Heavy handedness of DART ticket inspectors

Jonny Arson

***Long story but please read all to understand the situation***

My mother regularly uses and pays for the DART in the mornings from Bayside to Howth station.

Currently at Bayside station there is building works so there is no proper ticket selling facilities or ticket turnstiles in the station. They currently use a portakabin to sell tickets from. There is a window they sell the tickets from and there is a small half circular gap in this window they exchange money and tickets through.

Ok my mother goes to the station this morning and sees that there is a wooden plank lowered covering the gap. I have seen this on many occasions (including around the 9 am period) This is a signal that no one is selling tickets or there to sell tickets as 99% of people would comprehend this. I have never once seen anyone go and knock on this window when the wooden plank is down. Anyone would interpret that they aren't open for business. There is also no one ever checking that people have purchased their tickets in the morning so I can only presume that many people take the DART from here without a valid ticket.

So my mother goes over just before 9 to take the DART to Howth and the wooden plank is down. Anyone would interpret that this means no one is there so pay at your destination. My mother knows that the DART is due in 2 minutes so she is left with no other choice but to enter the station (no one checking tickets once again). She takes the DART to Howth and plans to pay at the station. (I have seen countless amounts of people pay the ticket inspectors on arrival at Tara Stret station)

So there about 3 inspectors there. They ask her for her ticket and she tells them about the situation which I mentioned above and offers to pay here fare. One of the inspectors takes her to one side and asks for her name and address. (They had a book with people's names and adresses so to prevent people giving false names but surely having private information like this is a violation of people's privacy and personal information) So she asks what is going on and this inspector accuses my mother of being a fare evader! :mad: She told them what exactly what the situation was but they ignored. They stated that this portakabin is always opened (with a plank covering the opening of the sales booth regularly we all know who's telling the truth here). They phone Bayside station and ask them were they there and they say ''yes''. (They are well known for being slack at Bayside station and being hardly there on many occasions to note)

So after this phone call Mr. Ticket Inspector says as that my mother is a ''fare evader''. :mad: My mother got hugely upset over this for obvious reasons and this ticket inspector insinuates my mother of hallucinating over the booth not being open! :mad: He also suggests to my mother ''are you suffering from any worries?'' My mother is in tears and embarrased as people are walking by and looking at the situation. She pleads the situation looking for some common sense to no avail. He also strangley asks my mother for a ticket she have had from yesterday. My mother thankfully did because she isn't a regular ''fare evader'' like that inspector likes to make out. This ticket inspector takes my mother's details from this mysterious book of people's names and says he is going down to Bayside station. My mother rightly stands up for herself and says she wants to go down.

So they go down to Bayside, my mother being horded around as if she was ''criminal''. When they arrive at Bayside station guess what? Wooden plank is covering the gap again! My mother points this out to Mr. Inspector. So they go in and there is the sellers inside the booth but gap not open to sell tickets? They say that they were there in the morning and make excuses such as that gap is down because it ''gets too cold'' etc crap like that (surely working in inappropriate cold conditions is against workers right isn't it not?) If people or a shop are doing business they make themselves look open, they didn't.

My mother is told that her name has been taken and she will be fined. My mother states an hour of her time has been wasted and she is late for work. Mr Ticket Inspector again wrongly accuses my mother of being a ''fare evader'' by saying she shouldn't tell her employer over quote ''what she has done'' :mad:

My mother is not a ''fare evader'' as anyone with any cop on or knowledge would realise after reading this. Bayside station is far too easily open to fare evasion and my mother is a victim of Bayside station's inept ticket selling and the ticket inspectors egotistical attiude and picking on of my mother. His treatment of her I find absolutely dispicable and if I was there I would have hit the roof!

My mother is understandably refusing to pay her unwarranted fine. I have been on DARTs before and i have seen inspectors catch people without tickets and letting these individuals pay on the train. I've seen people pay the inspectors at Connolly Station and Tara Street on endless occassions. Surely the couldn't have as good logical reason as my mother could they? They have picked on and bullied my mother this morning to make it look they are doing their jobs. Any person with cop on, coomon sense and a bit of intelligent understanding would easily realise that my mother is not a fare evader and is a victim of circumstances.

My mother is not paying the fine and if taken to court will fight her case for which I believe DART have absolutely NOTHING ON HER. My mother is considering taking the dispicable and unwarranted treatment of her further.

What are your opinions on this situation? From what I have said (and every single word the truth) there is only one conclusion anyone can come to to.
So do you think DART has a case?
Does my mother have anything to take this further?
What about this book/records of people's personal information? Is that legal?
What about Bayside stations poor conditions regards to ticket selling/policing and workers working in insatisfactory conditions which results in them shutting down their selling booth?

I am outraged and I want DART shamed to the highest degree.

dowlingm

A letter to Dick Fearn and , cc your local TDs, would be the way I would go if taking it further.

MarkoP11

No need for long story

Simple summary

Got to station
Booking office appears closed for unknown reason
Boarded
Got hassle destination
Fought back got serious ignorant agro

Under these exact conditions CIE do not have a case, however failure to approach the ticket window to confirm it was indeed closed may be an issue, as IE will be able to show it was staffed and given no sign shown indicating closure (YES this is a sign I've seen used and it clearly states closed pay at destination)

SI 109/1984, CORAS IOMPAIR ÉIREANN BYE-LAWS (CONFIRMATION) ORDER, 1984.

4. Where the Board gives notice that a station is unattended or the booking office is closed, or where any person is instructed by an authorised person to board a train at a station without purchasing a ticket at the booking office so as not to delay the departure of the train from the station, any person not in possession of a valid ticket entitling him or her to travel may enter a vehicle at that station for the purpose of travelling but that person must obtain a ticket or other authority from an authorised person on the train as soon as practicable after entering any vehicle or from an authorised person on arrival at the station to which such person is travelling by the train.

Yes the book is 100% legal its big red and called Toms directory and is well known in the legal and banking business, I've used it and it can be purchased, for reference anyone can view the electoral register and access the land registry

There is a case with respect to a simlar scenario but that case was different to the extent the booking office was open but the queue was too long

A major crack down was launched several months ago and a very large number of people have got caught and the majority put there hands up and pay the fine

What you describe is unacceptable and you should file a case through the civil courts against CIE for the distress good name etc however CIE will fight the case on fact the ticket office was open and that there was no clear indication either way. On the balance of probailities was the office open it would appear so so a civil case might be shaky

On the other hand the onus with repect to the fine is for CIE to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the office was open which doesnt look possible

The game plan with CIE is they won't fight they settle but in this case

A) Dont pay the 80 euro, inform CIE of this (CIE are the legal entity)
Demand a formal apology and disciplinary proceedures against member of staff
C) Threaten the legal

If you want the CIE group solicitors name and address I can dig it up

dudara

Get on to Joe Duffy, or a suitable equivalent annoying DJ.

Technically your mother is guilty as letter, according to the letter of the law, but leniancy should be shown here

lostexpectation

Why are they going so gung-ho over prosecuting everyone they need to make sure that there outlying stations are properly manned at all times! Or perhaps they should do that first!

MarkoP11

They lost a case recently and changed approach to remove the inconsistency they got caught on

I've no problem with throwing the book at someone who has been caught red handed

It this case they crossed the line

They won't fight it the case will be dropped the second a nasty letter lands in there office, but in this case this clearly isn't sufficent

I'm tempted to board from a certain unstaffed station and see how far I get

One point is if you are going the legal route it might not do your case any favours to be all over a cheap talkshow

bungeecork

OP - read the first few posts on this thread and then skip to post number 95.

While the ticket inspector you write about did sound very very very rude, I am impressed with the fact that he was willing to check out the Bayside station then and there with your Mum. Even though he proceeded with the fine etc. it did give your Mum the evidence she needed to prove her story was correct as she had given it.

The letter mentioned in the thread above did the trick (good luck getting it done pro bono though )

And it sounds like your Mum had a stressful day - maybe a box of choccies and some flowers???

MarkoP11

Shove the solicitor at this stage a carefully worded letter with SI 109/1984 quoted will do more than enough. If they admit they are wrong in response thenn you can have some real fun

gerrydublin

CIE you say have a crappy ticket office at Bayside,
presumably because the footfall there does not warrant a large ticket office,
am I missing something,
but why the hell don't CIE they have automatic ticket machine with CCTV around it so it's not vandalised!
Why do they need to employ someone in such crap conditions?
I wonder if they did a cost benefit analysis of employing a ticket seller in Bayside and other small stations against having ticket machines at these stations, and individuals in a central location looking at the CCTV,
why they still employ staff in these stations.
I'm sure there is a good reason for the current situation...but

MarkoP11

Station is being rebuilt currently and will have ticket vending machines

L5

MarkoP11 wrote:

No need for long story

If you want the CIE group solicitors name and address I can dig it up

Michael Carrol
Bridgewater House
Islandbridge
Dublin ?

MarkoP11

Dublin 8 of course

bungeecork

MarkoP11 wrote:

(...) a carefully worded letter with SI 109/1984 quoted will do more than enough. If they admit they are wrong in response thenn you can have some real fun

What fun do you mean - Joe Duffy fun?

MarkoP11

admission they were wrong on paper means what happened shouldn't have happened and thence the staff member shoudl be disciplined and your solicitor would have a very easy job if you wished to push further because they have admitted they were wrong

davidoco

gerrydublin wrote:

CIE you say have a crappy ticket office at Bayside,
presumably because the footfall there does not warrant a large ticket office,
am I missing something,
but why the hell don't CIE they have automatic ticket machine with CCTV around it so it's not vandalised!
Why do they need to employ someone in such crap conditions?
I wonder if they did a cost benefit analysis of employing a ticket seller in Bayside and other small stations against having ticket machines at these stations, and individuals in a central location looking at the CCTV,
why they still employ staff in these stations.
I'm sure there is a good reason for the current situation...but

The ticket office is a steel portacabin outside a new €250,000 1000 sq ft station, which has yet to be commissioned. My guess is that a couple of thousand people use Bayside each day.

I saw those clickies one morning last week. Literally jumped out in front of me coming up the stairs looking for my ticket. As soon as I went to my pocket to take out the ticket he went "uuuuuuggggg" or something like that and turned away - extremely ignorant in my opinion.


You definitely have a case for a letter to the inspector's supervisor at the very least.

MorningStar

davidoco wrote:

You definitely have a case for a letter to the inspector's supervisor at the very least.

What ever you can say about the facts of the case the inspector did nothing wrong at all. For him to actually go to the station is beyond noraml measures and he could have easily just said "I have verified the station is open".

She choose to go to the station with him and waste her own time. Technically speaking he had a every right to call her a fare evader as all evidence still points to that.

The one thing I will say that was completely inappropriate was this womans crying. If a grown adult can't handle being accused of something with out flying in to a rage the same applies to crying. The same inability to control an emotional response and not acceptable from an adult. For all those that will say well she was upset big deal. I think the inspector asking if she was OK mentally made a lot of sense and showed a lot of compasion.

The inspector as far as I can see went above and beyond the call of duty.

John_C

When the inspector saw that a genuine mistake had been made which was, at least, partially the fault of the company he should have let the matter rest there.

Slash/ED

John_C wrote:

When the inspector saw that a genuine mistake had been made which was, at least, partially the fault of the company he should have let the matter rest there.

Agreed, common sense should be applied in that situation.

Ray777

MorningStar wrote:

Technically speaking he had a every right to call her a fare evader as all evidence still points to that.

Common sense doesn't point towards that though, does it? I mean, most ticket inspectors have enough experience to know when they're faced with a chancer. It's the idiots who take that kind of black & white approach, who give the majority of fair and decent inspectors a bad name.

HelterSkelter

MorningStar wrote:

I think the inspector asking if she was OK mentally made a lot of sense and showed a lot of compasion.

The inspector as far as I can see went above and beyond the call of duty.

He also suggests to my mother ''are you suffering from any worries?'' My mother is in tears

I think this is a disgrace. The inspector is a bully and should face disiplinary action. If it was my mother I would find out who he is and pay him a visit to see if he is as brave when he is facing a man.

ballooba

I remember arriving into Tara St station one day having stupidly left my ticket on the train. I just told my little sister that I was going to walk a little bit ahead given the situation. I calmly walked past the inspector without even looking at him. As my sis got to him she saw him look after me and mutter under his breath about me being a fúcking prick.

MarkoP11

The advice in this situation is remain calm since you are a win win scenario, I'll explain

There is no common sense to be applied, booking office appeared closed (thats the only questionable element) I am willing to pay the correct fare at the destination this is legally correct under SI109/1984

If you do get issued with a fine where you clearly are in the right don't get angry if they persist do the following,

Ask to be shown under what authority the fine is being issued i.e. show the section under which you are in breech of.

Get the name of the inspector if its not clear on the docket you are issued and inform him that your solicitor will be in touch with CIE to contest the fine.

Write a nasty letter quoting the law indicating that you will contest through the courts, if you can get a solicitor to do it for free do but remember you don't want to be out of pocket

You should then get an apology not to mention a free trip for the journey you undertook if not get a solicitor remember it will cost CIE to go to court and the fines for real fare evaders rarely break €250 so its going to be loss making experience as the inspector has to be dragged in to give evidence and you will be awarded costs as the case you be thrown out

You then have the statisfaction of victory over the machine

Seth Brundle

MorningStar wrote:

Technically speaking he had a every right to call her a fare evader as all evidence still points to that.

What is CIE's definition of a fare evader given that it is possible & allowed for someone to board a train without a valid ticket as long as they pay at the first opportunity? The OP's mother was willing to pay up so as far as I can see she satisfied the companys rules but was in fact stopped from doing so by the inspector.
Furthermore, the inspector didn't seem to accept the fact that the office could have been closed even though he saw with his own eyes that it does in fact close during open hours. Anyhow if he truly believed that she was not being truthful then why go to the effort of proving his percieved point of view by going back to Bayside.
Also as closures are a frequent occurence at many stations (it used to be common at confey befoire I realised that paying to stand in an overcrowded train was stupid). Surely he has come across this situation before.

MicraBoy

What is CIE's definition of a fare evader given that it is possible & allowed for someone to board a train without a valid ticket as long as they pay at the first opportunity?

It's not possible and allowed if the ticket office at the station they boarded at was open. This rule only applies if the ticket office is closed.

MarkoP11

MicraBoy wrote:

It's not possible and allowed if the ticket office at the station they boarded at was open. This rule only applies if the ticket office is closed.

Or if a member of IE staff in the interest of ensuring the train departs promtly is authorised to tell passengers to board and pay on board or at destination, but that is their call, highly rare and to be fair only occured where you had a situation where the ticket issurer was also in charge of train eg acting signalman

Seth Brundle

MicraBoy wrote:

It's not possible and allowed if the ticket office at the station they boarded at was open. This rule only applies if the ticket office is closed.

Hold on.
Looking at SI 109/1984, CORAS IOMPAIR ÉIREANN BYE-LAWS (CONFIRMATION) ORDER, 1984.

4. Where the Board gives notice that a station is unattended or the booking office is closed, or where any person is instructed by an authorised person to board a train at a station without purchasing a ticket at the booking office so as not to delay the departure of the train from the station, any person not in possession of a valid ticket entitling him or her to travel may enter a vehicle at that station for the purpose of travelling but that person must obtain a ticket or other authority from an authorised person on the train as soon as practicable after entering any vehicle or from an authorised person on arrival at the station to which such person is travelling by the train.

The station office was for all intents closed or possibly unattended. What else was the OPs mother to do? Should she have rung directory enquiries for CIE HQ's number, and then phoned someone up there just to clarify what she should do?

MorningStar

HelterSkelter wrote:

I think this is a disgrace. The inspector is a bully and should face disiplinary action. If it was my mother I would find out who he is and pay him a visit to see if he is as brave when he is facing a man.

Just becasue she was crying doesn't mean he did anything wrong. ASking if she was menatlly stable sounds reasonable. What suggests he did anything wrong and there was absolutely no need for him to go to the station with her which I take he did as a way to cailm her.
She was crying from embarrasment is sugggested here nothing else.

Ray777 wrote:

Common sense doesn't point towards that though, does it? I mean, most ticket inspectors have enough experience to know when they're faced with a chancer. It's the idiots who take that kind of black & white approach, who give the majority of fair and decent inspectors a bad name.

Being very basic about it, station open,verified, person cliams it was closed they are either lying or made a mistake. Not paid to work it out easiest cheapest solution to fare problem is not to believe anyone. Greater good is worth a few mistakes and also makes people be more aware of the importance of paying. Common sense say this is the correct approach for best overall results. She should have accepted what he said and proceeded to complain later. She wasted her own time and his.

MicraBoy

What else was the OPs mother to do?

Knock on the portacabin wall or the plank of wood? Simple. I bet she'll do it in future.

The office was open from IE's point of view. Anyway I wasn't criticising her, just pointing out that your interpretation of the rule was a bit open ended.

It's beyond me why the inspector didn't drop the issue when he saw the plank over the hole

I think following MarkoP11's advice is the best course of action and will sort the problem out.

HelterSkelter

MorningStar wrote:

ASking if she was menatlly stable sounds reasonable.

First of all, he didn't say anything about her being mentally stable so why do you keep saying this? Are you suggesting the OP's mother is mentally unstable? As the OP said:

He also suggests to my mother ''are you suffering from any worries?'' My mother is in tears

What right has he to ask a question like that? His job is to determine if she had a valid ticket or not, he has no right to ask patronising questions especially as the woman was obviously upset. How insensitive can someone be? I can't believe you are defending these bully boy tatics. What a coward he is. I bet he wouldn't have the balls to challenge a group of lads drinking cider on the train. He sounds to me like someone who once they put on a uniform and given any form of authority it goes straight to their head. I seriously hope the OP takes legal action against the inspector and company.

HelterSkelter

MicraBoy wrote:

It's beyond me why the inspector didn't drop the issue when he saw the plank over the hole

Bouncer mentality, that's why. He couldn't bear to admit the OP's mother was in the right and he was WRONG.

lostexpectation

ms has just won a job om my ignore list for being a fulltime **** anyone adding hhim too?

Zaph0d

I would send a cheque for the fare if it hasn't been paid already as a gesture of goodwill.

Idle ticket sellers should be replaced with machines and inspectors could pick on harder targets than middle aged women going to work.

MicraBoy

HelterSkelter wrote:

Bouncer mentality, that's why. He couldn't bear to admit the OP's mother was in the right and he was WRONG.

Of course thinking about it he would have had to side with her in front of his colleagues, and basically say they were in the wrong. Never was gonna happen.

MorningStar

HelterSkelter wrote:

First of all, he didn't say anything about her being mentally stable so why do you keep saying this? Are you suggesting the OP's mother is mentally unstable? As the OP said:

"He also suggests to my mother ''are you suffering from any worries?'' My mother is in tears"
I hate to break it to you but that is very simple code for are you OK and general question about the persons mental stability. TO take it even litterally it is by no means a bully act. Combined with him going to visit the station with her actually sound like the acts of somebody going way past their job to be nice. He didn't need to go to the station

HelterSkelter wrote:

What right has he to ask a question like that? His job is to determine if she had a valid ticket or not, he has no right to ask patronising questions especially as the woman was obviously upset. How insensitive can someone be? I can't believe you are defending these bully boy tatics. What a coward he is. I bet he wouldn't have the balls to challenge a group of lads drinking cider on the train. He sounds to me like someone who once they put on a uniform and given any form of authority it goes straight to their head. I seriously hope the OP takes legal action against the inspector and company.

THis woman was crying over being called a fair evader not a reasonable or normal act of an adult. It could easily be the act of compasion and concern so to assume other seems odd to me. It doesn't sound patranising to me.

I think people are assuming bully boy tactics where there are none. Give a reasoned arguement that shows that the actions can only be considered bully boy.

I would say the question was one of concern due to the fact she was crying.

It is his job to record her name.

He didn't need to go to the station but did.

She did not have to go and if he was bully her why would she choose to go?

It is extremely unreasonable to assume any of his actions are bully boy. His actions to me prove quite the opposite even given the slant of the story.

What is unreasonable by any view is an adult woman crying over an accusation.

AARRRGH

MorningStar stop trying to play Devils Advocate, nit picking on little details. It's not intelligent.

CIE are obviously in the wrong here.

MorningStar

dublindude wrote:

MorningStar stop trying to play Devils Advocate, nit picking on little details. It's not intelligent.

CIE are obviously in the wrong here.

NO! I don't agree with the comments being made about somebody doing his job in a reasonable manner.

I don't expect inspectors to do this work everytime somebody claims the office was closed or they fell asleep on the train and missed their stop. People suggesting it is reasonable that inspectors investigate the full extent of everybodies claims and I think that is unreasonable .

My view don't like it fine put me on your ignore list like somebody else suggested.

I think the inspector sounded reasonable and the crying woman acted with a lack of self control. No long debate on the subject prove her case in a letter and save her self the crying and wasted hour. Is that unreasonable?

MorningStar

MicraBoy wrote:

Of course thinking about it he would have had to side with her in front of his colleagues, and basically say they were in the wrong. Never was gonna happen.

The ticket office was open she was wrong not the inspector. It is however reasonable that he would agree with her that it appeared closed. THe problem I believe is they no longer have discretion on who to fine. If that is the case what did you want him to do?

BrianD

Good to see that the inspectors and catching people who are fare evading. Right now your mother is one of those as she travelled without a valid ticket and liable for prosecution.

However, the prosecution has not taken place and it will more than likely be thrown out given the mitigating circumstances. It will be a waste of time and money for both parties to have their day in court. She should write immediately to IR and explain the circumstances and they will probably withdraw the case. It's in their interest.

Ticket inspectors have to ruthless - in fact the more forceful the better! However, IR are only fooling themselves if they want to have ruthless enforcement and then have ticket booths that are unmanned (those staff shortages on a monday morning) or appear closed.

eth0_

There's plenty of stations in Dublin that are unmanned before 7am and after 7pm - Ashtown, Castleknock being two that I use quite frequently. If an inspector tried to fine me for having no ticket if I got on at those stations while the ticket office was shut, they'd get some b*llocking from me.

I think it is disgraceful how the inspector spoke to this woman.

However..why did she not have a weekly/monthly ticket if she takes the train to work? Just a query.

Metrobest

I got the DART from Bayside one morning a couple of years ago. There was a long queue for tickets. A train arrived. The guy in the ticket office opened up the gate, told us to get on the train and we all ran up the stairs without paying.

Ticket-checking policies work only when they are coherent, and consistent.

Victor

eth0_ wrote:

However..why did she not have a weekly/monthly ticket if she takes the train to work? Just a query.

Works part-time?

The question asking if the OP's mother was well was probably reasonable.

_Kaiser_

This is yet another example of the idiotic shambles that is CIE...

Here's another example (as eth0_ already referred to). Let's have automated ticket machines and then close the station at 7/8pm so noone can access them, even though trains still serve said station untill 11/11:30

I totally agree with the OP here. It's not his/his mother's fault that CIE (Irish Rail/Dublin Bus/Bus Eireann) like every other (semi) state body in this country is staffed and run by ignorant, incompetent idiots who aren't qualified for the jobs they hold and who would be fired in the private sector! Having worked in Customer-facing roles in the past, I can assure you that had I dealt with customers as some of these individuals do, I'd (rightly) have been fired for it.

(Note for balance: yes there are decent people employed by CIE - and these other bodies/groups - too, but unfortunately based on my experiences and all too common reports here, they seem to be in the minority )

MicraBoy

MorningStar wrote:

The ticket office was open she was wrong not the inspector. It is however reasonable that he would agree with her that it appeared closed. THe problem I believe is they no longer have discretion on who to fine. If that is the case what did you want him to do?

Yes but the IE employees are surely in the wrong to cover up the hole when they are cold in the same manner as they do when they are closed! In order to agree with her that the office appeared closed he would have been suggesting the tickets guys were wrong to cover the hole.

I don't believe he had no discretion, otherwise the whole going back to the ticket office was a charade and a waste of everyones time. The fact is he gave her some benefit of the doubt and should have followed through once he had done that.

It wasn't unreasonable to not believe her when he couldn't see the evidence himself. In fact I'm positive he hears that same excuse 100 times a day, its not his place to make a character judgement on people without tickets.

MorningStar

Metrobest wrote:

I got the DART from Bayside one morning a couple of years ago. There was a long queue for tickets. A train arrived. The guy in the ticket office opened up the gate, told us to get on the train and we all ran up the stairs without paying.

Ticket-checking policies work only when they are coherent, and consistent.

Policeies change and they are making the more coherient.

There is now a consistant policy that they don't believe things

the_syco

In my local train station (Leixlip), the place where you put money sometimes has a board over it, as it would get cold otherwise. Once you approach it, someone will appear, and would be able to give you a ticket.

Another thing to notice: the local train station now opens till a later time. They (the management) do cop on, after a bit.

secret_squirrel

Since when has it been a customers job to check if something is open when to all reasonable appearances it looks closed? There is no way the OP's mother should be fined because the DART staff are incapable of performing their jobs competently.

I would encourage the OP's mother to take a disposable camera along and take pictures of said plank and ticketing booth. If you get no joy from CIE I would seriously think about getting the local rag involved.

Oh and morningstar - newsflash - a significant amount of the population would be justifyably upset after being bullied in this fashion, its perfectly within normal bounds of acceptable behaviour. What kind of world do you inhabit where anyone how cries in a humilating situation is guilty of mental imbalance?

/ignore tbh.

miju

same story as the OP happened to me except I started my journey at Howth Junction, got a threatening letter of them for a €50 admin charge plus the fee sent them back a politely worded letter explaining the situation and basically saying they can **** themselves as the Howth Junction booth was closed and I've payed at Tara Street on countless occasions over the last 10 years

haven't heard anything from them since, they can bring me to court all they want cos I'll counter claim slander because the way they worded the letter was that I was a criminal the gas thing was that in the letter they said I got on at Clontarf

MorningStar

secret_squirrel wrote:

Oh and morningstar - newsflash - a significant amount of the population would be justifyably upset after being bullied in this fashion, its perfectly within normal bounds of acceptable behaviour. What kind of world do you inhabit where anyone how cries in a humilating situation is guilty of mental imbalance?

/ignore tbh.

Upset does not meaning crying is acceptable as rantig and raving would not be either. Passive aggressive is still aggrressive.
Nothing humiliating happened! Lack of control of ones emotions in this manner could be considered a mental risk. You might not think so but that doesn't make it so.

Gandhi

The real problem children here are the lads who put a plank of wood across the ticket window when they are supposedly open for business. They are the one's who created the difficult situation for both the OP's mother and the ticket inspector.

Could you imagine if some lads working in a shop or chipper had big plank of wood across the service entrance and the boss wandered by? Their feet wouldn't touch the ground they'd be booted out so fast.

Usually a business that is open but appears closed for some reason (construction etc) would put up a sign saying something like:
"We are open. Please knock"
Wouldn't have taken them two minutes to do this.

While I appreciate the points being made about the inspectors needing to not accept excuses for fare evasion, but this lady was not at fault here. Fair enough the ticket office was technically open, but if they open it and make it look closed, that pretty much defeats the purpose.

Victor

MorningStar wrote:

Upset does not meaning crying is acceptable as rantig and raving would not be either. Passive aggressive is still aggrressive.
Nothing humiliating happened! Lack of control of ones emotions in this manner could be considered a mental risk. You might not think so but that doesn't make it so.

Realise that you might be coming across the wrong way.

I remember when I was seven, the teacher gave out to me because I answered a question the guy next to me asked. I have never been "in trouble" before. We were sent to the corner for talking. I was so frightened that I didn't ask could I use the toilet and eventually wet myself.

Fast forward twenty odd years and while no, I don't think many people can reduce me to tears in a heated discussion, there but for the grace of God, we all go.

I think the inspector may have been genuinely concerned for the OPs mother when she started crying. That does not mean either was doing wrong.

Ray777

MorningStar wrote:

Upset does not meaning crying is acceptable as rantig and raving would not be either. Passive aggressive is still aggrressive.
Nothing humiliating happened! Lack of control of ones emotions in this manner could be considered a mental risk. You might not think so but that doesn't make it so.

Being wrongly accused of committing a crime isn't 'humiliating'?

Tbh, your lack of empathy on this subject could be considered a mental 'issue'.