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

[whole diary]

[stuving]

This is one I would put in the 'cock up' category. Relevant staff read the headline and did not connect that they prosecuted under the older bye laws and not the the exemption allowed by ministers.

I wonder how many of these cases would have been decided differently if heard in full court.

Those affected by this mass voiding of convictions have indeed got off on a technicality, since the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) were not authorised to use the SJP for these offences because it is too lenient! But I doubt that many of them will complain that they should have been prosecuted in court in person - which they could have opted for in any case. Most, like the one quoted in the article, think they should never have been prosecuted at all.

And that may well be true of some of them. There is a second aspect to the legal challenging of these cases, which was not ruled on by the CM, for cases following a penalty fare appeal being turned down. (Full details of that have been debated on railforums, if you like details.) I suspect there were other faulty prosecution cases too, which might (or might not) have been thrown out in a full court hearing.

This secondary effect of using the SJP, that cases get less scrutiny so faulty ones more often get a conviction, might have been a motivation for TOCs to (wrongly) use it - but I don't think this has yet been shown to be true. However, would this be accepted in a later court judgement (i.e. some kind of appeal)? After all, it means accepting that courts make a lot of this kind of mistake, and can be manipulated by outsiders like a TOC.

[ChrisB]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page)

It should have been a quick, simple rail journey.

Nearly two years ago, Sarah Cook hopped on a train at Wombwell Station, just outside her pet shop in South Yorkshire, to travel one stop to Barnsley. A mere six minutes.

"I tried to buy a ticket on the platform and the machine wouldn’t accept my bank card," she told the BBC. "I thought: 'It doesn’t matter, the train is here, I’ll buy one on the train.'"

Unfortunately, there was no guard on the train and when Ms Cook reached the station, transport police were scanning everyone's tickets.

When she tried to buy a ticket she was told it was "too late". So she was fined.

"The fine I appealed cause it was £20 which seemed a lot for a couple-of-pound journey and I never heard anything back."

But that wasn't the end of the story.

Nearly a year to the day later in 2023, Ms Cook received a letter telling her she was being fined £500.

"That escalated to going to court," she says. "Filling out a lot of forms, pleading guilty, pleading not guilty, the threat of a criminal record, the threat of a bigger fine, the threat of jail time, up to two years."

In the end, she did have to fork out some money. "After the threat of everything else, it was a ginormous £4," she says.

It turns out Ms Cook wasn't the only one caught out.

Last week, a ruling by the chief magistrate for England and Wales found the prosecutions by rail companies against Ms Cook and five other people were "unlawful" and declared them void.

As a result, an estimated 74,000 other cases will be re-examined. If rail companies are found to have acted unlawfully in those instances, prosecutions could be quashed and fines could be refunded.

For Ms Cook the ruling "feels good".

"It’s a good win for all involved," she says. "I’m just sad it took this long to get it sorted."

So who could be in line to have their convictions quashed and get a refund?
What is the issue?

The ruling applies to prosecutions for alleged fare evasion made by seven rail companies: Arriva Rail Northern, Avanti West Coast, Greater Anglia, Great Western Railway, Merseyrail, Northern and Transpennine

The prosecutions took place between 2018 and 2023, and one of the key issues is that they used something called a single justice procedure (SJP).

Under this procedure, a case is dealt with by a single magistrate and a legal adviser behind closed doors.

This is in contrast to an open court where you might have three magistrates hearing a case and the public can attend.

SJPs were introduced in 2015 as a speedier way to prosecute "minor" criminal offences.

The following year, rail companies were allowed to start using SJPs to privately prosecute people who they claimed had dodged fares.

The problem is rail that companies used the procedure to prosecute offences listed in the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

They are not allowed to do this.

Rail companies can only use certain byelaws to pursue people they claim have not paid a rail fare - not the Regulation of Railways Act.
I've been fined, am I owed money?

That depends - and it is very specific.

In short, if you were prosecuted for alleged fare evasion through the single justice procedure for offences under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 you may be entitled to a refund for fines you have paid.

The way to find out if you might be due a refund is to go back to your paperwork.

Nathan Seymour-Hyde, a partner at Reed Solicitors, says that the original court summons will say "single justice procedure" on it.

Then check the charges.

He says to see if there are any Regulation of Railways Act offences listed on there.

But what if you don't have the documents?

Mr Seymour-Hyde says: “Sometimes people just didn’t get that paperwork. They’ve moved addresses and then they eventually get chased by the court."

If you do not have the relevant papers, you can contact the court and the rail company that prosecuted you. They should send you the documents.

Or you could wait until HM Courts and Tribunals Service contacts you to find out if you have been affected.
What should I do next?

You should wait - but don't expect a quick decision.

Mr Seymour-Hyde reckons it is a "big mess to untangle".

"There are costs, compensation and the fines that were paid by each person that need to be returned.

"Many people will have moved address. So it's going to be a very challenging process to just pinpoint where people are and then try to return the money to them."

Before all of that, the court services, the Department for Transport and the train companies have to agree a list of all the cases that could potentially be declared void.

The Department for Transport says that the courts services will use court records and case information held by rail companies "to contact those affected over the coming weeks about the hearing and decision".

The government advises that people will be contacted directly and told what will happen next "including if you have paid some or all of a financial penalty".

For those who haven't paid anything, they will also be contacted if their conviction is declared invalid and to confirm that the court record is corrected.

[grahame]

I'm not making any comment on individual cases.  But as a generality, there are pockets of high fare evasion between closely spaced open stations;  where and other characteristics pretty well known to staff.  That does mean that when someone unknowingly makes journey without a ticket or unable to get one, they are likely to be doubted.

[infoman]

Would love to see staffed ticket checks between Bradford on Avon and Trowbridge,and ticket gates installed at Westbury(Wiltshire).

[Marlburian]

I wonder if, with Reading Rock Festival starting on Wednesday, there'll be a team of enforcement officers at Tilehurst Station, as there has been in the past?

Time was when certain festival-goers would get off trains at Tilehurst, walk the ten minutes to Waitrose, stock up with food and drink and proceed to the festival site (sometimes taking very full advantage of trolleys). Now a large Tesco nearer the site is more convenient for them.

Many years ago, the day after the festival had ended, I spotted a youth with rucksack scrambling up from the Thames towpath and onto Platform 4 - now impossible with the new fencing. (The installation of the fencing saw the removal of the coin-in-the-slot gate that facilitated access from the towpath;when I started using the station in 1973 the gate was chained IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly), with the slot encrusted in layers of paint.)

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

Sam Williamson said railcard restrictions were "confusing and opaque".

A man who paid £1.90 less than he should have for a train ticket faces being taken to court by a rail firm despite admitting his error and offering to pay a fine or a new fare.

Sam Williamson, 22, from Glossop, has been threatened with prosecution by Northern after he mistakenly bought an invalid £3.65 ticket from Broadbottom to Manchester using his 16-25 railcard last Thursday.  He said the "tiny infraction" was an "innocent mistake" due to him not knowing the railcard could not be used until after 10:00 and he feared he could be landed with a huge fine and a criminal record.

A spokesman for Northern said everyone had "a duty to buy a valid ticket" before they board the train, and added that 96 per cent of customers "do just that".

Mr Williamson, a university graduate, was travelling to London via Manchester to take his driving theory test when the conductor told him his ticket was not valid because of the railcard's terms and conditions.  They stipulate the card cannot be used for fares below £12 between 04:00 and 10:00, Monday to Friday.  The rule does not apply in July and August, when Mr Williamson used his railcard on several similar journeys without falling foul of the rules.

"I said, 'I am really sorry, this is my mistake, can I buy a new ticket?'," Mr Williamson said.  He was told he could not buy one or pay a penalty and a travel incident report was filed by the Northern conductor.  Mr Williamson said this was "quite stressful", and he felt prosecution was an "unreasonable" response to "fundamentally, a difference of £1.90".

Northern has asked him to explain what happened in writing within two weeks and warned that legal proceedings could follow.

Mr Williamson bought the cheapest anytime single ticket he could find using his 16-25 railcard for 10:29 BST on Thursday.  He admitted it was his mistake, but said it was not made clear when he bought the ticket on the Northern app.

Mr Williamson said he could not believe an "innocent mistake over a confusing and opaque rule that only saved me £1.90, will lead to a punishment of hundreds of pounds and a criminal record".

In a post on X, external seen by millions of users, Mr Williamson called on Northern to make it clearer that “an anytime ticket is not any time with a railcard”.  He said "ambiguous" railcard restrictions should be more clearly publicised, and said he should have been given the chance to resolve the issue with the conductor.  "Why would anyone get the train if this is how they will treat you."

A Northern spokesman said: “As with all train operators across the UK^▸ (United Kingdom), everyone has a duty to buy a valid ticket or obtain a ‘promise to pay’ voucher before they board the train and be able to present it to the conductor or revenue protection officer during a ticket inspection.  The overwhelming majority of our customers – upwards of 96% - do just that.”

National Rail, which operates the railcard system, has been contacted for comment.

[grahame]

Is it my imagination, or do we get a disproportion of stories like this from Northern?

No comment on the individual case details, but I can't help feeling that if the system was not so complicated it would not be so prone to misunderstandings.   Even I have been caught out a couple of times ... the "weekend first" upgrade that a member of the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) staff sold me (on a Tuesday) instead of a travel ticket left me, according to the ticket inspector, travelling without a valid ticket. And when Groupsave moved from an 09:00 to a later start, without even me seeing any publicity, I accidentally tried to travel cheaper than the lowest available fare ...

Tomorrow, I may be catching the 08:58 from Trowbridge towards Portsmouth.  The Rail Rover web site says it's valid "from 09:00 on Monday to Friday" so if the train is running late ... but then looking deeper into more esoteric web sites it talks about "trains scheduled to leave after 09:00".     And if the on platform display tells me it's now expected at 09:05, isn't  that a new schedule?

[Mark A]

The 16-25 railcard, does anyone recall when it gained a morning peak time prohibition?

Mark

[ChrisB]

There's always been a £12 minimum fare before 1000 Monday-Fridays except July & August, even when it was the Young Person's Railcard.

HOWEVER, isn't it correct to say that having bought a ticket that isn't valid as its time-limited, only an EXCESS FA|RE^▸ (Religious Education) is payable, rather than a penalty fare/prosecution?

[didcotdean]

The 16-25 railcard, does anyone recall when it gained a morning peak time prohibition?

Mark

According to Wikipedia the current arrangements of a £12 minimum before 10am have been in place since 17 May 2009, although there were varying sometimes more complicated minimum fare arrangements going right back to the start of the card, 10am becoming the boundary in 1986.

The no minimum in July and August (whatever the rules otherwise in force at the time) goes right back to 1978.

[JayMac]

HOWEVER, isn't it correct to say that having bought a ticket that isn't valid as its time-limited, only an EXCESS FA|RE^▸ (Religious Education) is payable, rather than a penalty fare/prosecution?

That should indeed be the case. But as we know, TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) prosecutions departments are a law unto themselves.

[RichardB]

Tomorrow, I may be catching the 08:58 from Trowbridge towards Portsmouth.  The Rail Rover web site says it's valid "from 09:00 on Monday to Friday" so if the train is running late ... but then looking deeper into more esoteric web sites it talks about "trains scheduled to leave after 09:00".     And if the on platform display tells me it's now expected at 09:05, isn't  that a new schedule?

On this one, it's long established that it is the timetable that matters so the train is officially 08 58 even if it actually leaves at 09 10 and there have long been press stories from time to time about people who have got on a late running train with a cheap ticket and got excessed up.   Nowadays on Northern, it appears they may not be excessed up and instead written to by the company and asked to explain themselves.

[Trowres]

There's always been a £12 minimum fare before 1000 Monday-Fridays except July & August, even when it was the Young Person's Railcard.

HOWEVER, isn't it correct to say that having bought a ticket that isn't valid as its time-limited, only an EXCESS FA|RE^▸ (Religious Education) is payable, rather than a penalty fare/prosecution?

From NRCoT (current 2/4/2024 version):

9.5 Where you:

9.5.1 are using a time-restricted Ticket (such as an “off-peak” or “super-off-peak”
         Ticket) that is correctly dated but invalid for the service on which you are
         travelling; or
9.5.2 are using a route for which your Ticket is not valid; or
9.5.3 break your journey when you are not permitted to do so;

you will be charged the difference between the fare that you have paid and the lowest
price Ticket that is valid for the train you are using

Now that doesn't make a specific reference to railcards, but it still seems to fit, as a case of a correctly dated ticket used on a service for which it is invalid.

It is interesting that penalty fares weren't invoked. If the article is correct and a conductor was involved, I believe they are not authorised to issue penalty fares?

I hesitate to comment on whether or not the conductor had reason to suspect fare evasion was involved. However, I was going to look at the code of practice referenced by the NRCoT:

INFORMATION: All Train Companies adhere to a Code of Practice which sets
out the procedures we will follow when dealing with ticketing irregularities.
A copy can be found at www.nationalrail.co.uk/tickets.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but the link forwards to another location, at which there's no sign of the Code of Practice.

I wish we could hold the rail industry to the same flawless standard it demands from passengers navigating the system.

[grahame]

On this one, it's long established that it is the timetable that matters so the train is officially 08 58 even if it actually leaves at 09 10 and there have long been press stories from time to time about people who have got on a late running train with a cheap ticket and got excessed up.   Nowadays on Northern, it appears they may not be excessed up and instead written to by the company and asked to explain themselves.

Indeed, and as I'm "in the know" I will travel cleaner than clean and I will not travel after 09:00 on the 08:58 if the opportunity arises (which over the last month would have happened 4 times out of 20 according to Recent Train Times.    But the GB^▸ (Great Britain) Railrover guide clearly states (and I quote)

time restrictions
Mon to Fri: valid from 09:00 but 2T railcard not valid until 09:30
No restrictions at weekends or bank holidays

which says nothing about the 09:00 being according to the rail industry's timetable rather than to the actual time ...

[brooklea]

I think it might be better to make your point by quoting from an official source - the National Rail website (depending on where you look), states the same, quoting from the Freedom of Severn & Solent page

Mondays to Fridays valid from 09:00 plus the following services, for boarding at any station en route:

08:03 Axminster - Salisbury (London Waterloo service)08:39 Patchway - Taunton08:53 Weymouth - Gloucester08:36 Taunton - Bristol Parkway08:50 Great Malvern - Westbury08:27 Swindon - Taunton08:40 Swindon - Cheltenham Spa

Valid at any time on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays.

No specific reference to 09:00 being the timetabled time in that lot.

And backing up the complexity argument, should you be enquiring enough to type the web address nre.co.uk/B3 from your ticket into a browser, you’ll find this information

Not valid on trains timed to depart after 04:29 and before 09:00.

Perhaps it should say “timetabled” rather than “timed”, to be completely unambiguous?

Why this restriction code information can’t be married up with the other information on the ticket is a fair question, to save you having to check multiple pages on the same website to know get a good idea as to when you can use your ticket.