Passenger prosecuted for incorrect ticket

Post by tolly57
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/07/single-mother-prosecu
ted-refusing-pay-85-fine-incorrect-rail/

I see the torygraph has given up on writing English. Can't work out
what really happened.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

tim...

2017-08-08 08:24:58 UTC

Post by tolly57
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/07/single-mother-prosecu
ted-refusing-pay-85-fine-incorrect-rail/

I see the torygraph has given up on writing English. Can't work out what
really happened.

she (and some friends) got on at station X where there was no ticket
machine.

travelled via Y to Z

where, because she wanted to go home after the last train to X asked, at the
excess fare counter, for a DR from Y to Z.

she was prosecuted for travelling ticketless for the OB X to Y journey

The fare from X to Z is the same as Y to Z

(which makes you wonder why she/they didn't just ask for the fare from X,
but I think that they have a chromosome missing for that)

The rail company have been heavy handed, but the pax *was* at fault here

tim

Roland Perry

2017-08-08 10:06:24 UTC

Post by Graeme Wall
I see the torygraph has given up on writing English. Can't work out
what really happened.

she (and some friends) got on at station X where there was no ticket
machine.
travelled via Y to Z
where, because she wanted to go home after the last train to X asked,
at the excess fare counter, for a DR from Y to Z.
she was prosecuted for travelling ticketless for the OB X to Y journey
The fare from X to Z is the same as Y to Z
(which makes you wonder why she/they didn't just ask for the fare from
X, but I think that they have a chromosome missing for that)

Are X and Y on the same line, and/or do they have interavailably routed
tickets?

Or was the passenger inventing a non-existent trianglar ticket, and
should really have bought two singles?

--
Roland Perry

tim...

2017-08-08 12:00:17 UTC

Post by Graeme Wall
I see the torygraph has given up on writing English. Can't work out
what really happened.

she (and some friends) got on at station X where there was no ticket
machine.
travelled via Y to Z
where, because she wanted to go home after the last train to X asked, at
the excess fare counter, for a DR from Y to Z.
she was prosecuted for travelling ticketless for the OB X to Y journey
The fare from X to Z is the same as Y to Z
(which makes you wonder why she/they didn't just ask for the fare from X,
but I think that they have a chromosome missing for that)

Are X and Y on the same line, and/or do they have interavailably routed
tickets?
Or was the passenger inventing a non-existent trianglar ticket, and should
really have bought two singles?

I didn't actually check, but I think via Y is the only way to go

Post by Roland Perry
--
Roland Perry

Certes

2017-08-08 12:28:07 UTC

Post by Graeme Wall
I see the torygraph has given up on writing English. Can't work out
what really happened.

she (and some friends) got on at station X where there was no ticket
machine.
travelled via Y to Z
where, because she wanted to go home after the last train to X asked,
at the excess fare counter, for a DR from Y to Z.
she was prosecuted for travelling ticketless for the OB X to Y journey
The fare from X to Z is the same as Y to Z
(which makes you wonder why she/they didn't just ask for the fare
from X, but I think that they have a chromosome missing for that)

Are X and Y on the same line, and/or do they have interavailably
routed tickets?
Or was the passenger inventing a non-existent trianglar ticket, and
should really have bought two singles?

I didn't actually check, but I think via Y is the only way to go

Post by Roland Perry
--
Roland Perry

If the details are as claimed then this is a tax on not knowing the
Byzantine nuances of the rail fare structure. There should be an
exemption from Penalty Fares where the ticket(s) actually bought cost no
less than the ticket(s) which should have been bought.

Graeme Wall

2017-08-08 14:59:36 UTC

Post by Graeme Wall
I see the torygraph has given up on writing English. Can't work
out what really happened.

she (and some friends) got on at station X where there was no ticket
machine.
travelled via Y to Z
where, because she wanted to go home after the last train to X
asked, at the excess fare counter, for a DR from Y to Z.
she was prosecuted for travelling ticketless for the OB X to Y journey
The fare from X to Z is the same as Y to Z
(which makes you wonder why she/they didn't just ask for the fare
from X, but I think that they have a chromosome missing for that)

Are X and Y on the same line, and/or do they have interavailably
routed tickets?
Or was the passenger inventing a non-existent trianglar ticket, and
should really have bought two singles?

I didn't actually check, but I think via Y is the only way to go

Post by Roland Perry
--
Roland Perry

But if the fares are genuinely the same, and the woman did board where
she said she did, why not just ask for the proper ticket?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

tim...

2017-08-08 19:38:17 UTC

Post by Graeme Wall
I see the torygraph has given up on writing English. Can't work out
what really happened.

she (and some friends) got on at station X where there was no ticket
machine.
travelled via Y to Z
where, because she wanted to go home after the last train to X asked,
at the excess fare counter, for a DR from Y to Z.
she was prosecuted for travelling ticketless for the OB X to Y journey
The fare from X to Z is the same as Y to Z
(which makes you wonder why she/they didn't just ask for the fare from
X, but I think that they have a chromosome missing for that)

Are X and Y on the same line, and/or do they have interavailably routed
tickets?
Or was the passenger inventing a non-existent trianglar ticket, and
should really have bought two singles?

I didn't actually check, but I think via Y is the only way to go

Post by Roland Perry
--
Roland Perry

But if the fares are genuinely the same, and the woman did board where she
said she did, why not just ask for the proper ticket?

not understanding the BOJ rules allows her to terminate her return journey
at (wherever it was)

Graeme Wall

2017-08-08 19:46:19 UTC

Post by Graeme Wall
I see the torygraph has given up on writing English. Can't work
out what really happened.

she (and some friends) got on at station X where there was no
ticket machine.
travelled via Y to Z
where, because she wanted to go home after the last train to X
asked, at the excess fare counter, for a DR from Y to Z.
she was prosecuted for travelling ticketless for the OB X to Y journey
The fare from X to Z is the same as Y to Z
(which makes you wonder why she/they didn't just ask for the fare
from X, but I think that they have a chromosome missing for that)

Are X and Y on the same line, and/or do they have interavailably
routed tickets?
Or was the passenger inventing a non-existent trianglar ticket, and
should really have bought two singles?

I didn't actually check, but I think via Y is the only way to go

Post by Roland Perry
--
Roland Perry

But if the fares are genuinely the same, and the woman did board where
she said she did, why not just ask for the proper ticket?

not understanding the BOJ rules allows her to terminate her return
journey at (wherever it was)

As the later train didn't stop at her destination she had no choice but
to terminate early.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

s***@gowanhill.com

2017-08-09 07:51:51 UTC

Post by Graeme Wall
As the later train didn't stop at her destination she had no choice but
to terminate early.

If she'd done that before she wouldn't be in the state she's in now. (Or if he'd done that then she wouldn't need to.)

Owain

Graeme Wall

2017-08-09 11:49:25 UTC

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by Graeme Wall
As the later train didn't stop at her destination she had no choice but
to terminate early.

If she'd done that before she wouldn't be in the state she's in now. (Or if he'd done that then she wouldn't need to.)

Bang goes the coffee!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Roland Perry

2017-08-08 15:48:05 UTC

Post by Certes
If the details are as claimed then this is a tax on not knowing the
Byzantine nuances of the rail fare structure. There should be an
exemption from Penalty Fares where the ticket(s) actually bought cost
no less than the ticket(s) which should have been bought.

I'd have hoped 9.4 covered this:

"If you have an ‘off-peak’ or ‘super off-peak’ Ticket, correctly
dated but invalid for the service on which you are travelling; you are
using a route for which your Ticket is not valid; or you 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."

Unless that's trumped by a PF regime.

--
Roland Perry

tim...

2017-08-08 19:40:02 UTC

Post by Certes
If the details are as claimed then this is a tax on not knowing the
Byzantine nuances of the rail fare structure. There should be an
exemption from Penalty Fares where the ticket(s) actually bought cost no
less than the ticket(s) which should have been bought.

"If you have an ‘off-peak’ or ‘super off-peak’ Ticket, correctly dated but
invalid for the service on which you are travelling; you are using a route
for which your Ticket is not valid; or you 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."
Unless that's trumped by a PF regime.

I don't see any reason why it should be trumped by a PF regime

tim

2017-08-14 09:39:03 UTC

Post by Certes
If the details are as claimed then this is a tax on not knowing the
Byzantine nuances of the rail fare structure. There should be an
exemption from Penalty Fares where the ticket(s) actually bought cost no
less than the ticket(s) which should have been bought.

Don't penalties for other (non-railway) things have to bear some
relationship to the actual loss to the company?

Graeme Wall

2017-08-14 11:58:44 UTC

Post by Certes
If the details are as claimed then this is a tax on not knowing the
Byzantine nuances of the rail fare structure. There should be an
exemption from Penalty Fares where the ticket(s) actually bought cost no
less than the ticket(s) which should have been bought.

Don't penalties for other (non-railway) things have to bear some
relationship to the actual loss to the company?

No.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Mark Goodge

2017-08-14 15:02:41 UTC

Post by Certes
If the details are as claimed then this is a tax on not knowing the
Byzantine nuances of the rail fare structure. There should be an
exemption from Penalty Fares where the ticket(s) actually bought cost no
less than the ticket(s) which should have been bought.

Don't penalties for other (non-railway) things have to bear some
relationship to the actual loss to the company?

If we're talking about purely contractual terms[1], then yes, at least
in the broad sense. But the courts have ruled that the actual loss is
not merely the foregone payment for the thing which should have been
paid for, but also the cost of recovering the unpaid amount and the
administrative overhead of dealing with non-payment. So, particularly
for low-value items, the enforceable charges[2] for non-payment can
significantly exceed (often by an order of magnitude) the cost of the
item itself.

[1] Which doesn't apply here, because penalty fares are imposed under
statutory provisions, so contract law isn't relevent.

[2] "Penalties", strictly speaking, only apply to sums levied under
statutory provisions (eg, for fare-dodging). Purely contractual losses
are, in legal-speak, recoverable damages and the sum levied is a
charge, not a penalty.

Mark

c***@yahoo.co.uk

2017-08-14 16:45:05 UTC

Post by Mark Goodge
If we're talking about purely contractual terms[1], then yes, at least
in the broad sense. But the courts have ruled that the actual loss is
not merely the foregone payment for the thing which should have been
paid for, but also the cost of recovering the unpaid amount and the
administrative overhead of dealing with non-payment. So, particularly
for low-value items, the enforceable charges[2] for non-payment can
significantly exceed (often by an order of magnitude) the cost of the
item itself.

In this case the actual loss to the company was originally zero so they've wasted a lot of their time and court time to achieve nothing. It would have taken ticket the ticket inspector a minute or two at most to establish that the fares from Orrell and Wigan are the same.

John

Joyce Whitchurch

2017-08-14 17:06:15 UTC

Post by c***@yahoo.co.uk
In this case the actual loss to the company was originally zero so they've wasted a lot of their time and court time to achieve nothing. It would have taken ticket the ticket inspector a minute or two at most to establish that the fares from Orrell and Wigan are the same.

How do you know? Were you there? Do you have some definite information that the rest of us have not gleaned from the original newspaper article?

We don't know the time of day when the incident took place. We don't know if the lady was leaving or entering Victoria station. We don't know where she bought the ticket that was challenged. We don't know even know that it was a "ticket inspector" who challenged the ticket.

The article just mentions a "National Rail staff member", who could have been a Northern Rail booking clerk in the booking office, or a Northern Rail conductor guard on a train, or a Northern Rail revenue assistant at the gate line, or (most probably) a G4S revenue assistant under contract to Northern Rail. And we don't even know how that member of staff knew that this lady began her outward journey at Orrell.

--
Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
=================================

Anna Noyd-Dryver

2017-08-14 22:34:09 UTC

Post by Joyce Whitchurch
And we don't even know how that member of staff knew that this lady began
her outward journey at Orrell.

I suspect the problem arose because she could have bought a ticket if she'd
boarded at Wigan, where she seems to have tried to buy a ticket originating
from. However if ticket selling facilities were available at Wigan at the
time she wouldn't have been entitled to buy a normal ticket from there
after the fact, however from Orrell where she actually boarded she would
have been entitled to buy a normal ticket when eventually challenged; the
difference between these two scenarios is presumably what started the
debacle.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

R. Mark Clayton

2017-08-15 10:12:12 UTC

How do you know? Were you there? Do you have some definite information that the rest of us have not gleaned from the original newspaper article?
We don't know the time of day when the incident took place. We don't know if the lady was leaving or entering Victoria station. We don't know where she bought the ticket that was challenged. We don't know even know that it was a "ticket inspector" who challenged the ticket.
The article just mentions a "National Rail staff member", who could have been a Northern Rail booking clerk in the booking office, or a Northern Rail conductor guard on a train, or a Northern Rail revenue assistant at the gate line, or (most probably) a G4S revenue assistant under contract to Northern Rail. And we don't even know how that member of staff knew that this lady began her outward journey at Orrell.
--
Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
=================================

What we do know is that some TOC's employ jobsworth grippers whose job it is to catch out bona fide paying passengers with obscure exclusions in voluminous T&C 's and rip them off for many times the fare they would have paid if only they had ordered the right ticket or not realised they could not travel on a particular train with the one they have.

Even worse, as appears to be demonstrated in this case, onerous civil liability can sometimes be converted into criminal liability, although I would hope any right minded jury would throw this case out before even hearing the defence.

Graeme Wall

2017-08-15 10:54:45 UTC

How do you know? Were you there? Do you have some definite information that the rest of us have not gleaned from the original newspaper article?
We don't know the time of day when the incident took place. We don't know if the lady was leaving or entering Victoria station. We don't know where she bought the ticket that was challenged. We don't know even know that it was a "ticket inspector" who challenged the ticket.
The article just mentions a "National Rail staff member", who could have been a Northern Rail booking clerk in the booking office, or a Northern Rail conductor guard on a train, or a Northern Rail revenue assistant at the gate line, or (most probably) a G4S revenue assistant under contract to Northern Rail. And we don't even know how that member of staff knew that this lady began her outward journey at Orrell.
--
Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
=================================

Do we know that for a fact or is it just another tabloid myth?

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Even worse, as appears to be demonstrated in this case, onerous civil liability can sometimes be converted into criminal liability, although I would hope any right minded jury would throw this case out before even hearing the defence.

You've decide, on very limited evidence, that she is definitely not guilty?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

R. Mark Clayton

2017-08-15 12:05:30 UTC

SNIP

Post by R. Mark Clayton
What we do know is that some TOC's employ jobsworth grippers whose job it is to catch out bona fide paying passengers with obscure exclusions in voluminous T&C 's and rip them off for many times the fare they would have paid if only they had ordered the right ticket or not realised they could not travel on a particular train with the one they have.

Do we know that for a fact or is it just another tabloid myth?

Both seen it and experienced it first hand, when I requested a ticket to travel at a certain time, but was sold one that wasn't valid.

You've decide, on very limited evidence, that she is definitely not guilty?

I have decided on the basis of English law that she is innocent until proven guilty.

As it appears there was no loss to the operator it would seem unlikely that an intention to permanently deprive them of a fare due could be proved. That is to say no offence was committed. That could be determined before any defence submission, which would presumably be that even if an offence was committed the defendant did not knowingly commit it.

Graeme Wall

2017-08-15 12:18:51 UTC

Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP

Do we know that for a fact or is it just another tabloid myth?

Both seen it and experienced it first hand, when I requested a ticket to travel at a certain time, but was sold one that wasn't valid.

So we don't know it for a fact, just prejudice.

You've decide, on very limited evidence, that she is definitely not guilty?

I have decided on the basis of English law that she is innocent until proven guilty.

That is not a basis for throwing the case out before hearing evidence,
which s what you wnated.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
As it appears there was no loss to the operator it would seem unlikely that an intention to permanently deprive them of a fare due could be proved.

There is still no proof she actually got on, or intended returning to
Orrell.

That is to say no offence was committed. That could be determined
before any defence submission, which would presumably be that even if an
offence was committed the defendant did not knowingly commit it.
See above.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

R. Mark Clayton

2017-08-15 15:19:17 UTC

Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP

Do we know that for a fact or is it just another tabloid myth?

Both seen it and experienced it first hand, when I requested a ticket to travel at a certain time, but was sold one that wasn't valid.

So we don't know it for a fact, just prejudice.

You were asking if I knew that it happened - I do. Can't say in the case in question.

You've decide, on very limited evidence, that she is definitely not guilty?

I have decided on the basis of English law that she is innocent until proven guilty.

That is not a basis for throwing the case out before hearing evidence,
which s what you wnated.

In a jury trial the defence can ask the jury to acquit after the conclusion of the prosecution case. The judge can ask the jury to consider a not guilty verdict or even direct it if the case is especially weak.

What this means is that the prosecution case is too weak to secure a conviction even before any rebuttal evidence is heard.

Until about thirty years ago there were committal proceedings at magistrates at which the defence could argue that there was no primae facie case to answer.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
As it appears there was no loss to the operator it would seem unlikely that an intention to permanently deprive them of a fare due could be proved.

There is still no proof she actually got on, or intended returning to
Orrell.

Indeed she might have travelled from Liverpool or further afield and it could be a double [or quits] bluff by the suspect.

More likely it is another case like the chap who was arrested for using a cheaper fare from Lancaster to travel from [nearer] Preston (or pay £356!), when in fact he had boarded at Lancaster [with a completely valid ticket].

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/virgin-trains-acting-like-gestapo-says-businessman-detained/

Post by Graeme Wall
That is to say no offence was committed. That could be determined
before any defence submission, which would presumably be that even if an
offence was committed the defendant did not knowingly commit it.
See above.

Indeed see above!

Post by Graeme Wall
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

ColinR

2017-08-15 20:17:11 UTC

On 15/08/2017 16:19, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
[snip]

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Until about thirty years ago there were committal proceedings at magistrates at which the defence could argue that there was no primae facie case to answer.

[snip]

Evidence for this thirty years?? I believe that committal hearings were
carried out more recently.

--
Colin

ColinR

2017-08-15 20:22:57 UTC

Post by ColinR
[snip]

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Until about thirty years ago there were committal proceedings at
magistrates at which the defence could argue that there was no primae
facie case to answer.

[snip]
Evidence for this thirty years?? I believe that committal hearings were
carried out more recently.

Checked "On 28 May 2013 the committal procedure was abolished in
England" from Wikipedia (which is not always right but ...)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committal_procedure

--
Colin

R. Mark Clayton

2017-08-16 12:16:07 UTC

Post by ColinR
[snip]

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Until about thirty years ago there were committal proceedings at magistrates at which the defence could argue that there was no primae facie case to answer.

[snip]
Evidence for this thirty years?? I believe that committal hearings were
carried out more recently.
--
Colin

There still are committal proceedings, but no real opportunity to challenge the prosecution evidence as inadequate. Actually 2013 see: -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committal_procedure

Roland Perry

2017-08-15 11:04:42 UTC

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Even worse, as appears to be demonstrated in this case, onerous civil
liability can sometimes be converted into criminal liability, although
I would hope any right minded jury would throw this case out before
even hearing the defence.

It'd be magistrates, I presume?

Being prosecuted by the railways, you won't have the calming influence
of the CPS in the loop, either.

--
Roland Perry

R. Mark Clayton

2017-08-15 12:06:12 UTC

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Even worse, as appears to be demonstrated in this case, onerous civil
liability can sometimes be converted into criminal liability, although
I would hope any right minded jury would throw this case out before
even hearing the defence.

It'd be magistrates, I presume?

Theft punishable by up to 7 years - option for jury trial.

Post by Roland Perry
Being prosecuted by the railways, you won't have the calming influence
of the CPS in the loop, either.
--
Roland Perry

Brian

2017-08-15 14:05:22 UTC

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 05:06:12 -0700 (PDT), "R. Mark Clayton"

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Even worse, as appears to be demonstrated in this case, onerous civil
liability can sometimes be converted into criminal liability, although
I would hope any right minded jury would throw this case out before
even hearing the defence.

It'd be magistrates, I presume?

Theft punishable by up to 7 years - option for jury trial.

If it is prosecuted as theft - I would have thought that prosecution
for an offence against the Railway Bye-Laws was more likely. Summary
only, I think.

I repeat that I have still seen no proof that the railway has not
suffered a financial loss as a result of this passenger's actions.

Even assuming that the most basic of details in the article are
correct - and I agree that it is hardly a high point of British
journalism - there would appear to be an issue of travelling
unticketed between Orrell and Wallgate. Whether you think that an
appearance before the Magistrates is proportionate, if this is the
only offence alleged, is another matter. It is also worth bearing in
mind that the passenger will - or at any rate, should - have been
offered an opportunity to settle the matter without a Court
appearance, and seems to have declined.

On the other hand, I do have a certain amount of sympathy for the TOC.
Broadening the discussion away from the present case, when I was
commuting by train to and from Bradford every day, it did sometimes
seem to me that fare-dodging had become something of a national sport
in some quarters. Once someone is on the train, it is difficult, as a
generality, to argue that nothing at all should be paid, although one
to two did try to get away with a flat refusal. I can therefore
believe any TOC which says that over-travelling is a common way of
avoiding paying the due fare.

Coming back for a moment to Ms Long and her trip to Manchester, we
know what she claims she paid. The question is: what should she have
paid, and if this is more than she actually paid, how did the
difference arise?

We know it is reported that, at some point in her journey, she visited
a sales outlet (using the expression in its loosest and broadest
sense) at Victoria and was sold an OP return to Wallgate. It would be
interesting to know how it was established that this was the correct
ticket for the journey she claims to have made. If the "sales outlet"
was a person, the conversation between this passenger and the relevant
railway employee becomes important, and it may be fair to infer that
Ms Long's account and the railway's differ on one or more points of
detail. The only way this will be resolved is for both sides to give
sworn evidence and the Mags to decide which is the more credible.

It would also be interesting to learn whether she was asked to buy a
ticket on the train inbound to Victoria, and, if so, why she seems
not to have done so.

I cannot dispel a nagging doubt that there is a good deal more to this
than we are currently being told. It will be interesting to see
whether Ms Long's Court appearance, if she has one, is reported.

Remove 2001. to reply by email. I apologise for the inconvenience.

c***@yahoo.co.uk

2017-08-15 17:37:57 UTC

Post by Brian
Coming back for a moment to Ms Long and her trip to Manchester, we
know what she claims she paid. The question is: what should she have
paid, and if this is more than she actually paid, how did the
difference arise?
We know it is reported that, at some point in her journey, she visited
a sales outlet (using the expression in its loosest and broadest
sense) at Victoria and was sold an OP return to Wallgate. It would be
interesting to know how it was established that this was the correct
ticket for the journey she claims to have made. If the "sales outlet"
was a person, the conversation between this passenger and the relevant
railway employee becomes important, and it may be fair to infer that
Ms Long's account and the railway's differ on one or more points of
detail. The only way this will be resolved is for both sides to give
sworn evidence and the Mags to decide which is the more credible.

Indeed. The people at the excess fares window at Victoria would most likely know that there are ticket gates at Wigan Wallgate so they would almost certainly question anyone asking for a return from there.

Post by Brian
It would also be interesting to learn whether she was asked to buy a
ticket on the train inbound to Victoria, and, if so, why she seems
not to have done so.

Two non ganywayed units perhaps? Or the train was too crowded? Does Victoria have ticket gates or just ad hoc inspections by grippers?

John

Joyce Whitchurch

2017-08-15 23:12:54 UTC

Post by c***@yahoo.co.uk
Two non ganywayed units perhaps? Or the train was too crowded? Does Victoria have ticket gates or just ad hoc inspections by grippers?

Manchester Victoria has had ticket gates for quite a while now, and they are almost always in use - well, more so than those at Piccadilly or Oxford Road. For that matter, there are now gates at Salford Central too.

Northern currently run a lot of their DMU services as two units, because the influx of Class 319 EMUs has released a lot of DMUs. Unfortunately, many are non gangwayed (Class 142 and 150/1). Very occasionally a gangwayed pair (2 x 150/2, 2 x 156 or one of each) will turn up but they are rare.

To protect revenue, Northern seem to have recruited additional revenue assistants to sell tickets on these 4 car trains, with the guard doing tickets as usual in one unit and the assistant doing likewise in the other unit. But this seems to be mostly a morning peak phenomenon, certainly not all day.

--
Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
=================================

Mark Goodge

2017-08-15 19:21:19 UTC

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 05:06:12 -0700 (PDT), "R. Mark Clayton"

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Even worse, as appears to be demonstrated in this case, onerous civil
liability can sometimes be converted into criminal liability, although
I would hope any right minded jury would throw this case out before
even hearing the defence.

It'd be magistrates, I presume?

Theft punishable by up to 7 years - option for jury trial.

No; the offence is fare evasion, an offence in and of itself. It
wouldn't be prosecuted as theft. Given that it took place on the
railway, it would norally be prosecuted under section 5 of the
Regulation of Railways Act 1889. It's a summary offence and only
triable in the magistrates' court.

Given that the passenger did not have the correct ticket for the
journey, and that fact is not disputed, there is a prima facie case to
be heard. The prosecution does not need to prove any actual loss to
the railway company, merely that the passenger was knowingly or
recklessly travelling without the correct ticket. The defence would be
lack of intent. Honest error is not fare evasion. However, this
defence would need to be made in court. It cannot be assumed.

Mark

Charles Ellson

2017-08-16 04:11:52 UTC

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 20:21:19 +0100, Mark Goodge

Post by Brian
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 05:06:12 -0700 (PDT), "R. Mark Clayton"

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Even worse, as appears to be demonstrated in this case, onerous civil
liability can sometimes be converted into criminal liability, although
I would hope any right minded jury would throw this case out before
even hearing the defence.

It'd be magistrates, I presume?

Theft punishable by up to 7 years - option for jury trial.

No; the offence is fare evasion, an offence in and of itself. It
wouldn't be prosecuted as theft. Given that it took place on the
railway, it would norally be prosecuted under section 5 of the
Regulation of Railways Act 1889. It's a summary offence and only
triable in the magistrates' court.
Given that the passenger did not have the correct ticket for the
journey, and that fact is not disputed, there is a prima facie case to
be heard. The prosecution does not need to prove any actual loss to
the railway company, merely that the passenger was knowingly or
recklessly travelling without the correct ticket. The defence would be
lack of intent. Honest error is not fare evasion. However, this
defence would need to be made in court. It cannot be assumed.

That isn't quite what s.5 says :-
"(b)Having paid his fare for a certain distance, knowingly and
wilfully proceeds by train beyond that distance without previously
paying the additional fare for the additional distance, and with
intent to avoid payment thereof; or"
which refers to the fare not to a particular type of ticket; 5(1) and
5(2) addressing failure to produce a ticket.
If the fares are the same whatever ticket should have been used then
that would seem to pull the rug from under such a prosecution and risk
it being regarded as a malicious prosecution. It would not be good
publicity either.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

c***@yahoo.co.uk

2017-08-15 17:56:14 UTC

I encountered a revenue inspector at London Bridge who, when I asked for a return from Cannon Street to Horsham, claimed that there weren't any trains running from Cannon Street. So I pointed to the departure screen that had several trains listed as going there.

John

Graeme Wall

2017-08-14 18:10:03 UTC

But how long to establish that the miscreant did actually board at
Orrell and not further down the line?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Brian

2017-08-14 18:56:10 UTC

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 19:10:03 +0100, Graeme Wall

But how long to establish that the miscreant did actually board at
Orrell and not further down the line?

Indeed, and forgive me if I have missed something, but have we
actually established that the net loss to Northern was zero?

(Northern off-peak returns, which, from the prices quoted this must
have been, are subject to time restrictions over the evening peak -
restrictions which, over here at least, the people who do RP for
Northern are very hot on enforcing).

Remove 2001. to reply by email. I apologise for the inconvenience.

Joyce Whitchurch

2017-08-14 19:59:38 UTC

Post by Brian
Indeed, and forgive me if I have missed something, but have we
actually established that the net loss to Northern was zero?
(Northern off-peak returns, which, from the prices quoted this must
have been, are subject to time restrictions over the evening peak -
restrictions which, over here at least, the people who do RP for
Northern are very hot on enforcing).

I think you've found the real reason for the dispute. As we established earlier on, the off peak return fares are the same but the anytime returns are different. Unfortunately the newspaper article doesn't mention the time of day, nor even the day of the week. A dreadful piece of journalism.

A duckduckgo search brings up several other newspapers reporting the story in very similar terms, and with the same photos, which suggests that they've all bought it from a stringer. The Daily Mail account adds this:

"Ms Long arrived at Orrell station near her home in Lancashire and got on the train to Manchester Victoria, but was unable to buy a ticket at the station.

"When she arrived in Manchester, she paid for a return ticket to Wigan Wallgate, which is one stop closer to Manchester than Orrell, because no trains would be going back directly to Orrell by the time she left.

"The ticket cost GBP5.40, the same price as a ticket to Orrell[1], but she was stopped by a member of staff at the ticket gate at Victoria and challenged.

[1] This was in February, says the DM - before the May price rise.

--
Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
=================================

c***@yahoo.co.uk

2017-08-15 17:33:24 UTC

But how long to establish that the miscreant did actually board at
Orrell and not further down the line?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Ok fair point, and the same to Joyce's reply. Conversely how did Northern prove that she didn't board at Orrell. CCTV perhaps? I think the problem was as Anna described in the later post.

John

tim...

2017-08-30 10:59:30 UTC

In this case the actual loss to the company was originally zero so
they've wasted a lot of their time and court time to achieve nothing.
It would have taken ticket the ticket inspector a minute or two at most
to establish that the fares from Orrell and Wigan are the same.

But how long to establish that the miscreant did actually board at
Orrell and not further down the line?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Ok fair point, and the same to Joyce's reply. Conversely how did Northern
prove that she didn't board at Orrell.

they didn't need to

the claim was that she did board at Orrell and the evidence to that appears
to be that she admitted that she did

tim

tim...

2017-08-30 10:52:45 UTC

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Certes
If the details are as claimed then this is a tax on not knowing the
Byzantine nuances of the rail fare structure. There should be an
exemption from Penalty Fares where the ticket(s) actually bought cost no
less than the ticket(s) which should have been bought.

Don't penalties for other (non-railway) things have to bear some
relationship to the actual loss to the company?

It's actually more complicated that that

for criminal offences, no they (the courts) haven't

Where shops have tried to make civil charges for payment against shoplifters
for the costs of employing staff to look for shoplifters, the general legal
consensus is that such charges are completely unenforceable, and no shop has
as yet risked taking it to court to find out

tim

Graeme Wall

2017-08-08 11:20:29 UTC

Post by tolly57
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/07/single-mother-prosecu
ted-refusing-pay-85-fine-incorrect-rail/

I see the torygraph has given up on writing English. Can't work out
what really happened.

Ah, that now becomes clear, presumably there was a block on at the time.
Couldn't work out why she had a return when she couldn't get a ticket
at her origin.

Post by tim...
she was prosecuted for travelling ticketless for the OB X to Y journey
The fare from X to Z is the same as Y to Z
(which makes you wonder why she/they didn't just ask for the fare from
X, but I think that they have a chromosome missing for that)

That would have made more sense, given it is exactly the same fare,
allegedly. As an inspector I would probably have smelt a rat too.

Post by tim...
The rail company have been heavy handed, but the pax *was* at fault here

What's the betting she was lippy with the inspector? And now playing
the "single mother" card.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

c***@yahoo.co.uk

2017-08-10 08:25:35 UTC

Post by tolly57
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/07/single-mother-prosecu
ted-refusing-pay-85-fine-incorrect-rail/

I see the torygraph has given up on writing English. Can't work out what
really happened.

she (and some friends) got on at station X where there was no ticket
machine.
travelled via Y to Z
where, because she wanted to go home after the last train to X asked, at the
excess fare counter, for a DR from Y to Z.
she was prosecuted for travelling ticketless for the OB X to Y journey
The fare from X to Z is the same as Y to Z
(which makes you wonder why she/they didn't just ask for the fare from X,
but I think that they have a chromosome missing for that)
The rail company have been heavy handed, but the pax *was* at fault here
tim

Did she buy the ticket from the guard or at Victoria? It is strange that she didn't ask for a return from Orrell. Maybe that wouldn't open the gates at Wigan Wallgate on the way back?

Are there ticket gates at Victoria now? For whatever reason, it seems that the ticket didn't open the gates so she had to talk to a person to let her through. But what made the ticket inspector question the origin stated on the ticket?

John

Roland Perry

2017-08-10 08:31:43 UTC

Post by c***@yahoo.co.uk
Did she buy the ticket from the guard or at Victoria? It is strange that
she didn't ask for a return from Orrell. Maybe that wouldn't open the
gates at Wigan Wallgate on the way back?

What gates? And even if there were any, they'd be locked out of use that
time of night. And even if they weren't locked out of use, the staff
would approve the ticket as it's clearly valid.

--
Roland Perry

Joyce Whitchurch

2017-08-10 10:46:37 UTC

There are gates at both Manchester Victoria and Wigan Wallgate. Not that it really helps us to understand this strange case. For the record, Orrell cones under Greater Manchester, where there is no Penalty Fare regime.

--
Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
=================================

Roland Perry

2017-08-10 11:04:09 UTC

Post by Joyce Whitchurch
There are gates at both Manchester Victoria and Wigan Wallgate.

Not on this map:

<http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations-and-destinations/stations-made-
easy/wigan-wallgate-station-plan>

Post by Joyce Whitchurch
Not that it really helps us to understand this strange case. For the
record, Orrell cones under Greater Manchester, where there is no
Penalty Fare regime.

--
Roland Perry

R. Mark Clayton

2017-08-10 13:03:12 UTC

Post by Joyce Whitchurch
There are gates at both Manchester Victoria and Wigan Wallgate.

<http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations-and-destinations/stations-made-
easy/wigan-wallgate-station-plan>

I travelled this recently and there are gates at both.

Post by Joyce Whitchurch
Not that it really helps us to understand this strange case. For the
record, Orrell cones under Greater Manchester, where there is no
Penalty Fare regime.

Really?

http://www.tfgm.com/Corporate/media_centre/Pages/News.aspx?articleId=430

Post by Roland Perry
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry

2017-08-10 13:21:50 UTC

Post by Joyce Whitchurch
Not that it really helps us to understand this strange case. For the
record, Orrell cones under Greater Manchester, where there is no
Penalty Fare regime.

Really?
http://www.tfgm.com/Corporate/media_centre/Pages/News.aspx?articleId=430

That doesn't mention penalty fares.

--
Roland Perry

R. Mark Clayton

2017-08-10 13:57:03 UTC

Post by Joyce Whitchurch
Not that it really helps us to understand this strange case. For the
record, Orrell cones under Greater Manchester, where there is no
Penalty Fare regime.

Really?
http://www.tfgm.com/Corporate/media_centre/Pages/News.aspx?articleId=430

That doesn't mention penalty fares.
--
Roland Perry

£275k recovered. TfGM don't call it a penalty fare, but a "standard fare" of £100, reduced to £50 if you pay in 14 days.

Roland Perry

2017-08-10 14:06:09 UTC

Post by Joyce Whitchurch
Not that it really helps us to understand this strange case. For the
record, Orrell cones under Greater Manchester, where there is no
Penalty Fare regime.

Really?
http://www.tfgm.com/Corporate/media_centre/Pages/News.aspx?articleId=430

That doesn't mention penalty fares.

£275k recovered. TfGM don't call it a penalty fare,

Still not a fine, and the sum involved was £85.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
but a "standard fare" of £100, reduced to £50 if you pay in 14 days.

Is that regulated by the same code of practice as National Rail penalty
fares?

--
Roland Perry

Charles Ellson

2017-08-10 23:38:24 UTC

Post by Joyce Whitchurch
Not that it really helps us to understand this strange case. For the
record, Orrell cones under Greater Manchester, where there is no
Penalty Fare regime.

Really?
http://www.tfgm.com/Corporate/media_centre/Pages/News.aspx?articleId=430

That doesn't mention penalty fares.

£275k recovered. TfGM don't call it a penalty fare,

Still not a fine, and the sum involved was £85.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
but a "standard fare" of £100, reduced to £50 if you pay in 14 days.

That looks like just a penalty fare under a different name.

Post by Roland Perry
Is that regulated by the same code of practice as National Rail penalty
fares?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Certes

2017-08-11 10:56:34 UTC

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Joyce Whitchurch
Not that it really helps us to understand this strange case. For the
record, Orrell cones under Greater Manchester, where there is no
Penalty Fare regime.

Really?
http://www.tfgm.com/Corporate/media_centre/Pages/News.aspx?articleId=430

That doesn't mention penalty fares.

£275k recovered. TfGM don't call it a penalty fare,

Still not a fine, and the sum involved was £85.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
but a "standard fare" of £100, reduced to £50 if you pay in 14 days.

That looks like just a penalty fare under a different name.

Post by Roland Perry
Is that regulated by the same code of practice as National Rail penalty
fares?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

I am surprised that the standard fare isn't regulated to a much lower
amount, if it is ostensibly for normal travel rather than a fine.

Charles Ellson

2017-08-11 18:55:22 UTC

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Joyce Whitchurch
Not that it really helps us to understand this strange case. For the
record, Orrell cones under Greater Manchester, where there is no
Penalty Fare regime.

Really?
http://www.tfgm.com/Corporate/media_centre/Pages/News.aspx?articleId=430

That doesn't mention penalty fares.

£275k recovered. TfGM don't call it a penalty fare,

Still not a fine, and the sum involved was £85.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
but a "standard fare" of £100, reduced to £50 if you pay in 14 days.

That looks like just a penalty fare under a different name.

Post by Roland Perry
Is that regulated by the same code of practice as National Rail penalty
fares?

I am surprised that the standard fare isn't regulated to a much lower
amount, if it is ostensibly for normal travel rather than a fine.

"Standard fare" in this context will be that specified in the relevant
legal paperwork as what elsewhere might be known as a "fixed penalty";
it does not (again, in this context) mean the usual fare. It does not
always preclude charging only the fare that ought to have been paid
had a ticket been purchased for the journey in routine manner.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Joyce Whitchurch

2017-08-10 16:55:43 UTC

Post by Joyce Whitchurch
Not that it really helps us to understand this strange case. For the
record, Orrell cones under Greater Manchester, where there is no
Penalty Fare regime.

Really?

Yes.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
http://www.tfgm.com/Corporate/media_centre/Pages/News.aspx?articleId=430

That links to a three year old article about revenue protection on Metrolink. The Penalty Fares issued on certain parts of the national rail network are not the same thing as the Standard Fares issued on some light railways and bus networks. The legislation is rather different.

National Rail's Penalty Fares are explained at <http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/46592.aspx>. Note that "Penalty Fares apply if you travelling from a Penalty Fare station. Penalty Fare stations are all clearly indicated as such by means of signs and large yellow posters." Orrell is not a Penalty Fare station. Neither is Wigan Wallgate. Nor Manchester Victoria.

The TOCs operating in Greater Manchester do operate a "buy before you ride" policy. They will sell tickets on trains, but the normal range of fares is only available to people travelling from a station without a working ticket office or ticket machine. If a ticketless traveller has chosen to walk past a working ticket office or a working ticket machine before boarding a train, the only fare they can pay on the train is the Anytime fare. But there is no Penalty Fare, and there is no Standard Fare in the sense that Metrolink use it.

Where it gets interesting of course is where fraud is suspected. The usual attempt at fraud is a request for a short distance fare when the actual journey has been somewhat longer and more expensive.

The case that sparked this thread involves a journey from Orrell to Manchester and a return to Wigan. The off peak fares are the same, whether the journey begins at Orrell or at Wigan. However, the standard fares are different. SDR is GBP 9.30 from Wigan but 10.40 from Orrell. (The fare quoted in the Daily Telegraph article applied before last May's price rise.) This may, just may, be part of the reason for the inspector's attitude.

Re-reading the DT report, I wonder if the incident occurred on arrival at Victoria, and at a time when it would still have been possible to travel all the way through to Orrell. But it still doesn't make a lot of sense.

In answer to Roland's later question, there is the Appeals Service: <https://www.appealservice.co.uk/>. They cover some but not all TOCs, plus London Buses.

--
Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
=================================

Roland Perry

2017-08-10 17:35:50 UTC

In message <7aa641d4-e3a5-45bf-9e95-***@googlegroups.com>, at
09:55:43 on Thu, 10 Aug 2017, Joyce Whitchurch

Post by Joyce Whitchurch
Not that it really helps us to understand this strange case. For the
record, Orrell cones under Greater Manchester, where there is no
Penalty Fare regime.

Really?

Yes.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
http://www.tfgm.com/Corporate/media_centre/Pages/News.aspx?articleId=430

That links to a three year old article about revenue protection on
Metrolink. The Penalty Fares issued on certain parts of the national
rail network are not the same thing as the Standard Fares issued on
some light railways and bus networks. The legislation is rather different.
National Rail's Penalty Fares are explained at
<http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/46592.aspx>.
Note that "Penalty Fares apply if you travelling from a Penalty Fare
station. Penalty Fare stations are all clearly indicated as such by
means of signs and large yellow posters." Orrell is not a Penalty Fare
station. Neither is Wigan Wallgate. Nor Manchester Victoria.
The TOCs operating in Greater Manchester do operate a "buy before you
ride" policy. They will sell tickets on trains, but the normal range of
fares is only available to people travelling from a station without a
working ticket office or ticket machine. If a ticketless traveller has
chosen to walk past a working ticket office or a working ticket machine
before boarding a train, the only fare they can pay on the train is the
Anytime fare. But there is no Penalty Fare, and there is no Standard
Fare in the sense that Metrolink use it.
Where it gets interesting of course is where fraud is suspected. The
usual attempt at fraud is a request for a short distance fare when the
actual journey has been somewhat longer and more expensive.
The case that sparked this thread involves a journey from Orrell to
Manchester and a return to Wigan. The off peak fares are the same,
whether the journey begins at Orrell or at Wigan. However, the standard
fares

Anytime fares?

Post by Joyce Whitchurch
are different. SDR is GBP 9.30 from Wigan but 10.40 from Orrell. (The
fare quoted in the Daily Telegraph article applied before last May's
price rise.) This may, just may, be part of the reason for the
inspector's attitude.
Re-reading the DT report, I wonder if the incident occurred on arrival
at Victoria, and at a time when it would still have been possible to
travel all the way through to Orrell. But it still doesn't make a lot
of sense.
<https://www.appealservice.co.uk/>. They cover some but not all TOCs,
plus London Buses.

--
Roland Perry

Joyce Whitchurch

2017-08-10 21:41:27 UTC

Post by Joyce Whitchurch
The case that sparked this thread involves a journey from Orrell to
Manchester and a return to Wigan. The off peak fares are the same,
whether the journey begins at Orrell or at Wigan. However, the standard
fares

Anytime fares?

Post by Joyce Whitchurch
are different. SDR is GBP 9.30 from Wigan but 10.40 from Orrell.

Sorry, yes, Anytime fares. I still think of them as Standard Day Returns/Singles, since they're still coded that way (as SDR/SDS etc).

--
Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
=================================

Anna Noyd-Dryver

2017-08-10 23:24:48 UTC

Post by Joyce Whitchurch
Not that it really helps us to understand this strange case. For the
record, Orrell cones under Greater Manchester, where there is no
Penalty Fare regime.

Really?

Yes.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
http://www.tfgm.com/Corporate/media_centre/Pages/News.aspx?articleIdC0

That links to a three year old article about revenue protection on
Metrolink. The Penalty Fares issued on certain parts of the national rail
network are not the same thing as the Standard Fares issued on some light
railways and bus networks. The legislation is rather different.
National Rail's Penalty Fares are explained at
<http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/46592.aspx>. Note
that "Penalty Fares apply if you travelling from a Penalty Fare station.
Penalty Fare stations are all clearly indicated as such by means of signs
and large yellow posters." Orrell is not a Penalty Fare station. Neither
is Wigan Wallgate. Nor Manchester Victoria.
The TOCs operating in Greater Manchester do operate a "buy before you
ride" policy. They will sell tickets on trains, but the normal range of
fares is only available to people travelling from a station without a
working ticket office or ticket machine. If a ticketless traveller has
chosen to walk past a working ticket office or a working ticket machine
before boarding a train, the only fare they can pay on the train is the
Anytime fare. But there is no Penalty Fare, and there is no Standard Fare
in the sense that Metrolink use it.
Where it gets interesting of course is where fraud is suspected. The
usual attempt at fraud is a request for a short distance fare when the
actual journey has been somewhat longer and more expensive.
The case that sparked this thread involves a journey from Orrell to
Manchester and a return to Wigan. The off peak fares are the same,
whether the journey begins at Orrell or at Wigan. However, the standard
fares are different. SDR is GBP 9.30 from Wigan but 10.40 from Orrell.
(The fare quoted in the Daily Telegraph article applied before last May's
price rise.) This may, just may, be part of the reason for the inspector's attitude.
Re-reading the DT report, I wonder if the incident occurred on arrival at
Victoria, and at a time when it would still have been possible to travel
all the way through to Orrell. But it still doesn't make a lot of sense.
<https://www.appealservice.co.uk/>. They cover some but not all TOCs, plus London Buses.

I think you may have happened upon the reason the ticket purchase aroused
any suspicion at all - if Wigan had staffed ticket office at the
appropriate time then passengers travelling from there without a ticket
would be liable for the higher fare; travelling from Orrell with no ticket
issuing facilities she'd just pay the fare for her journey.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

c***@yahoo.co.uk

2017-08-10 12:18:35 UTC

What gates? And even if there were any, they'd be locked out of use that
time of night. And even if they weren't locked out of use, the staff
would approve the ticket as it's clearly valid.
--
Roland Perry

There are definitely ticket gates at Wigan Wallgate. I was there a few weeks ago. I've no idea about their times of operation but, as noted by another poster, the last train to Orrell is very early so she could have been at Wallgate not long after 1900.

John

d***@yahoo.co.uk

2017-08-08 09:11:41 UTC

On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 08:02:22 +0100 (GMT+01:00), tolly57

Post by tolly57
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/07/single-mother-prosecu
ted-refusing-pay-85-fine-incorrect-rail/
Malkes you wonder what happened to common sense these days?

You know what, whatever the rights or wrongs of the case the moment I
see "Single Mother" in a news report my prejudices kick in straight
away. There are many reasons why a woman may end up in that position
but too often it is now bandied about as an indicator of a status
that presumably is supposed to grant them special favours.
And sure enough she is quoted
""It's ridiculous, it's pathetic. I'm a single mum and this is just
too costly".
She is 40, Not a naive teenager who succumbed to an overload of post
puberty hormones and a spotty youth.

Some of the report seems to have conflicting statements.

"Despite the price of a ticket to Orrell costing the exact same
amount, she and three other members of her group had their details
taken and were later served fines."

" One of my friends got a formal warning, but I got a fixed penalty
notice of £85, which I disputed because I had a valid ticket, as far
as I'm concerned.'"

"You just wonder what the criteria is to be fined, especially with me
being the only one getting prosecuted when there were four of us
stopped at the exact same time."

The indignant pose in the 2nd photo was probably encouraged by the
photographer , but my prejudiced view is that the friend who got a
formal warning stood by and listened whereas the poor "single mother
victim" gobbed off and got argumentative instead.

G.Harman

2017-08-08 10:45:23 UTC

Post by d***@yahoo.co.uk
"Despite the price of a ticket to Orrell costing the exact same
amount, she and three other members of her group had their details
taken and were later served fines."
" One of my friends got a formal warning, but I got a fixed penalty
notice of £85, which I disputed because I had a valid ticket, as far
as I'm concerned.'"
"You just wonder what the criteria is to be fined, especially with me
being the only one getting prosecuted when there were four of us
stopped at the exact same time."
The indignant pose in the 2nd photo was probably encouraged by the
photographer , but my prejudiced view is that the friend who got a
formal warning stood by and listened whereas the poor "single mother
victim" gobbed off and got argumentative instead.

I'm inclined to feel *some* sympathy for her and I might have pursued the
matter and got a bit indignant, though maybe not argumentative. Providing
you don't commit any further offence (eg becoming abusive or violent) then
it shouldn't be relevant to the offence whether you take your punishment
passively or protest about it.

The crucial matter in this is the cost of the two tickets X-Z (which she
should have bought) and Y-Z (which she bought). If there had been a
difference in price, then she had defrauded them and some form of fine or
prosecution would have been right. But given that the fare was the same in
either case, no defrauding has taken place, and the only sin (I would not
rate it higher than that) is not having a ticket for her full journey.

Graeme Wall

2017-08-08 11:22:19 UTC

Post by NY

I'm inclined to feel *some* sympathy for her and I might have pursued
the matter and got a bit indignant, though maybe not argumentative.
Providing you don't commit any further offence (eg becoming abusive or
violent) then it shouldn't be relevant to the offence whether you take
your punishment passively or protest about it.
The crucial matter in this is the cost of the two tickets X-Z (which she
should have bought) and Y-Z (which she bought). If there had been a
difference in price, then she had defrauded them and some form of fine
or prosecution would have been right. But given that the fare was the
same in either case, no defrauding has taken place, and the only sin (I
would not rate it higher than that) is not having a ticket for her full
journey.

That assumes she was telling the truth about getting on at Orrell.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Roland Perry

2017-08-08 12:16:59 UTC

Post by NY
The crucial matter in this is the cost of the two tickets X-Z (which
she should have bought) and Y-Z (which she bought). If there had been
a difference in price, then she had defrauded them and some form of
fine or prosecution would have been right. But given that the fare
was the same in either case, no defrauding has taken place, and the
only sin (I would not rate it higher than that) is not having a
ticket for her full journey.

That assumes she was telling the truth about getting on at Orrell.

If the fares really are the same, she should have been excessed <zero>
to swap the Wallgate-Manchester return for a Orrell-Manchester return,
and stopped short on the return leg.

--
Roland Perry

BevanPrice

2017-08-08 15:38:31 UTC

Post by NY
The crucial matter in this is the cost of the two tickets X-Z (which
she should have bought) and Y-Z (which she bought). If there had
been a difference in price, then she had defrauded them and some
form of fine or prosecution would have been right. But given that
the fare was the same in either case, no defrauding has taken place,
and the only sin (I would not rate it higher than that) is not
having a ticket for her full journey.

That assumes she was telling the truth about getting on at Orrell.

If the fares really are the same, she should have been excessed <zero>
to swap the Wallgate-Manchester return for a Orrell-Manchester return,
and stopped short on the return leg.

For information.

Orrell is an unstaffed station on the Kirkby to Wigan Wallgate line; the
final train back from Manchester to Orrell is an absurdly early 17:47.
There is no Sunday service.

If the other passengers were just given warnings, I wonder if the woman
had "previous history" ?

2017-08-14 09:29:13 UTC

Post by d***@yahoo.co.uk
The indignant pose in the 2nd photo was probably encouraged by the
photographer , but my prejudiced view is that the friend who got a
formal warning stood by and listened whereas the poor "single mother
victim" gobbed off and got argumentative instead.

Of course she could have been asked to do an "indignant pose" by the press.

When I read the story originally it just made me even less likely to
want to make a journey by train if they are so petty minded in following
rules.

Graeme Wall

2017-08-14 11:58:22 UTC

Of course she could have been asked to do an "indignant pose" by the press.
When I read the story originally it just made me even less likely to
want to make a journey by train if they are so petty minded in following
rules.

I hesitate to say that was the object of the exercise. Rail passengers
don't make profits for car manufacturers/sellers who advertise in
newspapers.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

BryanT

2017-08-11 16:23:27 UTC

Post by tolly57
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/07/single-mother-prosecu
ted-refusing-pay-85-fine-incorrect-rail/
Malkes you wonder what happened to common sense these days?
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

According to National Rail Enquiries, the off peak return fare from Wigan Wallgate is dearer than that from Orrell being £5.90 against £5.80. The anytime from Wigan is £9.30 against £6.30 from Orrell.

Bryan

Joyce Whitchurch

2017-08-11 19:02:01 UTC