Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by grahame at 07:20, 13th November 2024 |
From The BBC. 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
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".
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.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by JayMac at 21:33, 12th November 2024 |
I was shoved and fell backwards to the floor. Bruised elbow and wrist. Bump on the head. Mild shock. I'll live.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by grahame at 21:15, 12th November 2024 |
... 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?
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by ChrisB at 19:58, 12th November 2024 |
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.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by Chris from Nailsea at 19:56, 12th November 2024 |
That's good.
So we will hopefully soon see similar restorative 'Justice for Cerys Piper'.
CfN.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by JayMac at 19:51, 12th November 2024 |
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.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by ChrisB at 19:45, 12th November 2024 |
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."
"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
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by JayMac at 19:37, 12th November 2024 |
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."
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by Chris from Nailsea at 17:44, 12th November 2024 |
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.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by JayMac at 15:53, 12th November 2024 |
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.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by grahame at 12:46, 12th November 2024 |
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.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by ChrisB at 12:38, 12th November 2024 |
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.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by grahame at 12:32, 12th November 2024 |
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.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by ChrisB at 12:01, 12th November 2024 |
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."
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.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by grahame at 07:38, 12th November 2024 |
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 intervened. But it was only when challenging it that Molly discovered she had also been prosecuted for a separate incident the month before.
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 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.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by Trowres at 17:09, 28th October 2024 |
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.
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.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by grahame at 11:27, 28th October 2024 |
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 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.”
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 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.
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 ...
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by Fourbee at 09:26, 18th October 2024 |
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. 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.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by ellendune at 22:50, 17th October 2024 |
From Rail from Northern
That's a change in policy then
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?
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by JayMac at 20:10, 17th October 2024 |
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 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.
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
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by ChrisB at 13:33, 17th October 2024 |
They are 'reviewing' all convictions in this circumstance, so expect that to happen.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by Chris from Nailsea at 11:23, 17th October 2024 |
"Justice for Cerys Piper" please.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by grahame at 11:09, 17th October 2024 |
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
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by grahame at 13:03, 16th October 2024 |
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 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.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by ellendune at 22:02, 15th October 2024 |
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 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.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by Chris from Nailsea at 20:51, 15th October 2024 |
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.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by ChrisB at 20:25, 15th October 2024 |
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.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by Mark A at 18:25, 15th October 2024 |
Agreed. She was interviewed by the BBC last night for their 10pm programme too.
Mark
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by Chris from Nailsea at 17:55, 15th October 2024 |
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
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by eightonedee at 17:47, 15th October 2024 |
1. Where it says "report back to the department", doesn't the department own and run Northern?
Nah, different office, guv. You don't want the lady with the red hair in Horseferry Road, you need to go to York to sort that out mate
Posted by: Chris from Nailsea
Insert Quote
Quote from: eightonedee on October 13, 2024, 19:39:01
Quote
The photo of the cardholder must meet our guidelines and be recognisable as the cardholder.
But - my senior railcard does not have my photo on it (unlike my old Network Card that accompanied my annual season)- is that also the case with other forum members?
Yes.
My Senior Railcard (for which I applied online in late May and received a few days later) does not have any facility for a photo. That's why I always carry it in my wallet next to my driving licence - which does have a photo which looks remarkably like me, just in case I'm ever challenged.
Interestingly, my Senior Railcard, on the reverse, states that it is 'NOT VALID UNLESS SIGNED'. I have signed it, but why: what would any train manager or ticket barrier staff check that 'Authorised signature' against?
The system's a mess.
Insert Quote
Quote from: eightonedee on October 13, 2024, 19:39:01
Quote
The photo of the cardholder must meet our guidelines and be recognisable as the cardholder.
But - my senior railcard does not have my photo on it (unlike my old Network Card that accompanied my annual season)- is that also the case with other forum members?
Yes.
My Senior Railcard (for which I applied online in late May and received a few days later) does not have any facility for a photo. That's why I always carry it in my wallet next to my driving licence - which does have a photo which looks remarkably like me, just in case I'm ever challenged.
Interestingly, my Senior Railcard, on the reverse, states that it is 'NOT VALID UNLESS SIGNED'. I have signed it, but why: what would any train manager or ticket barrier staff check that 'Authorised signature' against?
The system's a mess.
It rather looks like they have always done it that way, and no-one has thought about why anyone now needs to sign a card if they are not checking a signature (think old bank guarantee cards) or why they say the photo must be of the holder if they no longer put one on the card!
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by Ralph Ayres at 11:11, 15th October 2024 |
Perhaps there will now be a review of how such tickets are sold, and the warnings/reminders given at the time. Railcard holders have some responsibility to be aware of the rules which apply to their card and I'm sure there are some who deliberately flout them, but many are likely to be making a genuine mistake.
Back when I had a Student Railcard, you would invariably buy your ticket at the ticket office just before catching the train, so you'd be reminded then if the minimum price time restriction applied, though I seem to remember I was well aware of it, being a fairly major and slightly annoying restriction which often influenced travel plans. Nowadays, buying the ticket away from the station well before travel, without any expert human assistance and possibly before your travel time has been finalised is common, so it's rather easier to overlook the restriction particularly if the ticket is shown as Anytime (terminology that didn't exist back in the day - I think the alternative to Off-peak was called "Standard" before that term was hijacked to replace Second Class).
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by Electric train at 06:58, 15th October 2024 |
Would seem Northern Rail gone into a damage limitation mode
"Rail operator Northern is withdrawing all live prosecutions against passengers reported for using railcard discounts for on-peak services where the original fare was below £12".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9dy8l8edpxo
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by grahame at 20:55, 14th October 2024 |
From the Guardian, something is going to be done.
A Department for Transport spokesperson said: “We expect Northern and all operators to ensure their policy on ticketing is clear and fair for passengers at all times. Northern are reviewing the details of these cases and will report back to the department.
“It is clear that ticketing is far too complicated with a labyrinth of different fares and prices, which can be confusing for passengers. That’s why we have committed to the biggest overhaul of our railways in a generation, including simplifying fares to make travelling by train easier.”
“It is clear that ticketing is far too complicated with a labyrinth of different fares and prices, which can be confusing for passengers. That’s why we have committed to the biggest overhaul of our railways in a generation, including simplifying fares to make travelling by train easier.”
1. Where it says "report back to the department", doesn't the department own and run Northern?
2. Reads like they have only just realised it's far too complicated.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by ChrisB at 20:50, 14th October 2024 |
As i Thought....
Under Northern rules, passengers with a railcard travelling on the wrong train must be offered the chance to pay back the deficit on the spot, the Telegraph reported.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by Mark A at 20:45, 14th October 2024 |
From the Guardian, something is going to be done.
Mark
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/oct/14/northern-rail-passengers-may-be-compensated-fare-evasion-rules
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by Chris from Nailsea at 19:01, 14th October 2024 |
I did a journey with a surfboard to Melksham without untoward incident - but I digress.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by grahame at 18:58, 14th October 2024 |
One of the more wild trips enabled by these cards was London to Shrewsbury to collect a coracle, an item that the railway might now hesitate to accept as accompanied luggage.
Times have changed - the conveyance of horses by train WAS routine but not now:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-13437279
Saw a harp at Lawrence Hill and a Cello at Didcot recently. Not seen a coracle of late and cannot advise.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by Mark A at 18:07, 14th October 2024 |
I believe the 2nd person's card IS still available.
The Gold Card area was extended to that map area some year's ago now.
No, never available uk-wide.
I *think* the second person's T&Cs were the same as the primary card holder who paid £1 for the additional card.
The Gold Card area was extended to that map area some year's ago now.
No, never available uk-wide.
I *think* the second person's T&Cs were the same as the primary card holder who paid £1 for the additional card.
Thanks for this - Wikipedia has more on this with some dates - the NSE Gold Card for annual season ticket holders, introduced in September '88 offered discounts within the Network South East area.
I'm remembering a different product, the 'Annual Season Ticket Holder's Railcard', which was introduced in 1985, offering 50% discounts on day returns and 34% on period returns, the discounts were available UK-wide (as was the card, so if someone was a season ticket holder into Inverness, they were eligible for this railcard. When it was withdrawn, over a year after the NSE gold card was introduced, it must have been missed).
Both of these offered a partner's railcard, but the annual season ticket holder's railcard + partners card in particular went a considerable way towards easing the pain of London commuting's occasional wobbles.
One of the more wild trips enabled by these cards was London to Shrewsbury to collect a coracle, an item that the railway might now hesitate to accept as accompanied luggage.
Mark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concessionary_fares_on_the_British_railway_network#Other_discount_cards
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by Chris from Nailsea at 17:26, 14th October 2024 |
The photo of the cardholder must meet our guidelines and be recognisable as the cardholder.
But - my senior railcard does not have my photo on it (unlike my old Network Card that accompanied my annual season)- is that also the case with other forum members?
Yes.
My Senior Railcard (for which I applied online in late May and received a few days later) does not have any facility for a photo. That's why I always carry it in my wallet next to my driving licence - which does have a photo which looks remarkably like me, just in case I'm ever challenged.
Interestingly, my Senior Railcard, on the reverse, states that it is 'NOT VALID UNLESS SIGNED'. I have signed it, but why: what would any train manager or ticket barrier staff check that 'Authorised signature' against?
The system's a mess.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by 1st fan at 19:43, 13th October 2024 |
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
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
Err ... there isn't an 08:27 from Swindon to Taunton and beyond, nor at 08:40 to Cheltenham Spa these days, I don't think? Nor an 08:53 Weymouth to Gloucester or an 08:50 Great Malvern to Westbury ...
Back when I had an electronic copy of the fares manual I could see irregularities in ticket validities. In the relevant section it was possible to see one such thing on the North Cotswold line. There was a named (by time) train that had an easement where you could use your Gold Card on it before 10am. I used this when there was a train timed to run at that time, but then there was a timetable change. The train in question went and there was one a few minutes different from the previous one.
I called National Rail Enquiries to check if the easement still applied and spoke to a nice chap in India. I enquired as to whether he had an up to date copy of the fares manual before I asked my question. Yes he said he did so I enquired about the easement. He seemed a little confused, he could tell me that there was a train running from Moreton in Marsh to London Paddington and that I could use my gold card after 10am. He couldn’t tell me about the easement though, to my dismay, however he put his supervisor on who he thought might be able to help.
So I asked the supervisor if he could please turn to page xx of section X of the fares manual and he stopped me. He told me that they don’t have a copy of the fares manual in the NRE office in India. I said his colleague had told me that they did and got told that his colleage was confused. He advised calling the Train Operating Company direct and asking them. Called customer service and spoke to a very helpful chap who importantly did have access to the fares manual.
He looked at the relevant section (impressed with my knowledge) and confirmed that the manual now listed a train that didn’t exist for the easement. He said that someone needed to update the manual, he could see that historically the last train before 10am qualified for the easement. Therefore I was okay to use my Gold Card on that train and supplied me with his name in case anybody argued about it.
The first time I did use it I explained everything I just typed and the Train Manager said he didn’t have a copy of it either. As GWR didn’t see fit to supply one to the Train Managers he said he couldn’t check, it was therefore fine and no he didn’t need the name of the nice man I spoke to.
I believe the 2nd person's card IS still available.
The Gold Card area was extended to that map area some year's ago now.
No, never available uk-wide.
I *think* the second person's T&Cs were the same as the primary card holder who paid £1 for the additional card.
The Gold Card area was extended to that map area some year's ago now.
No, never available uk-wide.
I *think* the second person's T&Cs were the same as the primary card holder who paid £1 for the additional card.
From memory the area was extended when the Gold Card First Class upgrade was removed.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by eightonedee at 19:39, 13th October 2024 |
The photo of the cardholder must meet our guidelines and be recognisable as the cardholder.
But - my senior railcard does not have my photo on it (unlike my old Network Card that accompanied my annual season)- is that also the case with other forum members?
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by Trowres at 14:04, 13th October 2024 |
4.2. Discounts are not available on tickets for travel on morning peak services for journeys that start and end within the London & South East area (defined by the Network Railcard area – network-railcard.co.uk/map) on Monday to Friday (except on public holidays).
Oh dear....another update likely....
404 Page Not Found
Unfortunately, this page could not be found:
https://www.network-railcard.co.uk/using-your-railcard/railcard-area/
Unfortunately, this page could not be found:
https://www.network-railcard.co.uk/using-your-railcard/railcard-area/
Counting the T&C page and the FAQs, there are two different links to the cursed map; neither of which is correct.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by Trowres at 14:02, 13th October 2024 |
4.2. Discounts are not available on tickets for travel on morning peak services for journeys that start and end within the London & South East area (defined by the Network Railcard area – network-railcard.co.uk/map) on Monday to Friday (except on public holidays). The time when off-peak services start can vary by station. Use nationalrail.co.uk to plan your journey to identify when off-peak services start or ask rail staff for details.
This is another case where journey planners (nationalrail and GWR seem to agree on this) don't exactly implement the meaning of the text.
A period of testing reveals that the journey planners seem to be consistent in allowing railcard use between two stations in the "L&SE" area IF the route wanders out of the said area and back in again.
So:
- Exeter SD to Worcester SH is fine
- Exeter SD to Basingstoke via Salisbury isn't
- Exeter SD to Basingstoke via Pewsey is fine*
* Via Salisbury undiscounted is often cheaper that the via Pewsey railcard fare, but that's a different matter!
The end of peak time (for the railcard discount) seems to be based on availability of an off-peak ticket. I haven't yet researched:
- Whether off peak depends just on "regular" off-peak fares such as CDR SSR or includes more esoteric offerings
- Whether or not railcard validity in the return direction is based on the (often different) set of fare restrictions applying to the return part of a journey *
* anyone who tries to use the new version of the nationalrail journey planner as a means of checking whether a railcard is valid or not is likely to become very frustrated. Unless you know the fare, it's not obvious until the last stage of the process where it comes up with something like railcard discount not applied.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by ChrisB at 13:17, 13th October 2024 |
I believe the 2nd person's card IS still available.
The Gold Card area was extended to that map area some year's ago now.
No, never available uk-wide.
I *think* the second person's T&Cs were the same as the primary card holder who paid £1 for the additional card.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by Mark A at 13:13, 13th October 2024 |
Fond recollections at this point of the peace of mind and utility offered as the one time holder of an annual season ticket holder's gold card's *second railcard for a nominated person*.
I'm not sure that the 'Nominated second railcard holder's card' is a thing any more, and also, the current validity map for the Gold card (on the link below) for the annual gold card discount... it seems to be the old Network South East area and a bit more besides. As far as I can recall, at one time wasn't it UK-wide? I've totally forgotten the restrictions if any on the second holder's card but pretty sure that none involved the evening peak.
Mark
https://assets.nationalrail.co.uk/e8xgegruud3g/23LngqwDfggHprWTDmhnLP/cb14d3813ce376a5d319790c0955dada/Gold_Card_Area_of_Validity_Map_June_2023.pdf
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by ChrisB at 13:00, 13th October 2024 |
4.2. Discounts are not available on tickets for travel on morning peak services for journeys that start and end within the London & South East area (defined by the Network Railcard area – network-railcard.co.uk/map) on Monday to Friday (except on public holidays).
Oh dear....another update likely....
404 Page Not Found
Unfortunately, this page could not be found:
https://www.network-railcard.co.uk/using-your-railcard/railcard-area/
Unfortunately, this page could not be found:
https://www.network-railcard.co.uk/using-your-railcard/railcard-area/
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by grahame at 12:44, 13th October 2024 |
"There but for the grace of God go I" .... Senior Railcard Terms & Conditions updated, I note, on 9th September (no, I do not know what changed) and only valid until next May, even though my card does not expire until October ...
Senior Railcard Terms & Conditions
1. Introduction
1.1. These terms and conditions (“Railcard Conditions”) apply to the use of the Senior Railcard and reduced priced tickets (“discounted tickets”) bought with the Senior Railcard.
1.2. In addition to the Railcard Conditions, the National Rail Conditions of Travel (“NRCoT”) apply to any journey on the rail network. Where the NRCoT conflict with these Railcard Conditions, the NRCoT override the Railcard Conditions. Copies of the NRCoT are available online at nationalrail.co.uk/nrcot or at staffed National Rail stations.
1.3. These Railcard Conditions form a contract between you and ATOC Ltd (Registered in England and Wales No. 03069033, Company Registered Office: First Floor North, 1 Puddle Dock, London, EC4V 3DS. ATOC Ltd enters into this contract on behalf of the train companies listed at railcard.co.uk/traincompanies (“Train Companies”).
1.4. Train Companies shall have rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 to enforce any of these Railcard Conditions.
1.5. These Railcard Conditions are valid up to and including 31 May 2025.
1.6. Train Companies may change the Railcard Conditions during the validity of your Railcard. Where possible, the Train Companies will communicate these changes to you by displaying information at stations at least three months prior to the change.
2. General conditions of use of the Railcard
2.1. If you have a physical Railcard, your Railcard is not valid, and you cannot use it, until you have signed it.
2.2. The Railcard does not become your property and, if requested:
2.2.1. You must hand it to a representative of any of the Train Companies, if you have a physical Railcard.
2.2.2. You must remove it from your mobile device if requested by a representative of any of the Train Companies, if you have a digital Railcard.
2.3. The Railcard and tickets bought with it are not transferable to anyone else and you must not give, lend, or resell them. Only the named cardholder can use the Railcard.
2.4. Train Companies will not issue refunds on unused/unwanted Railcards, or extend their validity period.
2.5. You may be asked to show your Railcard when purchasing discounted tickets.
2.6. Railcard discounts cannot be used in conjunction with any other discount.
2.7. You must buy the tickets before boarding the train unless:
2.7.1. there was no ticket office at the station at which you began the journey or if the ticket office was closed, and there was no working ticket machine from which you could buy discounted tickets; or
2.7.2. you have a disability which prevented you accessing ticket retailing facilities.
In these cases you will be able to use your Railcard to buy tickets on the train or at your destination.
2.8. You must carry your valid Railcard with you on your journey. When asked by rail staff, you must show a valid ticket and valid Railcard within its period of validity when you travel.
2.8.1. If you have a physical Railcard, it must be signed by you and should be legible so staff can read it, as further detailed in the NRCoT.
2.8.2. If you have a digital Railcard, you must be able to show it on a mobile device throughout your journey.
2.9 The photo of the cardholder must meet our guidelines and be recognisable as the cardholder.
2.10. If you fail to comply with condition 2.7, 2.8 and/or 2.9, the Train Company reserves the right to charge you the full price for the single fare applicable to your journey, as if no ticket had been purchased before starting the journey. In some cases you may also be issued with a Penalty Fare. If you are using your Railcard to get discounts for another person, they will also be charged the full price for the applicable single fare for their journey, as if no ticket had been purchased before starting the journey. In some cases they may also be issued with a Penalty Fare.
2.11. Fraudulent applications and fraudulent use of Railcards and Railcard discounted tickets may lead to criminal prosecution.
INFORMATION:
See the NRCoT for more information about Penalty Fares.
Railcard discounts do not apply to Season tickets, train company promotional tickets, Eurostar tickets, and most London Underground and DLR tickets.
3. Replacing your lost, damaged or stolen Railcard
3.1. If you have a physical Railcard and lose or damage your Railcard or it is stolen, you can apply for a replacement. If you bought the original Railcard at a rail station, you can request a replacement only at a ticket office and you must show the completed ‘Receipt’ voucher from the original application form. You will be requested to show some form of identification when obtaining a replacement at a station. If you purchased your Railcard online, you must request a replacement online.
3.2. You will only be issued with one replacement of a physical Railcard in any 12 month period, and you will need to pay an administration fee, unless your physical Railcard was stolen and you have a crime reference number or documentation issued by the Police. For Senior Railcard, the administration fee is £10.
3.3. If you have a digital Railcard and you lose or damage the mobile device that it is stored on, you can upload it to a new mobile device with no administration fee by accessing your online account at senior-railcard.co.uk.
4. Conditions of use of the Senior Railcard
4.1. You must be aged 60 years or over to purchase a Senior Railcard.
4.2. Discounts are not available on tickets for travel on morning peak services for journeys that start and end within the London & South East area (defined by the Network Railcard area – network-railcard.co.uk/map) on Monday to Friday (except on public holidays). The time when off-peak services start can vary by station. Use nationalrail.co.uk to plan your journey to identify when off-peak services start or ask rail staff for details.
Digital Railcard terms & Conditions
1. General
The 'Railcard' app is the digital Railcard storage app of ATOC Ltd, a company registered in England (No.03069033), whose registered office is at:
First Floor North, 1 Puddle Dock, London, EC4V 3DS
Operating under the name Rail Delivery Group (“RDG”)
'Railcard' is offered as a free service to you, the user, by RDG for the purpose of storing and displaying your Railcard, via supported mobile phones and hardware. By installing the 'Railcard' App, you agree to be bound by these terms of use. Please review them carefully before installation and/or acceptance. If you do not agree with these terms and conditions, then you should uninstall the 'Railcard' app and cease using it.
2. Definitions
The ‘Railcard' app shall mean the software provided by RDG to display a travel discount card, to be used on Apple iOS, Android, and any upgrades from time to time and any other software or documentation which enables the use of the 'Railcard' app.
3. Conditions of use
3.1. You will not, nor allow third parties on your behalf to (i) make and distribute copies of the 'Railcard' app (ii) attempt to copy, reproduce, alter, modify, reverse engineer, disassemble, decompile, transfer, exchange or translate the 'Railcard' app; or (iii) create derivative works of the 'Railcard' app of any kind whatsoever.
3.2. The 'Railcard' app is currently made available to you free of charge for your personal, non-commercial use. RDG reserves the right to amend or withdraw the 'Railcard' app, or charge for the application or service provided to you in accordance with these terms and conditions, at any time and for any reason.
3.3. You acknowledge that the terms of agreement with your respective mobile network provider ('Mobile Provider') will continue to apply when using the 'Railcard' app. As a result, you may be charged by the Mobile Provider for access to network connection services for the duration of the connection while accessing the 'Railcard' app or any such third-party charges as may arise. You accept responsibility for any such charges that arise.
3.4. If you are not the bill payer for the mobile telephone or handheld device being used to access the 'Railcard' app, you will be assumed to have received permission from the bill payer for using the 'Railcard' app.
4. Availability
4.1. The 'Railcard' app is available to handheld mobile devices running Apple iOS and Android OS. RDG will use reasonable efforts to make the 'Railcard' app available at all times. However, you acknowledge the 'Railcard' app is provided over the internet and mobile networks and so the quality and availability of the 'Railcard' app may be affected by factors outside RDG’s reasonable control.
4.2. RDG does not accept any responsibility whatsoever for unavailability of the 'Railcard' App, or any difficulty or inability to download or access content or any other communication system failure which may result in the 'Railcard' app being unavailable.
4.3. RDG will not be responsible for any support or maintenance for the 'Railcard' app.
5. System requirements
5.1. In order to use the 'Railcard' app, you are required to have a compatible mobile telephone or handheld device, internet access, and the necessary minimum specifications ('Software Requirements').
5.2. The Software Requirements are as follows: Apple iOS 14.0 and above and Android 7.0 and above.
5.3. The version of the 'Railcard' app software may be upgraded from time to time to add support for new functions and services.
6. Personal information and privacy
6.1. Introduction
In order for us to provide some of the services in the 'Railcard' app we will need to collect information from you. By using these services or providing us with information you consent to the collection, use and transfer of your information under the terms of this policy.
6.2. Personal Information Collected
6.2.1. Active Collection of Information
Some areas of the 'Railcard' app require us to collect and use your information for example location information in order for you to benefit from specific features.
We only collect and use such information unless you opt not to receive such additional features.
Your location data may also be used by our contracted partners to provide you with personalised offers and promotions based on non-identifying data and geo-location data. For the purpose of this service, we only share technical data with our partners (such as your mobile advertising IDs) to ensure that we do not identify you as a person.
We may also use your location information for the purpose of improving the journey experience we provide to you.
If you wish to opt-out of these particular services, you can use the “opt-out of interest-based advertising (https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/3405269)” option on Android or the “Limit Ad-Tracking(support.apple.com/kb/HT4228)” option on iOS.
6.2.2. Passive Collection of Information
We may collect and process anonymous information about your use of the 'Railcard' app, such as some of the pages you visit and some of the searches you perform. Such information is used by us to help us improve the contents of the site and to compile, for internal market research purposes, aggregate statistics about individuals using it. This kind of anonymous information can be obtained by our use of "cookies" as well as other means. Please see our "Use of Cookies" section below for more information on our use of cookies.
We may also share anonymous information about your use of the 'Railcard' app with third parties for analytical purposes.
6.3. How we use your Personal Information
When you supply personal information to RDG we will use it for the following purposes:
We and/or the train companies whose information is provided in the 'Railcard' app may also use your information: (a) for internal market research and analysis purposes; and (b) to carry out survey related activities with you.
We will not share or distribute any of the information you provide to us to unaffiliated third parties, unless required to do so by law.
We will only collect and use your information for the services to be provided and the duration required for the provision of the services. We may need to retain the information for a reasonable period of time after the end of the services.
6.4. Sharing of Information
The information you provide to us may need to be accessed by our staff, service providers and train operating companies.
Where you have consented to receive such services we will share your information with contracted third parties for the purpose of:
(a) providing the services and customer service assistance;
(b) marketing services; and
(c) advertising
These service providers will only have access to the information needed to perform the relevant service and may not use your information for any other purpose. They will also be required to use your information strictly in accordance with data protection laws, including maintaining adequate security measures to protect such information.
6.5. Links to third party Internet sites
The 'Railcard' app may contain links to other sites and sources of information. By clicking on these, you will leave the 'Railcard' app and this Privacy Policy will not apply to your use of any other sites.
6.6. Data Security
We employ administrative, electronic and physical security measures to ensure that the information that we collect about you is protected from access by unauthorised persons and protected against unlawful processing, accidental loss, destruction and damage. By using our website and/or services you acknowledge and agree that, except to the extent required by the Data Protection laws, we shall not be responsible for any unauthorised use, distribution, damage or destruction of personal data. We will only retain your information for a reasonable period or as long as is required by law.
We may link you to third party websites which have their own privacy policies. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the privacy policies, content or security of these websites.
6.7. Changes to this Privacy Policy
There may be changes in how we use your data. All such changes will be notified to you by updating this Privacy Policy.
7. Intellectual property rights and licence
7.1. All trade marks, copyright, database rights and other intellectual property rights of any nature in the 'Railcard' app together with the underlying software code are owned either directly by RDG or by RDG’s licensors.
7.2. RDG hereby grants you a non-exclusive, royalty-free revocable licence to use the 'Railcard' app for your personal use in connection with the use of the NRE Website and in accordance with these terms and conditions.
8. Termination
8.1. RDG may terminate use of the 'Railcard' app at any time by giving notice of termination to you.
8.2. Upon any termination,
(a) the rights and licenses granted to you herein shall terminate; and
(b) you must cease all use of the Software;
9. Limitation of liability
9.1. In no event will RDG be liable for any direct, indirect, special, punitive, exemplary or consequential losses or damages of whatsoever kind arising out of your use or access to the 'Railcard' app, including loss of profit or the like whether or not in the contemplation of the parties, whether based on breach of contract, tort (including negligence), product liability or otherwise.
9.2. RDG is not liable to you for any damage or alteration to your equipment including but not limited to computer equipment, handheld device or mobile telephones as a result of the installation or use of the 'Railcard' app.
9.3. Nothing in these terms and conditions shall exclude or limit RDG’s liability for death or personal injury caused by negligence or for fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation or any other liability which cannot be excluded or limited under applicable law.
9.4. RDG accepts no liability for the content of any third party content advertised on the 'Railcard' app or any transactions made by you in respect of such content. If you object to any such content you should uninstall the 'Railcard' app.
10. Disclaimer of warranties
To the maximum extent permitted by law RDG hereby disclaims all implied warranties with regard to the 'Railcard' app. The 'Railcard' app and software are provided "as is" and "as available" without warranty of any kind.
Last updated 9 September 2024
1. Introduction
1.1. These terms and conditions (“Railcard Conditions”) apply to the use of the Senior Railcard and reduced priced tickets (“discounted tickets”) bought with the Senior Railcard.
1.2. In addition to the Railcard Conditions, the National Rail Conditions of Travel (“NRCoT”) apply to any journey on the rail network. Where the NRCoT conflict with these Railcard Conditions, the NRCoT override the Railcard Conditions. Copies of the NRCoT are available online at nationalrail.co.uk/nrcot or at staffed National Rail stations.
1.3. These Railcard Conditions form a contract between you and ATOC Ltd (Registered in England and Wales No. 03069033, Company Registered Office: First Floor North, 1 Puddle Dock, London, EC4V 3DS. ATOC Ltd enters into this contract on behalf of the train companies listed at railcard.co.uk/traincompanies (“Train Companies”).
1.4. Train Companies shall have rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 to enforce any of these Railcard Conditions.
1.5. These Railcard Conditions are valid up to and including 31 May 2025.
1.6. Train Companies may change the Railcard Conditions during the validity of your Railcard. Where possible, the Train Companies will communicate these changes to you by displaying information at stations at least three months prior to the change.
2. General conditions of use of the Railcard
2.1. If you have a physical Railcard, your Railcard is not valid, and you cannot use it, until you have signed it.
2.2. The Railcard does not become your property and, if requested:
2.2.1. You must hand it to a representative of any of the Train Companies, if you have a physical Railcard.
2.2.2. You must remove it from your mobile device if requested by a representative of any of the Train Companies, if you have a digital Railcard.
2.3. The Railcard and tickets bought with it are not transferable to anyone else and you must not give, lend, or resell them. Only the named cardholder can use the Railcard.
2.4. Train Companies will not issue refunds on unused/unwanted Railcards, or extend their validity period.
2.5. You may be asked to show your Railcard when purchasing discounted tickets.
2.6. Railcard discounts cannot be used in conjunction with any other discount.
2.7. You must buy the tickets before boarding the train unless:
2.7.1. there was no ticket office at the station at which you began the journey or if the ticket office was closed, and there was no working ticket machine from which you could buy discounted tickets; or
2.7.2. you have a disability which prevented you accessing ticket retailing facilities.
In these cases you will be able to use your Railcard to buy tickets on the train or at your destination.
2.8. You must carry your valid Railcard with you on your journey. When asked by rail staff, you must show a valid ticket and valid Railcard within its period of validity when you travel.
2.8.1. If you have a physical Railcard, it must be signed by you and should be legible so staff can read it, as further detailed in the NRCoT.
2.8.2. If you have a digital Railcard, you must be able to show it on a mobile device throughout your journey.
2.9 The photo of the cardholder must meet our guidelines and be recognisable as the cardholder.
2.10. If you fail to comply with condition 2.7, 2.8 and/or 2.9, the Train Company reserves the right to charge you the full price for the single fare applicable to your journey, as if no ticket had been purchased before starting the journey. In some cases you may also be issued with a Penalty Fare. If you are using your Railcard to get discounts for another person, they will also be charged the full price for the applicable single fare for their journey, as if no ticket had been purchased before starting the journey. In some cases they may also be issued with a Penalty Fare.
2.11. Fraudulent applications and fraudulent use of Railcards and Railcard discounted tickets may lead to criminal prosecution.
INFORMATION:
See the NRCoT for more information about Penalty Fares.
Railcard discounts do not apply to Season tickets, train company promotional tickets, Eurostar tickets, and most London Underground and DLR tickets.
3. Replacing your lost, damaged or stolen Railcard
3.1. If you have a physical Railcard and lose or damage your Railcard or it is stolen, you can apply for a replacement. If you bought the original Railcard at a rail station, you can request a replacement only at a ticket office and you must show the completed ‘Receipt’ voucher from the original application form. You will be requested to show some form of identification when obtaining a replacement at a station. If you purchased your Railcard online, you must request a replacement online.
3.2. You will only be issued with one replacement of a physical Railcard in any 12 month period, and you will need to pay an administration fee, unless your physical Railcard was stolen and you have a crime reference number or documentation issued by the Police. For Senior Railcard, the administration fee is £10.
3.3. If you have a digital Railcard and you lose or damage the mobile device that it is stored on, you can upload it to a new mobile device with no administration fee by accessing your online account at senior-railcard.co.uk.
4. Conditions of use of the Senior Railcard
4.1. You must be aged 60 years or over to purchase a Senior Railcard.
4.2. Discounts are not available on tickets for travel on morning peak services for journeys that start and end within the London & South East area (defined by the Network Railcard area – network-railcard.co.uk/map) on Monday to Friday (except on public holidays). The time when off-peak services start can vary by station. Use nationalrail.co.uk to plan your journey to identify when off-peak services start or ask rail staff for details.
Digital Railcard terms & Conditions
1. General
The 'Railcard' app is the digital Railcard storage app of ATOC Ltd, a company registered in England (No.03069033), whose registered office is at:
First Floor North, 1 Puddle Dock, London, EC4V 3DS
Operating under the name Rail Delivery Group (“RDG”)
'Railcard' is offered as a free service to you, the user, by RDG for the purpose of storing and displaying your Railcard, via supported mobile phones and hardware. By installing the 'Railcard' App, you agree to be bound by these terms of use. Please review them carefully before installation and/or acceptance. If you do not agree with these terms and conditions, then you should uninstall the 'Railcard' app and cease using it.
2. Definitions
The ‘Railcard' app shall mean the software provided by RDG to display a travel discount card, to be used on Apple iOS, Android, and any upgrades from time to time and any other software or documentation which enables the use of the 'Railcard' app.
3. Conditions of use
3.1. You will not, nor allow third parties on your behalf to (i) make and distribute copies of the 'Railcard' app (ii) attempt to copy, reproduce, alter, modify, reverse engineer, disassemble, decompile, transfer, exchange or translate the 'Railcard' app; or (iii) create derivative works of the 'Railcard' app of any kind whatsoever.
3.2. The 'Railcard' app is currently made available to you free of charge for your personal, non-commercial use. RDG reserves the right to amend or withdraw the 'Railcard' app, or charge for the application or service provided to you in accordance with these terms and conditions, at any time and for any reason.
3.3. You acknowledge that the terms of agreement with your respective mobile network provider ('Mobile Provider') will continue to apply when using the 'Railcard' app. As a result, you may be charged by the Mobile Provider for access to network connection services for the duration of the connection while accessing the 'Railcard' app or any such third-party charges as may arise. You accept responsibility for any such charges that arise.
3.4. If you are not the bill payer for the mobile telephone or handheld device being used to access the 'Railcard' app, you will be assumed to have received permission from the bill payer for using the 'Railcard' app.
4. Availability
4.1. The 'Railcard' app is available to handheld mobile devices running Apple iOS and Android OS. RDG will use reasonable efforts to make the 'Railcard' app available at all times. However, you acknowledge the 'Railcard' app is provided over the internet and mobile networks and so the quality and availability of the 'Railcard' app may be affected by factors outside RDG’s reasonable control.
4.2. RDG does not accept any responsibility whatsoever for unavailability of the 'Railcard' App, or any difficulty or inability to download or access content or any other communication system failure which may result in the 'Railcard' app being unavailable.
4.3. RDG will not be responsible for any support or maintenance for the 'Railcard' app.
5. System requirements
5.1. In order to use the 'Railcard' app, you are required to have a compatible mobile telephone or handheld device, internet access, and the necessary minimum specifications ('Software Requirements').
5.2. The Software Requirements are as follows: Apple iOS 14.0 and above and Android 7.0 and above.
5.3. The version of the 'Railcard' app software may be upgraded from time to time to add support for new functions and services.
6. Personal information and privacy
6.1. Introduction
In order for us to provide some of the services in the 'Railcard' app we will need to collect information from you. By using these services or providing us with information you consent to the collection, use and transfer of your information under the terms of this policy.
6.2. Personal Information Collected
6.2.1. Active Collection of Information
Some areas of the 'Railcard' app require us to collect and use your information for example location information in order for you to benefit from specific features.
We only collect and use such information unless you opt not to receive such additional features.
Your location data may also be used by our contracted partners to provide you with personalised offers and promotions based on non-identifying data and geo-location data. For the purpose of this service, we only share technical data with our partners (such as your mobile advertising IDs) to ensure that we do not identify you as a person.
We may also use your location information for the purpose of improving the journey experience we provide to you.
If you wish to opt-out of these particular services, you can use the “opt-out of interest-based advertising (https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/3405269)” option on Android or the “Limit Ad-Tracking(support.apple.com/kb/HT4228)” option on iOS.
6.2.2. Passive Collection of Information
We may collect and process anonymous information about your use of the 'Railcard' app, such as some of the pages you visit and some of the searches you perform. Such information is used by us to help us improve the contents of the site and to compile, for internal market research purposes, aggregate statistics about individuals using it. This kind of anonymous information can be obtained by our use of "cookies" as well as other means. Please see our "Use of Cookies" section below for more information on our use of cookies.
We may also share anonymous information about your use of the 'Railcard' app with third parties for analytical purposes.
6.3. How we use your Personal Information
When you supply personal information to RDG we will use it for the following purposes:
We and/or the train companies whose information is provided in the 'Railcard' app may also use your information: (a) for internal market research and analysis purposes; and (b) to carry out survey related activities with you.
We will not share or distribute any of the information you provide to us to unaffiliated third parties, unless required to do so by law.
We will only collect and use your information for the services to be provided and the duration required for the provision of the services. We may need to retain the information for a reasonable period of time after the end of the services.
6.4. Sharing of Information
The information you provide to us may need to be accessed by our staff, service providers and train operating companies.
Where you have consented to receive such services we will share your information with contracted third parties for the purpose of:
(a) providing the services and customer service assistance;
(b) marketing services; and
(c) advertising
These service providers will only have access to the information needed to perform the relevant service and may not use your information for any other purpose. They will also be required to use your information strictly in accordance with data protection laws, including maintaining adequate security measures to protect such information.
6.5. Links to third party Internet sites
The 'Railcard' app may contain links to other sites and sources of information. By clicking on these, you will leave the 'Railcard' app and this Privacy Policy will not apply to your use of any other sites.
6.6. Data Security
We employ administrative, electronic and physical security measures to ensure that the information that we collect about you is protected from access by unauthorised persons and protected against unlawful processing, accidental loss, destruction and damage. By using our website and/or services you acknowledge and agree that, except to the extent required by the Data Protection laws, we shall not be responsible for any unauthorised use, distribution, damage or destruction of personal data. We will only retain your information for a reasonable period or as long as is required by law.
We may link you to third party websites which have their own privacy policies. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the privacy policies, content or security of these websites.
6.7. Changes to this Privacy Policy
There may be changes in how we use your data. All such changes will be notified to you by updating this Privacy Policy.
7. Intellectual property rights and licence
7.1. All trade marks, copyright, database rights and other intellectual property rights of any nature in the 'Railcard' app together with the underlying software code are owned either directly by RDG or by RDG’s licensors.
7.2. RDG hereby grants you a non-exclusive, royalty-free revocable licence to use the 'Railcard' app for your personal use in connection with the use of the NRE Website and in accordance with these terms and conditions.
8. Termination
8.1. RDG may terminate use of the 'Railcard' app at any time by giving notice of termination to you.
8.2. Upon any termination,
(a) the rights and licenses granted to you herein shall terminate; and
(b) you must cease all use of the Software;
9. Limitation of liability
9.1. In no event will RDG be liable for any direct, indirect, special, punitive, exemplary or consequential losses or damages of whatsoever kind arising out of your use or access to the 'Railcard' app, including loss of profit or the like whether or not in the contemplation of the parties, whether based on breach of contract, tort (including negligence), product liability or otherwise.
9.2. RDG is not liable to you for any damage or alteration to your equipment including but not limited to computer equipment, handheld device or mobile telephones as a result of the installation or use of the 'Railcard' app.
9.3. Nothing in these terms and conditions shall exclude or limit RDG’s liability for death or personal injury caused by negligence or for fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation or any other liability which cannot be excluded or limited under applicable law.
9.4. RDG accepts no liability for the content of any third party content advertised on the 'Railcard' app or any transactions made by you in respect of such content. If you object to any such content you should uninstall the 'Railcard' app.
10. Disclaimer of warranties
To the maximum extent permitted by law RDG hereby disclaims all implied warranties with regard to the 'Railcard' app. The 'Railcard' app and software are provided "as is" and "as available" without warranty of any kind.
Last updated 9 September 2024
I live outside the Network South East area, and it was only in speaking with another member yesterday that I was reminded "Discounts are not available on tickets for travel on morning peak services for journeys that start and end within the London & South East area" - so that if I wish to travel at 06:24 from Exeter St Davids to Worcester Shrub Hill (both in NSE through a quirk of geography) tomorrow, I cannot legally get a Senior Railcard discount. I can get one illegally - the GWR app offers it to me without warning, and I could end up with a criminal record ...
Of course, I HAVE come across this rule before ... and know that journeys from Exeter up The Mule should start at Exeter St Thomas to travel discounted early on a weekday morning!
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by ChrisB at 12:40, 13th October 2024 |
... and the BBC's take on it https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvglzndx81ko
There's a programme on the radio 4 linked to in that webpage above - worth a listen
What are the railways for?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001mc65
As the government prepares a major reorganisation of Britain's railways, Daniel Brittain asks what are they for. It's a question which has been ignored in previous reorganisations - which typically take place after a crisis or a disaster. So Daniel travels to Greater Manchester, meeting people on trains, people who want to be on trains, and those who run the railways, to understand how the rail industry has changed, and what its place in Britain's society, economy and culture might be in the future.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by ChrisB at 12:11, 13th October 2024 |
I don't think so - she has been fined already. Not sure it can go to the Court of Appeal, although it should.
Northern are following DfT instructions. They ordered a crackdown. Talk to your friendly TOC, and I'm sure they'll fill you in. Don't need to be publicly owned either - all TOCs are under management contracts & have to do as they're told
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by TaplowGreen at 08:26, 13th October 2024 |
Good.
I would like to think that they will also drop their case against Cerys Piper, now the media have got hold of the issue. She bought her ticket from staff in a ticket office, and was told it was valid, for goodness' sake!
I would like to think that they will also drop their case against Cerys Piper, now the media have got hold of the issue. She bought her ticket from staff in a ticket office, and was told it was valid, for goodness' sake!
But CAN they? Didn't I understand that her case has already been 'heard' and that she has now has a record.
I find it interesting that both of those cases were brought by Northern - a publicly owned company.
Ditto. I find it very hard to agree with the people who tell me that everything will be so much better when the railways are nationalised. Don't get me going ...
I believe the Court could instruct them to reopen the case.
On your second point I wholeheartedly agree. I've given up waiting for someone to tell me the positive difference GBR/"Shadow" GBR is going to make to the travelling public.
£50 million and counting...............
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by grahame at 05:42, 13th October 2024 |
Good.
I would like to think that they will also drop their case against Cerys Piper, now the media have got hold of the issue. She bought her ticket from staff in a ticket office, and was told it was valid, for goodness' sake!
I would like to think that they will also drop their case against Cerys Piper, now the media have got hold of the issue. She bought her ticket from staff in a ticket office, and was told it was valid, for goodness' sake!
But CAN they? Didn't I understand that her case has already been 'heard' and that she has now has a record.
I find it interesting that both of those cases were brought by Northern - a publicly owned company.
Ditto. I find it very hard to agree with the people who tell me that everything will be so much better when the railways are nationalised. Don't get me going ...
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by Chris from Nailsea at 01:03, 13th October 2024 |
Good.
I would like to think that they will also drop their case against Cerys Piper, now the media have got hold of the issue. She bought her ticket from staff in a ticket office, and was told it was valid, for goodness' sake!
From the Bolton News, see https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/24641074.bolton-train-passenger-given-criminal-record-1-60-mix-up/
I find it interesting that both of those cases were brought by Northern - a publicly owned company.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by JayMac at 00:56, 13th October 2024 |
Northern have, quite rightly in my opinion, dropped the case.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czd12zedqzgo
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by CyclingSid at 06:47, 12th October 2024 |
... and the BBC's take on it https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvglzndx81ko
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by old original at 13:11, 11th October 2024 |
Just for a bit of historic info...
1979 - 1980
50% discount on ordinary singles & returns and day returns (peak & off peak)
£2 min fare on ordinary singles & day returns
£4 min fare on ordinary returns
No cut off time for the minimum fares, they applied at all times except Saturdays, Sundays, Bank holidays and July & August.
By 1981 all was the same but a cut off time was introduced on weekdays ... 18.00hrs
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by infoman at 05:56, 11th October 2024 |
Radio 5 had an interview with the passenger concerned at 05:52am on Friday(11 October 2024) with a follow up by a legal expert.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by grahame at 01:12, 11th October 2024 |
A further case in The Mail
A rail passenger was slapped with a £460 fine and a criminal record after accidentally applying for a £1.60 discount on her ticket.
Cerys Piper was left aghast after finding out she would have to repay more than 100 times the value of her ticket after the mix-up in September last year on a Northern Railway service.
Cerys Piper was left aghast after finding out she would have to repay more than 100 times the value of her ticket after the mix-up in September last year on a Northern Railway service.
On a ticket sold to her by a member of staff
Cerys told The Bolton News that she was given the incorrect fare from a manned ticket office and had mistakenly thought it was correct.
She said: 'I'd gone to the lady at Daisy Hill train station and presented my 16-25 [railcard].
'She took it and said 'yeah that's fine' and handed me my ticket.
'I got on the train and then I was told my ticket was invalid and that I couldn't use it.'
Cerys, who works in an £11.44-an-hour job, said she wasn't aware she needed to go to Manchester Magistrates' Court and is now paying back the fine to her mother who helped her out with the cost.
She said: 'I'd gone to the lady at Daisy Hill train station and presented my 16-25 [railcard].
'She took it and said 'yeah that's fine' and handed me my ticket.
'I got on the train and then I was told my ticket was invalid and that I couldn't use it.'
Cerys, who works in an £11.44-an-hour job, said she wasn't aware she needed to go to Manchester Magistrates' Court and is now paying back the fine to her mother who helped her out with the cost.
and it's a tragedy that someone is put off train travel for 'life'
Cerys says she had been treated 'horrifically' by the rail company and the experience of getting on the train will 'never be the same'.
She said: 'It's just such sourness now getting on the train, because I used to love it, and it is kind of therapeutic.
'It shows you really do mean nothing to them, at all, to do that, but it is what it is.'
She said: 'It's just such sourness now getting on the train, because I used to love it, and it is kind of therapeutic.
'It shows you really do mean nothing to them, at all, to do that, but it is what it is.'
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by Trowres at 21:57, 10th October 2024 |
Hey, I've found another link in the FAQs that takes one to the...Terms and Conditions.
To save you the effort, its: https://www.16-25railcard.co.uk/help/railcard-terms-conditions/.
This is going to be the real, definitive, thing, isn't it?
4.5. The 16-25 Railcard has a minimum fare that applies from 04.30 and 10.00 Monday to Friday. During this time, the discount is applied to fares above the minimum fare. This minimum fare does not apply to:
4.5.1. Advance tickets; or
4.5.2. journeys on public holidays; or
4.5.3. journeys during July and August.
4.5.1. Advance tickets; or
4.5.2. journeys on public holidays; or
4.5.3. journeys during July and August.
I have emphasised the parts that seem to be incorrect. The first one is obvious. The second is wrong because it implies a 1/3 discount applying to all (full) fares of £12.01 and above. (In reality, 1/3 off 16-25 railcard fares are rounded up to £12 if necessary)
For final Hitchhiker effect, though, the next clause is great:
At the time of printing, the minimum fare is £12. The minimum fare is subject to change during the validity of your Railcard - check website for the most up to date information.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by Trowres at 21:25, 10th October 2024 |
An angle of the story not so far explored is that the passenger was travelling to London (via Manchester). Was the passenger travelling by rail all the way? Did they have a separate ticket for MAN-EUS? If so, why? (It's not always the case from lesser stations, but Broadbottom seems to have a reasonable availability of Advance Singles to EUS).
(edited to correct duplicated words)
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by JayMac at 21:13, 10th October 2024 |
1000 is excluded - you can use it from 1001.
Chris, that would also be my interpretation of the text.
However a quick test using the National Rail Journey Planner (in its latest, crappy, form), Euston to Watford Junction on Friday morning, indicates that the £12.00 minimum does not apply to a 10:00 scheduled departure.
And I've just tested Paddington to Maidenhead. 0948 is £12. 1000 is £10.45.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by Trowres at 21:10, 10th October 2024 |
1000 is excluded - you can use it from 1001.
Chris, that would also be my interpretation of the text.
However a quick test using the National Rail Journey Planner (in its latest, crappy, form), Euston to Watford Junction on Friday morning, indicates that the £12.00 minimum does not apply to a 10:00 scheduled departure.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by ChrisB at 21:00, 10th October 2024 |
1000 is excluded - you can use it from 1001.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by Trowres at 20:49, 10th October 2024 |
The railcard holder would have been supplied with the T&Cs for that railcard on purchase of same. If they then choose NOT to read those T&Cs, you can't really blame the train operator....it's nowt to do with the ticket.
But, continuing Mark A's Hitchhiker theme with a look at the railcard site https://www.16-25railcard.co.uk/ itself:-
- Helpfully provides an info bullet: £12 minimum fare applies on morning peak; that's a bit vague though... want more detail
- Big button Read full eligibility and usage terms
- Big button takes you to a page that has eligibility, but nothing on usage.
- Going down to the basement (of the webpage) you see a link Travel times and tickets
- The link takes you to Frequently asked questions
- Click on Validity or scroll down until you get to the FAQ: Can I use my 16-25 Railcard at any time of day?
A:
Yes you can. However, for all journeys made between 4:30am and 10:00am Monday to Friday a minimum fare of £12 is payable, excluding Advance fares. There is no minimum fare when you travel at weekends, on Public Holidays, or during July and August.
Yes you can. However, for all journeys made between 4:30am and 10:00am Monday to Friday a minimum fare of £12 is payable, excluding Advance fares. There is no minimum fare when you travel at weekends, on Public Holidays, or during July and August.
Now you know that the morning peak ends at 10:00.
Or does it end at 09:59?
Can you get a 16-25 fare for a train departing at 10:00?
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by Mark A at 18:16, 10th October 2024 |
This sort of issue always puts me in mind of Douglas Adams's writing as it skewered organisations who take this approach.
Mark
“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/40705-but-the-plans-were-on-display-on-display-i-eventually
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by ChrisB at 17:53, 10th October 2024 |
The railcard holder would have been supplied with the T&Cs for that railcard on purchase of same. If they then choose NOT to read those T&Cs, you can't really blame the train operator....it's nowt to do with the ticket.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by grahame at 17:45, 10th October 2024 |
An Australian study analysed fare evasion into 4 categories: accidental, "not my fault", calculated risk taker, and career evaders. The attached figure gives some characteristics of each type.
Abstract at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369847816303321
Good further analysis
For any specific individual case either of these could be the "right" description. However, it makes sense to attempt to reduce the not my faulters by better design of fare systems. They aren't where the bulk of revenue is being lost.
Agreed ... and I would have some difficultly in drawing a line between some "accident" and "not my fault" especially where the system requires an IQ of 160 and a degree in rail fares to get it right.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by ChrisB at 17:39, 10th October 2024 |
Agree with all suggestions made (for the first time that the error is made & explained)
Caught again, and the operator can have more discretion. Repeat offenders can & do use this way of paying less.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by didcotdean at 17:16, 10th October 2024 |
An Australian study analysed fare evasion into 4 categories: accidental, "not my fault", calculated risk taker, and career evaders. The attached figure gives some characteristics of each type.
The people in question are claiming that they are in the not at fault category; they had no intention to evade but this happened because the barriers to buying a correct ticket (complicated interactions between the poor naming of types of ticket, time of day, complicated railcard restrictions varying on what day of the week or month of the year it is) led them to buying an inappropriate one.
Northern (& apparently the legal system to date) are treating them as calculated risk takers. They picked from a list of train times and bought a ticket only offered for a later train but deliberately used it on an earlier one when it had not been offered. They knew what they were doing and the risk they were taking, and maybe did it regularly.
For any specific individual case either of these could be the "right" description. However, it makes sense to attempt to reduce the not my faulters by better design of fare systems. They aren't where the bulk of revenue is being lost.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by TaplowGreen at 16:13, 10th October 2024 |
On the link below, the 'X' thread from the O.P. dated October 8th, kindly retrieved by the threadreaderapp bot so that you don't need to visit that hellsite.
Northern is continuing to grind through their process, but surely for this one and all similar in particular, the railway should reiterate instructions to staff to simply excess whatever someone's paid up to the appropriate fare (which will not be the £12 railcard minimum)?
Another aspect to this is that if the railway has a paying customer (they have a ticket albeit not valid on that train 'cos 'Small-print') who is young and a regular user of the rail system (they've invested in a railcard) the railway should bear in mind the prospective lifetime use of rail as a travel mode and not snark-fish them when something's minorly wrong with their ticket.
There are 1001 examples of people actually intentionally defrauding the railways, this approach smacks of setting something up to make the honest ones an easy target, going for them, and ignoring the actual issue.
And yes, why the civil/criminal split, rail ticket irregularities versus various driving... irregularities. The guy doing 40 in a 20 who nevertheless had time to stop and bad mouth me when he was surprised by me crossing the road... he was the one who could do with the risk of landing himself the criminal record.
Mark
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1843731064025690266.html
Northern is continuing to grind through their process, but surely for this one and all similar in particular, the railway should reiterate instructions to staff to simply excess whatever someone's paid up to the appropriate fare (which will not be the £12 railcard minimum)?
Another aspect to this is that if the railway has a paying customer (they have a ticket albeit not valid on that train 'cos 'Small-print') who is young and a regular user of the rail system (they've invested in a railcard) the railway should bear in mind the prospective lifetime use of rail as a travel mode and not snark-fish them when something's minorly wrong with their ticket.
There are 1001 examples of people actually intentionally defrauding the railways, this approach smacks of setting something up to make the honest ones an easy target, going for them, and ignoring the actual issue.
And yes, why the civil/criminal split, rail ticket irregularities versus various driving... irregularities. The guy doing 40 in a 20 who nevertheless had time to stop and bad mouth me when he was surprised by me crossing the road... he was the one who could do with the risk of landing himself the criminal record.
Mark
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1843731064025690266.html
You're right, there should be room for discretion but this again demonstrates the cultural challenge the railway faces when it comes to its attitude to its customers.
Far easier to tap the rulebook and fold your arms rather than seeing the bigger picture & putting the (possibly lifelong) customer first.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by Mark A at 15:19, 10th October 2024 |
On the link below, the 'X' thread from the O.P. dated October 8th, kindly retrieved by the threadreaderapp bot so that you don't need to visit that hellsite.
Northern is continuing to grind through their process, but surely for this one and all similar in particular, the railway should reiterate instructions to staff to simply excess whatever someone's paid up to the appropriate fare (which will not be the £12 railcard minimum)?
Another aspect to this is that if the railway has a paying customer (they have a ticket albeit not valid on that train 'cos 'Small-print') who is young and a regular user of the rail system (they've invested in a railcard) the railway should bear in mind the prospective lifetime use of rail as a travel mode and not snark-fish them when something's minorly wrong with their ticket.
There are 1001 examples of people actually intentionally defrauding the railways, this approach smacks of setting something up to make the honest ones an easy target, going for them, and ignoring the actual issue.
And yes, why the civil/criminal split, rail ticket irregularities versus various driving... irregularities. The guy doing 40 in a 20 who nevertheless had time to stop and bad mouth me when he was surprised by me crossing the road... he was the one who could do with the risk of landing himself the criminal record.
Mark
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1843731064025690266.html
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by brooklea at 10:47, 10th October 2024 |
What is a "Promise to pay" voucher?
https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/legal/penalty-faresWhat is a Promise to Pay notice?
A Promise to Pay notice is a ticket that must be obtained from our ticket vending machines if customers do not have the facility to pay by credit/debit card. The Promise to Pay notice allows customers to board the train with the intention of exchanging the notice at the first opportunity with a revenue officer, or at the next available booking office.
A Promise to Pay notice is a ticket that must be obtained from our ticket vending machines if customers do not have the facility to pay by credit/debit card. The Promise to Pay notice allows customers to board the train with the intention of exchanging the notice at the first opportunity with a revenue officer, or at the next available booking office.
Essentially allows you to pay by cash where the TVM at the station you board at takes card/contactless payments only.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by Phantom at 10:25, 10th October 2024 |
What is a "Promise to pay" voucher?
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by brooklea at 09:03, 10th October 2024 |
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
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
Err ... there isn't an 08:27 from Swindon to Taunton and beyond, nor at 08:40 to Cheltenham Spa these days, I don't think? Nor an 08:53 Weymouth to Gloucester or an 08:50 Great Malvern to Westbury ...
Hey, don’t shoot the messenger - it must be right if it’s on National Rail
But more seriously, yet another example of how over-complicated things are, to the extent that the industry can’t keep it’s own information up-to-date. I think only two, or possibly three of those specified trains are even close to still existing (08:04 Axminster - Salisbury, 08:40 Patchway - Taunton and perhaps 08:29 Swindon - Cheltenham).
The GWR website appears to steer clear of specifying any exceptions, but in common with the SWR website gets it wrong by saying
Available after 09:00
when it should say “from 09:00”.Is there anyone responsible for getting this information correct, other than the unfortunate passenger who falls foul of ‘the system’?
“Not clever” is, I think, the phrase to use?
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by grahame at 08:10, 10th October 2024 |
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
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
Err ... there isn't an 08:27 from Swindon to Taunton and beyond, nor at 08:40 to Cheltenham Spa these days, I don't think? Nor an 08:53 Weymouth to Gloucester or an 08:50 Great Malvern to Westbury ...
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by brooklea at 07:10, 10th October 2024 |
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.
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
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by grahame at 02:44, 10th October 2024 |
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 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 ...Mon to Fri: valid from 09:00 but 2T railcard not valid until 09:30
No restrictions at weekends or bank holidays
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by Trowres at 23:02, 9th October 2024 |
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 is payable, rather than a penalty fare/prosecution?
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 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
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.
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.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by RichardB at 22:30, 9th October 2024 |
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.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by JayMac at 20:21, 9th October 2024 |
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 is payable, rather than a penalty fare/prosecution?
That should indeed be the case. But as we know, TOC prosecutions departments are a law unto themselves.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by didcotdean at 20:02, 9th October 2024 |
The 16-25 railcard, does anyone recall when it gained a morning peak time prohibition?
Mark
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.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by ChrisB at 19:31, 9th October 2024 |
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 is payable, rather than a penalty fare/prosecution?
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by Mark A at 18:21, 9th October 2024 |
The 16-25 railcard, does anyone recall when it gained a morning peak time prohibition?
Mark
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by grahame at 17:45, 9th October 2024 |
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 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?
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by Chris from Nailsea at 16:08, 9th October 2024 |
From the BBC:
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, 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.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by Marlburian at 10:20, 19th August 2024 |
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, with the slot encrusted in layers of paint.)
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by infoman at 06:19, 19th August 2024 |
Would love to see staffed ticket checks between Bradford on Avon and Trowbridge,and ticket gates installed at Westbury(Wiltshire).
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by grahame at 21:01, 18th August 2024 |
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.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by ChrisB at 20:16, 18th August 2024 |
From the BBC
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.
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.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by stuving at 23:38, 15th August 2024 |
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.
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 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.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by grahame at 23:00, 15th August 2024 |
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.
I wonder how many of these cases would have been decided differently if heard in full court.
I'm not going to guess how many of the cases would have been decided differently, but I am aware of disquiet (heard loud from outside GWR land) at prosecutions that followed reported problems in buying tickets before joining trains and if those were (as I understand it) heard and decided without proper input/process from the person accused then they need in my view to be redone properly - or moved on from.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by eXPassenger at 18:06, 15th August 2024 |
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.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by ChrisB at 16:24, 15th August 2024 |
The Standard carries a further story in their Business section
Tens of thousands of passengers who were prosecuted and fined for fare evasion are set to be refunded after a judge ruled that their convictions were void.
Seven train companies including Northern Rail and Greater Anglia could face paying out millions of pounds to people who they privately prosecuted for travelling without a ticket under the controversial single justice procedure (SJP), despite not being permitted to do so.
In a ruling on Thursday at Westminster Magistrates Court, Chief Magistrate Paul Goldspring said six “test cases” should be declared “void”, adding that the cases of thousands of other cases would be dealt with in the same way over the coming months.
The judge said the Courts Service, the Department for Transport and the train operating companies – two of which have not yet been identified – would work to identify those affected, and that “a team will be put in place to begin the work of recovering the money paid and refund the money to individuals” by November.
“There are discussions ongoing with all the parties about how that may be paid,” he added.
Neither the amount of money to be refunded nor the number of people affected has been confirmed, but Judge Goldspring said “over 74,000” people is a “best guess at the moment”.
The SJP was set up in 2015 to allow magistrates to decide on minor offences, such as using a television without a licence or driving without car insurance, without defendants going to court.
Rail companies were permitted to use the SJP in 2016 to privately prosecute fare evaders, but many have been brought under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, which is not allowed under the procedure.
In June, Judge Goldspring said those convictions were “probably unlawful”, with lawyers for rail companies telling a further hearing last month they were “in agreement” the prosecutions should be thrown out.
In his ruling, the judge declared the test cases a “nullity”, so it was “as if as though the proceedings never existed”.
He said: “Parliament did not envisage these offences being prosecuted through the SJP.
“They should never have been brought through that process.”
He continued: “I’m satisfied that the correct approach is to declare each of the prosecutions void and a nullity.”
He added that it was hoped that a list of those affected could be compiled by the end of September, with the cases listed as a “bulk” hearing “by the end of October” and declared void by a “similar direction” so that “everybody is in the same position”.
Following the ruling, the Ministry of Justice, the Courts and Tribunals Service and the Department for Transport said that the seven companies who had privately prosecuted fare evaders under the SJP were Northern, TransPennine, Avanti West Coast, Greater Anglia, Great Western Railway, Arriva Rail North and Merseyrail, with the list to be updated on Monday.
The departments said that those affected by the ruling were prosecuted by one of the seven companies between 2018 and 2023, with the “vast majority” of cases prosecuted from 2020, under either section 5(1) or section 5(3) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.
They added that those affected should wait to be contacted directly about their case.
They said: “The decision to use SJP is a matter for prosecutors. When cases come to court, magistrates decide on conviction and sentence, advised by legal advisers.”
Sarah Cook, whose prosecution was one of the test cases, said that the train companies admitting that her prosecution was wrong after fining her was “a kick in the teeth” and that the matter “puts a massive no-go” on travelling on trains.
Ms Cook, a 42-year-old pet shop owner from Barnsley, South Yorkshire, was fined £475 under an SJP prosecution after she did not pay a £20 fine for travelling without a ticket between Wombwell and Barnsley in November 2022.
But she said that she had been waiting to hear back for a year on an appeal against the original fine, before being told she had been prosecuted.
Following the court’s ruling, she said: “It’s a kick in the teeth. I know some people would say take the win, sit back, appreciate that. For me, although money at the time was an issue, for me more than the money was the stress.
“I have not got a criminal record, I’m not somebody out there committing crimes, and for somebody to say you could have a criminal record, you could potentially face jail time if you have been a repeat offender, to me that was terrifying.”
She continued: “For them, their punishment is ‘we’re sorry’, and there is a bit of me that thinks I don’t know if that is good enough.
“When you have put 75,000 people under the pressure of going to court, having to fill out multiple documents, potentially being threatened with larger fines and criminal records, I don’t know if ‘I’m sorry, here’s your money back’ is good enough.”
Tom Franklin, the chief executive of the Magistrates’ Association, called for reform of the SJP and said “serious questions” had been raised by the case.
He said: “This ruling has big implications for tens of thousands of people, and there are serious questions that the prosecuting authorities – in this case, the train companies – need to answer as to how this was allowed to happen.”
After Thursday’s hearing, a spokesperson for Northern Rail said: “We welcome the judgment of the Chief Magistrate in court today. We would like to apologise again for the errors that have occurred.
“We will now work with the court to implement today’s findings. We are unable to respond to individual inquiries in the meantime.
“Northern remains committed to ensuring that all our customers are treated fairly, which means ensuring all passengers who board our trains have a valid ticket.”
A Government spokesperson said: “We acknowledge the Chief Magistrate’s judgment and welcome the apology from train operators. While fare evasion should be tackled, the right process should be followed at all times.
“The people affected will be directly contacted in due course to resolve the cases in accordance with the judgment.”
A spokesperson for Greater Anglia said: “Following the hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court today we are now working to ensure all those who are entitled to compensation as a result of this procedural error are quickly and fully reimbursed.
“Like many in the industry, we acted in good faith following the introduction of the Single Justice Procedure in 2016, but we apologise for using this process incorrectly.”
Seven train companies including Northern Rail and Greater Anglia could face paying out millions of pounds to people who they privately prosecuted for travelling without a ticket under the controversial single justice procedure (SJP), despite not being permitted to do so.
In a ruling on Thursday at Westminster Magistrates Court, Chief Magistrate Paul Goldspring said six “test cases” should be declared “void”, adding that the cases of thousands of other cases would be dealt with in the same way over the coming months.
The judge said the Courts Service, the Department for Transport and the train operating companies – two of which have not yet been identified – would work to identify those affected, and that “a team will be put in place to begin the work of recovering the money paid and refund the money to individuals” by November.
“There are discussions ongoing with all the parties about how that may be paid,” he added.
Neither the amount of money to be refunded nor the number of people affected has been confirmed, but Judge Goldspring said “over 74,000” people is a “best guess at the moment”.
The SJP was set up in 2015 to allow magistrates to decide on minor offences, such as using a television without a licence or driving without car insurance, without defendants going to court.
Rail companies were permitted to use the SJP in 2016 to privately prosecute fare evaders, but many have been brought under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, which is not allowed under the procedure.
In June, Judge Goldspring said those convictions were “probably unlawful”, with lawyers for rail companies telling a further hearing last month they were “in agreement” the prosecutions should be thrown out.
In his ruling, the judge declared the test cases a “nullity”, so it was “as if as though the proceedings never existed”.
He said: “Parliament did not envisage these offences being prosecuted through the SJP.
“They should never have been brought through that process.”
He continued: “I’m satisfied that the correct approach is to declare each of the prosecutions void and a nullity.”
He added that it was hoped that a list of those affected could be compiled by the end of September, with the cases listed as a “bulk” hearing “by the end of October” and declared void by a “similar direction” so that “everybody is in the same position”.
Following the ruling, the Ministry of Justice, the Courts and Tribunals Service and the Department for Transport said that the seven companies who had privately prosecuted fare evaders under the SJP were Northern, TransPennine, Avanti West Coast, Greater Anglia, Great Western Railway, Arriva Rail North and Merseyrail, with the list to be updated on Monday.
The departments said that those affected by the ruling were prosecuted by one of the seven companies between 2018 and 2023, with the “vast majority” of cases prosecuted from 2020, under either section 5(1) or section 5(3) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.
They added that those affected should wait to be contacted directly about their case.
They said: “The decision to use SJP is a matter for prosecutors. When cases come to court, magistrates decide on conviction and sentence, advised by legal advisers.”
Sarah Cook, whose prosecution was one of the test cases, said that the train companies admitting that her prosecution was wrong after fining her was “a kick in the teeth” and that the matter “puts a massive no-go” on travelling on trains.
Ms Cook, a 42-year-old pet shop owner from Barnsley, South Yorkshire, was fined £475 under an SJP prosecution after she did not pay a £20 fine for travelling without a ticket between Wombwell and Barnsley in November 2022.
But she said that she had been waiting to hear back for a year on an appeal against the original fine, before being told she had been prosecuted.
Following the court’s ruling, she said: “It’s a kick in the teeth. I know some people would say take the win, sit back, appreciate that. For me, although money at the time was an issue, for me more than the money was the stress.
“I have not got a criminal record, I’m not somebody out there committing crimes, and for somebody to say you could have a criminal record, you could potentially face jail time if you have been a repeat offender, to me that was terrifying.”
She continued: “For them, their punishment is ‘we’re sorry’, and there is a bit of me that thinks I don’t know if that is good enough.
“When you have put 75,000 people under the pressure of going to court, having to fill out multiple documents, potentially being threatened with larger fines and criminal records, I don’t know if ‘I’m sorry, here’s your money back’ is good enough.”
Tom Franklin, the chief executive of the Magistrates’ Association, called for reform of the SJP and said “serious questions” had been raised by the case.
He said: “This ruling has big implications for tens of thousands of people, and there are serious questions that the prosecuting authorities – in this case, the train companies – need to answer as to how this was allowed to happen.”
After Thursday’s hearing, a spokesperson for Northern Rail said: “We welcome the judgment of the Chief Magistrate in court today. We would like to apologise again for the errors that have occurred.
“We will now work with the court to implement today’s findings. We are unable to respond to individual inquiries in the meantime.
“Northern remains committed to ensuring that all our customers are treated fairly, which means ensuring all passengers who board our trains have a valid ticket.”
A Government spokesperson said: “We acknowledge the Chief Magistrate’s judgment and welcome the apology from train operators. While fare evasion should be tackled, the right process should be followed at all times.
“The people affected will be directly contacted in due course to resolve the cases in accordance with the judgment.”
A spokesperson for Greater Anglia said: “Following the hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court today we are now working to ensure all those who are entitled to compensation as a result of this procedural error are quickly and fully reimbursed.
“Like many in the industry, we acted in good faith following the introduction of the Single Justice Procedure in 2016, but we apologise for using this process incorrectly.”
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by ChrisB at 16:10, 15th August 2024 |
The Standard has updated their story, to include -
On Thursday afternoon, the Department for Transport confirmed for the first time that seven companies are embroiled in the scandal, naming them as: Northern, TransPennine, Avanti West Coast, Greater Anglia, Great Western Railway, Arriva Rail North, and Merseyrail.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by ChrisB at 13:53, 15th August 2024 |
Not *all* operators - the DfT said that there were 4 in their report to the Ministry of Justice.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by grahame at 13:42, 15th August 2024 |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyx0p18kq74o
Thousands of train fare prosecutions to be quashed
As many as 74,000 prosecutions for alleged rail fare evasion in England and Wales are set to be quashed following a landmark ruling.
UK rail companies had been fast-tracking alleged ticket dodging offences using a process called the single justice procedure (SJP), which allows magistrates' hearings to be held behind closed doors.
But on Thursday, the UK's chief magistrate, Judge Goldspring, declared six test cases as void, saying the process should never have been used.
The exact number of similar cases that will need to be quashed is still unclear.As many as 74,000 prosecutions for alleged rail fare evasion in England and Wales are set to be quashed following a landmark ruling.
UK rail companies had been fast-tracking alleged ticket dodging offences using a process called the single justice procedure (SJP), which allows magistrates' hearings to be held behind closed doors.
But on Thursday, the UK's chief magistrate, Judge Goldspring, declared six test cases as void, saying the process should never have been used.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by grahame at 14:52, 21st June 2024 |
The story continues
from the Yorkshire Post
A Yorkshire woman who was prosecuted by a train company for fare evasion under the controversial single justice procedure and whose case is being examined by a magistrate said she will "probably never again" get on a train.
and
The 40-year-old said the ticket machine would not accept her card for the fare and as she had not been on a train in decades believed she could buy a ticket once on the train.
Not exactly the loss of a good customer then?
However, the Northern system of a "promise to pay" does leave something to be desired in that it may not be clear to people who use the train less than once in a blue moon. Mind, the story is a bit complex, and we only hear one side of it as told though the filter of a journalist.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by TaplowGreen at 09:16, 21st June 2024 |
I'm mystified why everyone thinks defendants have lost out by being prosecuted under the SJP rather then a court hearing. For one thing, the defendant can opt for a hearing if they prefer one. TOCs are only allowed to use SJP for bylaw offences, not statute ones, but that means they are offered a procedure the government thinks is suitable only for lesser offences.
I presume the advantage for the TOC is that this is cheaper and quicker. Defendants also get one chance to state their case (in writing), without having to turn up, which may suit many of them. On the other hand, being prosecuted is bad enough, and having another decision to make only adds to the stress. Despite that, as I said, it's hard to see it as a real disadvantage let alone an injustice.
I presume the advantage for the TOC is that this is cheaper and quicker. Defendants also get one chance to state their case (in writing), without having to turn up, which may suit many of them. On the other hand, being prosecuted is bad enough, and having another decision to make only adds to the stress. Despite that, as I said, it's hard to see it as a real disadvantage let alone an injustice.
I'm more mystified as to how the rail firms thought they could get away with it - arrogance or contempt (or quite possibly both).
It's going to be rather expensive for them.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by stuving at 22:38, 14th June 2024 |
I'm mystified why everyone thinks defendants have lost out by being prosecuted under the SJP rather then a court hearing. For one thing, the defendant can opt for a hearing if they prefer one. TOCs are only allowed to use SJP for bylaw offences, not statute ones, but that means they are offered a procedure the government thinks is suitable only for lesser offences.
I presume the advantage for the TOC is that this is cheaper and quicker. Defendants also get one chance to state their case (in writing), without having to turn up, which may suit many of them. On the other hand, being prosecuted is bad enough, and having another decision to make only adds to the stress. Despite that, as I said, it's hard to see it as a real disadvantage let alone an injustice.
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by ChrisB at 21:15, 14th June 2024 |
Surely their defence or the crown officials should know the law?....Not sure this can be put down to larceny?
Re: Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts) Posted by Witham Bobby at 11:05, 14th June 2024 |
Rail firms accused of misusing courts as fast-track hearings unlawfully convict thousands of fare evasion
Northern and GWR are among those said to be doing that
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/prosecution-courts-fare-evasion-northern-rail-single-justice-procedure-b1164191.html
Northern and GWR are among those said to be doing that
Rail firms have been accused of misusing the courts after it was revealed tens of thousands of people have been convicted of fare evasion in unlawful fast-track court hearings taking place behind closed doors.
Ministers gave permission in 2016 for train companies to pursue alleged fare dodgers in the single justice procedure (SJP), a process where magistrates convict and sentence defendants in private hearings based on written evidence.
The fast-track courts are allowed to deal with breaches of railway bylaws by passengers accused of not having a ticket or failing to pay the correct fare for a journey. But the Standard has discovered vast numbers of criminal cases brought against alleged fare dodgers under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 — which is not allowed in the SJP.
Northern Rail, which has been government-owned since 2020, is one of a host of rail firms which has brought criminal cases in this way, and it conceded this week that more than 29,000 cases have gone through the secret courts process from March 2020 to January this year. It is understood bosses put an end to the practice in the wake of the Post Office Horizon IT scandal, when criminal prosecutions brought by private companies were under an intense spotlight.
Ministers gave permission in 2016 for train companies to pursue alleged fare dodgers in the single justice procedure (SJP), a process where magistrates convict and sentence defendants in private hearings based on written evidence.
The fast-track courts are allowed to deal with breaches of railway bylaws by passengers accused of not having a ticket or failing to pay the correct fare for a journey. But the Standard has discovered vast numbers of criminal cases brought against alleged fare dodgers under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 — which is not allowed in the SJP.
Northern Rail, which has been government-owned since 2020, is one of a host of rail firms which has brought criminal cases in this way, and it conceded this week that more than 29,000 cases have gone through the secret courts process from March 2020 to January this year. It is understood bosses put an end to the practice in the wake of the Post Office Horizon IT scandal, when criminal prosecutions brought by private companies were under an intense spotlight.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/prosecution-courts-fare-evasion-northern-rail-single-justice-procedure-b1164191.html
Whoops
More corporate larceny
I hope there will be refunds of fines paid, and full sackcloth and ashes for the high-ups who decided they could be so cavalier