A couple of weeks ago due to unforeseen circumstance I was running late for my train to work (Maidstone to Snodland 10mins - £3.60) and had to jump on the train without buying a ticket, knowing someone would be round.
A member of staff came round and I asked if I could buy a return for the journey. He said he couldn't sell me one but would have to take my details and I'd be written to and could explain my reason (which I told him at the time).
Letter arrived a week later saying i'd been involved in an incident on X at X (details of incident not specified) and said I had to reply within 7 days or prosecution would follow. I completed the enclosed form with my details and wrote a page explaining why it happened etc etc.
Letter received back today saying there was nothing in my response that negates my legal liability in this matter bla bla bla. They then say policy is to prosecute all those reported for fare evasion, however considering my particular circumstances and my first reported offence, on this occasion only they will settle prior to a court summons if I pay the £3.60 fare avoided and a contribution of £125 towards their costs to date and must be paid within 21 days etc etc. Failure will lead to the issue of a summons without further warning.
Now despite the fact I could not avoid the circumstance on the day I can tolerate a fine just about. Where I'm fuming is the £125 towards our costs to date. Now they have sent me two letters - that plus a bit of system updating does not equate to £125 to me and is completely unreasonable for a £3.60 avoided fare.
The fact the service is shit and often involves late trains and cancellations resulting in inconvenience and cost to me annoys me even more.
Does anyone believe I have a leg to stand on in challenging that cost? I'm sure they try it on, knowing that most will buckle under the threats, which I'll probably end up doing, but the principal of the matter infuriates me as much as anything.
Any advice or opinion appreciated.
Thanks.
@The Organiser How much of the blame do you put on yourself and how much on the rail company?
Do you practice at being such a wanker, or does it just come naturally?
My view on this, if it's not too late to contribute, is that irrespective as to what the reason for you being late is it doesn't affect the train company and they have a right to expect to receive the fare for the journey you are taking.
Years ago I had a friend that worked in London and lived close to me in Basildon. I used to see him on the train from time to time and he would, literally, jump off if he saw someone checking tickets. Obviously he never bought one. At the time my annual season ticket was about £2k and he reconed that he would have to change trains about once a fortnight and once every six weeks or so there would be people waiting at Fenchurch Street checking people's tickets. Interestingly they would only cover one exit at a time so he would just turn around and go out the other exit. I should point out that this was before the ticket barriers that we have now. Basically he would be 'caught' half a dozen times a year, pay a £10 on the spot fine, in cash, and give a false address.
In light of what this friend did I can understand why the train companies will almost always assume that someone without a ticket has no intention of paying. We need to remember that most of the railways receive subsidies from the Tax Payer so that their journey is, already, being part covered by someone else so to not even pay for it must be considered wrong. Please note that I am not accusing you of anything just trying to see it from the view of the train company that has a duty to collect as many fares as possible.
Even if you fully intended to buy the ticket on the train, or even at the other end of the journey (assuming that you wouldn't be running late by that point) there is no doubt that you can't, really, distinguish yourself from someone that had no intention of paying the fare.
I think it matters, in the grand scheme of things, if you were invited to 'just pay' and didn't. If you refused to pay £20, on the day for example, due to your circumstances, then they have incurred costs chasing you for the money. If you were invited to send payment with their first letter and you 'disputed' the sum to be paid then again they have had to pay a member of staff to write the letters, read your request to be allowed to travel without a valid ticket - I'm guessing that being late is not a valid reason but it might have needed to be referred to someone more senior to assess it and then they might have had to refer it to their legal team to decide what course of action would be taken.
All of that process would cost the train company money. Out if interest did you buy a ticket when you disembarked? If you did that then I suspect that you would have a good case to suggest that you always intended to pay it. If you didn't then, again, you fail to distinguish yourself from a fare dodger. I know this sounds sneaky but I might have asked fellow passengers to sell me their used ticket when I got off the train.
It doesn't seem realistic, in my view, that the passengers that pay their fare, and the Tax Payers that fund the subsidies should cover the wages of the staff that have to chase people for £3.60. Realistically the cost of running a debt recovery department is probably so high that they might not be making any profit on the £125 once you take into account the cost of the office, telephones, computers, IT support, pensions, Tax, NI, holidays, sick days and management.
If it is true that you have been randomly selected for this approach, opposed to just being asked to pay £7.20 (i.e. twice the fare) or even £20 then you can consider that to be bad luck. Or, alternatively, the chap that travels without a ticket and gets off with just paying a few quid above what he would have paid can consider himself lucky. However many stores advertise that shoplifters will be prosecuted and if one was late, one wouldn't just grab a bottle of wine off the shelf and take it and plan to pay extra the next time. If that did happen and the store wrote to the thief (all be it they weren't really stealing it they just didn't have time for the checkout operator to serve the customers in front of them) and invited them to pay a one off payment of £125 to avoid a criminal record for shoplifting they would be mad not to rip the store's hand off for the deal.
In reality, the truth is that you could have avoided traveling without a ticket on the day. You could have waited in line, bought a ticket and got a later train; you could have left earlier, all be it that this might not have been easy for you; you could, also, have purchased the train ticket in advance - you might have even been able to do this on the train from your mobile. Ultimately it is not the train company's responsibility to make it easier for you to buy a ticket when, for what I'm sure a very good reason, you chose to ride a train without one.
I suspect that you already have this answer but I would pay them what they ask to avoid prosecution as I don't think you can win and even if the judge says that the fine is excessive the Court costs by that point will likely be much more than £125 and you might be rewarded with a criminal record.
However, that needn't be the end of it. After you've paid (as you really need to make this go away asap) you should contact the CEO (as you've already been advised) and threaten to make a formal complaint. Chances are that if you do make a complaint, and even if you lose, it will cost the rain company money, that they can't hope to recover from you, so they might be inclined to pay you something to make you 'go away'.
If it is true that you have been randomly selected for this approach, opposed to just being asked to pay £7.20 (i.e. twice the fare) or even £20 then you can consider that to be bad luck. Or, alternatively, the chap that travels without a ticket and gets off with just paying a few quid above what he would have paid can consider himself lucky. However many stores advertise that shoplifters will be prosecuted and if one was late, one wouldn't just grab a bottle of wine off the shelf and take it and plan to pay extra the next time. If that did happen and the store wrote to the thief (all be it they weren't really stealing it they just didn't have time for the checkout operator to serve the customers in front of them) and invited them to pay a one off payment of £125 to avoid a criminal record for shoplifting they would be mad not to rip the store's hand off for the deal.
In reality, the truth is that you could have avoided traveling without a ticket on the day. You could have waited in line, bought a ticket and got a later train; you could have left earlier, all be it that this might not have been easy for you; you could, also, have purchased the train ticket in advance - you might have even been able to do this on the train from your mobile. Ultimately it is not the train company's responsibility to make it easier for you to buy a ticket when, for what I'm sure a very good reason, you chose to ride a train without one.
Don't really completely agree with this comparison at all.
This is more like blaming a shopper for trying to find more checkouts when they are all in use. You couldn't possibly prosecute someone who stepped past the checkout line to try to pay at the service desk. Even if it is not permitted to pay this way, you can only tell the shopper to go back to the checkouts or abandon his shopping.
It would be even more ridiculous if the shopper had actually paid at the service desk before!
If you want prosecute everyone without a ticket, I think you need to make it absolutely clear that it is a criminal offence to pass a certain point without a ticket. You can't put up notices about penalty or excess fares and then randomly prosecute people instead. That's like entrapment!
Don't really completely agree with this comparison at all.
This is more like blaming a shopper for trying to find more checkouts when they are all in use. You couldn't possibly prosecute someone who stepped past the checkout line to try to pay at the service desk. Even if it is not permitted to pay this way, you can only tell the shopper to go back to the checkouts or abandon his shopping.
It would be even more ridiculous if the shopper had actually paid at the service desk before!
If you want prosecute everyone without a ticket, I think you need to make it absolutely clear that it is a criminal offence to pass a certain point without a ticket. You can't put up notices about penalty or excess fares and then randomly prosecute people instead. That's like entrapment!
I'm not sure it's the train company's job to advise that it's a criminal offence to travel without a ticket. In the same way that it's not my responsibility to put a sign up to say that breaking into my house and raping my wife is a criminal offence.
As for going to another 'checkout' or 'service desk' to pay for something, that's like a passenger looking for a machine or another member of staff to pay. A decision was made not to pay before 'consuming' the journey, and there is no evidence to assume that, had he not been stopped, he would ever have paid. In fact looking for another way to pay is, exactly, what one should do before getting on the train.
Sometimes the companies are not trying to screw the little man into poverty, they are just looking to get paid for he job they do.
Don't really completely agree with this comparison at all.
This is more like blaming a shopper for trying to find more checkouts when they are all in use. You couldn't possibly prosecute someone who stepped past the checkout line to try to pay at the service desk. Even if it is not permitted to pay this way, you can only tell the shopper to go back to the checkouts or abandon his shopping.
It would be even more ridiculous if the shopper had actually paid at the service desk before!
If you want prosecute everyone without a ticket, I think you need to make it absolutely clear that it is a criminal offence to pass a certain point without a ticket. You can't put up notices about penalty or excess fares and then randomly prosecute people instead. That's like entrapment!
I'm not sure it's the train company's job to advise that it's a criminal offence to travel without a ticket. In the same way that it's not my responsibility to put a sign up to say that breaking into my house and raping my wife is a criminal offence.
As for going to another 'checkout' or 'service desk' to pay for something, that's like a passenger looking for a machine or another member of staff to pay. A decision was made not to pay before 'consuming' the journey, and there is no evidence to assume that, had he not been stopped, he would ever have paid. In fact looking for another way to pay is, exactly, what one should do before getting on the train.
Sometimes the companies are not trying to screw the little man into poverty, they are just looking to get paid for he job they do.
So perhaps ticket inspectors throughout the country should have the facility to take fares on the train.
Don't really completely agree with this comparison at all.
This is more like blaming a shopper for trying to find more checkouts when they are all in use. You couldn't possibly prosecute someone who stepped past the checkout line to try to pay at the service desk. Even if it is not permitted to pay this way, you can only tell the shopper to go back to the checkouts or abandon his shopping.
It would be even more ridiculous if the shopper had actually paid at the service desk before!
If you want prosecute everyone without a ticket, I think you need to make it absolutely clear that it is a criminal offence to pass a certain point without a ticket. You can't put up notices about penalty or excess fares and then randomly prosecute people instead. That's like entrapment!
I'm not sure it's the train company's job to advise that it's a criminal offence to travel without a ticket. In the same way that it's not my responsibility to put a sign up to say that breaking into my house and raping my wife is a criminal offence.
As for going to another 'checkout' or 'service desk' to pay for something, that's like a passenger looking for a machine or another member of staff to pay. A decision was made not to pay before 'consuming' the journey, and there is no evidence to assume that, had he not been stopped, he would ever have paid. In fact looking for another way to pay is, exactly, what one should do before getting on the train.
Sometimes the companies are not trying to screw the little man into poverty, they are just looking to get paid for he job they do.
So perhaps ticket inspectors throughout the country should have the facility to take fares on the train.
In principle I can see why this makes sense. However the train company already pay people and invest in machines to take payments at stations, and one can buy a ticket online. It couldn't be easier to buy the ticket. Also it's a criminal offence not to buy a ticket so they have no obligation to help those breaking the law to 'get away with it'. There is also the impact of having someone collecting tickets, potentially in cash, and the cost of security for them - maybe having to have these chaps work in pairs, which doubles the cost.
Also it makes more sense to charge non-payers a fine than for the initial ticket. There needs to be an incentive to just buy the ticket in the first place. If the train companies allowed everyone to travel without a ticket unless they get stopped and then just pay the normal fare very few people would bother to buy a ticket at all.
I'd even go as far as to say that hitting more people with £125 costs or giving them a criminal record would help to reduce fare dodging, and it pays for itself much more than having a ticket sales man (or two) at every station, on every platform (in the form of a machine) and on every train.
A couple of weeks ago due to unforeseen circumstance I was running late for my train to work (Maidstone to Snodland 10mins - £3.60) and had to jump on the train without buying a ticket, knowing someone would be round.
A member of staff came round and I asked if I could buy a return for the journey. He said he couldn't sell me one but would have to take my details and I'd be written to and could explain my reason (which I told him at the time).
Letter arrived a week later saying i'd been involved in an incident on X at X (details of incident not specified) and said I had to reply within 7 days or prosecution would follow. I completed the enclosed form with my details and wrote a page explaining why it happened etc etc.
Letter received back today saying there was nothing in my response that negates my legal liability in this matter bla bla bla. They then say policy is to prosecute all those reported for fare evasion, however considering my particular circumstances and my first reported offence, on this occasion only they will settle prior to a court summons if I pay the £3.60 fare avoided and a contribution of £125 towards their costs to date and must be paid within 21 days etc etc. Failure will lead to the issue of a summons without further warning.
Now despite the fact I could not avoid the circumstance on the day I can tolerate a fine just about. Where I'm fuming is the £125 towards our costs to date. Now they have sent me two letters - that plus a bit of system updating does not equate to £125 to me and is completely unreasonable for a £3.60 avoided fare.
The fact the service is shit and often involves late trains and cancellations resulting in inconvenience and cost to me annoys me even more.
Does anyone believe I have a leg to stand on in challenging that cost? I'm sure they try it on, knowing that most will buckle under the threats, which I'll probably end up doing, but the principal of the matter infuriates me as much as anything.
Any advice or opinion appreciated.
Thanks.
@The Organiser How much of the blame do you put on yourself and how much on the rail company?
Do you practice at being such a wanker, or does it just come naturally?
I wasn't surprised when @The Organiser chose to reply to my question to him in a civil manner.
Sadly, I'm equally unsurprised you've chosen to take offence on his behalf and by your continued trolling.
Ok let's try one more slightly ridiculous analogy!
You wander into a restaurant, sit down and order a meal which is served to you and you start to eat it. At this point a man arrives and asks you if you've paid for the food you're consuming. You reply that you expected to pay after eating the meal and guess what comes next.....
I think many people still believe they can pay for a journey on the train or at their destination albeit with a possible excess or penalty fare. In many parts of the world and in other parts of the country this is quite normal.
If it is not true in this case then South Eastern should make it very clear or attempt to prevent non-ticket holders from boarding the train.
Sorry to be so argumentative about this. I actually detest fare dodgers so I'm not sure why I feel so strongly about it!
Ok let's try one more slightly ridiculous analogy!
You wander into a restaurant, sit down and order a meal which is served to you and you start to eat it. At this point a man arrives and asks you if you've paid for the food you're consuming. You reply that you expected to pay after eating the meal and guess what comes next.....
I think many people still believe they can pay for a journey on the train or at their destination albeit with a possible excess or penalty fare. In many parts of the world and in other parts of the country this is quite normal.
If it is not true in this case then South Eastern should make it very clear or attempt to prevent non-ticket holders from boarding the train.
Sorry to be so argumentative about this. I actually detest fare dodgers so I'm not sure why I feel so strongly about it!
What would you suggest Southeastern should do to make it clearer that you shouldn't board a train without a valid ticket?
Ok let's try one more slightly ridiculous analogy!
You wander into a restaurant, sit down and order a meal which is served to you and you start to eat it. At this point a man arrives and asks you if you've paid for the food you're consuming. You reply that you expected to pay after eating the meal and guess what comes next.....
I think many people still believe they can pay for a journey on the train or at their destination albeit with a possible excess or penalty fare. In many parts of the world and in other parts of the country this is quite normal.
If it is not true in this case then South Eastern should make it very clear or attempt to prevent non-ticket holders from boarding the train.
Sorry to be so argumentative about this. I actually detest fare dodgers so I'm not sure why I feel so strongly about it!
Steve they do say that you have to buy a ticket. Most restaurants allow you to eat first, some don't - pubs and McDonalds for example.
Just because people think they are allowed to pay 'on route' doesn't change the fact that it is a criminal offence to attempt to do so. Ignorance is no excuse. If someone drinks too much to drive but thinks they are ok and they are breathalised they still lose their licence. It is the responsibility of the individual to abide by the laws, it's not the responsibility of anyone else to point those rules out.
I'm not being difficult Steve, and I have a lot of sympathy with The Organiser, I just think that when one is, technically, in the wrong one has to stop defending their position and take their punishment.
Ok let's try one more slightly ridiculous analogy!
You wander into a restaurant, sit down and order a meal which is served to you and you start to eat it. At this point a man arrives and asks you if you've paid for the food you're consuming. You reply that you expected to pay after eating the meal and guess what comes next.....
I think many people still believe they can pay for a journey on the train or at their destination albeit with a possible excess or penalty fare. In many parts of the world and in other parts of the country this is quite normal.
If it is not true in this case then South Eastern should make it very clear or attempt to prevent non-ticket holders from boarding the train.
Sorry to be so argumentative about this. I actually detest fare dodgers so I'm not sure why I feel so strongly about it!
Steve they do say that you have to buy a ticket. Most restaurants allow you to eat first, some don't - pubs and McDonalds for example.
Just because people think they are allowed to pay 'on route' doesn't change the fact that it is a criminal offence to attempt to do so. Ignorance is no excuse. If someone drinks too much to drive but thinks they are ok and they are breathalised they still lose their licence. It is the responsibility of the individual to abide by the laws, it's not the responsibility of anyone else to point those rules out.
I'm not being difficult Steve, and I have a lot of sympathy with The Organiser, I just think that when one is, technically, in the wrong one has to stop defending their position and take their punishment.
Life is not always black and white. Like my barnet, there is always a grey area.
Ok let's try one more slightly ridiculous analogy!
You wander into a restaurant, sit down and order a meal which is served to you and you start to eat it. At this point a man arrives and asks you if you've paid for the food you're consuming. You reply that you expected to pay after eating the meal and guess what comes next.....
I think many people still believe they can pay for a journey on the train or at their destination albeit with a possible excess or penalty fare. In many parts of the world and in other parts of the country this is quite normal.
If it is not true in this case then South Eastern should make it very clear or attempt to prevent non-ticket holders from boarding the train.
Sorry to be so argumentative about this. I actually detest fare dodgers so I'm not sure why I feel so strongly about it!
Steve they do say that you have to buy a ticket. Most restaurants allow you to eat first, some don't - pubs and McDonalds for example.
Just because people think they are allowed to pay 'on route' doesn't change the fact that it is a criminal offence to attempt to do so. Ignorance is no excuse. If someone drinks too much to drive but thinks they are ok and they are breathalised they still lose their licence. It is the responsibility of the individual to abide by the laws, it's not the responsibility of anyone else to point those rules out.
I'm not being difficult Steve, and I have a lot of sympathy with The Organiser, I just think that when one is, technically, in the wrong one has to stop defending their position and take their punishment.
My impression is that @The Organiser understands and accepts he is in the wrong.
The issue is South Eastern appearing to shift the goalposts from their own published rules.
Paying what you owe plus a penalty for late payment is one thing extortion and intimidation quite another.
Ok let's try one more slightly ridiculous analogy!
You wander into a restaurant, sit down and order a meal which is served to you and you start to eat it. At this point a man arrives and asks you if you've paid for the food you're consuming. You reply that you expected to pay after eating the meal and guess what comes next.....
I think many people still believe they can pay for a journey on the train or at their destination albeit with a possible excess or penalty fare. In many parts of the world and in other parts of the country this is quite normal.
If it is not true in this case then South Eastern should make it very clear or attempt to prevent non-ticket holders from boarding the train.
Sorry to be so argumentative about this. I actually detest fare dodgers so I'm not sure why I feel so strongly about it!
Steve they do say that you have to buy a ticket. Most restaurants allow you to eat first, some don't - pubs and McDonalds for example.
Just because people think they are allowed to pay 'on route' doesn't change the fact that it is a criminal offence to attempt to do so. Ignorance is no excuse. If someone drinks too much to drive but thinks they are ok and they are breathalised they still lose their licence. It is the responsibility of the individual to abide by the laws, it's not the responsibility of anyone else to point those rules out.
I'm not being difficult Steve, and I have a lot of sympathy with The Organiser, I just think that when one is, technically, in the wrong one has to stop defending their position and take their punishment.
My impression is that @The Organiser understands and accepts he is in the wrong.
The issue is South Eastern appearing to shift the goalposts from their own published rules.
Paying what you owe plus a penalty for late payment is one thing extortion and intimidation quite another.
@kings hill addick it is not a criminal offence to travel without a ticket. It is a criminal offence if it can be proven you intended to avoid payment for a ticket.
The penalty fare system is a more efficient way of collecting fares that may or may not have been collected and may or may not have involved criminal intent. Intent is not always easy to prove beyond reasonable doubt in a Court of law.
The example here, in my view, is an attempt to apply pressure on a traveller into making a payment greater than the penalty fare system generates. It's an offer to settle out of Court, but it's a tactic clearly intended to generate more revenue through the fear factor of risking getting a criminal record.
This subject was discussed on radio 4's program 'You and Yours' today (Monday). Bloke unable to purchase a train ticket and refused to pay £100 as he thought it was excessive and was fined £600 by the court. Tory M.P. taking up his case.
What pisses me off is a few times a month I go from Bickley to Kent house been doing this for 3 years not on one occasion have I seen a ticket inspector. Then think to myself Imagine I've got a newsagents elfsborg comes in everyday for his paper, have put a note up "out the back please leave money by the till" Once twice maybe after 5 days though of leaving the sign up I'm taking the piss. It's not hard Make it clear no ticket no travel ,everyone knows where they are. Or f@cking employ some staff to check tickets. Another day they would of just let organiser buy a ticket
Slightly off the main topic... I have a monthly season ticket from Grove Park to London terminals but twice a week I need to start my journey from Eltham. Both Grove Park and Eltham are in the same zone, so will my season ticket still be valid from Eltham? Can anyone advise with confidence as I don't want to incur penalty fares and I have tried to find the answer elsewhere on the internet to no real avail.
Def the former Alwaysneil - offered to pay the ticket there and then and would, given the opportunity, have accepted a fine if it had been forthcoming. Had similar happen to me about 8 years ago and was fined £20 on the spot - no problem with that despite how unjust it felt, the rules are the rules.
Did they take down your details or was everything settled anonymously?
On the prior occasion? Hard to remember but I think they may have taken details when they issued the fine, which I did pay at the time and they said that is the end of the matter.
Slightly off the main topic... I have a monthly season ticket from Grove Park to London terminals but twice a week I need to start my journey from Eltham. Both Grove Park and Eltham are in the same zone, so will my season ticket still be valid from Eltham? Can anyone advise with confidence as I don't want to incur penalty fares and I have tried to find the answer elsewhere on the internet to no real avail.
A Season Ticket covers specific zones rather then specific stations so I am sure it would be valid. Best to ask at one of the offices but I am certain you will be fine as long as you are starting in a zone covered by your pass
Slightly off the main topic... I have a monthly season ticket from Grove Park to London terminals but twice a week I need to start my journey from Eltham. Both Grove Park and Eltham are in the same zone, so will my season ticket still be valid from Eltham? Can anyone advise with confidence as I don't want to incur penalty fares and I have tried to find the answer elsewhere on the internet to no real avail.
Technically, your ticket will not be valid as it is called a Point to Point ticket and is only valid between the stations named on it. Unless it's a Travelcard, it is not zonal.
Slightly off the main topic... I have a monthly season ticket from Grove Park to London terminals but twice a week I need to start my journey from Eltham. Both Grove Park and Eltham are in the same zone, so will my season ticket still be valid from Eltham? Can anyone advise with confidence as I don't want to incur penalty fares and I have tried to find the answer elsewhere on the internet to no real avail.
Are there the automated barriers at Eltham, and does the Grove Park ticket let you in to the station through them? If they do, then that suggests you should be fine, if they don't then that's your answer. I think that you might be out of luck though, as iirc the specific route season tickets are cheaper than the zoned ones (although admittedly I've not had a season ticket for a LONG time, so that may no longer be true), so if you want to travel on more than one route you'd need to stump up for a zone 1-4(?) travelcard instead. You're probably better off going to the ticket office when it's quiet and asking them though, as they'll have a better idea than we will.
Slightly off the main topic... I have a monthly season ticket from Grove Park to London terminals but twice a week I need to start my journey from Eltham. Both Grove Park and Eltham are in the same zone, so will my season ticket still be valid from Eltham? Can anyone advise with confidence as I don't want to incur penalty fares and I have tried to find the answer elsewhere on the internet to no real avail.
You're probably better off going to the ticket office when it's quiet and asking them though, as they'll have a better idea than we will.
Slightly off the main topic... I have a monthly season ticket from Grove Park to London terminals but twice a week I need to start my journey from Eltham. Both Grove Park and Eltham are in the same zone, so will my season ticket still be valid from Eltham? Can anyone advise with confidence as I don't want to incur penalty fares and I have tried to find the answer elsewhere on the internet to no real avail.
A Season Ticket covers specific zones rather then specific stations so I am sure it would be valid. Best to ask at one of the offices but I am certain you will be fine as long as you are starting in a zone covered by your pass
got that wrong didn't I; I did not know they did point to point season tickets
Comments
Years ago I had a friend that worked in London and lived close to me in Basildon. I used to see him on the train from time to time and he would, literally, jump off if he saw someone checking tickets. Obviously he never bought one. At the time my annual season ticket was about £2k and he reconed that he would have to change trains about once a fortnight and once every six weeks or so there would be people waiting at Fenchurch Street checking people's tickets. Interestingly they would only cover one exit at a time so he would just turn around and go out the other exit. I should point out that this was before the ticket barriers that we have now. Basically he would be 'caught' half a dozen times a year, pay a £10 on the spot fine, in cash, and give a false address.
In light of what this friend did I can understand why the train companies will almost always assume that someone without a ticket has no intention of paying. We need to remember that most of the railways receive subsidies from the Tax Payer so that their journey is, already, being part covered by someone else so to not even pay for it must be considered wrong. Please note that I am not accusing you of anything just trying to see it from the view of the train company that has a duty to collect as many fares as possible.
Even if you fully intended to buy the ticket on the train, or even at the other end of the journey (assuming that you wouldn't be running late by that point) there is no doubt that you can't, really, distinguish yourself from someone that had no intention of paying the fare.
I think it matters, in the grand scheme of things, if you were invited to 'just pay' and didn't. If you refused to pay £20, on the day for example, due to your circumstances, then they have incurred costs chasing you for the money. If you were invited to send payment with their first letter and you 'disputed' the sum to be paid then again they have had to pay a member of staff to write the letters, read your request to be allowed to travel without a valid ticket - I'm guessing that being late is not a valid reason but it might have needed to be referred to someone more senior to assess it and then they might have had to refer it to their legal team to decide what course of action would be taken.
All of that process would cost the train company money. Out if interest did you buy a ticket when you disembarked? If you did that then I suspect that you would have a good case to suggest that you always intended to pay it. If you didn't then, again, you fail to distinguish yourself from a fare dodger. I know this sounds sneaky but I might have asked fellow passengers to sell me their used ticket when I got off the train.
It doesn't seem realistic, in my view, that the passengers that pay their fare, and the Tax Payers that fund the subsidies should cover the wages of the staff that have to chase people for £3.60. Realistically the cost of running a debt recovery department is probably so high that they might not be making any profit on the £125 once you take into account the cost of the office, telephones, computers, IT support, pensions, Tax, NI, holidays, sick days and management.
If it is true that you have been randomly selected for this approach, opposed to just being asked to pay £7.20 (i.e. twice the fare) or even £20 then you can consider that to be bad luck. Or, alternatively, the chap that travels without a ticket and gets off with just paying a few quid above what he would have paid can consider himself lucky. However many stores advertise that shoplifters will be prosecuted and if one was late, one wouldn't just grab a bottle of wine off the shelf and take it and plan to pay extra the next time. If that did happen and the store wrote to the thief (all be it they weren't really stealing it they just didn't have time for the checkout operator to serve the customers in front of them) and invited them to pay a one off payment of £125 to avoid a criminal record for shoplifting they would be mad not to rip the store's hand off for the deal.
In reality, the truth is that you could have avoided traveling without a ticket on the day. You could have waited in line, bought a ticket and got a later train; you could have left earlier, all be it that this might not have been easy for you; you could, also, have purchased the train ticket in advance - you might have even been able to do this on the train from your mobile. Ultimately it is not the train company's responsibility to make it easier for you to buy a ticket when, for what I'm sure a very good reason, you chose to ride a train without one.
I suspect that you already have this answer but I would pay them what they ask to avoid prosecution as I don't think you can win and even if the judge says that the fine is excessive the Court costs by that point will likely be much more than £125 and you might be rewarded with a criminal record.
However, that needn't be the end of it. After you've paid (as you really need to make this go away asap) you should contact the CEO (as you've already been advised) and threaten to make a formal complaint. Chances are that if you do make a complaint, and even if you lose, it will cost the rain company money, that they can't hope to recover from you, so they might be inclined to pay you something to make you 'go away'.
I would just like to say "Solly".
Kind regards,
@The Organiser "
Job done.
This is more like blaming a shopper for trying to find more checkouts when they are all in use. You couldn't possibly prosecute someone who stepped past the checkout line to try to pay at the service desk. Even if it is not permitted to pay this way, you can only tell the shopper to go back to the checkouts or abandon his shopping.
It would be even more ridiculous if the shopper had actually paid at the service desk before!
If you want prosecute everyone without a ticket, I think you need to make it absolutely clear that it is a criminal offence to pass a certain point without a ticket. You can't put up notices about penalty or excess fares and then randomly prosecute people instead. That's like entrapment!
As for going to another 'checkout' or 'service desk' to pay for something, that's like a passenger looking for a machine or another member of staff to pay. A decision was made not to pay before 'consuming' the journey, and there is no evidence to assume that, had he not been stopped, he would ever have paid. In fact looking for another way to pay is, exactly, what one should do before getting on the train.
Sometimes the companies are not trying to screw the little man into poverty, they are just looking to get paid for he job they do.
Also it makes more sense to charge non-payers a fine than for the initial ticket. There needs to be an incentive to just buy the ticket in the first place. If the train companies allowed everyone to travel without a ticket unless they get stopped and then just pay the normal fare very few people would bother to buy a ticket at all.
I'd even go as far as to say that hitting more people with £125 costs or giving them a criminal record would help to reduce fare dodging, and it pays for itself much more than having a ticket sales man (or two) at every station, on every platform (in the form of a machine) and on every train.
Sadly, I'm equally unsurprised you've chosen to take offence on his behalf and by your continued trolling.
If only just in case Kings Hill Addick is a Revenue Collection Officer and boards your choo choo.
You wander into a restaurant, sit down and order a meal which is served to you and you start to eat it. At this point a man arrives and asks you if you've paid for the food you're consuming. You reply that you expected to pay after eating the meal and guess what comes next.....
I think many people still believe they can pay for a journey on the train or at their destination albeit with a possible excess or penalty fare. In many parts of the world and in other parts of the country this is quite normal.
If it is not true in this case then South Eastern should make it very clear or attempt to prevent non-ticket holders from boarding the train.
Sorry to be so argumentative about this. I actually detest fare dodgers so I'm not sure why I feel so strongly about it!
Just because people think they are allowed to pay 'on route' doesn't change the fact that it is a criminal offence to attempt to do so. Ignorance is no excuse. If someone drinks too much to drive but thinks they are ok and they are breathalised they still lose their licence. It is the responsibility of the individual to abide by the laws, it's not the responsibility of anyone else to point those rules out.
I'm not being difficult Steve, and I have a lot of sympathy with The Organiser, I just think that when one is, technically, in the wrong one has to stop defending their position and take their punishment.
The issue is South Eastern appearing to shift the goalposts from their own published rules.
Paying what you owe plus a penalty for late payment is one thing extortion and intimidation quite another.
The penalty fare system is a more efficient way of collecting fares that may or may not have been collected and may or may not have involved criminal intent. Intent is not always easy to prove beyond reasonable doubt in a Court of law.
The example here, in my view, is an attempt to apply pressure on a traveller into making a payment greater than the penalty fare system generates. It's an offer to settle out of Court, but it's a tactic clearly intended to generate more revenue through the fear factor of risking getting a criminal record.
I'd be interested to find out what happens if it does go to court though.
Bloke unable to purchase a train ticket and refused to pay £100 as he thought it was excessive and was fined £600 by the court. Tory M.P. taking up his case.
Then think to myself
Imagine I've got a newsagents elfsborg comes in everyday for his paper, have put a note up "out the back please leave money by the till"
Once twice maybe after 5 days though of leaving the sign up I'm taking the piss.
It's not hard
Make it clear no ticket no travel ,everyone knows where they are.
Or f@cking employ some staff to check tickets.
Another day they would of just let organiser buy a ticket