Southern Railway prosecutions

[flymo]

Found this in the Mirror. Seems like a strange thing to do to make the taxpayer pay for the prosecution failing but that's up to the courts I suppose. I always thought that if you lose in court you are liable for all the costs involved.

If this is a common occurrence then Southern can't lose. Doesn't seem right to me somehow, they should pay the costs themselves if the lose the case.

 

[First class]

That story really doesn't add up, I'd wonder whether any of it is actually true.

It doesn't really say WHY he was taken to court.

The story is basically saying he refused to pay a Penalty Fare, so I would imagine he wouldn't give his name/address details.

Therefore a prosecution would be under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (as amended which would bring a criminal record which the "Railway" are perfectly entitled to follow.

If it was a NRCoC issue like travelling on wrong operator then I would understand a court case being a waste of money- but that's not a prosecutable offence. He's obviously accused of doing something ILLEGAL.

 

[MikeWh]

The sign is relating to the Gatwick Express between London and Gatwick. I'll bet that's the only train you're allowed to buy tickets on board. The passenger was travelling the other way to Brighton. I'll bet it wasn't one of the 3-4 daily GatEx trains that are extended to the south coast. As Southern now run GatEx there really is no excuse for them not to make that clear on the posters.

 

[swt_passenger]

Well done to the lad who obviously stuck to his guns, and took this all the way.

This was bound to happen eventually, people predicted it as soon as they stuck GatEx branding all over through trains to/from Brighton.

The fact that recent reliveries have dropped the word 'Gatwick' from the trains could be related to this sort of problem - when completed SN will have more chance of defending a 'GatEx to Brighton' claim by a passenger.

In other words Gatwick Express will be a particular service not a train livery.

 

[embers25]

True but it is still going to be the "Gatwick Express" service to/from Brighton" and announced that way as that is the offical TOC, even though its actually Southern and anyone seeing a poster saying buy your ticket on the Gatwick Express is still reasonably going to make the assumption that it is ok to do the same going southbound until they reclassify the TOC as Southern from Gatwick Southwards which would be the easiest solution. Sort of like the FCC/SE joint services that change at Blackfriars altho I'm not sure how they work with FCC only rover tickets as they are advertised as FCC on table 52 and SE on table 195?!

 

[jwos]

There's a bit of distortion in that 'Mirror' - RPIs don't get paid commission.

 

[yorkie]

Brilliant result

This is a humiliating and quite damning defeat for Southern (who are disguising themselves under the false name of Gatwick Express!)

I'd love to see another humiliating defeat when someone is prosecuted by Southern for using a train operated by Southern (but in disguise!) on a Southern only ticket, when a Southern guard in disguise says their ticket is only valid on Southern! Anyone up for it?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That story really doesn't add up, I'd wonder whether any of it is actually true.

How doesn't it add up?

It doesn't really say WHY he was taken to court.

Because the Railway thinks it's invincible, and treats customers with total contempt on some occasions, and because their persecutions are paid for by taxpayers!

The story is basically saying he refused to pay a Penalty Fare, so I would imagine he wouldn't give his name/address details.

Not necessarily refused to give details!

Therefore a prosecution would be under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (as amended which would bring a criminal record which the "Railway" are perfectly entitled to follow.

The people who brought this persecution should be given a criminal record for crimes against taxpayers!

If it was a NRCoC issue like travelling on wrong operator then I would understand a court case being a waste of money- but that's not a prosecutable offence. He's obviously accused of doing something ILLEGAL.

He was falsely accused and Southern, in disguise as Gatwick Express but forced to unmask their disguise in court, now have egg on their face! Brilliant!!

 

[Ferret]

Brilliant result

This is a humiliating and quite damning defeat for Southern (who are disguising themselves under the false name of Gatwick Express!).

What a cock up! It'd be nice if we knew a few more details on this though - what was bloke charged with? What were the circumstances? Alas, relying on that rag The Mirror for any useful gen is as pointless as American Football........

 

[yorkie]

Yes, I'd like the full details. It would be good to know, so we can pass on the advice to people to assist anyone who is being bullied by Southern in disguise as Gatwick Express in future

Just last week a member of this forum was ordered off a train "operated by Southern" by a Southern employee because his Southern only ticket was deemed not valid on a train "operated by Southern". I had hoped he's stand his ground but he wasn't prepared for a potential legal battle. I would love it if someone could stand up to them, and defeat them in court. However I doubt Southern would actually let it get that far. The defeat would be even more humiliating.

How long is it until they stop using the Gatwick Express name? I thought it was next month? but the new timetable on the Network Rail site still shows them using the Gatwick Express name. It will be 2 years since the franchise became defunct! When they stop using that name, will they still allow people to buy on board (only if going to Gatwick. If going beyond Gatwick they try to issue a PF, but we now know that you can refuse to be bullied with a PF and defeat them in court!)

 

[MikeWh]

Do we even know if it was a GatEx train? I thought there were only 3/4 peak trains that go south.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I know that GX (now part of Southern, but still a brand) are the only branch of Southern exempt from penalty fares, and the poster the man referred to was obviously GatEx literature, but unless he got on one of the 4/5 peak hour GatEx Brighton services, then surely he should be penalty fared? It is poor on Southern's behalf not to make clearer differences between the two services (i.e. normal Southern Brighton trains, and the other GatEx ones), but I do think it was innocence over intent here.

I think though the fact that it's a Mirror article means we shouldn't take the story they wrote as gospel truths, they just say that this would never happen under a Communist Dictatorship, blah, blah, blah.

 

[yorkie]

Looks like what happened is, the guard switched roles and denied he could buy on board as it's only GatEx who allow that and the train became Southern (but it is advertised as GatEx - which doesn't even exist as a company*) and either he refused to pay full fare and was later PF'd when an RPI boarded, or an RPI got there first, doesn't really matter the exact circumstances.

Meanwhile if you get one of these trains between Gatwick & Victoria, the SN employed guard may DENY that he is employed by SN and may DENY that the train is operated by SN (even though their website admits this) and refuse to accept SN only tickets. I would love to see someone say "see you in court". GatEx can't take you to court, so Southern would be arguing in court along the lines of "The accused took a train operated by us, on a ticket only valid on our trains" haha I would lose all faith in our legal system if they won that!

Last week a member of this forum encountered a lying Southern guard (in disguise!), but sadly didn't want to stand his ground.

They want to have their cake and eat it.

They want to disguise themselves as a DEFUNCT company between Victoria and Gatwick, to deny cheap fares. They then deny that they are GatEx when it doesn't suit, south of Gatwick, despite the trains being (falsely) advertised as such!

They can't have it both ways!

If you travel on Gat Ex on a Southern only ticket, and (rightly) refuse to pay, Southern will have to argue in court that you are invalid, and Southern will have to admit that the train is operated by themselves (their website says they do!) and not a defunct company, so I really would like to see someone defeat them on that issue too!

* Gatwick Express Ltd still exists but it has the registered office of National Express, Birmingham, so its not the same company

 

[southerner2174]

I think what what happens with the extended Gatwick Express's is that the service is run DOO from Victoria-Gatwick and any ticket checks that are carried out are by the Gatwick Express branded staff. The London-Gatwick part is the only section of the journey where the buy on board policy exists.
At Gatwick the Gatwick Express crew get off and then it is worked by a conductor between Gatwick and Brighton running as a Southern service(accepting southern only tickets)
I also believe that only between Gatwick and Brighton the penalty fare scheme is in operation for this kind of service.
But since its not advertised particularly well i think Southern have messed up pretty bad.

 

[IainH]

Southerns Penalty fares leaflet makes it clear that the GX exemption only applies victoria - gatwick. However, the chap is probably still in the right as the operation of a penalty fares scheme should be accompanied by reasonable facilities at every station, and he should not have had to wait in a very long queue. This is a very good thing - lots of people miss their trains every day due to long queues at ticket offices and machines, coupled with the threat of a penalty fare, - and knowing that a court will not uphold a PF in these circumstances should send a message to the train companies to get their retailing act together.

 

[dan_atki]

I think the point of the matter is the poster does not make the distinction which services you can/cannot buy tickets on board. Ok so the poster features Gatwick Express branding, but it does not refer to any 'Gatwick Express services' so you could argue even on FGW/FCC services without any connection to 'Gatwick Express'.

I think the buy on board policy is going to be scrapped. Platforms 13 and 14 at Victoria, and the whole of Gatwick Airport is going to be gated. Whether this is a result of the PF position being to complicated for Joe Public to understand (heck, they even got Phil announcing the important info at Victoria!), or something else is unknown - it is said it was a franchise agreement...

 

[barrykas]

The main problem with scrapping the "buy on board" policy on the "not really Southern, honest" GatExes is that the queues at Victoria are bad enough as it is, even with all the windows at both the main and GatEx offices open.

Ideally, Victoria could do with a third Ticket Office on the Southeastern side...But I suspect that's out of the question given the retail units along that side, though I can't remember off the top of my head whether they've converted the former European office into shops or not.

Cheers,

Barry

 

[jon0844]

Can't they just put in dedicated machines that issue tickets to Gatwick, and accept cash and card - and all relevant/applicable discounts?

Mind you, more ticket buying facilities should be worked on too. As stations are renovated to make them bigger, you'd expect more open ticket windows too.

 

[Dreadnought]

Just last week a member of this forum was ordered off a train "operated by Southern" by a Southern employee because his Southern only ticket was deemed not valid on a train "operated by Southern". I had hoped he's stand his ground but he wasn't prepared for a potential legal battle. I would love it if someone could stand up to them, and defeat them in court. However I doubt Southern would actually let it get that far. The defeat would be even more humiliating.

Looks like you'll have to do it yourself to find out what would happen as I suspect most people will take a similar action to the forum member you quoted above!

 

[Ferret]

Meanwhile, we still don't know how this bloke managed to win his case! I'm itching to know exactly what happened. I can't believe for a minute he was charged with refusing to give details. I wonder if it was for not buying his ticket before travel, which of course is a byelaw offence, unless a railway official gives you permission or no facilities to buy a ticket existed. Now, if there's a dirty great sign saying 'buy on board', that really means you can't possibly hope to use that byelaw to prosecute somebody! Of course, this is all idle speculation on my part, but I'm really curious to know exactly how Southern ballsed it up! I'm of the opinion that a railway company should never lose a case at Court - purely because they should go for the blatant fare evaders, and be damned sure of their ground first!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I'm of the opinion that a railway company should never lose a case at Court - purely because they should go for the blatant fare evaders, and be damned sure of their ground first!

Or use strict liability offences!

 

[yorkie]

Meanwhile, we still don't know how this bloke managed to win his case! I'm itching to know exactly what happened. I can't believe for a minute he was charged with refusing to give details. I wonder if it was for not buying his ticket before travel, which of course is a byelaw offence, unless a railway official gives you permission or no facilities to buy a ticket existed. Now, if there's a dirty great sign saying 'buy on board', that really means you can't possibly hope to use that byelaw to prosecute somebody! Of course, this is all idle speculation on my part, but I'm really curious to know exactly how Southern ballsed it up! I'm of the opinion that a railway company should never lose a case at Court - purely because they should go for the blatant fare evaders, and be damned sure of their ground first!

Yes, I agree. But sometimes they get greedy. They think they are invincible!

What I find is that the TOCs who are more likely to be damaged by poor customer relations (ie, the Inter-City TOCs), that rely more on leisure travel, one-off business travel, or are competing with airlines, seem to be more willing to drop cases (e.g. EC would never prosecute someone for finishing "short"). But the TOCs who rely more on Season ticket holders who have no choice but to travel by rail (e.g. the likes of SWT, SN, SET) don't really seem to care what people think of them, and don't seem to care if they get bad publicity.

I'd like to know the details too.

Looks like you'll have to do it yourself to find out what would happen as I suspect most people will take a similar action to the forum member you quoted above!

There are a few people here who are prepared to assert their rights, but getting those people several hundred miles into a position to test those rights isn't always easy.

Someone told me that staff at York station are refusing to let GC passengers buy on board on race days. Now, I really need to test that, but I have to wait until a race day when I'm free (and willing to go to Thirsk or beyond).

 

[Yankser]

This chap got on a Southern train at Gatwick without a ticket, when he arrived at Brighton an inspector tried to issue a penalty fare but he refused to accept it.
He was prosecuted under the byelaws for not having a ticket, when it went to court he claimed to have travelled on a Gatwick Express train & the magistrates gave him the benefit of the doubt as Southern couldnt prove he had'nt.

So the taxpayer & the railway company are out of pocket & he got a free train ride.

 

[RJ]

So the taxpayer & the railway company are out of pocket & he got a free train ride.

Sounds like a fair outcome to me - the customer is always right, right?

 

[Yankser]

Sounds like a fair outcome to me - the customer is always right, right?

True, but he wasnt a customer...he was a passenger.

 

[yorkie]

Is there any particular reason for digging this up; I don't see much in the way of new information being presented? Which service exactly did he get? If there is more info, please present it. Otherwise there's no point in us discussing this over again.

Gatwick Express trains are Southern Trains; Gatwick Express "is operated by Southern" (by their own admission!).

I absolutely welcome the outcome, however it is extremely wrong that Southern do not have to pay for the bill for this ludicrous prosecution. Taxpayers should NOT be bailing out private companies like this. The system needs to be changed.

As for the customer getting a free ride, if Southern had did what their own poster said, and charge the correct fare, I am sure the customer would have paid it and no-one would have been out of pocket. If the customer refused to pay the correct fare when asked then a prosecution would succeed. Southern should be picking up the bill for their failure to charge the correct fare and to take this to court, not the taxpayer.

 

[Yankser]

I 'dug this up' because a friend told me about it & I thought it would be a good idea for the users of this forum to be aware of what actually happened.
Southern services & Gatwick Express services are 2 different things. They are part of the same company, just like Southeastern & London Midland, but different services.
As for costs, it is for the court to decide who pays them. I suggest that if the court thought the prosecution to have been frivoulous they would have made the railway company pay them.

 

[the sniper]

Southern services & Gatwick Express services are 2 different things. They are part of the same company, just like Southeastern & London Midland, but different services.

I don't think so. I believe since 20th September 2009, 'Gatwick Express' has just been a brand name, as its services are now just part of the South Central franchise. Southeastern & London Midland are totally separate franchises which had separate tendering process', though as you say, both franchises are ran by Govia.

 

[Mojo]

Southern services & Gatwick Express services are 2 different things. They are part of the same company, just like Southeastern & London Midland, but different services.

The relationship between Gatwick Express and Southern, and London Midland and Southeastern are completely different.

Whilst London Midland and Southeastern are owned by the same parent company (Govia). They are two separate companies; London and Birmingham Railway Ltd and London and South Eastern Railway Ltd; who both employ staff, hold accounts, have track access agreements, separately.

As far as the ORR are concerned, New Southern Railway operate all services which are branded to the public as Southern and Gatwick Express. Staff ID badges (at least the new ones) state both company names and the Gatwick Express website says that the service is operated by Southern. The company Gatwick Express does not exist as a train operator (IIRC Gatwick Express Ltd is registered to National Express Group with the HQ in Birmingham).

 

[yorkie]

I 'dug this up' because a friend told me about it & I thought it would be a good idea for the users of this forum to be aware of what actually happened.

So what service did he get? There isn't much new info here. I would be interested in the full details, but just a tiny piece of info just makes me more curious!

Southern services & Gatwick Express services are 2 different things. They are part of the same company, just like Southeastern & London Midland, but different services.

Absolutely not.

Southeastern, London Midland and Southern are all franchised TOCs.

Gatwick Express was a TOC but no longer is, although some literature still refers to them as being a TOC, this ceased to be the case, I believe in 2008/2009 (IIRC in 2008 there was a changeover period where it was technically still a separate TOC but shared the same management team or something? and then in 2009 it was abolished and absorbed into Southern). I have heard rumours that the Gatwick Express brand is to be dropped completely however I do not know if this is still happening, or when.

I'm also told that Gatwick Express staff have Southern ID badges, which is only to be expected. So when on a Southern only ticket, asking to see their ID badge puts them in a situation where they really can't be claiming to be representing a different company!

The current confusing situation where Gatwick Express is, in some ways, treated as if it was a different TOC (but in reality isn't) should cease. It is very confusing for customers, even you are confused!

As for costs, it is for the court to decide who pays them. I suggest that if the court thought the prosecution to have been frivoulous they would have made the railway company pay them.

Actually I think that it is always taxpayers who pay; as I have heard of cases where the court has been critical of the decision to prosecute a customer, yet it was still taxpayers who had to pay. The system needs changing so that the company pays, not taxpayers.

It sounds like some people at Southern are unhappy at the outcome. I'm delighted. They'll have to lump it! I also predict more defeats for Southern in court if they attempt to prosecute people on Southern only tickets who use services that are, by their own admission, operated by Southern. Anyone here willing to try it?

 

[jon0844]

If I bought a Southern only ticket from Victoria to Brighton, I presume I can use one of these fake Gatwick Express trains? If so, I'd be willing to try it and see what happens.