Split ticket - Connecting train delayed - Court action (Sowerby Bridge - Birmingham journey)

[P Binnersley]

Presuming the case was in Manchester magistrates, it is possible to ask at the court for the outcome of the case or find it on some court database?

 

[Nottingham59]

The problem is that, even if the OP's ticket was valid according to the conditions of travel, who do you think the magistrate is going to believe, when faced with a train company that says it wasn't?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem is that, even if the OP's ticket was valid according to the conditions of travel, who do you think the magistrate is going to believe, when faced with a train company that says it wasn't?

Courts don't work like that, they work on evidence. The TOC would not be able to provide evidence of the ticket combination (remember, two tickets were involved for one journey) being invalid, because it was valid. Because they want to prosecute a criminal offence, the TOC need to provide evidence that the law was broken "beyond reasonable doubt", which they will be unable to do.

 

[Nottingham59]

Courts don't work like that, they work on evidence

Testimony of a railway company official stating that the ticket was not valid is evidence.

 

[35B]

Testimony of a railway company official stating that the ticket was not valid is evidence.

And if that evidence is given when known to be false, at risk of prejury.

 

[Haywain]

Courts don't work like that, they work on evidence. The TOC would not be able to provide evidence of the ticket combination (remember, two tickets were involved for one journey) being invalid, because it was valid. Because they want to prosecute a criminal offence, the TOC need to provide evidence that the law was broken "beyond reasonable doubt", which they will be unable to do.

You have a touching faith in the court system.

 

[Argyle 1980]

I had a similar instance a few years ago when I travelling Liverpool to Plymouth on a Saturday evening on split advance tickets Liverpool-Wolverhampton-Cheltenham-Bristol-Exeter-Plymouth splits. Was the second last service of evening we missed due to a 33 minute delay from Liverpool, so we ended up on the Final Birmingham to Plymouth service of the evening. The XC train manager immediately said "not vald" before he had even listened fully to what I had to say or had even looked at the tickets etc. As I had my daughter with me and didn't want a full on argument with the TM I just paid him the full price he demanded which was £157.
I genuinely thought this would be resolved with XC pretty quickly, but I was wrong and their stance was I should have accepted an unpaid fare noticed and appealed it instead of paying the fare. I wrote one last letter to XC asking for a refund or that I'll be taking out an online CC moneyclaim against them. Predictably they ignored the letter so I had little choice in taking them to court. Their only defence was a letter sent to the court and myself asking the court to side with them as I was deliberately fare dodging, which the judge quite rightly threw straight out and awarded me a judgment against them for the original £157 plus costs totalling another £104.
Even then it wasn't straight forward in reclaiming my money. They initially ignored the judgment and it was only on tem being sent draught papers of enforcement that they responded saying their accounts team will be forwarding payment within 14 days. They deliberately (I think) spelt my name incorrectly on the cheque to further delay things.

Just to show how other TOCs behave. A similar occurred with Southeastern when I had a £6 advance single Aylesham to Victoria with the intention of catching the 2345 Sleeper Paddington to Plymouth on an advance ticket also, but booked completely separate. The service from Aylesham was cancelled and the next extremely delayed due to a fatality and eventually arrived at Victoria just after midnight. Southeastern couldn't have been anymore appologetic and offered me either a hotel for the night plus a new ticket for tomorrow or a taxi all the way home. They couldn't source a taxi all the way so put me in a taxi to Paddington and a room at the Mecure hotel just outside the station.

As a general rule now, I don't book multiple combinations of advance ticket splits, generally restricteding it to one connection only and then normally allowing two hours in between

Don't let XC bully you.

 

[221129]

In effect case law

If it was in the Magistrates court, then no it wouldn't be.

 

[WesternLancer]

I had a similar instance a few years ago when I travelling Liverpool to Plymouth on a Saturday evening on split advance tickets Liverpool-Wolverhampton-Cheltenham-Bristol-Exeter-Plymouth splits. Was the second last service of evening we missed due to a 33 minute delay from Liverpool, so we ended up on the Final Birmingham to Plymouth service of the evening. The XC train manager immediately said "not vald" before he had even listened fully to what I had to say or had even looked at the tickets etc. As I had my daughter with me and didn't want a full on argument with the TM I just paid him the full price he demanded which was £157.
I genuinely thought this would be resolved with XC pretty quickly, but I was wrong and their stance was I should have accepted an unpaid fare noticed and appealed it instead of paying the fare. I wrote one last letter to XC asking for a refund or that I'll be taking out an online CC moneyclaim against them. Predictably they ignored the letter so I had little choice in taking them to court. Their only defence was a letter sent to the court and myself asking the court to side with them as I was deliberately fare dodging, which the judge quite rightly threw straight out and awarded me a judgment against them for the original £157 plus costs totalling another £104.
Even then it wasn't straight forward in reclaiming my money. They initially ignored the judgment and it was only on tem being sent draught papers of enforcement that they responded saying their accounts team will be forwarding payment within 14 days. They deliberately (I think) spelt my name incorrectly on the cheque to further delay things.

Just to show how other TOCs behave. A similar occurred with Southeastern when I had a £6 advance single Aylesham to Victoria with the intention of catching the 2345 Sleeper Paddington to Plymouth on an advance ticket also, but booked completely separate. The service from Aylesham was cancelled and the next extremely delayed due to a fatality and eventually arrived at Victoria just after midnight. Southeastern couldn't have been anymore appologetic and offered me either a hotel for the night plus a new ticket for tomorrow or a taxi all the way home. They couldn't source a taxi all the way so put me in a taxi to Paddington and a room at the Mecure hotel just outside the station.

As a general rule now, I don't book multiple combinations of advance ticket splits, generally restricteding it to one connection only and then normally allowing two hours in between

Don't let XC bully you.

Shocking - well done for pursuing it.

 

[hkstudent]

If it was in the Magistrates court, then no it wouldn't be.

Yeah, case laws can only be made in High Court or above (including High Courts from other Common Law applicable countries)

 

[ainsworth74]

Yes I thought this had the potential to be a pivotal ruling. In effect case law.

It only becomes case law if the case is heard by a higher court. Magistrates don't make case law so the losing side in the case would have to appeal to an appellate court in this case I believe that would be a Crown Court but they also don't make case law so someone would need to appeal it again this time, I believe, to the Court of Appeal and they, finally, would be able to make a decision which would constitute case law. A decision by one of the lower courts could be "persuasive" (i.e. you could argue that a magistrates court heard a case with the same or very similar facts and ruled on that in a certain way) in another case at the same level but that is absolutely not binding (so the court would be perfectly entitled to ignore what happened in a previous case).

Can take a long time and a lot of money to get to the Court of Appeal...

 

[island]

It depends whom you appeal to – there are no fewer than five ways to "appeal" (in the common sense of the word) a Magistrates Court decision to convict.

1. Probably the most common is to appeal to the Crown Court, which rehears the case. An appeal from the Crown Court can go either to the High Court (by case stated) or the Court of Appeal, with that court's leave.
2. It is possible to make a section 142 application for the case to be heard again by different magistrates or a different district judge because it is in the interests
3. For an appeal on a matter of law only, you may apply for a "case stated" which goes to the High Court. A case stated cannot look to disturb findings of fact such as the reliability of witnesses. Both prosecution and defence can apply for a case stated. Leave of the magistrates is required to state a case, and they may refuse leave if they consider the application to be frivolous.
4. It is also possible to apply to the High Court for a judicial review of the magistrates' decision, if you consider they acted beyond their powers.
5. Finally, a conviction can (at least in theory) be referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission which can refer a matter back to court if all other avenues are closed, but I can't see them taking on a train ticketing matter.

Decisions of the Crown Court do not set a precedent but the High Court and Court of Appeal can.

As ainsworth74 suggests, it can take a long time and a lot of money to get to a precedent-setting court, and at any point the TOC involved could decide to drop the matter and the court will not rule.

 

[AlbertBeale]

It depends whom you appeal to – there are no fewer than five ways to "appeal" (in the common sense of the word) a Magistrates Court decision to convict.

1. Probably the most common is to appeal to the Crown Court, which rehears the case. An appeal from the Crown Court can go either to the High Court (by case stated) or the Court of Appeal, with that court's leave.
2. It is possible to make a section 142 application for the case to be heard again by different magistrates or a different district judge because it is in the interests
3. For an appeal on a matter of law only, you may apply for a "case stated" which goes to the High Court. A case stated cannot look to disturb findings of fact such as the reliability of witnesses. Both prosecution and defence can apply for a case stated. Leave of the magistrates is required to state a case, and they may refuse leave if they consider the application to be frivolous.
4. It is also possible to apply to the High Court for a judicial review of the magistrates' decision, if you consider they acted beyond their powers.
5. Finally, a conviction can (at least in theory) be referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission which can refer a matter back to court if all other avenues are closed, but I can't see them taking on a train ticketing matter.

Decisions of the Crown Court do not set a precedent but the High Court and Court of Appeal can.

As ainsworth74 suggests, it can take a long time and a lot of money to get to a precedent-setting court, and at any point the TOC involved could decide to drop the matter and the court will not rule.

Thanks for the terminology here, referring to setting a precedent. Earlier contributions have referred to "case law", which I thought wasn't exactly the same thing as a ruling which can set a precedent.

But the gist is clear anyway - a decision in a Magistrates' Court can't set a precedent, and is hardly worth citing in any other case, carrying little weight.

 

[yorkie]

Some posts moved to: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-where-a-through-ticket-was-available.209907/

@Mickyb please contact us (by using the report button on this post) when you are able to update us with the outcome.

UPDATE: thread now unlocked

 

[Mickyb]

Some posts moved to: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-where-a-through-ticket-was-available.209907/

@Mickyb please contact us (by using the report button on this post) when you are able to update us with the outcome.

UPDATE: thread now unlocked

Sorry for the delay. I attended court and this was just to hear my plea. However thr magistrate wanted to hear some of the outlining evidence. Something strange occured, the prosecution used section 9.4 as THEIR evidence. I was baffled, I explained that 9.4 forms the bases of why I was able to be on the next train.

The prosecution quickly advised that I only said my connecting train was delayed, and no evidence was provided to that effect. It had been! I didnt have a copy on me so the judge advised the prosecution to contact me directly to get this information but also for them to prove otherwise. A court case of Jan 7th 2021 was set.

I was then contacted by email by the prosecutor, who asked if I should now plead guilty as he couldnt find any evidence my train was delayed. Then he got my delay repay compensation docs from Northern Rail. After 3 weeks they have closed the case! I win! I BLOODY WIN!

 

[Vespa]

Good news.
There's no feeling like sticking it to the corporate bullies.
I think they should send an apology for putting you through all this uneccesarily.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think they should send an apology for putting you through all this uneccesarily.

TIL admit they got it wrong? That'd be funny. I'm honestly more surprised they gave up.

But in any event congratulations @Mickyb on getting the right outcome! Whilst I doubt it will achieve anything substantive you may wish to consider writing to CrossCountry to le them know that a company acting in their name got things this wrong.

 

[P Binnersley]

Well Done.

Interesting view of the prosecutor. Your were on the delayed train so your statement is valid evidence. They should have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that that the offence was committed - ie that the first train ran on time.

 

[WesternLancer]

Sorry for the delay. I attended court and this was just to hear my plea. However thr magistrate wanted to hear some of the outlining evidence. Something strange occured, the prosecution used section 9.4 as THEIR evidence. I was baffled, I explained that 9.4 forms the bases of why I was able to be on the next train.

The prosecution quickly advised that I only said my connecting train was delayed, and no evidence was provided to that effect. It had been! I didnt have a copy on me so the judge advised the prosecution to contact me directly to get this information but also for them to prove otherwise. A court case of Jan 7th 2021 was set.

I was then contacted by email by the prosecutor, who asked if I should now plead guilty as he couldnt find any evidence my train was delayed. Then he got my delay repay compensation docs from Northern Rail. After 3 weeks they have closed the case! I win! I BLOODY WIN!

well done, and thanks for coming back to update. They really should apologise and compensate you for the hassle you have had here. I guess worth pressing the train company customer services for that, tho I could understand why you might want no more to do with them!
Just indicates to me that they would rather frighten people with court and hope they will pay up / be found guilty / than pay presecurors to get their evidence correct.

Festive wishes to you Mickyb.

 

[Trackman]

TIL admit they got it wrong? That'd be funny. I'm honestly more surprised they gave up.

But in any event congratulations @Mickyb on getting the right outcome! Whilst I doubt it will achieve anything substantive you may wish to consider writing to CrossCountry to le them know that a company acting in their name got things this wrong.

Yes, congrats to the OP.
I wonder if TIL were just hanging on for a guilty plea?
All sounds like a very mickey mouse prosecution job to me.

 

[Western Sunset]

Well done Mickey!

But what are the repercussions for TIL and XC? None that I can see...

 

[ainsworth74]

All sounds like a very mickey mouse prosecution job to me.

I have no doubt that TIL catch and prosecute a great many people who are undoubtedly guilty. We can argue about whether the rules should allow these people to be facing a criminal sanction prosecuted by a third-party private contractor but they are the rules as they stand right now. What isn't in dispute, in my opinion and I think born out by having a poke through these Forums, is that TIL are extremely active prosecutors who absolutely prosecute everything that comes across their desk without much reference to merits until someone actually shows that they're willing to fight. How many people get caught up in TILs web who are in fact, like the OP, not guilty but would rather pay to make it go away?

Personally, if I was a train company managing director, I wouldn't want TIL anywhere near my business.

 

[Mickyb]

This forum is the life line of one person against the rail corporates.

 

[Western Sunset]

Have you sought costs?

 

[greyman42]

The prosecution quickly advised that I only said my connecting train was delayed, and no evidence was provided to that effect. It had been!

The prosecution really should not be able to get away with coming out with outright lies in court.

 

[dmncf]

Well done Mickey!

But what are the repercussions for TIL and XC? None that I can see...

Quite. If TIL and XC pursue flimsy/false prosecutions like this and (nominally) 8/10 end in failure but 2/10 end in customers settling out of court, then it's good business sense that they continue like this, right?

 

[Hadders]

An excellent result for the OP, well done.

 

[furlong]

This forum is the life line of one person against the rail corporates.

Please look at this thread about a possible inquiry into the way private companies make use of private prosecutions and consider letting your MP know about this latest example of corporate malpractice.

 

[Tallguy]

An excellent result. I suggest a claim for expenses should now be issued due to the vexatious litigation. I believe you can claim £19 an hour for labour with a case in the Magistrates Court plus expenses, lost income etc.

 

[MotCO]

It is irrelevant to the case in front of the magistrate at that time. What should or shouldn't have happened in other cases is irrelevant unless someone appealed a conviction and eventually it made it to a higher court where a precedent might have been established. Otherwise the magistrate is concerned with the law and facts of the case in front of them. As stated by @furlong earlier the people who should be doing something about cases like this are the DfT and ORR in their various regulatory roles. However, as I said at the time, they clearly don't care.

Now the case has been resolved (well done Mickey), shouldn't the DfT or ORR ask the TOC how many passengers have actually been inappropriately charged, and force the company to reimburse those passengers? The problem is
1) who will instruct the ORR and/or DfT to act
2) the apparent stasis of these organisations.