I was stopped onboard a train on May 14th, and asked to show my ticket.
I presented my ticket to the inspector. He asked me for my concession
card. I looked through my bag, but couldn't find it.

He wrote me up for not having my travelcard with me.

The ticket was refused by the inspector, and treated as 'invalid',
demanding £20 fixed fee, I was unable to present funds at the time.

Later on in the journey, I was able to find the travelcard in my bag.

I looked up and down for the inspector , but I could not locate either
of them.

I recieved a without-prejudice-style letter in the post on 17th June,
to which I replied on 20th June, stating that I *had* presented a
ticket and *couldnt* find my travelcard, which later I found, but I
believed the ticket inspectors to have got off the train.

However, today I received a court summons for the 29th July at my local
court...

stating that "I failed to hand over a valid rail ticket for inspection
and verification when asked to do so by an authorised person."

I have three options on the court summons...

1) Guilty non-attending
2) Guilty attending
3) Not guilty.

I have two questions...

i) Will I get a criminal record if I plead (1) and offer to pay by
cheque? (to simply get rid of the matter... "easy option" ... it is
£125 in total) 

ii) is there ANY chance a magistrate would decide in my favour, given
that I can provide the fact I had a travelcard valid for the time
travelling, but I simply was unable to show it due to personal
disorganisation ? (I still have the travelcard but not the ticket, but
on the witness statement it has the ticket #, which should be traceable
within the train company)

Many thanks indeed for your help!

Sal




-- 
100

> I was stopped onboard a train on May 14th, and asked to show my ticket.
> I presented my ticket to the inspector. He asked me for my concession
> card. I looked through my bag, but couldn't find it.
>
> He wrote me up for not having my travelcard with me.
>
> The ticket was refused by the inspector, and treated as 'invalid',
> demanding £20 fixed fee, I was unable to present funds at the time.
>
> Later on in the journey, I was able to find the travelcard in my bag.
>
> I looked up and down for the inspector , but I could not locate either
> of them.
>
> I recieved a without-prejudice-style letter in the post on 17th June,
> to which I replied on 20th June, stating that I *had* presented a
> ticket and *couldnt* find my travelcard, which later I found, but I
> believed the ticket inspectors to have got off the train.
>
> However, today I received a court summons for the 29th July at my local
> court...
>
> stating that "I failed to hand over a valid rail ticket for inspection
> and verification when asked to do so by an authorised person."
>
> I have three options on the court summons...
>
> 1) Guilty non-attending
> 2) Guilty attending
> 3) Not guilty.
>
> I have two questions...
>
> i) Will I get a criminal record if I plead (1) and offer to pay by
> cheque? (to simply get rid of the matter... "easy option" ... it is
> £125 in total)
>
> ii) is there ANY chance a magistrate would decide in my favour, given
> that I can provide the fact I had a travelcard valid for the time
> travelling, but I simply was unable to show it due to personal
> disorganisation ? (I still have the travelcard but not the ticket, but
> on the witness statement it has the ticket #, which should be traceable
> within the train company)

Without seeing the exact terms of the ticket and the associated regulations 
it is impossible to be sure. However, it seems that because you failed to 
produce the card that validated the ticket you did break the rules. From 
that it follows that you are guilty. If you attend court, plead guilty, and 
can show that you did have a valid card then you might get a reduction in 
penalty.

Peter Crosland

Peter Crosland wrote:
>> I was stopped onboard a train on May 14th, and asked to show my ticket>> I presented my ticket to the inspector. He asked me for my concession
>> card. I looked through my bag, but couldn't find it.
>>
>> He wrote me up for not having my travelcard with me.
>>
>> The ticket was refused by the inspector, and treated as 'invalid',
>> demanding £20 fixed fee, I was unable to present funds at the time.
>>
>> Later on in the journey, I was able to find the travelcard in my bag.
>>
>> I looked up and down for the inspector , but I could not locate either
>> of them.
>>
>> I recieved a without-prejudice-style letter in the post on 17th June,
>> to which I replied on 20th June, stating that I *had* presented a
>> ticket and *couldnt* find my travelcard, which later I found, but I
>> believed the ticket inspectors to have got off the train.
>>
>> However, today I received a court summons for the 29th July at my local
>> court...
>>
>> stating that "I failed to hand over a valid rail ticket for inspection
>> and verification when asked to do so by an authorised person."
>>
>> I have three options on the court summons...
>>
>> 1) Guilty non-attending
>> 2) Guilty attending
>> 3) Not guilty.
>>
>> I have two questions...
>>
>> i) Will I get a criminal record if I plead (1) and offer to pay by
>> cheque? (to simply get rid of the matter... "easy option" ... it is
>> £125 in total)
>>
>> ii) is there ANY chance a magistrate would decide in my favour, given
>> that I can provide the fact I had a travelcard valid for the time
>> travelling, but I simply was unable to show it due to personal
>> disorganisation ? (I still have the travelcard but not the ticket, but
>> on the witness statement it has the ticket #, which should be traceable
>> within the train company)
> 
> Without seeing the exact terms of the ticket and the associated regulations 
> it is impossible to be sure. However, it seems that because you failed to 
> produce the card that validated the ticket you did break the rules. From 
> that it follows that you are guilty. If you attend court, plead guilty, and 
> can show that you did have a valid card then you might get a reduction in 
> penalty.
> 
> Peter Crosland 
> 
> 
> 

How long should an inspector hang around while you find it?
If he chose to walk away while you went through your bag
then that is his problem.

"Peter Crosland"  wrote in message 
news:c7adndSyDMlU3OPVnZ2dnUVZ8v3inZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>> I was stopped onboard a train on May 14th, and asked to show my ticket.
>> I presented my ticket to the inspector. He asked me for my concession
>> card. I looked through my bag, but couldn't find it.
>>
>> He wrote me up for not having my travelcard with me.
>>
>> The ticket was refused by the inspector, and treated as 'invalid',
>> demanding £20 fixed fee, I was unable to present funds at the time.
>>
>> Later on in the journey, I was able to find the travelcard in my bag.
>>
>> I looked up and down for the inspector , but I could not locate either
>> of them.
>>
>> I recieved a without-prejudice-style letter in the post on 17th June,
>> to which I replied on 20th June, stating that I *had* presented a
>> ticket and *couldnt* find my travelcard, which later I found, but I
>> believed the ticket inspectors to have got off the train.
>>
>> However, today I received a court summons for the 29th July at my local
>> court...
>>
>> stating that "I failed to hand over a valid rail ticket for inspection
>> and verification when asked to do so by an authorised person."
>>
>> I have three options on the court summons...
>>
>> 1) Guilty non-attending
>> 2) Guilty attending
>> 3) Not guilty.
>>
>> I have two questions...
>>
>> i) Will I get a criminal record if I plead (1) and offer to pay by
>> cheque? (to simply get rid of the matter... "easy option" ... it is
>> £125 in total)
>>
>> ii) is there ANY chance a magistrate would decide in my favour, given
>> that I can provide the fact I had a travelcard valid for the time
>> travelling, but I simply was unable to show it due to personal
>> disorganisation ? (I still have the travelcard but not the ticket, but
>> on the witness statement it has the ticket #, which should be traceable
>> within the train company)
>
> Without seeing the exact terms of the ticket and the associated 
> regulations
> it is impossible to be sure. However, it seems that because you failed to
> produce the card that validated the ticket you did break the rules. From
> that it follows that you are guilty. If you attend court, plead guilty, 
> and
> can show that you did have a valid card then you might get a reduction in
> penalty.

I don't agree.

This is a criminal trial.  If he pleads guilty he cannot get a significant 
reduction in penalty because the main penalty here is the criminal record.

He really does need to show that no offence was committed because he did in 
fact have the entitlement to use the ticket.  I'm not sure if the rules will 
allow him to do this

tim

In message , at 21:00:23 on Wed, 16 
Jul 2008, tim.....  remarked:
>He really does need to show that no offence was committed because he did in
>fact have the entitlement to use the ticket.  I'm not sure if the rules will
>allow him to do this

If the offence is not showing the inspector his railcard, then he may 
have difficulty.
-- 
Roland Perry

100 wrote:

> ii) is there ANY chance a magistrate would decide in my favour, given
> that I can provide the fact I had a travelcard valid for the time
> travelling, but I simply was unable to show it due to personal
> disorganisation ? (I still have the travelcard but not the ticket, but
> on the witness statement it has the ticket #, which should be
> traceable within the train company)

You're probably screwed in terms of conviction for failure to produce, but 
for your future reputation it's worth asserting the facts.

If attendance isn't possible you might wish to plead guilty by letter, 
enclosing the railcard and an SAE as evidence.   If the Court notes that you 
owned a valid card but failed to produce it, that's less problematic than a 
dishonesty conviction.

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:20:10 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:

>In message , at 21:00:23 on Wed, 16 
>Jul 2008, tim.....  remarked:
>>He really does need to show that no offence was committed because he did in
>>fact have the entitlement to use the ticket.  I'm not sure if the rules will
>>allow him to do this
>
>If the offence is not showing the inspector his railcard, then he may 
>have difficulty.

But he could try arguing that, had the inspector been willing to wait
while he conducted a detailed and systematic search of his bags and
clothing, he would have found and produced the railcard.

It really is unfair that one can acquire a criminal record by being
disorganised or forgetful.  If the rail companies were to treat their
customers with any respect (which they don't), they'd cancel any
penalty on retrospective production of entitlement to travel.
  
Mike.

"100"  wrote in message 
news:100.2c3ee57@legalbanter.co.uk...
>
> I was stopped onboard a train on May 14th, and asked to show my ticket.
> I presented my ticket to the inspector. He asked me for my concession
> card. I looked through my bag, but couldn't find it.
>
> He wrote me up for not having my travelcard with me.
>
> The ticket was refused by the inspector, and treated as 'invalid',
> demanding £20 fixed fee, I was unable to present funds at the time.
>
> Later on in the journey, I was able to find the travelcard in my bag.
>
> I looked up and down for the inspector , but I could not locate either
> of them.
>
> I recieved a without-prejudice-style letter in the post on 17th June,
> to which I replied on 20th June, stating that I *had* presented a
> ticket and *couldnt* find my travelcard, which later I found, but I
> believed the ticket inspectors to have got off the train.
>
> However, today I received a court summons for the 29th July at my local
> court...
>
> stating that "I failed to hand over a valid rail ticket for inspection
> and verification when asked to do so by an authorised person."
>
> I have three options on the court summons...
>
> 1) Guilty non-attending
> 2) Guilty attending
> 3) Not guilty.
>
> I have two questions...
>
> i) Will I get a criminal record if I plead (1) and offer to pay by
> cheque? (to simply get rid of the matter... "easy option" ... it is
> £125 in total)
>
> ii) is there ANY chance a magistrate would decide in my favour, given
> that I can provide the fact I had a travelcard valid for the time
> travelling, but I simply was unable to show it due to personal
> disorganisation ? (I still have the travelcard but not the ticket, but
> on the witness statement it has the ticket #, which should be traceable
> within the train company)
>
> Many thanks indeed for your help!
>
> Sal
>
Isn't the rule that you have to produce the card 'on demand'?
I know it's too late, but you should have taken all the paperwork to the 
ticket office when you got off the train along with the discount card and 
got them to deal with it, or at least noted that you did in fact have the 
card.

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:n7qs74dmsq0lob6fpesh65ds13igj6t4th@news.kempston.net...
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:20:10 +0100, Roland Perry 
> wrote:
>
>>In message , at 21:00:23 on Wed, 16
>>Jul 2008, tim.....  remarked:
>>>He really does need to show that no offence was committed because he did 
>>>in
>>>fact have the entitlement to use the ticket.  I'm not sure if the rules 
>>>will
>>>allow him to do this
>>
>>If the offence is not showing the inspector his railcard, then he may
>>have difficulty.
>
> But he could try arguing that, had the inspector been willing to wait
> while he conducted a detailed and systematic search of his bags and
> clothing, he would have found and produced the railcard.
>
Indeed.  I don't think there is any time limit on how long a person has to 
find their ticket.  If there was, the inspector could wait all of 10 seconds 
before doing them.

>
> This is a criminal trial.  If he pleads guilty he cannot get a significant
> reduction in penalty because the main penalty here is the criminal record.
>
> He really does need to show that no offence was committed because he did 
> in
> fact have the entitlement to use the ticket.  I'm not sure if the rules 
> will
> allow him to do this
>
> tim
>

Will a conviction over this type of offence stop a person entering the US 
for the rest of their life?  I understand they refuse visas to people with 
criminal convictions.

In article ,
Roland Perry   wrote:
>In message , at 21:00:23 on Wed, 16 
>Jul 2008, tim.....  remarked:
>>He really does need to show that no offence was committed because he did in
>>fact have the entitlement to use the ticket.  I'm not sure if the rules will
>>allow him to do this
>
>If the offence is not showing the inspector his railcard, then he may 
>have difficulty.

I'd guess that the offence is failure to obey either byelaw 17(2) or 
18(2) (whichever was applicable) of the Railway Byelaws, which both 
read:

# A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of 
# validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.

"Ticket" is generously-enough defined as to include railcards.

<http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/legislation/regs/railwaysbyelaws> (PDF)

-- 
Ben Harris

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:10:08 +0100, "Liz J"
 wrote:

>>
>> This is a criminal trial.  If he pleads guilty he cannot get a significant
>> reduction in penalty because the main penalty here is the criminal record.
>>
>> He really does need to show that no offence was committed because he did 
>> in
>> fact have the entitlement to use the ticket.  I'm not sure if the rules 
>> will
>> allow him to do this
>>
>> tim
>>
>
>Will a conviction over this type of offence stop a person entering the US 
>for the rest of their life?  I understand they refuse visas to people with 
>criminal convictions. 
>
I think that any criminal conviction will automatically result in the
person no longer being eligible for the visa-waiver scheme but won't
prevent them from applying for a visa. While refusal under the
visa-waiver scheme is automatic, under the visa scheme it's not. But
ICBW, IANAL etc, etc

Nick
-- 
real e-mail is nickodell (at) bigfoot (dot) com

On Jul 17, 12:05 am, Nick Odell
<gurzhfvp.jbexf...@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:10:08 +0100, "Liz J"
>
>
>
>  wrote:
>
> >> This is a criminal trial.  If he pleads guilty he cannot get a significant
> >> reduction in penalty because the main penalty here is the criminal record.
>
> >> He really does need to show that no offence was committed because he did
> >> in fact have the entitlement to use the ticket.  I'm not sure if the rules
> >> will allow him to do this
>
> >> tim
>
> >Will a conviction over this type of offence stop a person entering the US
> >for the rest of their life?  I understand they refuse visas to people with
> >criminal convictions.

> I think that any criminal conviction will automatically result in the
> person no longer being eligible for the visa-waiver scheme but won't
> prevent them from applying for a visa. While refusal under the
> visa-waiver scheme is automatic, under the visa scheme it's not. But
> ICBW, IANAL etc, etc

The visa waiver does not ask about criminal convictions.  It asks
whether you have been _arrested_ for a crime involving moral
turpitude.

So it's not a problem in this case.

(There are long discussions on this newsgroup about whether this is
fair; what "arrest" means in this context - the US visa-waiver scheme
is Federal, but different states have different rules; and lots of
other related issues.)

100;542179 Wrote: 
> This isn't a clear-cut fair-avoidance case, so please read it through. I
> was stopped onboard a train on May 14th, and asked to show my ticket. I
> showed my (valid) ticket to the inspector. He asked me for my Young
> Persons card. I looked through my bag, but couldn't find it.
> 
> He took a statement from me, because I did not have £20 or my Y-P
> card.
> 
> The ticket was refused by the inspector, and treated as 'invalid',
> demanding £20 fixed fee, I was unable to present funds at the time.
> 
> Later on in the journey, I was able to find the travelcard in my bag.
> 
> I looked up and down the whole train (8 coaches) for an inspector , but
> I could not locate either of them.
> 
> I recieved a without-prejudice-style letter in the post on 17th June,
> to which I replied on 20th June, stating that I *had* presented a
> ticket and *couldnt* find my Young Persons card, which later I found, I
> searched for the inspectors, but I believed the ticket inspectors to
> have got off the train.
> 
> However, today I received a court summons for the 29th July at my local
> court...
> 
> stating that "I failed to hand over a valid rail ticket for inspection
> and verification when asked to do so by an authorised person."
> 
> I have three options on the court summons...
> 
> 1) Guilty non-attending
> 2) Guilty attending
> 3) Not guilty.
> 
> I have two questions...
> 
> i) Will I get a criminal record if I plead (1) and offer to pay by
> cheque? (to simply get rid of the matter... "easy option" ... it is
> £125 in total) 
> 
> ii) is there ANY chance a magistrate would decide in my favour, given
> that I can provide the fact I had a travelcard valid for the time
> travelling, but I simply was unable to show it due to personal
> disorganisation ? (I still have the travelcard but not the ticket, but
> on the witness statement it has the ticket #, which should be traceable
> within the train company)
> 
> Many thanks indeed for your help!
> 
> Sol

It must be option 3.. fight fight fight!




-- 
Grapet1

Grapet1 wrote:
> 100;542179 Wrote:

>> However, today I received a court summons for the 29th July at my
>> local court...
>>
>> stating that "I failed to hand over a valid rail ticket for
>> inspection and verification when asked to do so by an authorised
>> person."
>>
>> I have three options on the court summons...
>>
>> 1) Guilty non-attending
>> 2) Guilty attending
>> 3) Not guilty.
>>
>> I have two questions...
>>
>> i) Will I get a criminal record if I plead (1) and offer to pay by
>> cheque? (to simply get rid of the matter... "easy option" ... it is
>> £125 in total)
>>
>> ii) is there ANY chance a magistrate would decide in my favour, given
>> that I can provide the fact I had a travelcard valid for the time
>> travelling, but I simply was unable to show it due to personal
>> disorganisation ? (I still have the travelcard but not the ticket,
>> but on the witness statement it has the ticket #, which should be
>> traceable within the train company)
>>
>> Many thanks indeed for your help!
>>
>> Sol
>
> It must be option 3.. fight fight fight!

If what you have quoted is all the summons accuses you of, then you must 
surely be in the clear.  You had a valid ticket and you handed it over for 
inspection and verification.  What you didn't do, when asked, was provide 
_evidence_ that the ticket was valid in the form of your Railcard, but 
that's a different matter entirely.

It may be that the conditions of your Railcard require you to produce it on 
demand, but it seems you are not accused of doing that.  So, you've nothing 
to answer on that score.

I reckon they've put the wrong offence on the summons.  So, plead not guilty 
and fight it.

"Norman Wells"  wrote in message 
news:g5ntq5$h2o$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> Grapet1 wrote:
>> 100;542179 Wrote:
>
>>> However, today I received a court summons for the 29th July at my
>>> local court...
>>>
>>> stating that "I failed to hand over a valid rail ticket for
>>> inspection and verification when asked to do so by an authorised
>>> person."
>>>
>>> I have three options on the court summons...
>>>
>>> 1) Guilty non-attending
>>> 2) Guilty attending
>>> 3) Not guilty.
>>>
>>> I have two questions...
>>>
>>> i) Will I get a criminal record if I plead (1) and offer to pay by
>>> cheque? (to simply get rid of the matter... "easy option" ... it is
>>> £125 in total)
>>>
>>> ii) is there ANY chance a magistrate would decide in my favour, given
>>> that I can provide the fact I had a travelcard valid for the time
>>> travelling, but I simply was unable to show it due to personal
>>> disorganisation ? (I still have the travelcard but not the ticket,
>>> but on the witness statement it has the ticket #, which should be
>>> traceable within the train company)
>>>
>>> Many thanks indeed for your help!
>>>
>>> Sol
>>
>> It must be option 3.. fight fight fight!
>
> If what you have quoted is all the summons accuses you of, then you must 
> surely be in the clear.  You had a valid ticket and you handed it over for 
> inspection and verification.  What you didn't do, when asked, was provide 
> _evidence_ that the ticket was valid in the form of your Railcard, but 
> that's a different matter entirely.
>
> It may be that the conditions of your Railcard require you to produce it 
> on demand, but it seems you are not accused of doing that.  So, you've 
> nothing to answer on that score.
>
> I reckon they've put the wrong offence on the summons.  So, plead not 
> guilty and fight it.

The ticket is not valid unless the railcard is produced at the same time, so 
the summons is correct.

Paul

Paul Stevenson wrote:
> "Norman Wells"  wrote in message
> news:g5ntq5$h2o$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>> Grapet1 wrote:

>> If what you have quoted is all the summons accuses you of, then you
>> must surely be in the clear.  You had a valid ticket and you handed
>> it over for inspection and verification.  What you didn't do, when
>> asked, was provide _evidence_ that the ticket was valid in the form
>> of your Railcard, but that's a different matter entirely.
>>
>> It may be that the conditions of your Railcard require you to
>> produce it on demand, but it seems you are not accused of doing
>> that.  So, you've nothing to answer on that score.
>>
>> I reckon they've put the wrong offence on the summons.  So, plead not
>> guilty and fight it.
>
> The ticket is not valid unless the railcard is produced at the same
> time, so the summons is correct.

A ticket is either valid or not.  What we are talking about here is proving 
it, which is a different matter.  The OP had a ticket to which he was 
entitled, and for which he had paid.  That makes it valid, and he produced 
it for inspection and verification when asked.  The fact that he did not 
produce the evidence that it was valid, ie his Railcard, does not alter that 
fact.  He is not guilty of the offence set out in the summons, and should 
therefore plead not guilty.

100 wrote:
> I was stopped onboard a train on May 14th, and asked to show my ticket.
> I presented my ticket to the inspector. He asked me for my concession
> card. I looked through my bag, but couldn't find it.
> 
> He wrote me up for not having my travelcard with me.
> 
> The ticket was refused by the inspector, and treated as 'invalid',
> demanding £20 fixed fee, I was unable to present funds at the time.

As per the Terms and Conditions of issue of the Railcard, which you 
agreed to when you bought it:

"You must carry your Railcard with you on your journey and when asked by 
rail staff, you must show a valid ticket and valid Railcard. If you fail 
to do so, you will be required to pay the full price Standard Single 
fare for your journey as if no ticket was purchased before starting the 
journey and in some cases a Penalty Fare."

> Later on in the journey, I was able to find the travelcard in my bag.
> 
> I looked up and down for the inspector , but I could not locate either
> of them.

Not surprising, as they're likely to have left the train to check 
tickets on another one.

> I recieved a without-prejudice-style letter in the post on 17th June,
> to which I replied on 20th June, stating that I *had* presented a
> ticket and *couldnt* find my travelcard, which later I found, but I
> believed the ticket inspectors to have got off the train.

Which begs the question as to why you hadn't paid the Penalty Fare or 
appealed against it within 21 days, as stated on the Penalty Fare Notice?

Cheers,

Barry

100 wrote:
> I was stopped onboard a train on May 14th, and asked to show my ticket.
> I presented my ticket to the inspector. He asked me for my concession
> card. I looked through my bag, but couldn't find it.
> 
> He wrote me up for not having my travelcard with me.
> 
> The ticket was refused by the inspector, and treated as 'invalid',
> demanding £20 fixed fee, I was unable to present funds at the time.
> 
> Later on in the journey, I was able to find the travelcard in my bag.
> 
> I looked up and down for the inspector , but I could not locate either
> of them.
> 
> I recieved a without-prejudice-style letter in the post on 17th June,
> to which I replied on 20th June, stating that I *had* presented a
> ticket and *couldnt* find my travelcard, which later I found, but I
> believed the ticket inspectors to have got off the train.
> 
> However, today I received a court summons for the 29th July at my local
> court...
> 
> stating that "I failed to hand over a valid rail ticket for inspection
> and verification when asked to do so by an authorised person."
> 
> I have three options on the court summons...
> 
> 1) Guilty non-attending
> 2) Guilty attending
> 3) Not guilty.
> 
> I have two questions...
> 
> i) Will I get a criminal record if I plead (1) and offer to pay by
> cheque? (to simply get rid of the matter... "easy option" ... it is
> £125 in total) 
> 
> ii) is there ANY chance a magistrate would decide in my favour, given
> that I can provide the fact I had a travelcard valid for the time
> travelling, but I simply was unable to show it due to personal
> disorganisation ? (I still have the travelcard but not the ticket, but
> on the witness statement it has the ticket #, which should be traceable
> within the train company)
> 
> Many thanks indeed for your help!
> 
> Sal

You should plead not guilty.  You should state that you had the 
travelcard with you but that the inspector did not wait sufficiently 
long for you to retrieve it from you bag before issuing the penalty. 
That is all true.

Also tell the Court that you went after the inspector to show it to him 
but that he couldn't be found at that point.

Also tell the Court that you must necessarily have produced the 
travelcard to purchase the ticket (if that actually is the case) thereby 
proving your entitlement at the point of purchase.

They will have to prove that all that is untrue beyond reasonable doubt 
to get a conviction.

In message <g5od88$8g1$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>, at 22:25:14 on Thu, 
17 Jul 2008, Norman Wells  wibbled
>Paul Stevenson wrote:
>> "Norman Wells"  wrote in message
>> news:g5ntq5$h2o$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...

>>> I reckon they've put the wrong offence on the summons.  So, plead not
>>> guilty and fight it.
>>
>> The ticket is not valid unless the railcard is produced at the same
>> time, so the summons is correct.
>
>A ticket is either valid or not.  What we are talking about here is 
>proving it, which is a different matter.  The OP had a ticket to which 
>he was entitled, and for which he had paid.  That makes it valid, and 
>he produced it for inspection and verification when asked.  The fact 
>that he did not produce the evidence that it was valid, ie his 
>Railcard, does not alter that fact.  He is not guilty of the offence 
>set out in the summons, and should therefore plead not guilty.

IANAL or work for a TOC but I think you may be incorrect in suggesting 
that the wrong charge has been brought after he presented the ticket for 
inspection.

The charge is "inspection and verification". The ticket was valid when 
he bought it as he presented his railcard at the time. He didn't present 
the railcard when the ticket was inspected so I would say that if failed 
the verification test when inspected.

Whether he should plead guilty for a reduced sentence and offer 
mitigating circumstances that the inspector didn't give him enough time 
to find the card on his person and when he found it the inspector had 
left the train or plead not guilty and hope he gets off I'll leave to 
the solicitors.

I'm curious as to why the OP didn't immediately appeal the Penalty Fare 
(he has 21 says to do so[1]) and waited the five weeks it took for the 
"without prejudice" letter to arrive.

[1] My mum has first hand experience of this. She got a Penalty Fare as 
the inspector gave her about 10 seconds to find her railcard before 
declaring the ticket invalid and issuing a penalty fare. Mum found her 
card between the declaration the ticket was invalid and being presented 
with the penalty fare notice. Inspector said he couldn't withdraw the 
Penalty Fare Notice after he'd started writing it. The TOC withdrew the 
summons when they saw her defence so it never reached court.

-- 
Pedt

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:45:25 +0100, "Steve Walker"
 wrote:

>100 wrote:
>
>> ii) is there ANY chance a magistrate would decide in my favour, given
>> that I can provide the fact I had a travelcard valid for the time
>> travelling, but I simply was unable to show it due to personal
>> disorganisation ? (I still have the travelcard but not the ticket, but
>> on the witness statement it has the ticket #, which should be
>> traceable within the train company)
>
>You're probably screwed in terms of conviction for failure to produce, but 
>for your future reputation it's worth asserting the facts.
>
>If attendance isn't possible you might wish to plead guilty by letter, 
>enclosing the railcard and an SAE as evidence.   If the Court notes that you 

If he sends the card in, and while he has no possesson is asked to
present it again? Dependent upon the cards duration of course.

>owned a valid card but failed to produce it, that's less problematic than a 
>dishonesty conviction. 
>
>

In message <4880322e$1@mail.hmgcc.gov.uk>, at 07:05:07 on Fri, 18 Jul 
2008, Dave  remarked:
>Also tell the Court that you must necessarily have produced the 
>travelcard to purchase the ticket (if that actually is the case) 
>thereby proving your entitlement at the point of purchase.

It's not the case if buying online or from a machine. Does it happen 
every time if you buy at a ticket window?
-- 
Roland Perry

In message <g5od88$8g1$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>, at 22:25:14 on Thu,
17 Jul 2008, Norman Wells  remarked:
>A ticket is either valid or not.  What we are talking about here is
>proving it, which is a different matter.  The OP had a ticket to which
>he was entitled, and for which he had paid.  That makes it valid, and
>he produced it for inspection and verification when asked.  The fact
>that he did not produce the evidence that it was valid, ie his
>Railcard, does not alter that fact.

You will also find conditions of use, such as:

        "Railcard holders travelling on a discounted ticket must carry
        their Railcard when they travel. If a Railcard holder fails to
        produce a valid Railcard with their ticket, a new ticket must be
        purchased as if no Railcard and/or no ticket were held."

What the OP should be doing is finding out if such a condition applies
to his ticket and his Train Company (the chances are it will).
-- 
Roland Perry

In message <Z$MDIHrSOEgIFwaq@user-unknown.mx2.org.uk>, Pedt 
 writes
>In message <g5od88$8g1$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>, at 22:25:14 on 
>Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Norman Wells  wibbled
>>Paul Stevenson wrote:
>>> "Norman Wells"  wrote in message
>>> news:g5ntq5$h2o$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>>>> I reckon they've put the wrong offence on the summons.  So, plead not
>>>> guilty and fight it.
>>>
>>> The ticket is not valid unless the railcard is produced at the same
>>> time, so the summons is correct.
>>
>>A ticket is either valid or not.  What we are talking about here is 
>>proving it, which is a different matter.  The OP had a ticket to which 
>>was entitled, and for which he had paid.  That makes it valid, and he 
>>produced it for inspection and verification when asked.  The fact that 
>>he did not produce the evidence that it was valid, ie his Railcard, 
>>does not alter that fact.  He is not guilty of the offence set out in 
>>the summons, and should therefore plead not guilty.
>
>IANAL or work for a TOC but I think you may be incorrect in suggesting 
>that the wrong charge has been brought after he presented the ticket 
>for inspection.
>
>The charge is "inspection and verification". The ticket was valid when 
>he bought it as he presented his railcard at the time. He didn't 
>present the railcard when the ticket was inspected so I would say that 
>if failed the verification test when inspected.
>
>Whether he should plead guilty for a reduced sentence and offer 
>mitigating circumstances that the inspector didn't give him enough time 
>to find the card on his person and when he found it the inspector had 
>left the train or plead not guilty and hope he gets off I'll leave to 
>the solicitors.
>
>I'm curious as to why the OP didn't immediately appeal the Penalty Fare 
>(he has 21 says to do so[1]) and waited the five weeks it took for the 
>"without prejudice" letter to arrive.
>
>[1] My mum has first hand experience of this. She got a Penalty Fare as 
>the inspector gave her about 10 seconds to find her railcard before 
>declaring the ticket invalid and issuing a penalty fare. Mum found her 
>card between the declaration the ticket was invalid and being presented 
>with the penalty fare notice. Inspector said he couldn't withdraw the 
>Penalty Fare Notice after he'd started writing it. The TOC withdrew the 
>summons when they saw her defence so it never reached court.
>
I only travel infrequently by train, so my railcard spends most of its 
time hidden away in an obscure part of my wallet. It only comes out when 
I buy a ticket, then immediately gets hidden away again - probably for 
at least a couple of months. I know it will be somewhere in the wallet, 
but it always takes me some time to find it.

On the other hand, at the end of my journey, I know that I will need my 
ticket to leave the station platform, so I always 'keep it handy' 
(usually in a pocket). I don't put it in my wallet, as I don't want to 
be standing there, fumbling around trying to find my ticket while being 
jostled by the crowd leaving the train. As a result, in the unlikely 
event of being asked by an inspector, I could produce my ticket in a 
fraction of a second, but the railcard would definitely take a lot 
longer.
-- 
Ian

Mike Barnard wrote:
>> If attendance isn't possible you might wish to plead guilty by letter, 
>> enclosing the railcard and an SAE as evidence.   If the Court notes that you 
> If he sends the card in, and while he has no possesson is asked to
> present it again? Dependent upon the cards duration of course.

Send photocopies.

Owain

Pedt wrote:
> In message <g5od88$8g1$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>, at 22:25:14 on
> Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Norman Wells  wibbled
>> Paul Stevenson wrote:
>>> "Norman Wells"  wrote in message
>>> news:g5ntq5$h2o$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>>>> I reckon they've put the wrong offence on the summons.  So, plead
>>>> not guilty and fight it.
>>>
>>> The ticket is not valid unless the railcard is produced at the same
>>> time, so the summons is correct.
>>
>> A ticket is either valid or not.  What we are talking about here is
>> proving it, which is a different matter.  The OP had a ticket to
>> which he was entitled, and for which he had paid.  That makes it
>> valid, and he produced it for inspection and verification when
>> asked.  The fact that he did not produce the evidence that it was
>> valid, ie his Railcard, does not alter that fact.  He is not guilty
>> of the offence set out in the summons, and should therefore plead
>> not guilty.
>
> IANAL or work for a TOC but I think you may be incorrect in suggesting
> that the wrong charge has been brought after he presented the ticket
> for inspection.
>
> The charge is "inspection and verification". The ticket was valid when
> he bought it as he presented his railcard at the time. He didn't
> present the railcard when the ticket was inspected so I would say
> that if failed the verification test when inspected.

The charge is actually that he failed to produce a valid ticket _for_ 
inspection and verification.  That he did.  The law places no obligation on 
the OP to do the inspection or the verification.  That's the inspector's 
job.

If he committed any offence it was failure to produce his Railcard on 
demand.  But that's not what he's charged with, so it's not something he has 
to answer, and he doesn't have to plead guilty to something else just 
because of that.

Barry Salter wrote:
> 100 wrote:
>> I was stopped onboard a train on May 14th, and asked to show my
>> ticket. I presented my ticket to the inspector. He asked me for my
>> concession card. I looked through my bag, but couldn't find it.
>>
>> He wrote me up for not having my travelcard with me.
>>
>> The ticket was refused by the inspector, and treated as 'invalid',
>> demanding £20 fixed fee, I was unable to present funds at the time.
>
> As per the Terms and Conditions of issue of the Railcard, which you
> agreed to when you bought it:
>
> "You must carry your Railcard with you on your journey and when asked
> by rail staff, you must show a valid ticket and valid Railcard. If
> you fail to do so, you will be required to pay the full price
> Standard Single fare for your journey as if no ticket was purchased
> before starting the journey and in some cases a Penalty Fare."

I think that makes my point actually.  The ticket and the Railcard are two 
separate entities.  The OP showed a valid ticket.  It was valid because he 
had a valid Railcard.  What he didn't do was _show_  his valid Railcard to 
back that up.  So, he failed to meet the conditions of the Railcard but, as 
that is not an offence with which he has been charged, he doesn't have to 
deal with it.

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:XMp0GtjsVFgIFAZB@perry.co.uk...
> In message <4880322e$1@mail.hmgcc.gov.uk>, at 07:05:07 on Fri, 18 Jul 
> 2008, Dave  remarked:
>>Also tell the Court that you must necessarily have produced the travelcard 
>>to purchase the ticket (if that actually is the case) thereby proving your 
>>entitlement at the point of purchase.
>
> It's not the case if buying online or from a machine. Does it happen every 
> time if you buy at a ticket window?
Yes, IME.

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:fMj2mLjEUFgIFA4R@perry.co.uk...
> In message <g5od88$8g1$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>, at 22:25:14 on Thu,
> 17 Jul 2008, Norman Wells  remarked:
>>A ticket is either valid or not.  What we are talking about here is
>>proving it, which is a different matter.  The OP had a ticket to which
>>he was entitled, and for which he had paid.  That makes it valid, and
>>he produced it for inspection and verification when asked.  The fact
>>that he did not produce the evidence that it was valid, ie his
>>Railcard, does not alter that fact.
>
> You will also find conditions of use, such as:
>
>        "Railcard holders travelling on a discounted ticket must carry
>        their Railcard when they travel. If a Railcard holder fails to
>        produce a valid Railcard with their ticket, a new ticket must be
>        purchased as if no Railcard and/or no ticket were held."
>
> What the OP should be doing is finding out if such a condition applies
> to his ticket and his Train Company (the chances are it will).
Wouldn't it be a defence that he did in fact have the card but the inspector 
didn't allow enough time for him to locate it?  There seems to regulation to 
say that the card has to be produced instantly.

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <g5od88$8g1$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>, at 22:25:14 on
> Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Norman Wells  remarked:
>> A ticket is either valid or not.  What we are talking about here is
>> proving it, which is a different matter.  The OP had a ticket to
>> which he was entitled, and for which he had paid.  That makes it
>> valid, and he produced it for inspection and verification when
>> asked.  The fact that he did not produce the evidence that it was
>> valid, ie his Railcard, does not alter that fact.
>
> You will also find conditions of use, such as:
>
>        "Railcard holders travelling on a discounted ticket must carry
>        their Railcard when they travel. If a Railcard holder fails to
>        produce a valid Railcard with their ticket, a new ticket must
>        be purchased as if no Railcard and/or no ticket were held."

I accept he may well have breached the conditions of his Railcard, but that 
in my view does not alter the fact that he had a valid ticket which he 
produced on demand as required.  If that's all he's accused of not doing, 
then he should deny it.

Barry Salter wrote:
<>
> 
> As per the Terms and Conditions of issue of the Railcard, which you 
> agreed to when you bought it:
> 
> "You must carry your Railcard with you on your journey and when asked by 
> rail staff, you must show a valid ticket and valid Railcard. If you fail 
> to do so, you will be required to pay the full price Standard Single 
> fare for your journey as if no ticket was purchased before starting the 
> journey and in some cases a Penalty Fare."
> 
<>
If the rail staff did not require OP to pay the full price Standard 
Single fare, then he/she was not invoking that condition, because the 
Penalty Fare is ADDITIONAL to (re-)paying fare so surely cannot be 
applied without demanding (re-)payment of paying fare.

-- 
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious 
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
<www.thyromind.info> <www.thyroiduk.org> <www.altsupportthyroid.org>

On Jul 18, 9:35 am, Roland Perry  wrote:
> In message <g5od88$8g1$1$8302b...@news.demon.co.uk>, at 22:25:14 on Thu,
> 17 Jul 2008, Norman Wells  remarked:
>
> >A ticket is either valid or not.  What we are talking about here is
> >proving it, which is a different matter.  The OP had a ticket to which
> >he was entitled, and for which he had paid.  That makes it valid, and
> >he produced it for inspection and verification when asked.  The fact
> >that he did not produce the evidence that it was valid, ie his
> >Railcard, does not alter that fact.
>
> You will also find conditions of use, such as:
>
>         "Railcard holders travelling on a discounted ticket must carry
>         their Railcard when they travel. If a Railcard holder fails to
>         produce a valid Railcard with their ticket, a new ticket must be
>         purchased as if no Railcard and/or no ticket were held."
>
> What the OP should be doing is finding out if such a condition applies
> to his ticket and his Train Company (the chances are it will).

It might be a technicality, and it will depend on exactly what the
regulations say but if it's something along the lines of:

You MUST carry your rail ticket with you at all times. If you fail to
present your railcard when asked then you may be liable to ...

In which case the OP might be OK. I'll leave it to the legal eagles
here. IIUC the failure to display would be evidence of the failure to
carry but would not, of itself, be the offence.

Of course, if I was in a similar position I'd have asked the guard on
the platform/station at my destination to write something on the
ticket to say that I'd presented my railcard at my destination (or if
they refused, tried to get a name or number from them) so that I'd got
some evidence that I hadn't broken the rule. I've no idea if the OP
actually did this - maybe it was a small, unattended station where
this wasn't possible.

Tim.

mert1639 wrote:
> "Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
> news:XMp0GtjsVFgIFAZB@perry.co.uk...
>> In message <4880322e$1@mail.hmgcc.gov.uk>, at 07:05:07 on Fri, 18 Jul 
>> 2008, Dave  remarked:
>>> Also tell the Court that you must necessarily have produced the travelcard 
>>> to purchase the ticket (if that actually is the case) thereby proving your 
>>> entitlement at the point of purchase.
>> It's not the case if buying online or from a machine. Does it happen every 
>> time if you buy at a ticket window?
> Yes, IME. 

In my experience too. You should note that there is a series of numbers 
on the ticket that identify the source of the ticket down to the window 
or machine, so you should be able to prove you bought the ticket at a 
staffed window if you did so.
-- 
Michael Hoffman

Ben Harris wrote:
> In article ,
> Roland Perry   wrote:
>> In message , at 21:00:23 on Wed,
>> 16 Jul 2008, tim.....  remarked:
>>> He really does need to show that no offence was committed because
>>> he did in fact have the entitlement to use the ticket.  I'm not
>>> sure if the rules will allow him to do this
>>
>> If the offence is not showing the inspector his railcard, then he may
>> have difficulty.
>
> I'd guess that the offence is failure to obey either byelaw 17(2) or
> 18(2) (whichever was applicable) of the Railway Byelaws, which both
> read:
>
> # A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification
> of # validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.
>
> "Ticket" is generously-enough defined as to include railcards.
>
> <http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/legislation/regs/railwaysbyelaws>
> (PDF)

I can't find any such definition there.  Perhaps you'd point to the bit of 
the 'ticket' definition that does that.


Byelaw 18 says:

"(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of 
validity when asked to do so by an authorised person."

That's actually ambiguous because it's unclear whether just the ticket has 
to be handed over 'for inspection and verification' or whether the ticket 
has to be handed over for inspection, and something else also has to be 
handed over, namely 'verification of validity', ie the Railcard .

If it's the former, then the OP did just that.  If it's the latter, then 
that's what he failed to do and that's what he should have been charged 
with.  But he wasn't.  So, either way round, he's in the clear.

On Jul 17, 8:55 am, Martin Bonner  wrote:
> On Jul 17, 12:05 am, Nick Odell
>
>
>
>
>
> <gurzhfvp.jbexf...@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:10:08 퍝, "Liz J"
>
> >  wrote:
>
> > >> This is a criminal trial.  If he pleads guilty he cannot get a significant
> > >> reduction in penalty because the main penalty here is the criminal record.
>
> > >> He really does need to show that no offence was committed because he did
> > >> in fact have the entitlement to use the ticket.  I'm not sure if the rules
> > >> will allow him to do this
>
> > >> tim
>
> > >Will a conviction over this type of offence stop a person entering the US
> > >for the rest of their life?  I understand they refuse visas to people with
> > >criminal convictions.
> > I think that any criminal conviction will automatically result in the
> > person no longer being eligible for the visa-waiver scheme but won't
> > prevent them from applying for a visa. While refusal under the
> > visa-waiver scheme is automatic, under the visa scheme it's not. But
> > ICBW, IANAL etc, etc
>
> The visa waiver does not ask about criminal convictions.  It asks
> whether you have been _arrested_ for a crime involving moral
> turpitude.

It ask about arrest or convictions for moral turpitude or drug crimes,
or two or more convictions of any kind with 5 years or more in prison.

On Jul 17, 12:05 am, Nick Odell
<gurzhfvp.jbexf...@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:10:08 퍝, "Liz J"
>
>
>
>
>
>  wrote:
>
> >> This is a criminal trial.  If he pleads guilty he cannot get a significant
> >> reduction in penalty because the main penalty here is the criminal record.
>
> >> He really does need to show that no offence was committed because he did
> >> in
> >> fact have the entitlement to use the ticket.  I'm not sure if the rules
> >> will
> >> allow him to do this
>
> >> tim
>
> >Will a conviction over this type of offence stop a person entering the US
> >for the rest of their life?  I understand they refuse visas to people with
> >criminal convictions.
>
> I think that any criminal conviction will automatically result in the
> person no longer being eligible for the visa-waiver scheme but won't
> prevent them from applying for a visa. While refusal under the
> visa-waiver scheme is automatic, under the visa scheme it's not. But
> ICBW, IANAL etc, etc

Wrong, wrong, wrong, the misinformation on the US Embassy's website
notwithstanding
The inadmissibility criteria are the same whether you travel with a
visa or on the visa waiver program, no crime of moral turpitude (with
an exception of a single crime with maximum punishment 1 year and
actual punishment at most 6 months), no drug crimes, no two or more
convictions with 5 years or more in prison, and of course, not being
inadmissible does not mean that you will be granted admission. If your
case is somewhat doubtful, then it is indeed best to apply for a visa
where your admissibility will be assessed, rather than to try to argue
your case at the port of entry.

Not finding your railcard is hardly a crime of moral turpitude even if
this case resulted in a conviction.

In article <g5q80b$r78$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>,
Norman Wells  wrote:
>Ben Harris wrote:
>> I'd guess that the offence is failure to obey either byelaw 17(2) or
>> 18(2) (whichever was applicable) of the Railway Byelaws, which both
>> read:
>>
>> # A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification
>> # of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.
>>
>> "Ticket" is generously-enough defined as to include railcards.
>>
>> <http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/legislation/regs/railwaysbyelaws>
>> (PDF)
>
>I can't find any such definition there.  Perhaps you'd point to the bit of 
>the 'ticket' definition that does that.

Pages 24-25:

# "ticket" includes
# ...
# (vi) any identity card, reservation or other document required by an
#      Operator to be held or produced for use with other travel 
#      documents,

I think a Railcard comes squarely under that clause.

-- 
Ben Harris

s_pickle2001@yahoo.com wrote in
news:14788fa0-d9e1-41e9-be29-
7dfe7deee7fb@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.co
m: 

> On Jul 17, 12:05 am, Nick Odell
><gurzhfvp.jbexf...@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:10:08 +0100, "Liz J"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> wrote: 
>>
>> >> This is a criminal trial.  If he pleads guilty he cannot get a
>> >> signi 
> ficant
>> >> reduction in penalty because the main penalty here is the
>> >> criminal rec 
> ord.
>>
>> >> He really does need to show that no offence was committed
>> >> because he d 
> id
>> >> in
>> >> fact have the entitlement to use the ticket.  I'm not sure if
>> >> the ru 
> les
>> >> will
>> >> allow him to do this
>>
>> >> tim
>>
>> >Will a conviction over this type of offence stop a person
>> >entering the U 
> S
>> >for the rest of their life?  I understand they refuse visas to
>> >people 
> with
>> >criminal convictions.
>>
>> I think that any criminal conviction will automatically result in
>> the person no longer being eligible for the visa-waiver scheme
>> but won't prevent them from applying for a visa. While refusal
>> under the visa-waiver scheme is automatic, under the visa scheme
>> it's not. But ICBW, IANAL etc, etc
> 
> Wrong, wrong, wrong, the misinformation on the US Embassy's
> website notwithstanding
> The inadmissibility criteria are the same whether you travel with
> a visa or on the visa waiver program, no crime of moral turpitude
> (with an exception of a single crime with maximum punishment 1
> year and actual punishment at most 6 months), no drug crimes, no
> two or more convictions with 5 years or more in prison, and of
> course, not being inadmissible does not mean that you will be
> granted admission. If your case is somewhat doubtful, then it is
> indeed best to apply for a visa where your admissibility will be
> assessed, rather than to try to argue your case at the port of
> entry.

It seems singularly bad advice if you have even a minor theft 
conviction to fill in the visa waiver form on the flight over saying 
so, and hope that you won't hang about more than a week or two while 
the immigration officer asks the DHS or someone whether he can make 
an exception: even worse advice to lie about it:  the form asks 
about arrests or convictions - it doesn't mention the exceptions.  
We do not know what access the Americans have to our police 
computers.

 
> 
> Not finding your railcard is hardly a crime of moral turpitude
> even if this case resulted in a conviction.

Again, if you have a conviction for failing to show a valid ticket, 
the average person is going to regard that as dishonesty, and will 
take little notice of the excuse that you had it in the other pocket 
but were convicted anyway (I know it is true, but that does not make 
it easier to believe). 


-- 
Percy Picacity

In message <g5pkp7$qac$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk>, at 
09:40:10 on Fri, 18 Jul 2008, mert1639  
remarked:
>> You will also find conditions of use, such as:
>>
>>        "Railcard holders travelling on a discounted ticket must carry
>>        their Railcard when they travel. If a Railcard holder fails to
>>        produce a valid Railcard with their ticket, a new ticket must be
>>        purchased as if no Railcard and/or no ticket were held."
>>
>> What the OP should be doing is finding out if such a condition applies
>> to his ticket and his Train Company (the chances are it will).

>Wouldn't it be a defence that he did in fact have the card but the inspector
>didn't allow enough time for him to locate it?

That would seem to be a better line of enquiry than claiming (which I 
believe to be futile) that there was no requirement to produce it).

What the prosecution might usefully be asked to provide is any 
documentation that specifies what length of time should be allowed, and 
the court can then contemplate the justice of their (quite likely) 
inability to do so.
-- 
Roland Perry

Ben Harris wrote:
> In article <g5q80b$r78$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>,
> Norman Wells  wrote:
>> Ben Harris wrote:
>>> I'd guess that the offence is failure to obey either byelaw 17(2) or
>>> 18(2) (whichever was applicable) of the Railway Byelaws, which both
>>> read:
>>>
>>> # A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and
>>> verification # of validity when asked to do so by an authorised
>>> person.
>>>
>>> "Ticket" is generously-enough defined as to include railcards.
>>>
>>> <http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/legislation/regs/railwaysbyelaws>
>>> (PDF)
>>
>> I can't find any such definition there.  Perhaps you'd point to the
>> bit of the 'ticket' definition that does that.
>
> Pages 24-25:
>
> # "ticket" includes
> # ...
> # (vi) any identity card, reservation or other document required by an
> #      Operator to be held or produced for use with other travel
> #      documents,
>
> I think a Railcard comes squarely under that clause.

Only if the actual ticket is regarded as 'other travel documents' and the 
Railcard is now the 'ticket'.  Since that is the exact opposite of  what any 
normal person would understand, it's bending the language unacceptably to 
interpret it in that way.

It's stretching it a bit in my view to call a ticket a document anyway.  No 
normal person would ever call it such.

What is perhaps more relevant is the later definition on the same page:

" 'valid ticket' means a ticket (including any associated photo/identity 
card and/or other travel document) lawfully obtained by or on behalf of the 
person using or attempting to use it and entitling that person to use the 
particular railway service he is using or attempting to use. Where the terms 
attaching to the ticket require validation of the ticket, such ticket shall 
not be considered to be a valid ticket for the purposes of these Byelaws 
unless and until the ticket has been properly validated"

As the ticket was lawfully obtained, the first sentence of this seems to 
have been fulfilled.  The second is hopelessly circular, and is completely 
impossible to understand in the absence of any definition of 'valid', 
'validation' and 'validated', which do not seem to appear in the list of 
definitions.

If it merely qualifies or explains the first sentence, then the process of 
validation can only apply to the moment when the ticket was obtained, and we 
know it was obtained on production of the Railcard and so was 'validated' at 
the time of purchase.  It therefore was a valid ticket when it was issued, 
and I don't see how any validly issued ticket can suddenly become invalid 
when used for the journey it concerns.

In message , at 20:40:13 on 
Fri, 18 Jul 2008, Percy Picacity <key@under.the.invalid> remarked:
>the form asks about arrests or convictions - it doesn't mention the 
>exceptions.

It also doesn't mention what they mean by "arrest". I think there's a 
significant possibility that there's a similar confusion of words here 
as we've seen in the McCann case, over the Portuguese word "suspect" 
applying to a "witness". (Can we avoid disassembling this very general 
analogy too much?)

And we see many people "arrested" here who are subsequently released 
(but perhaps not un-arrested in a VWP sense), who might in the USA be 
simply "taken in for questioning". Is their "arrested" more like our 
"charged with an offence"?

Wikipedia (yes, I know) says of arrests in USA: "arrests should not be 
made lightly as a wrongfully arrested person may sue the arresting 
authority for damages."

Compare with this UK case:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7496118.stm

Should part of his "compensation" be a letter to the USA authorities 
saying he isn't a criminal?
-- 
Roland Perry

In message <g5pltr$5ua$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, at 10:00:11 on Fri, 
18 Jul 2008, Norman Wells  remarked:
>>
>> You will also find conditions of use, such as:
>>
>>        "Railcard holders travelling on a discounted ticket must carry
>>        their Railcard when they travel. If a Railcard holder fails to
>>        produce a valid Railcard with their ticket, a new ticket must
>>        be purchased as if no Railcard and/or no ticket were held."
>
>I accept he may well have breached the conditions of his Railcard, but 
>that in my view does not alter the fact that he had a valid ticket 
>which he produced on demand as required.  If that's all he's accused of 
>not doing, then he should deny it.

If he's breached the conditions, then his Railcard-enabled ticket isn't 
valid. Simple as that. What's more likely to get him off is looking at 
the length of time he should be allowed to produce the Railcard (which 
he did manage to do whilst *still travelling*). If he'd left it at home 
then that excuse wouldn't work.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message 
, at 
14:45:08 on Fri, 18 Jul 2008, "google@woodall.me.uk" 
 remarked:
>On Jul 18, 9:35 am, Roland Perry  wrote:
>> In message <g5od88$8g1$1$8302b...@news.demon.co.uk>, at 22:25:14 on Thu,
>> 17 Jul 2008, Norman Wells  remarked:
>>
>> >A ticket is either valid or not.  What we are talking about here is
>> >proving it, which is a different matter.  The OP had a ticket to which
>> >he was entitled, and for which he had paid.  That makes it valid, and
>> >he produced it for inspection and verification when asked.  The fact
>> >that he did not produce the evidence that it was valid, ie his
>> >Railcard, does not alter that fact.
>>
>> You will also find conditions of use, such as:
>>
>>         "Railcard holders travelling on a discounted ticket must carry
>>         their Railcard when they travel. If a Railcard holder fails to
>>         produce a valid Railcard with their ticket, a new ticket must be
>>         purchased as if no Railcard and/or no ticket were held."
>>
>> What the OP should be doing is finding out if such a condition applies
>> to his ticket and his Train Company (the chances are it will).
>
>It might be a technicality, and it will depend on exactly what the
>regulations say but if it's something along the lines of:
>
>You MUST carry your rail ticket with you at all times. If you fail to
>present your railcard when asked then you may be liable to ...

It very clearly says: "produce a valid Railcard *with* their ticket".

>In which case the OP might be OK. I'll leave it to the legal eagles
>here. IIUC the failure to display

It says "produce" not "display".

>would be evidence of the failure to carry but would not, of itself, be 
>the offence.
>
>Of course, if I was in a similar position I'd have asked the guard on
>the platform/station at my destination to write something on the
>ticket to say that I'd presented my railcard at my destination (or if
>they refused, tried to get a name or number from them) so that I'd got
>some evidence that I hadn't broken the rule.

The rule is "produce a valid Railcard *with* their ticket", the only 
loophole I can think of being that the original ticket inspector didn't 
wait long enough after asking for it to be produced.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message <g5pif8$e5p$1$830fa795@news.demon.co.uk>, at 09:00:12 on Fri, 
18 Jul 2008, Norman Wells  remarked:
>So, he failed to meet the conditions of the Railcard but, as that is 
>not an offence with which he has been charged, he doesn't have to deal 
>with it.

If he failed to produce the railcard then the ticket is invalid.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message <g5q7dv$3ph$2@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, at 15:00:06 on Fri, 18 
Jul 2008, Michael Hoffman <cam.ac.uk@mh391.invalid> remarked:
>>>> Also tell the Court that you must necessarily have produced the 
>>>>travelcard  to purchase the ticket (if that actually is the case) 
>>>>thereby proving your  entitlement at the point of purchase.

On reflection I don't see how that helps, because if the offence was not 
*having* (rather than not *producing*) a railcard, then they are dated 
and so producing it in court will be convincing proof the travelcard 
existed at the same time as the train trip.

-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <g5pltr$5ua$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, at 10:00:11 on
> Fri, 18 Jul 2008, Norman Wells  remarked:
>>>
>>> You will also find conditions of use, such as:
>>>
>>>        "Railcard holders travelling on a discounted ticket must
>>>        carry their Railcard when they travel. If a Railcard holder
>>>        fails to produce a valid Railcard with their ticket, a new
>>>        ticket must be purchased as if no Railcard and/or no ticket
>>> were held."
>>
>> I accept he may well have breached the conditions of his Railcard,
>> but that in my view does not alter the fact that he had a valid
>> ticket which he produced on demand as required.  If that's all he's
>> accused of not doing, then he should deny it.
>
> If he's breached the conditions, then his Railcard-enabled ticket
> isn't valid. Simple as that.

No, it's not as simple as that.  He produced his Railcard when he obtained 
the ticket, thereby validating it.  He had a valid ticket.  He also had a 
valid Railcard.  A valid, validated ticket can't suddenly become invalid 
when used on the journey for which it was issued.

The wrongdoing, if there was any, was failing to produce the Railcard on 
demand.  The remedy for that would be to withdraw the Railcard from him and 
deny its future use.  But that's not what he's charged with.

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <g5pif8$e5p$1$830fa795@news.demon.co.uk>, at 09:00:12 on
> Fri, 18 Jul 2008, Norman Wells  remarked:
>> So, he failed to meet the conditions of the Railcard but, as that is
>> not an offence with which he has been charged, he doesn't have to
>> deal with it.
>
> If he failed to produce the railcard then the ticket is invalid.

He did produce it at the time he obtained his ticket, which is the time that 
is relevant according to the definition of 'valid ticket' in the Bye-laws. 
Anything subsequent to that cannot invalidate the ticket, though it might 
breach the conditions of use of the Railcard.  The two are different.

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <g5q7dv$3ph$2@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, at 15:00:06 on Fri, 18
> Jul 2008, Michael Hoffman <cam.ac.uk@mh391.invalid> remarked:

>>>>> Also tell the Court that you must necessarily have produced the
>>>>> travelcard  to purchase the ticket (if that actually is the case)
>>>>> thereby proving your  entitlement at the point of purchase.
>
> On reflection I don't see how that helps, because if the offence was
> not *having* (rather than not *producing*) a railcard, then they are
> dated and so producing it in court will be convincing proof the
> travelcard existed at the same time as the train trip.

Well, this is where you're misunderstanding the position.  He has not been 
accused of not producing his Railcard, but of not producing a valid ticket.

"Norman Wells"  wrote in message 
news:g5s7sn$jhe$1$830fa795@news.demon.co.uk...
> Ben Harris wrote:
>> In article <g5q80b$r78$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>,
>> Norman Wells  wrote:
>>> Ben Harris wrote:
>>>> I'd guess that the offence is failure to obey either byelaw 17(2) or
>>>> 18(2) (whichever was applicable) of the Railway Byelaws, which both
>>>> read:
>>>>
>>>> # A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and
>>>> verification # of validity when asked to do so by an authorised
>>>> person.
>>>>
>>>> "Ticket" is generously-enough defined as to include railcards.
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/legislation/regs/railwaysbyelaws>
>>>> (PDF)
>>>
>>> I can't find any such definition there.  Perhaps you'd point to the
>>> bit of the 'ticket' definition that does that.
>>
>> Pages 24-25:
>>
>> # "ticket" includes
>> # ...
>> # (vi) any identity card, reservation or other document required by an
>> #      Operator to be held or produced for use with other travel
>> #      documents,
>>
>> I think a Railcard comes squarely under that clause.
>
> Only if the actual ticket is regarded as 'other travel documents' and the 
> Railcard is now the 'ticket'.  Since that is the exact opposite of  what 
> any normal person would understand, it's bending the language unacceptably 
> to interpret it in that way.

Yup

> It's stretching it a bit in my view to call a ticket a document anyway. 
> No normal person would ever call it such.

Perhaps not but surely its proof that the user of the ticket has entered 
into a contract.
>
> What is perhaps more relevant is the later definition on the same page:
>
> " 'valid ticket' means a ticket (including any associated photo/identity 
> card and/or other travel document) lawfully obtained by or on behalf of 
> the person using or attempting to use it and entitling that person to use 
> the particular railway service he is using or attempting to use. Where the 
> terms attaching to the ticket require validation of the ticket, such 
> ticket shall not be considered to be a valid ticket for the purposes of 
> these Byelaws unless and until the ticket has been properly validated"

In this case the ticket is not valid unless the railcard is produced at the 
same time when the ticket inspector asks for it.

> As the ticket was lawfully obtained, the first sentence of this seems to 
> have been fulfilled.  The second is hopelessly circular, and is completely 
> impossible to understand in the absence of any definition of 'valid', 
> 'validation' and 'validated', which do not seem to appear in the list of 
> definitions.

It was lawfully obtained by the use of a railcard so the two must be 
produced together.

> If it merely qualifies or explains the first sentence, then the process of 
> validation can only apply to the moment when the ticket was obtained, and 
> we know it was obtained on production of the Railcard and so was 
> 'validated' at the time of purchase.  It therefore was a valid ticket when 
> it was issued, and I don't see how any validly issued ticket can suddenly 
> become invalid when used for the journey it concerns.

But only remains valid if used with a valid railcard.  If not what's to stop 
the owner of the railcard buying tickets and passing them on to other 
people?

Paul

"Norman Wells"  wrote in message 
news:g5pltr$5ua$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <g5od88$8g1$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>, at 22:25:14 on
>> Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Norman Wells  remarked:
>>> A ticket is either valid or not.  What we are talking about here is
>>> proving it, which is a different matter.  The OP had a ticket to
>>> which he was entitled, and for which he had paid.  That makes it
>>> valid, and he produced it for inspection and verification when
>>> asked.  The fact that he did not produce the evidence that it was
>>> valid, ie his Railcard, does not alter that fact.
>>
>> You will also find conditions of use, such as:
>>
>>        "Railcard holders travelling on a discounted ticket must carry
>>        their Railcard when they travel. If a Railcard holder fails to
>>        produce a valid Railcard with their ticket, a new ticket must
>>        be purchased as if no Railcard and/or no ticket were held."
>
> I accept he may well have breached the conditions of his Railcard, but 
> that in my view does not alter the fact that he had a valid ticket which 
> he produced on demand as required.  If that's all he's accused of not 
> doing, then he should deny it.

Its only valid with a railcard, so in the eyes of the ticket inspector it 
was not valid.

Paul

In message <g5sfo6$ntd$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, at 11:35:04 on Sat, 
19 Jul 2008, Norman Wells  remarked:
>> If he's breached the conditions, then his Railcard-enabled ticket
>> isn't valid. Simple as that.
>
>No, it's not as simple as that.  He produced his Railcard when he 
>obtained the ticket, thereby validating it.  He had a valid ticket.  He 
>also had a valid Railcard.  A valid, validated ticket can't suddenly 
>become invalid when used on the journey for which it was issued.

Of course it can. Maybe he bought the ticket for his wife (who doesn't 
have a railcard). She can't use it even though it's quite legal to buy a 
ticket for your wife.

>The wrongdoing, if there was any, was failing to produce the Railcard 
>on demand.  The remedy for that would be to withdraw the Railcard from 
>him and deny its future use.  But that's not what he's charged with.

The ticket isn't valid unless you are carrying the railcard with you.

It's not especially fair (particularly if the card does exist), but 
that's the way it is. There is too much railcard fraud for people to be 
given the benefit of the doubt.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message <g5sghc$olr$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, at 11:45:07 on Sat, 
19 Jul 2008, Norman Wells  remarked:
>>>>>> Also tell the Court that you must necessarily have produced the
>>>>>> travelcard  to purchase the ticket (if that actually is the case)
>>>>>> thereby proving your  entitlement at the point of purchase.
>>
>> On reflection I don't see how that helps, because if the offence was
>> not *having* (rather than not *producing*) a railcard, then they are
>> dated and so producing it in court will be convincing proof the
>> travelcard existed at the same time as the train trip.
>
>Well, this is where you're misunderstanding the position.  He has not 
>been accused of not producing his Railcard, but of not producing a 
>valid ticket.

The ticket isn't valid unless accompanied by the railcard.
-- 
Roland Perry

Paul Stevenson wrote:
> "Norman Wells"  wrote in message
> news:g5pltr$5ua$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>> Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <g5od88$8g1$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>, at 22:25:14 on
>>> Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Norman Wells  remarked:
>>>> A ticket is either valid or not.  What we are talking about here is
>>>> proving it, which is a different matter.  The OP had a ticket to
>>>> which he was entitled, and for which he had paid.  That makes it
>>>> valid, and he produced it for inspection and verification when
>>>> asked.  The fact that he did not produce the evidence that it was
>>>> valid, ie his Railcard, does not alter that fact.
>>> 
>>> You will also find conditions of use, such as:
>>> 
>>>        "Railcard holders travelling on a discounted ticket must
>>>        carry their Railcard when they travel. If a Railcard holder
>>>        fails to produce a valid Railcard with their ticket, a new
>>>        ticket must be purchased as if no Railcard and/or no ticket
>>> were held." 
>> 
>> I accept he may well have breached the conditions of his Railcard,
>> but that in my view does not alter the fact that he had a valid
>> ticket which he produced on demand as required.  If that's all he's
>> accused of not doing, then he should deny it.
> 
> Its only valid with a railcard, so in the eyes of the ticket
> inspector it was not valid.

His eyes are not what matters.  It's the Bye-laws.

Paul Stevenson wrote:
> "Norman Wells"  wrote in message
> news:g5s7sn$jhe$1$830fa795@news.demon.co.uk...

>> What is perhaps more relevant is the later definition on the same
>> page: " 'valid ticket' means a ticket (including any associated
>> photo/identity card and/or other travel document) lawfully obtained
>> by or on behalf of the person using or attempting to use it and
>> entitling that person to use the particular railway service he is
>> using or attempting to use. Where the terms attaching to the ticket
>> require validation of the ticket, such ticket shall not be
>> considered to be a valid ticket for the purposes of these Byelaws
>> unless and until the ticket has been properly validated"
>
> In this case the ticket is not valid unless the railcard is produced
> at the same time when the ticket inspector asks for it.

Why?  The Bye-law definition above specifically states that if a ticket is 
lawfully obtained it's valid.  If the Railcard had to be produced at the 
time of obtaining it, then it's been validated by the production of that 
card.  Why does it suddenly become invalid during the journey for which it 
was issued?

>> As the ticket was lawfully obtained, the first sentence of this
>> seems to have been fulfilled.  The second is hopelessly circular,
>> and is completely impossible to understand in the absence of any
>> definition of 'valid', 'validation' and 'validated', which do not
>> seem to appear in the list of definitions.
>
> It was lawfully obtained by the use of a railcard so the two must be
> produced together.

They were produced together.  That's what made the ticket a valid ticket in 
the first place.

>> If it merely qualifies or explains the first sentence, then the
>> process of validation can only apply to the moment when the ticket
>> was obtained, and we know it was obtained on production of the
>> Railcard and so was 'validated' at the time of purchase.  It
>> therefore was a valid ticket when it was issued, and I don't see how
>> any validly issued ticket can suddenly become invalid when used for
>> the journey it concerns.
>
> But only remains valid if used with a valid railcard.  If not what's
> to stop the owner of the railcard buying tickets and passing them on
> to other people?

The Bye-law definition itself as set out above.  Read the bit following 
'lawfully obtained'.

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <g5sghc$olr$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, at 11:45:07 on
> Sat, 19 Jul 2008, Norman Wells  remarked:
>>>>>>> Also tell the Court that you must necessarily have produced the
>>>>>>> travelcard  to purchase the ticket (if that actually is the
>>>>>>> case) thereby proving your  entitlement at the point of
>>>>>>> purchase.
>>>
>>> On reflection I don't see how that helps, because if the offence was
>>> not *having* (rather than not *producing*) a railcard, then they are
>>> dated and so producing it in court will be convincing proof the
>>> travelcard existed at the same time as the train trip.
>>
>> Well, this is where you're misunderstanding the position.  He has not
>> been accused of not producing his Railcard, but of not producing a
>> valid ticket.
>
> The ticket isn't valid unless accompanied by the railcard.

Merely repeating this mantra doesn't make it so.  Where exactly in the 
Bye-laws does it say what you claim?

In message <g5t7lt$kfk$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, at 18:20:15 on Sat, 
19 Jul 2008, Norman Wells  remarked:
>Merely repeating this mantra doesn't make it so.  Where exactly in the 
>Bye-laws does it say what you claim?

The Byelaws have to read in conjunction with many other "rules" (for 
example the routing guide and fares manual), one of which is the 
Conditions of Use of the Railcards, which I have quoted previously.
-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <g5t7lt$kfk$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, at 18:20:15 on
> Sat, 19 Jul 2008, Norman Wells  remarked:
>> Merely repeating this mantra doesn't make it so.  Where exactly in
>> the Bye-laws does it say what you claim?
>
> The Byelaws have to read in conjunction with many other "rules" (for
> example the routing guide and fares manual), one of which is the
> Conditions of Use of the Railcards, which I have quoted previously.

Then I'm afraid you don't understand the basics of the law.  The Bye-laws 
are the law, and they stand alone unless they specifically cross-refer to 
other documents.

And as far as I can see, they don't.