Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts)

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

She says: "Rules and regulations around railcards need to be examined and clearer processes put in place."

A GTR spokesperson said if passengers used a railcard for discounted travel then they needed to be able to show it to ticket inspectors on their journey.

"Ms McGregor was stopped on two occasions and advised both times she should have been travelling with a railcard," they said.

"To fix this, we have rescinded any action for the second (June) journey and provided details to Ms McGregor on how to resolve the court judgement for the first.

"We are genuinely sorry that her address was recorded incorrectly for the first journey."

How much clearer can the rules be? If you use a discount, you obviously have to be able to show that you are entitled to it. Having a receipt isn't good enough as it can easily be shared. Back to paper railcards that you have to carry with you.

[grahame]

How much clearer can the rules be? If you use a discount, you obviously have to be able to show that you are entitled to it.

They are not always clear, even to staff, Chris

I was reading the story of a traveller on a senior Interrail pass out of St Pancras on an East Midlands service from whom the train manager demanded to see a senior railcard.

You (and usually I) are very well aware of the complexities of the fair system, Chris. And you (and I hope I) are are bright enough to understand and be able to apply it in most circumstances.  But perhaps you and I are exceptional, or indeed just part of the majority - but there are many (staff included) who don't get it.   And the rules need either explaining even better, or changing, or applied with understanding and sympathy to accidental transgressors while at the same time catching and penalising those who know what they are doing and choose to evade.

[ChrisB]

There really is *no* excuse for staff misapplying the rules....

In which case, go digital & include the T&Cs in the file downloaded to the app with the ticket so no one cannot say that they haven't had a chance to read the T&Cs.

[grahame]

There really is *no* excuse for staff misapplying the rules....

I would agree with you ... except the example I quoted is far from the first time!   I am not going to go back and regurgitate past stories in detail, but there are many.

Very interesting that my Interrail pass tale, which is a very recent one, elicited lots of comments and advice from other contributors on the Facebook group where it was posted, and a significant number offered incorrect comment.

[JayMac]

How much clearer can the rules be? If you use a discount, you obviously have to be able to show that you are entitled to it. Having a receipt isn't good enough as it can easily be shared. Back to paper railcards that you have to carry with you.

Do those rules allow the rail operator to wrongly record someone's address and still prosecute? They have a duty to ensure that the person they intend to prosecute knows about it. Making the assumption that correspondence is being ignored is not a good enough reason to continue a case in absentia. Criminal records can ruin lives.

The behaviour of too many in rail prosecution departments is heavy handed, egregious, profit and target driven, and in some instances downright illegal. Their right to do criminal prosecutions needs to be taken away from them. Give it to the CPS. They'd soon get their house in order when the CPS start refusing to prosecute due to poorly presented cases.

[Chris from Nailsea]

If you use a discount, you obviously have to be able to show that you are entitled to it. Having a receipt isn't good enough as it can easily be shared. Back to paper railcards that you have to carry with you.

Fair comment, ChrisB.

I now have a Senior Railcard - it's plastic, not paper - and I carry it everywhere, in my wallet next to my driving licence.  My reasoning is that my driving licence has picture identification, whereas the railcard does not.

CfN. 

[JayMac]

Conversely, I carry my phone everywhere and I'm more likely to forget to pick up my wallet. Therefore I've decided a digital railcard is best for me.

As for picture identification, it's not a legal requirement to carry it, so not having my driving licence on me, on occasion, has been no cause of concern for me. Until recently.

I was recently the victim of an assault in M&S and was very annoyed when the attending police officers told me they wouldn't proceed with gathering information from me until I proved who I said I was. Even more annoyed when I learnt they didn't demand the same ID from the witnesses they spoke with. Treated me like a suspect when I was the one pushed to the floor, having done nothing more than say to someone that my discussion with M&S store staff was none of their business and to go away. And yes, I did say "go away", and not a more crude alternative. Further annoyed when the police officers who spoke with me never identified themselves or informed me they were recording the interaction on body worn cameras. When I asked for their name, number and station, all I got was gruff response and a shoulder thrust to show number. Well over a week later and I've not been able to give a formal statement. Several 101 calls and two visits to Taunton Police Station without success.

In the intervening time I've identified the person who assaulted with my own investigation using social media. Police don't seem at all interested in having this information.

Sorry, way off topic rant. But the call (finally) received just now from one of the attending officers, refusing to receive the information I'd gathered, has pissed me right off. Not willing to take my statement either because she was "too busy this evening." Quiet enough to call me and warn me off my own evidence gathering, but too busy to gather my statement. I've been given the timescale of "in due course."

[ChrisB]

Do those rules allow the rail operator to wrongly record someone's address and still prosecute? They have a duty to ensure that the person they intend to prosecute knows about it. Making the assumption that correspondence is being ignored is not a good enough reason to continue a case in absentia. Criminal records can ruin lives.

GTR said this -

A GTR spokesperson said if passengers used a railcard for discounted travel then they needed to be able to show it to ticket inspectors on their journey.

"Ms McGregor was stopped on two occasions and advised both times she should have been travelling with a railcard," they said.

"To fix this, we have rescinded any action for the second (June) journey and provided details to Ms McGregor on how to resolve the court judgement for the first.

"We are genuinely sorry that her address was recorded incorrectly for the first journey."

So presumably able to rescind the initial conviction

[JayMac]

The prosecuting authority can't rescind a prosecution. That has to be done by the courts.

If you were unaware of a magistrates court prosecution carried out in absentia, but later become aware of it, you can make a 'Statutory Declaration' to the court and have the case reopened and reheard.

[Chris from Nailsea]

That's good. 

So we will hopefully soon see similar restorative 'Justice for Cerys Piper'.

CfN.

[ChrisB]

That may have happened without media coverage of course.

If you were unaware of a magistrates court prosecution carried out in absentia, but later become aware of it, you can make a 'Statutory Declaration' to the court and have the case reopened and reheard.

Indeed - which instructions were presumably provided by GTR as in the quoted text above.

[grahame]

...  Quiet enough to call me and warn me off my own evidence gathering, but too busy to gather my statement. I've been given the timescale of "in due course."

Resonates.  My sympathy. Parked in the long grass ...

I was recently the victim of an assault in M&S

"Assault" can mean a lot of things. Are you OK?

[JayMac]

I was shoved and fell backwards to the floor. Bruised elbow and wrist. Bump on the head. Mild shock. I'll live.

[grahame]

From The BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page). at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg0l8r3zy1o

The government is set to order an independent review of rail fare prosecutions and enforcement by train companies following reports of disproportionate action against passengers by revenue protection teams.

The BBC understands that Transport Secretary Louise Haigh will ask the Office for Rail and Road to look at how fare evasion is dealt with.

Train operators have a number of tools to deal with passengers who have underpaid or not bought a ticket at all.

It is understood that while the government is not seeking to strip firms of powers to prosecute criminals who deliberately avoid paying, there has been growing discomfort at action being taken against people who have made innocent mistakes.

The most serious sanction is prosecution for fare evasion, which can land passengers with a magistrates court appearance and a serious criminal record.

The independent review the government is expected to announce will examine how clear ticketing terms and conditions are and how they are communicated to train users.

A key question for the Office for Rail and Road will be when prosecution is the right step

Article goes on to look at the Sam Williamson case

Last month, government-owned Northern dropped all action against engineering graduate Sam Williamson, who was reported to the operator's prosecutions and debt recovery department for using his 16-25 railcard for travel on a service to Manchester.

Mr Williamson faced prosecution for paying £1.90 less than he should have done despite admitting his error and offering to pay a fine or a new fare, prompting widespread criticism of Northern.

The Department for Transport instructed the company to review its ticketing policy to ensure it was clear and fair to passengers and asked it to examine details of similar cases.

Northern responded by withdrawing all live prosecutions against those pursued in similar circumstances and promised to review historical cases.

The terms and conditions of Mr Williamson's railcard specified the discount was only valid for on-peak services where the original fare was £12 or more. However, despite the small-print, he was able to buy a ticket that informed him he could travel at "anytime".

Good law changes are not often based on a single caee - however, in this case I think we have seen that Sam is the tip of an iceberg.  I am glad to see that the suggestion is NOT an evaders charter but rather looking at how those who deliberately evade can still be apprehended with some teeth while the genuine innocent mistakes and understanding problems do not result in a criminal record.