy to use my card but don't want to be using my own personal phone

 

[MotCO]

Indeed. Happy to use my card but don't want to be using my own personal phone

I do mobile banking on my phone, but I have not enabled it to operate as a credit card, and have no intention of doing so. If I lost my phone, a) I would lose all forms of communication and access to funds; and b) I don't want someone else using my phone to make payments. I am much happier with my phone in one pocket and my wallet in another to minimise risks.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I do mobile banking on my phone, but I have not enabled it to operate as a credit card, and have no intention of doing so. If I lost my phone, a) I would lose all forms of communication and access to funds; and b) I don't want someone else using my phone to make payments. I am much happier with my phone in one pocket and my wallet in another to minimise risks.

Noone else uses your phone to make a payment. That would be fraud.
You still keep all your physical cards, adding them to your phone is just an additional method of use.

 

[jumble]

Because the offence is complete if you had an opportunity to pay and passed it.

Offering up a defence that you had a twenty pound note, the machine did not accept it and despite going ten miles from home you had no bank card with £6.30 available on it may well be true in some cases but it would not be a defence I would feel comfortable inviting a magistrate to believe uncritically. I feel that if I went to court and said that, the prosecution may well ask questions about, for example, my means, my lifestyle, the purpose of my journey, which would lead them to think that I, personally, am not the sort of person who carries cash only and no debit or credit card with £6.30 on it.

"Do you have a bank card?" "Why did you not take it with you?" "Are you sure you had no means to pay for your ticket?"

Unfortunately, claiming the machine didn't accept your note, or coins is also not a guaranteed "out". Imagine if everyone who was caught tried that defence: claiming only to have cash, yet no bank card or other method of payment, particularly for small fares. We are unfortunately left, when faced with court appearances, to consider not only the truth but also what magistrates are likely to accept as a defence.

I personally think a prosecutor would look pretty stupid if they asked someone why they had left their bank card at home.
The obvious answer is that there is no particular reason I could think of as to why I should need it

 

[island]

I personally think a prosecutor would look pretty stupid if they asked someone why they had left their bank card at home.
The obvious answer is that there is no particular reason I could think of as to why I should need it

In the real world, adults do not habitually leave home to travel somewhere without a bank card.

 

[SteveM70]

I guess, however, the argument then becomes if you're paying by card and have a smartphone, your first opportunity is to buy online.

Absolutely not. The customer may not have any data for example. You can’t make assumptions like this

 

[AlterEgo]

I personally think a prosecutor would look pretty stupid if they asked someone why they had left their bank card at home.
The obvious answer is that there is no particular reason I could think of as to why I should need it

It would be a very relevant question to someone like me, if I was accused of this offence, and in fact would be relevant for most people.

I think a magistrate would not believe that I, a tech-savvy, solvent 35 year old man, would habitually leave home without a bank card or means to pay £6.30 other than a £20 note.

As I said, it's a question the prosecution can ask, and I don't see how it would be stupid at all if they are establishing whether or not the customer had an opportunity to pay for their ticket. The magistrates are entitled to consider whether the defendant is truthful, and it will very much depend on the person they have in front of them.

The prosecution might ask other questions, like "do you make this journey regularly?", "if the inspector hadn't boarded, given that Maidstone Barracks has no barriers, how did you intend to pay your fare?", "how many times have you paid on board the train before when boarding at Strood?"

None of this is an assumption of guilt, but people need to be realistic about what sort of questions defendants get asked in a magistrates' court.