Getting on a train late (or off early) and being fined
Discussion
Not anything to do with me personally, but I'm curious about the legal workings of something.
A person buys a Megatrain ticket from let's say Weymouth to London. It's a cheap, restrictive ticket for a particular train. The underlying contract is the National Rail Conditions of Carriage.
They get on this exact same train but at Dorchester, which is a stop later (in the right direction) than Weymouth. The inspector says their ticket isn't valid and makes them buy a new one.
My limited knowledge of contract law leads me to question how this works. There's no such thing as a penalty fine in English contract law, only damages. This is a little bit like the parking cases in which it turned out the defendant wasn't liable for any damages since no monetary figure could be put on occupying a free space for any length of time including longer than the sign allowed. Similarly I can't see what damage is done by this particular breach of contract - what does travelling for a shorter distance cost the train company? - and so I would have thought that calls into question the ticket's lack of validity.
And yet, apparently, it does happen: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315587/Pr...
What am I missing?
A person buys a Megatrain ticket from let's say Weymouth to London. It's a cheap, restrictive ticket for a particular train. The underlying contract is the National Rail Conditions of Carriage.
They get on this exact same train but at Dorchester, which is a stop later (in the right direction) than Weymouth. The inspector says their ticket isn't valid and makes them buy a new one.
My limited knowledge of contract law leads me to question how this works. There's no such thing as a penalty fine in English contract law, only damages. This is a little bit like the parking cases in which it turned out the defendant wasn't liable for any damages since no monetary figure could be put on occupying a free space for any length of time including longer than the sign allowed. Similarly I can't see what damage is done by this particular breach of contract - what does travelling for a shorter distance cost the train company? - and so I would have thought that calls into question the ticket's lack of validity.
And yet, apparently, it does happen: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315587/Pr...
What am I missing?
"East Coast has cancelled Professor Evans’s penalty as a ‘goodwill gesture’, but insisted that the policy was standard across the train industry."
Last I remember it wasn't an issue, in Birmingham you could get off a train, do something like go shopping etc, and then continue on later as long it was still under the same prices.
Last I remember it wasn't an issue, in Birmingham you could get off a train, do something like go shopping etc, and then continue on later as long it was still under the same prices.
Odd mix of laws on UK Railways. I agree that the limit of damages related purely to loss would be the likely penalty applied by a court of law if a ticket holder failed to comply with minor requirements of the contract entered into when purchased. Thus not travelling as far as entitled clearly cannot actually involve any actual loss to the railway provider and arguably saves money because the train is hauling less weight.
I think it s a modern try on which the railways hope to get away with. If challenged I think they will take their ball in and give up. In theory they could refuse to sell a ticket unless the conditions were adhered to in full but I rather doubt they would in practice.
I think it s a modern try on which the railways hope to get away with. If challenged I think they will take their ball in and give up. In theory they could refuse to sell a ticket unless the conditions were adhered to in full but I rather doubt they would in practice.
You'll probably find that penalty fares are specifically allowed for under the railway byelaws.
I don't think your passenger is being fined in any case. Instead, their breach of contract means they're travelling without a valid ticket and are therefore required to buy a valid ticket for their actual journey. The railway is kind enough to recognise what was paid for the invalid ticket and therefore only require the passenger to pay the difference between it and the lowest fare on the day (normally more expensive) as an Excess Fare. The alternative is prosecution I suppose.
The ability to break your journey tends to depend on the ticket type and operator. Some might allow it, some (typically the cheap tickets) won't.
The operator would argue that a) the passenger is avoiding a more expensive fare (a common reason for starting/stopping at an intermediate station) and/or b) it denies them the ability to sell the same seat to another passenger for the unused part of the journey. Hence make it a condition of the ticket's validity that the passenger boards/detrains at the agreed stations.
Anyone who boards the local tram without buying a normal £1.50 fare is required to pay the "standard fare" of £10. The way the tram company seens it is that it isn't a fine - the passengers just doesn't receive a discount for buying the ticket before boarding.
I don't think your passenger is being fined in any case. Instead, their breach of contract means they're travelling without a valid ticket and are therefore required to buy a valid ticket for their actual journey. The railway is kind enough to recognise what was paid for the invalid ticket and therefore only require the passenger to pay the difference between it and the lowest fare on the day (normally more expensive) as an Excess Fare. The alternative is prosecution I suppose.
The ability to break your journey tends to depend on the ticket type and operator. Some might allow it, some (typically the cheap tickets) won't.
The operator would argue that a) the passenger is avoiding a more expensive fare (a common reason for starting/stopping at an intermediate station) and/or b) it denies them the ability to sell the same seat to another passenger for the unused part of the journey. Hence make it a condition of the ticket's validity that the passenger boards/detrains at the agreed stations.
Anyone who boards the local tram without buying a normal £1.50 fare is required to pay the "standard fare" of £10. The way the tram company seens it is that it isn't a fine - the passengers just doesn't receive a discount for buying the ticket before boarding.
This is nothing new. On the Train Line, London to Norwich, about £35. London to Sheringham, changing at Norwich, about £10. If they catch you leaving the station at Norwich on a Sheringham ticket, they go mental. Fortunately I've never been caught, but I know someone who has.
Same scenario with London the Chester being 3 times the price of London to Hollyhead, changing at Chester.
Same scenario with London the Chester being 3 times the price of London to Hollyhead, changing at Chester.
I often get a ticket from the large station in our town then board at my local smaller station, it's closer to my destination. Because there is more competition at the large station it's cheaper to get a ticket from there. My conductor mate told me to do this, never been told not to by a conductor.
I'm a long way from being an expert on this but as far as I know the various rail companies offer advance tickets at substantially reduced prices to the normal fare. That's the good bit - the not so good bit is that in the Terms & Conditions it makes it clear that the ticket is only valid when being used for the exact journey that's been paid for, and at the exact time.
If you then make a longer or shorter journey, or travel at a different time, they will say that your ticket isn't valid as you're using it outside of the terms and conditions.
This means that they can - if they want to - prosecute you under the Railway Byelaws for travelling without a valid ticket. As an alternative to prosecution they offer you a penalty notice instead.
If you then make a longer or shorter journey, or travel at a different time, they will say that your ticket isn't valid as you're using it outside of the terms and conditions.
This means that they can - if they want to - prosecute you under the Railway Byelaws for travelling without a valid ticket. As an alternative to prosecution they offer you a penalty notice instead.
PV7998 said:
I'm a long way from being an expert on this but as far as I know the various rail companies offer advance tickets at substantially reduced prices to the normal fare. That's the good bit - the not so good bit is that in the Terms & Conditions it makes it clear that the ticket is only valid when being used for the exact journey that's been paid for, and at the exact time.
If you then make a longer or shorter journey, or travel at a different time, they will say that your ticket isn't valid as you're using it outside of the terms and conditions.
This means that they can - if they want to - prosecute you under the Railway Byelaws for travelling without a valid ticket. As an alternative to prosecution they offer you a penalty notice instead.
I did wonder about the Bye laws in relation to this matter. I rather wonder if such a prosecution has occurred in modern times and whether in fact the judiciary would allow it. If you then make a longer or shorter journey, or travel at a different time, they will say that your ticket isn't valid as you're using it outside of the terms and conditions.
This means that they can - if they want to - prosecute you under the Railway Byelaws for travelling without a valid ticket. As an alternative to prosecution they offer you a penalty notice instead.
This is quite interesting reading..............
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=2&a...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=2&a...
As far as I'm concerned you can get on and off at any station between your departure and destination stations. I've done it loads of times and just gotten back on another train and continued to my destination. Never been pulled for it, but I've never thought it to be a problem. Sounds backwards to me.
On reflection, I can understand the whole 'not a fine' point. If you look at it as being an act that firstly is a fundamental breach of contract which relieves the train company of their obligations to carry you any further, AND simultaneously forms the acceptance of a new contract which was an agreement to pay the walk-up price, then it fits.
That does seem dubious though. The fundamental breach of contract bit is what puzzles me. Presumably the TOCs aren't in the business of suing people who buy a ticket and don't turn up to use their services. There can't be any damages. I suppose the 'Rule of Construction' depends on whether you intended to do something fradulent.
I'd also wonder if, with that in mind, you could even claim the second bit of the idea - I'd say there was no intention of entering into the later contract.
PS: The Regulation of Railways Act and similar are criminal, but seem to be based on punishing deliberate acts of fraud (theft?); everything else including penalty fares seems to be civil contract law
That does seem dubious though. The fundamental breach of contract bit is what puzzles me. Presumably the TOCs aren't in the business of suing people who buy a ticket and don't turn up to use their services. There can't be any damages. I suppose the 'Rule of Construction' depends on whether you intended to do something fradulent.
I'd also wonder if, with that in mind, you could even claim the second bit of the idea - I'd say there was no intention of entering into the later contract.
PS: The Regulation of Railways Act and similar are criminal, but seem to be based on punishing deliberate acts of fraud (theft?); everything else including penalty fares seems to be civil contract law
Edited by trashbat on Sunday 27th July 20:42
You need to read and understand the thread quoted above. You can receive a CRIMINAL conviction from what is a private company employing the ticket inspectors - there is NO not guilty plea possible as it is an absolute offence.
Ridiculous isn't it - please complain to your MP to repeal these archaic laws.
Ridiculous isn't it - please complain to your MP to repeal these archaic laws.
elanfan said:
You need to read and understand the thread quoted above. You can receive a CRIMINAL conviction from what is a private company employing the ticket inspectors - there is NO not guilty plea possible as it is an absolute offence.
Ridiculous isn't it - please complain to your MP to repeal these archaic laws.
I did look at the first part of it. It looked to be about alleged fraud in that the TOC decided she was knowingly trying to con them out of part of the fare by buying a junior ticket. I don't see what you mean about no ability to plead not guilty, since she was to be summoned to court; maybe what you mean is there's no mitigation possible.Ridiculous isn't it - please complain to your MP to repeal these archaic laws.
You could argue the same misrepresentation/fraud might apply here, but it seems a stretch.
Edited by trashbat on Sunday 27th July 21:11
Slitting a journey into several "small journeys" is very much allowed - you don't even need to get off the train or leave the station etc.
However you can only do this when the train would actually stop at the station where your split ticket ends.
So for example, I could travel Cambridge to London and for argument sakes there might be 8 stops in between. If it was cheaper I could buy 8 individual tickets and then remain seated on the train - so long as the train I was on actually stops at all 8 stations. If I got on an express train that didn't stop, or a fast train that only stops at 5 of the 8 stations then I'd have invalid tickets.
They did similar on a Watchdog episode earlier this year where around 30%-60% could be saved on some of the more popular journeys if you purchased split-tickets for the journey.
The trick is making sure you could alight at the terminal point of each ticket if you wanted to - that way you have valid tiickets for the entire journey.
However you can only do this when the train would actually stop at the station where your split ticket ends.
So for example, I could travel Cambridge to London and for argument sakes there might be 8 stops in between. If it was cheaper I could buy 8 individual tickets and then remain seated on the train - so long as the train I was on actually stops at all 8 stations. If I got on an express train that didn't stop, or a fast train that only stops at 5 of the 8 stations then I'd have invalid tickets.
They did similar on a Watchdog episode earlier this year where around 30%-60% could be saved on some of the more popular journeys if you purchased split-tickets for the journey.
The trick is making sure you could alight at the terminal point of each ticket if you wanted to - that way you have valid tiickets for the entire journey.
trashbat said:
did look at the first part of it. It looked to be about alleged fraud in that the TOC decided she was knowingly trying to con them out of part of the fare by buying a junior ticket. I don't see what you mean about no ability to plead not guilty, since she was to be summoned to court; maybe what you mean is there's no mitigation possible.
You could argue the same misrepresentation/fraud might apply here, but it seems a stretch.
It is not about fraud - it is very similar to PPC's making money out of joe public except here it is backed by criminal law. These private ticket inspectors will find any 'loophole' or T&C if you like, to make money out of you (in the case you mention I guess they'd argue you were travelling not in accordance with your ticket and therefore you don't have a valid ticket hence guilty!). The one I mentioned before is surprisingly? owned by people formerly involved with the rail companies and now stand to make £illions out of it. Don't get me wrong I'm all for clamping down on freeloaders but these people are as bad if not worse than the PPC's.You could argue the same misrepresentation/fraud might apply here, but it seems a stretch.
Edited by trashbat on Sunday 27th July 21:11
Here's a little bit of help from the Southwest trains website (http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/advance-fares.aspx)on advance tickets, these tickets are substantially reduced from the normal fare, and for this the site says:
"Advance tickets are the lowest fares we offer for our longer distance journeys and we attach some conditions to these tickets. They are only valid on your booked train(s) and you must travel between the origin and destination stations on your ticket. If your journey plans change, you can make changes to your Advance ticket before you start your journey (the change will cost a minimum of £10)."
The worrying bit is that, as Elanfan says, failure to comply with what can be complicated (ish) terms and conditions can result in you travelling on the rail system without a valid ticket. This means that the train operators can prosecute you if they wish and I believe this is an offence of strict liability so there are very few defences available.
"Advance tickets are the lowest fares we offer for our longer distance journeys and we attach some conditions to these tickets. They are only valid on your booked train(s) and you must travel between the origin and destination stations on your ticket. If your journey plans change, you can make changes to your Advance ticket before you start your journey (the change will cost a minimum of £10)."
The worrying bit is that, as Elanfan says, failure to comply with what can be complicated (ish) terms and conditions can result in you travelling on the rail system without a valid ticket. This means that the train operators can prosecute you if they wish and I believe this is an offence of strict liability so there are very few defences available.
I did some further Googling (bored!) and I came across a reference to the thrilling-sounding Great Northern Railway Co v Winder.
Someone went on a cheap journey to Skegness (in 1892, I think) and got off the train early. Supposedly there was an attempted criminal prosecution and it failed, deciding it was a civil contract dispute. GNR then won that civil case, recovering the difference in fares.
I still can't see any evidence that a contemporary court would find against you for compelling a train company to temporarily lug around fresh air in lieu of your own mass.
Someone went on a cheap journey to Skegness (in 1892, I think) and got off the train early. Supposedly there was an attempted criminal prosecution and it failed, deciding it was a civil contract dispute. GNR then won that civil case, recovering the difference in fares.
I still can't see any evidence that a contemporary court would find against you for compelling a train company to temporarily lug around fresh air in lieu of your own mass.
Perhaps you ought to look up the hundreds if not thousands of cases that have been brought by these PRIVATE companies under Railway byelaws. It has nothing whatsoever to do with contemporary courts - the law is the law and the courts have NO OPtion but to find you guilty.
Now fed up of trying to get my point across and ahm oot!
Now fed up of trying to get my point across and ahm oot!
trashbat said:
I did some further Googling (bored!) and I came across a reference to the thrilling-sounding Great Northern Railway Co v Winder.
Someone went on a cheap journey to Skegness (in 1892, I think) and got off the train early. Supposedly there was an attempted criminal prosecution and it failed, deciding it was a civil contract dispute. GNR then won that civil case, recovering the difference in fares.
I still can't see any evidence that a contemporary court would find against you for compelling a train company to temporarily lug around fresh air in lieu of your own mass.
Well found and an interesting case. There may well have been subsequent cases. However as I said earlier I am also doubtful that any current court would uphold the rights. If n fact they are rights, of the company. I cannot see that reducing the load of the train by getting off early can reasonably be grounds for damages. Someone went on a cheap journey to Skegness (in 1892, I think) and got off the train early. Supposedly there was an attempted criminal prosecution and it failed, deciding it was a civil contract dispute. GNR then won that civil case, recovering the difference in fares.
I still can't see any evidence that a contemporary court would find against you for compelling a train company to temporarily lug around fresh air in lieu of your own mass.
But there may be subsequent cases that clarify that point. Using bye laws of the Railways to prosecute in cases like these strikes me as a good way to ridicule the bye laws. The Railway co may seek to discourage such purchasing but prosecutions in a court seem to me to be very unlikely.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff