Caught without a day ticket - Chiltern

[HurdyGurdy]

The compensation for fare avoided is suggested by the train company.

Do train companies suggest to magistrates that the compensation due is the full undiscounted anytime single fare, disregarding any fare that has actually been paid?

 

[AlterEgo]

Do train companies suggest to magistrates that the compensation due is the full undiscounted anytime single fare, disregarding any fare that has actually been paid?

They often do. I suppose it depends on the train company. Here’s an example where a passenger paid their fare, but had done so after boarding, committing an offence in the process. No credit was given for the fare already paid.

Single Justice Procedure Notice from Chiltern Railways

Hi everyone, Last September I was stopped by a Revenue Protection Officer after I had passed through the barriers at my destination station. I started my journey at Hall Green and ended it at Birmingham Moor Street. They asked to see my ticket, and when I showed it to them, they said it was...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[HurdyGurdy]

No credit was given for the fare already paid.

Already paid at the time the offence was committed?

Am I right that in that case the fare of £3.30 was the undiscounted anytime single fare and it was also the fare due, but it was paid after boarding the train? If so, I suppose it was the case that at the time the offence was committed, no fare had been paid, so the fare avoided by intending to travel without a valid ticket was £3.30, which happens to be the anytime single fare.

I am thinking of a case where someone travelling with a railcard discounted off-peak return ticket cannot produce the relevant valid railcard. Does the train company suggest to the court that the fare avoided is the price of out and back anytime single tickets?

My take is that an out of court settlement is a completely unregulated negotiation between two parties - so it doesn't have to be based on anything.

My take is that the parties cannot act unlawfully. One party cannot say; "pay us this amount or we prosecute", as that would be a form of blackmail. That the party can legally prosecute doesn't change that.

 

[AlterEgo]

Already paid at the time the offence was committed?

The offence was committed as soon as they boarded the train without a valid ticket - exactly the same as someone with an expired railcard.

Am I right that in that case the fare of £3.30 was the undiscounted anytime single fare and it was also the fare due, but it was paid after boarding the train? If so, I suppose it was the case that at the time the offence was committed, no fare had been paid

The fare had been paid - and the correct fare too, covering the full journey, at the time of inspection.

so the fare avoided by intending to travel without a valid ticket was £3.30, which happens to be the anytime single fare.

That was not the offence; no allegation of intent or evading the fare was made. The charge there was Bylaw 18.(1), one of strict liability:

18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas​

1. in any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel

I am thinking of a case where someone travelling with a railcard discounted off-peak return ticket cannot produce the relevant valid railcard. Does the train company suggest to the court that the fare avoided is the price of out and back anytime single tickets?

Not out and back, but rather it’s often one anytime single, for the single journey they were caught. That is the fare they are entitled to charge and the loss they often claim to the court. The ticket is valueless without a railcard to support it. If you search the forum you can find examples of this, also where the charge has been Bylaw 18.(1).

I don’t see how the argument that “well, you decided to prosecute rather than make the charge for a new ticket, so you don’t get to claim it as a loss” holds any water. That would mean that train companies could never claim any losses at all.

 

[methecooldude]

My take is that the parties cannot act unlawfully. One party cannot say; "pay us this amount or we prosecute", as that would be a form of blackmail. That the party can legally prosecute doesn't change that.

Totally off-topic, but hello TV Licencing!

 

[HurdyGurdy]

I don’t see how the argument that “well, you decided to prosecute rather than make the charge for a new ticket, so you don’t get to claim it as a loss” holds any water. That would mean that train companies could never claim any losses at all.

It doesn't mean that the train company cannot claim any compensation for the loss they have suffered as a consequence of the crime. They can claim the difference between the fare which should have been paid at the outset and any fare that had actually paid at the time the offence was committed. That is the fare avoided. Once costs are added, the company is then in the same financial position it would have been, had the offence not been committed.

 

[AlterEgo]

It doesn't mean that the train company cannot claim any compensation for the loss they have suffered as a consequence of the crime. They can claim the difference between the fare which should have been paid at the outset and any fare that had actually paid at the time the offence was committed. That is the fare avoided.

But these Bylaw offences do not consider a fare *avoided*. The correct fare payable by someone who boards a train without a valid ticket (the time they commit the offence) is the Anytime Single for that journey.

Once costs are added, the company is then in the same financial position it would have been, had the offence not been committed.

Only if by “had the offence not been committed” you mean the passenger remembering to renew the railcard, and not, perhaps, deciding not to take the train at all (in which case the “same financial position” is actually a loss).

 

[island]

My take is that the parties cannot act unlawfully. One party cannot say; "pay us this amount or we prosecute", as that would be a form of blackmail. That the party can legally prosecute doesn't change that.

That may be your “take” or opinion, but it is not how things work in the law of England and Wales.

 

[Brissle Girl]

That may be your “take” or opinion, but it is not how things work in the law of England and Wales.

Indeed, @HurdyGurdy seems to be suggesting that the TOCs have been acting unlawfully for many years, which is a remarkably confident assertion to make.

 

[Hadders]

I do believe there needs to be some reform of how ticketless travel is dealt with we do need to be careful what we wish for.

If people are allowed to pay the difference in fares only then 'pay when challenged' will become common place. The consequence of that is goodbye to out of court settlements and more cases going to court. That will then criminalise people for low level rail ticketing matters.

I don't think that would be a good thing.

 

[furlong]

As I understand things, when a train company cites criminal law, its compensation - whether in court or out-of-court - is limited to that which puts it back into the position it would have been in had the alleged offence not been committed. The fare component of that is taken as the additional amount that the passenger would have paid, evidenced for example by past behaviour (e.g. buys weekly seasons) or else by what a typical passenger like them does. There are only two ways to give the passenger a penalty: Either impose a Penalty Fare or secure a conviction and let the court impose a fine. There is a bit of scope for the train company to get away with being slightly imaginative in what it asks for when the stakes are low but it's a fine line and we see shades of some of what the Post Office was doing in some of the letters shown on the forum. Personally I consider most of the administration charges we read about on here to be unjustifiably high, as if they are attempting to obtain contributions to overheads that would have existed irrespective of the individual passenger's behaviour. The agreements the train companies operate within provide no scope for creating any unofficial system of penalties outside the law or for requesting payments beyond what is needed to properly compensate them on the basis described.

However, separately, the contract already specifies the fare that is due in given circumstances. This could lead to a higher amount being due than the train company would receive as compensation for an alleged criminal offence. Using civil law, for example, might sometimes indeed lead to higher fares based on Anytime Singles one journey at a time needing to be paid, with no credit allowed for invalid tickets and no possibility of calculations based on season ticket rates.

After a conviction, if the train company believes the contract specified that a higher fare was due than it received in compensation, then nothing stops it from inviting a civil court to agree and order additional sums to be paid. (It's out-of-scope for the criminal court to consider whether anything extra is due contractually. The current wording of the contract might make this harder than it ought to have been - circumstances vary. Nothing prevents the contract from specifying payments that amount to penalties.)

 

[gholamkabuj]

I have a question regarding the administrative disposal. Would it be recorded on one’s criminal record? As I understand, a court can issue a warning which would be recorded, but this is not the same as the “warning” coming with an AD by a TOC?

 

[swt_passenger]

I have a question regarding the administrative disposal. Would it be recorded on one’s criminal record? As I understand, a court can issue a warning which would be recorded, but this is not the same as the “warning” coming with an AD by a TOC?

Administrative disposals, usually referred to as ‘out of court settlements’, that are negotiated directly with a TOC have nothing whatsoever to do with the court system, so no they don’t affect a criminal record.

I’m not aware of circumstances where courts “issue a warning”, though.

 

[Haywain]

I have a question regarding the administrative disposal. Would it be recorded on one’s criminal record? As I understand, a court can issue a warning which would be recorded, but this is not the same as the “warning” coming with an AD by a TOC?

No, it will not be recorded.

 

[Pushpit]

I have a question regarding the administrative disposal. Would it be recorded on one’s criminal record? As I understand, a court can issue a warning which would be recorded, but this is not the same as the “warning” coming with an AD by a TOC?

No, that would have no impact on a criminal record, that can only come via the court system. Police can issue cautions, which form part of criminal records. But rail companies can't do either, and an administrative disposal, out of court settlement, avoids all of this. If a court finds you guilty, you have a criminal record, even if the sentence is an unconditional discharge.

 

[gholamkabuj]

Hello everyone,

I wanted to thank you all for all your help and advice along the way. I have made the payment. Is there anything I should do now? Such as making sure the SJP paperwork is withdrawn?

 

[AlbertBeale]

Hello everyone,

I wanted to thank you all for all your help and advice along the way. I have made the payment. Is there anything I should do now? Such as making sure the SJP paperwork is withdrawn?

For complete peace of mind, if I were in your situation I'd probably want to have proof that my case had been taken out of the court system. Even if it ended up in court in error and the prosecution was someone invalid, you'd still have the problem of then "unwinding" the situation.