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

[whole diary]

[Chris from Nailsea]

I still want to see restorative justice for Cerys Piper:

Sales agent Cerys Piper told The Bolton News, external she didn’t even know she was being prosecuted for incorrectly using her 16-25 railcard until contacted by a journalist.

CfN 

[Mark A]

Agreed. She was interviewed by the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) last night for their 10pm programme too.

Mark

[ChrisB]

Signing the back of any railcard has always been a 'thing' - it's to signify that you've read the T&Cs of the railcard.

[Chris from Nailsea]

It seems that the member of rail staff, in a ticket office, who sold the ticket to Cerys Piper hadn't read the 'Terms and Conditions' of the railcard.  They assured her it was valid. 

[ellendune]

I really don't see why, if the passenger is prepared to pay the difference, this should involve the courts at all especially for such a small sum this looks like a waste of the court's time and the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) should be required to pay the court's costs in full.   

If the passenger refuses to pay then it should be civil recovery unless the TOC can prove that the passenger has deliberately orchestrated a fraud over a period of time as in the case of some season ticket cases.  Then it should be prosecuted by the CPS as any other fraud case following an investigation by the police. 

[grahame]

I really don't see why, if the passenger is prepared to pay the difference, this should involve the courts at all especially for such a small sum this looks like a waste of the court's time and the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) should be required to pay the court's costs in full. 

For a single transgression, I would agree.  For a continued series of transgressions where the transgressors know that (s)he is breaking the rules, a sample court case for one count (and "75 others taken into account" perhaps), court may be a valid option.

All the published data on these cases suggest that they were NOT repeated, but we don't see the whole story. In one case I note that the wrongful travel was made early in September in a way that would not have broken the rules in the previous months, and in the other advice of a rail ticket clerk appears to have not indicated a restriction as the ticket was sold.   We have no explanation from Northern that I have seen as to why they went heavy in these case, and indeed if they even appreciate that they did.

[grahame]

From Rail from Northern

The company says it is committed to treating customers fairly and proportionately whilst balancing the need to protect taxpayers’ money.

That's a change in policy then 

[Chris from Nailsea]

"Justice for Cerys Piper" please. 

[ChrisB]

They are 'reviewing' all convictions in this circumstance, so expect that to happen.

[JayMac]

I really don't see why, if the passenger is prepared to pay the difference, this should involve the courts at all especially for such a small sum this looks like a waste of the court's time and the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) should be required to pay the court's costs in full. 

For a single transgression, I would agree.  For a continued series of transgressions where the transgressors know that (s)he is breaking the rules, a sample court case for one count (and "75 others taken into account" perhaps), court may be a valid option.

All the published data on these cases suggest that they were NOT repeated, but we don't see the whole story. In one case I note that the wrongful travel was made early in September in a way that would not have broken the rules in the previous months, and in the other advice of a rail ticket clerk appears to have not indicated a restriction as the ticket was sold.   We have no explanation from Northern that I have seen as to why they went heavy in these case, and indeed if they even appreciate that they did.

Makes no difference if the person in this case was doing so repeatedly. Or indeed in any such case where a person is travelling with a ticket that has a time restriction and they chose to travel during that restriction.

Not a criminal offence. Not a byelaw offence. Not a breach of terms and conditions. Not a contractual breach. They are doing something allowed by the National Rail Conditions of Travel.

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.

No caveats about when or where you will  be charged the excess. If the railways don't get round to issuing that excess that's their problem, not yours. You don't have to go out of your way to get the excess. This is a consumer friendly condition that allows passengers maximum flexibility with their walk-up tickets, enabling them to travel at a time of their choosing, even if their chosen train is nominally in a higher fared part of the day.

And yes, the 16-25 Railcard minimum fare before 10am is a time-restricted fare covered by this NRCoT condition.

IANAL^▸ ('I am not a lawyer'.)

[ellendune]

From Rail from Northern

The company says it is committed to treating customers fairly and proportionately whilst balancing the need to protect taxpayers’ money.

That's a change in policy then 

Why should the criminal law be used to "protect taxpayers money" where it wouldn't be used to protect that of a private business?

[Fourbee]

No caveats about when or where you will  be charged the excess. If the railways don't get round to issuing that excess that's their problem, not yours. You don't have to go out of your way to get the excess. This is a consumer friendly condition that allows passengers maximum flexibility with their walk-up tickets, enabling them to travel at a time of their choosing, even if their chosen train is nominally in a higher fared part of the day.

In all of these cases the appropriate excess will be from a "railcard to non-railcard" and will be at most £4 (in the cases of railcards with a £12 minimum fare). Not the sale of a new ticket. Not a PF^▸ (Penalty Fare). Not a report for prosecution.

This is karma for the petty changing of the implementation of railcard discounts from 34% to 33.4%.

However, I'd bet there will be some people working hard to "fix" this.

[grahame]

From The Standard

Student prosecuted for fare evasion during rail strike after station staff promised ticket was valid

A university student who says she was misled by station staff while trying to get home during a train strike has been convicted in a fast-track court hearing of fare evasion.

Mariah Laheri, 20, was bought a ticket online by her father, but found services were disrupted by ASLEF^» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about) union industrial action on April 5.

She told a court her father was assured by railway staff that the ticket would be valid on other services, as she attempted to navigate from Gillingham to Preston to see her family.

Ms Laheri got on to the train after being personally told on the platform by a staff member that her ticket would still be valid, she says.

However she was then confronted on board by a ticket inspector, and on September 24 she was charged with fare evasion.

Ms Laheri wrote in to the Single Justice Procedure to explain the circumstances behind the incident, after being told she was being prosecuted by government-owned Northern Rail.

Ms Laheri, from Blackburn, was charged with failing to hand over a valid ticket, and entered a guilty plea online.

But in her mitigation she insisted she only technically committed an offence because she had been misled by staff.

“This is my case – if I was told I couldn’t I would have purchased another ticket and claimed a refund in the usual way which I didn’t as I did travel”, she wrote.

“As you can appreciate, I was told misinformation by two members of staff. I would like the court to consider this please.

“I purchase a ticket every time I travel. It has caused me a lot of stress but feel I did purchase a ticket and boarded the train in good faith. I was not aware of the different network policies.”

The article continues with an explanation ...

Department for Transport OLR Holdings (DOLR), the governmental body which operates Northern Rail, said Ms Laheri has a ticket for an Avanti service rather than Northern.

In the Single Justice Procedure, the case was dealt with behind-closed-doors at a hearing in North Shields, with Ms Laheri receiving a criminal conviction and being ordered to pay £40.10 in compensation and £60 in costs.

The sentencing magistrate dealt with the case based on written evidence alone, including her guilty plea and mitigation.

When The Standard pointed out to DOLR that the prosecution had been brought without any actual evidence or statements to support the criminal charge, it said a review of the entire company’s enforcement strategy is now underway.

“Doing the right thing for our passengers is at the centre of all we do”, said a DOHL spokesperson.

I have snipped both sides of the story in the quote ... it does strike me that the system under which such prosecutions are brought is complex to the extent that Jo Public cannot be reasonably expected to understand it and it would seem that even the staff involved take differing views from one another.

"“Doing the right thing for our passengers is at the centre of all we do”, said a DOHL spokesperson." ... I am not convinced that they did the right thing for this passenger ...

[Trowres]

Department for Transport OLR Holdings (DOLR), the governmental body which operates Northern Rail, said Ms Laheri has a ticket for an Avanti service rather than Northern.

Grahame, it seems that since you quoted the Standard article, it has been amended to read rather than LNER^» (London North Eastern Railway - about).

It's a pity the Standard's article is lacking in useful details, such as whether or not the ticket was an Advance or otherwise limited to Avanti only. Nevertheless, it's hard to see how the events could be considered deliberate fare evasion.

[grahame]

Here we go again ...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c89v08l99lgo

"I couldn't believe, just by clicking the wrong button... that it counted as criminal activity. I was really shocked."
Molly McGregor has not had a fun time travelling on the railways recently.

In June, the 29-year-old commuter was threatened with prosecution for selecting a 16-25 discounted train ticket instead of a 26-30 one from London Bridge to her home in St Albans. They both give the same discount.

That case has now been dropped after her MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) intervened. But it was only when challenging it that Molly discovered she had also been prosecuted for a separate incident the month before.

Article goes odd adding in other stuff that describes her wider and more complex situation with another incident with paperwork sent to the wrong address.