Can Luas inspectors ask to see your ticket on the platform legally?

wikkybikky

I just really want to know what authority they have to ask you to produce a ticket for a completed journey once you have left the vehicle.

Nothing in the bye law states that the platform is a paying or ticketed area, nor that you must retain your ticket for inspection after your journey is complete/disembarking from the vehicle etc

I know there are a lot of threads about this but I have not found a definitive yes or no answer. There must be someone who knows or can interpret the bye-law that can answer this.

If you are asked to produce a ticket when you are on the platform and you refuse to or ignore them and keep walking what are the ramifications of this?

bk

Non of us can answer with authority, non of us work for the RPA or are a judge (and even then different judges can have different opinions, law is rarely as black and white as people think it is).

The only way to know for certain is to appeal it. Then if you lose the appeal bring it to court.

wikkybikky

well I am just wondering if you are legally compelled to accept the fine in the 1st place. Clearly the inspectors feel that they have the authority to issue fines on the platform but I can't help but feel that they are just chancing their arm and hoping that people don't question the validity of it.

Lets hope someone reading will know what the legal standing of it is. I am certain I am not the 1st person who has questioned this.

you are right bk in saying that the law is not black & white, but to be honest I am fairly certain that they either can or can't check tickets on the platform. It either is or isn't the property of Veolia/RPA.

goingnowhere

There is a legal grey area on the checking of a ticket on the platform, except if the inspector has determined you have no ticket before you leave the tram. But you are legally required to obey the officials instructions while on the Light Railway and the platform is part of the light railway as designated by the railway works order which built the light railway

However the offence is to "travel or attempt to travel on a light rail vehicle without possession of a valid ticket," no defence to that

Clerk: Are you "name"
Clerk: Reads the case, "In the city and county of Dublin, ...........
Judge/Clerk: How you plead Guilty/Not Guilty?
Clerk: Swears you in
....
RPA/Veoila Legal Team: Did you on date x time y have a valid ticket before you entered the tram
You: No
RPA/Veoila Legal Team: We rest you honour and seek full enforcement of sec 132 of the Rail Safety Act

All over in 2 minutes.

-Chris-

@everyone - please note this is a hypothetical situation bearing no relation to other threads... if you know the by-laws and have an opinion on this, please give your info.

-Chris-

goingnowhere wrote: »

There is a legal grey area on the checking of a ticket on the platform, except if the inspector has determined you have no ticket before you leave the tram. But you are legally required to obey the officials instructions while on the Light Railway and the platform is part of the light railway as designated by the railway works order which built the light railway

However the offence is to "travel or attempt to travel on a light rail vehicle without possession of a valid ticket," no defence to that

Clerk: Are you "name"
Clerk: Reads the case, "In the city and county of Dublin, ...........
Judge/Clerk: How you plead Guilty/Not Guilty?
Clerk: Swears you in
....
RPA/Veoila Legal Team: Did you on date x time y have a valid ticket before you entered the tram
You: No
RPA/Veoila Legal Team: We rest you honour and seek full enforcement of sec 132 of the Rail Safety Act

All over in 2 minutes.

But if you said


RPA/Veoila Legal Team: Did you on date x time y have a valid ticket before you entered the tram
You: Yes, but I left it on the tram/threw it in the on-platform bin before you approached me

what would happen then?

At what stage are you safe to dispose of your ticket?

Would different stops have different rules due to some being RPA property (or whoever) and some being public property?

wikkybikky

that's interesting goingnowhere thanks surely some of the platforms are public property though...the ones which are public footpaths. Grey area indeed!

foggy_lad

Imo unless the inspectors approach you in/on the tram they can not say with any certainty that you did not possess a ticket for the journey. There is nothing requiring you to keep tickets after your journey ends just in case you are approached after leaving the tram or some time after the journey.

What if these inspectors started using cctv to pick people out who travelled a day previous and accuse them of not having a ticket at that time, this is the same except the timeframe is much shorter.

It is also a totally different story if they check your ticket on the tram but take you off the tram to issue the fine/standard fare notice.

Losty Dublin

-Chris- wrote: »

Would different stops have different rules due to some being RPA property (or whoever) and some being public property?

You will find that the bye laws and laws will cover the light railway and it's operation and not just it's property.

-Chris-

Losty Dublin wrote: »

You will find that the bye laws and laws will cover the light railway and it's operation and not just it's property.

But so can a Luas inspector stop you on public property and ask for your ticket? Is it in their "jurisdiction"?

dowlingm

I would not assume footpaths which are part of platforms are public property but rather RPA property through which there is a right of way. I'm having trouble finding a link on point though.

foggy_lad

dowlingm wrote: »

I would not assume footpaths which are part of platforms are public property but rather RPA property through which there is a right of way. I'm having trouble finding a link on point though.

What if they walk up to you on a luas platform and accuse you of getting off the last tram and not having a ticket?

I am no lawyer but legally i cant see any way they can fine people or even approach them on a luas platform and accuse them of not having a valid ticket.

They would need to prove that you had no ticket on the tram and the only way to do this is to approach you on the tram!

They may try to claim to have cctv of you getting on the tram without tagging on or buying a ticket but this is not proof enough as you could have been meeting someone on the tram who was holding your ticket for you

Losty Dublin

-Chris- wrote: »

But so can a Luas inspector stop you on public property and ask for your ticket? Is it in their "jurisdiction"?

As I read it, their remit extends to anybody who contravenes LUAS bye laws; practically speaking this would reasonably only be on or immediately adjacent to a LUAS service for them to issue a standard fare; I can't see them running down Grafton Street after you but maybe to the door of Dandelion. There is still a crime of fare evasion which I am sure that a Garda can also arrest you for, if it came to it.

bk

foggy_lad wrote: »

What if they walk up to you on a luas platform and accuse you of getting off the last tram and not having a ticket?

There is CCTV on the platform that can be used to check if the person just got off the tram or was just standing there, so it wouldn't be difficult to prove either way.

And this is exactly what the RPA might do in this case if it went to court. Bring the CCTV footage of you getting off the tram and not throwing away the ticket.

Also one thing that all this ignores, if this actually went to court, a judge is simply going to ask you "did you have a ticket?"

In this case if you told the truth, which is that you didn't, then the judge is just going to find you guilty. Most judges aren't going to leave a minor technicality get in the way. Your other option is to lie, but then lying in court is a very serious matter that would get you jail time.

Cookie_Monster

bk wrote: »

Also one thing that all this ignores, if this actually went to court, a judge is simply going to ask you "did you have a ticket?"

Can you prove I did not?

:P

foggy_lad

Losty Dublin wrote: »

As I read it, their remit extends to anybody who contravenes LUAS bye laws; practically speaking this would reasonably only be on or immediately adjacent to a LUAS service for them to issue a standard fare; I can't see them running down Grafton Street after you but maybe to the door of Dandelion. There is still a crime of fare evasion which I am sure that a Garda can also arrest you for, if it came to it.

So they can approach you even without any solid proof of you contravening any luas by-laws? if you are standing or walking along a luas platform they have no grounds to stop you, and even if you have just got off a tram and they follow you off it they have no grounds to stop you as you are at this time not travelling or attempting to travel without a ticket!

my take on it is they must approach you on/in the tram while you are attempting to evade paying the fare.

bk wrote: »

There is CCTV on the platform that can be used to check if the person just got off the tram or was just standing there, so it wouldn't be difficult to prove either way.
And this is exactly what the RPA might do in this case if it went to court. Bring the CCTV footage of you getting off the tram and not throwing away the ticket.

afaik the cctv only covers the ends of the platforms and the ticket machines so will not show whether or not you threw away any ticket!

Also one thing that all this ignores, if this actually went to court, a judge is simply going to ask you "did you have a ticket?"

In this case if you told the truth, which is that you didn't, then the judge is just going to find you guilty. Most judges aren't going to leave a minor technicality get in the way. Your other option is to lie, but then lying in court is a very serious matter that would get you jail time.

but at the time of being approached by the inspectors you were not travelling so had no need for any ticket, If they want to catch you they must do so on/in the tram while you are committing the offence.


http://www.luas.ie/luas-byelaws.html

"ticket” means any ticket or document or electronic method of storing travel value issued by or on behalf of an operator for the conveyance of any person on a light rail vehicle and includes any season ticket, commuter ticket, free pass, privilege ticket, or any warrant, identity card, voucher or other similar authority in exchange for or on production of which any ticket for the conveyance of any person may be issued;

“valid ticket” means a ticket for which the correct fare has been paid for the journey being undertaken and which is in force when the journey is being undertaken;

“passenger” means a person travelling or attempting to travel on a light rail vehicle.

these bye-laws do not mention passengers requiring a ticket to be present on light railway property such as platforms etc which are not "vehicles" of the light rail system

Tickets

3. (1) A passenger shall not –

(a) travel or attempt to travel on a light rail vehicle without possession of a valid ticket,

(e) fail or refuse to produce a ticket to an authorised person for inspection when requested to do so,

(f) fail or refuse to produce a form of identification or other particular document to an authorised person for inspection when requested to do so where the validity of the ticket held by the passenger depends on the passenger being in possession of a form of identification or particular document,

Obviously sections "e" and "f" only apply to those travelling on the light rail vehicles as per the definition of passenger above so any luas authorised agent etc asking to view tickets after your journey has completed is acting outside the bye-laws as you are no longer a passenger.


just on the whole begging etc on luas platforms there are bye-laws to allow beggers be moved on if Veolia were interested, but they are more interested in the soft targets.

Restricted behaviour

6. (1) A person shall not on a light rail vehicle or a light railway without permission given by or on behalf of an operator –

(a) distribute or display any leaflet, poster, advertisement or other document,
(b) solicit, tout or ply for alms, reward, custom or employment
(c) sell or offer for sale any goods or services,
(d) sing or perform with or without musical instruments or other equipment,
(e) use any radio or television or any form of equipment for replaying recorded sound so as to be audible by any other person,
(f) use any camera or video recorder or any form of equipment for recording sound or images so as to interfere with any other person,
(g) carry on any form of gambling,
(h) be in possession of any animal (other than a guide dog),
(i) loiter or remain on a light railway without reasonable and sufficient cause,
(j) conduct or take part in any public meeting or demonstration.
(2) An authorised person may seize and detain for a reasonable period or until the conclusion or any relevant court proceedings any object used in contravention of this Bye-law.

drkpower

foggy_lad wrote: »

but at the time of being approached by the inspectors you were not travelling so had no need for any ticket, If they want to catch you they must do so on/in the tram while you are committing the offence.

I doubt that that is the correct interpretation.

A 'passenger' means a person travelling or attempting to travel on a light rail vehicle. To restrict the first part of that definition to a person who is literally inside the doors of a Luas, and to therefore allow a person who has literally just set foot outside the doors to escape liability, would be an absurdity that the law is unlikely to have intended. Of course, the Inspector would need to give convincing evidence that the passenger had indeed been on the Luas (and not just an unfortunate passer-by).

VolvoMan

I was really drunk one night after being in town and decided to risk hopping on the Luas due to it being 12.00 am and thinking it was the last one. When I got to Milltown I saw there were inspectors so I jumped off, walked around for a while and then came back to buy a ticket (stupid I know, but I was drunk). The inspectors had not gotten on the tram and were still on the platform, but it was only when I was at the machine that they began to crowd around me. Cheeky bastards.:mad:

Anyway, besides the fact that they legally had no grounds upon to fine me, I gave them fake details and began my journey home on foot. The night remains a bit of a blur to me, but I still remember them being the height of ignorant in their attitude.

IngazZagni

VolvoMan wrote: »

I was really drunk one night after being in town and decided to risk hopping on the Luas due to it being 12.00 am and thinking it was the last one. When I got to Milltown I saw there were inspectors so I jumped off, walked around for a while and then came back to buy a ticket (stupid I know, but I was drunk). The inspectors had not gotten on the tram and were still on the platform, but it was only when I was at the machine that they began to crowd around me. Cheeky bastards.:mad:

Anyway, besides the fact that they legally had no grounds upon to fine me, I gave them fake details and began my journey home on foot. The night remains a bit of a blur to me, but I still remember them being the height of ignorant in their attitude.

Well that is the debate. I would think they would have that right, from what I've seen them doing anyway. It would be absurd to get away from a fine if you managed to get out the door quick enough. If they can confirm they saw you getting off the tram, then you were on it and they should have the right to check you for you ticket. It would have to be straight away though, ie that you couldn't get to a bin as someone here mentioned.

Also I wouldn't expect them to treat you nicely when they knew you hadn't paid.

foggy_lad

That is just it though, as soon as you step off the tram you cease to be a passenger and as such they have no right to approach or otherwise harass you unless you are doing something you shouldn't on the platform. They may ask you if you had a ticket but they have no way to prove you did not have one while you were a passenger. Who is to say you didn't drop your ticket as you exited the tram or that you just won't show it as they have no right to ask for proof after the fact.

IngazZagni wrote: »

Well that is the debate. I would think they would have that right, from what I've seen them doing anyway. It would be absurd to get away from a fine if you managed to get out the door quick enough. If they can confirm they saw you getting off the tram, then you were on it and they should have the right to check you for you ticket. It would have to be straight away though, ie that you couldn't get to a bin as someone here mentioned.

Also I wouldn't expect them to treat you nicely when they knew you hadn't paid.

IngazZagni

foggy_lad wrote: »

That is just it though, as soon as you step off the tram you cease to be a passenger and as such they have no right to approach or otherwise harass you unless you are doing something you shouldn't on the platform. They may ask you if you had a ticket but they have no way to prove you did not have one while you were a passenger. Who is to say you didn't drop your ticket as you exited the tram or that you just won't show it as they have no right to ask for proof after the fact.

I just couldn't understand that to be the case, it's so ass backwards. Would it not be like the Dart, where you need a ticket after exiting the train and need it to exit the station? Like with Luas, you need it until exiting the station boundary? I'm just trying to visualize myself on a Luas, not having paid for a ticket and approaching a stop with inspectors and then running down the Luas, inspectors following me and jumping out the door onto the ground. Then the inspector saying to me "damn, you win this round kid!" It might sound ridiculous but from what you are suggesting, that's how the law works. ...and people wonder why we are in the state we're in lol.

Devilman40k

IngazZagni wrote: »

I just couldn't understand that to be the case, it's so ass backwards. Would it not be like the Dart, where you need a ticket after exiting the train and need it to exit the station? Like with Luas, you need it until exiting the station boundary? I'm just trying to visualize myself on a Luas, not having paid for a ticket and approaching a stop with inspectors and then running down the Luas, inspectors following me and jumping out the door onto the ground. Then the inspector saying to me "damn, you win this round kid!" It might sound ridiculous but from what you are suggesting, that's how the law works. ...and people wonder why we are in the state we're in lol.

Why would it be like the Dart? there are turnstiles at stations to stop that behaviour (plus exiting the station you havent actually left the service), would this not be more akin to getting off a bus as its practically on street, I'm pretty sure once you've gotten off a bus that an inspector (if not on the bus) cannot stop you and ask for proof of your journey.

foggy_lad

If I leave a shop with goods under my arm any security guard or shop assistant can stop me outside and accuse me of stealing the goods, BUT they must be 110% sure I have stolen the goods and have not just paid for them while security was distracted by something else or they leave themselves open to charges of wrongful arrest and civil cases etc

Now if a luas inspector follows me off a tram or approaches me from some other angle once I have completed a journey and asks to see a receipt or proof of payment for that journey they better be prepared in the same way the shop is, as I would see this when done outside the tram when Youu we're no longer a passenger as an accusation of theft in the same way the shop security usually accuse people of shoplifting.

For the purpose of this my post of the bye-law definitions as published by Veolia states very clearly I cease to be a passenger when I am not in/on the tram. Not when I cease to be in the vicinity off the tram or platform so inspectors have no business approaching me as their remit is dealing with passengers attempting or in the process of evading a fare, when I step off the tram they have no business with me.

drkpower

foggy_lad wrote: »

For the purpose of this my post of the bye-law definitions as published by Veolia states very clearly I cease to be a passenger when I am not in/on the tram. Not when I cease to be in the vicinity off the tram or platform so inspectors have no business approaching me as their remit is dealing with passengers attempting or in the process of evading a fare, when I step off the tram they have no business with me. .

The bye laws do not state that. They simply define a passenger as someone travelling or intending to travel on a light rail vehicle. The word 'travelling' is not defined. Your contention seems to be that 'travelling' ends when you literally exit the tram. That is a very narrow interpretation and would create an absurdity that was almost certainly not intended.

To illustrate some of the potential inconsistencies with the strict literal use of your intention, you might answer these questions:
If you are asked to produce a ticket when part of your body is outside the tram, are you still 'travellling'? Or does your entire body need to leave the tram?
What if the Inspecter approaches you while you are on the tram, but before he asks you to produce your ticket, you jump off the tram - are you no longer travelling (and therefore no longer a passenger) when you are asked to produce? If such was the case, you could escape prosecution with a little bit of quick thinking and foot work - is that what you think the law intended and how the judiciary would interpret it??

The overwhelmin likelihood is that the courts (if they havent already) will give a practical and purposive approach to the interpretation of 'travelling .....on a light rail vehicle' that will not result the absurd situation that you envisage.

dowlingm

VolvoMan wrote: »

I was really drunk one night after being in town and decided to risk hopping on the Luas due to it being 12.00 am and thinking it was the last one. When I got to Milltown I saw there were inspectors so I jumped off, walked around for a while and then came back to buy a ticket (stupid I know, but I was drunk). The inspectors had not gotten on the tram and were still on the platform, but it was only when I was at the machine that they began to crowd around me. Cheeky bastards.:mad:

Anyway, besides the fact that they legally had no grounds upon to fine me, I gave them fake details and began my journey home on foot. The night remains a bit of a blur to me, but I still remember them being the height of ignorant in their attitude.

Hey Volvoman

Ever consider that if it wasn't for people like you, people like them would have a different job?

AlekSmart

wikkybikky wrote: »

I just really want to know what authority they have to ask you to produce a ticket for a completed journey once you have left the vehicle.

Nothing in the bye law states that the platform is a paying or ticketed area, nor that you must retain your ticket for inspection after your journey is complete/disembarking from the vehicle etc

I know there are a lot of threads about this but I have not found a definitive yes or no answer. There must be someone who knows or can interpret the bye-law that can answer this.

If you are asked to produce a ticket when you are on the platform and you refuse to or ignore them and keep walking what are the ramifications of this?

Hi there again, wikkibikki....:)

Well it does look as if,at least on this board,there are no posters prepared to give a definitive answer to your hypothetical question relating to your boyfriends behaviour.

This may be due to a natural shyness on the part of the Boards community....or it may be due to no posters being possessed of the knowledge you need ?

However...I'm equally sure that a visit to a Solicitor specializing in transport related matters and paying that individual for a consultation may well see an exchange of Information beneficial to you ?

Indeed,perhaps it may well be possible to have the consultation first,then simply walk out onto the street and not worry about paying for it at all ....

VolvoMan

dowlingm wrote: »

Hey Volvoman

Ever consider that if it wasn't for people like you, people like them would have a different job?

I'm not disputing that fact.

What I'm saying is that they had no right to approach me when they did.

Losty Dublin

VolvoMan wrote: »

I'm not disputing that fact.

What I'm saying is that they had no right to approach me when they did.

Exactly why don't Luas ticket inspectors have the right to approach a Luas fare dodger at a Luas ticket machine?

DWCommuter

AlekSmart wrote: »

Hi there again, wikkibikki....:)

Well it does look as if,at least on this board,there are no posters prepared to give a definitive answer to your hypothetical question relating to your boyfriends behaviour.

This may be due to a natural shyness on the part of the Boards community....or it may be due to no posters being possessed of the knowledge you need ?

However...I'm equally sure that a visit to a Solicitor specializing in transport related matters and paying that individual for a consultation may well see an exchange of Information beneficial to you ?

Indeed,perhaps it may well be possible to have the consultation first,then simply walk out onto the street and not worry about paying for it at all ....

Agreed.

Until these matters are actually played out in a court of law, then nobody knows the answer. Only when one is prepared to challenge it, will we definitively know how we stand. We already know that IE will scrap a court appearance if you agree to pay up or question their bye laws in an accurate manner. The luas and its providers and protectors are unchallenged to date, so we cannot give answers until we face them down in a court.

Transportuser09

You know life would be a lot simpler if people just bought a ticket.....

AlekSmart

Transportuser09 wrote: »

You know life would be a lot simpler if people just bought a ticket.....

Interesting observation this...as if the postings on here are to be believed we as a culture do not get on with simple-stuff.

From Providers to users,staff and customers alike,we appear to relish a bit of oul complexity,and ever more so when it's totally avoidable and unnecessary.....The Integrated Ticketing "Project" is mute testimony to this trait.

Mar shámpla,it's hard to see how we're going to impliment such magnificent and doubtless socially beneficial schemes whilst we equally devote our collective resources to advising,assisting or encouraging others on the mechanics of evading payment and the repercussions following on from such evasion.

It's worth reading the OP again just to confirm the thrust of the topic....

I have read around the other 9 million luas fine threads on here but can't find a definitive answer to the question "do the luas inspectors have any right to ask you to show a ticket once you have disembarked?"

My boyfriend was caught that way the other day, i REALLY dont want anyone to reply with the same old " he should have had a ticket"....i just want to know if anyone has successfully appealed a fine that was issued after the journey had been completed.

Nothing in the bye law states that the platform is a paying or ticketed area, nor that you must retain your ticket for inspection after your journey is complete/disembarking from the vehicle etc

Can anyone who has experience of this shed some light on it?

cheers !

The "9 Million Luas Fine" threads is testimony enough to our wandering in a desert of sorts,but the question posed by the OP can only be "REALLY" answered by legitimately interested parties if the underlying issue of wanting to "get away" with stuff at every other users expense is also addressed.

As wikkibikki sez,her boyfriend wuz Caught,banged to rights,rumbled....the lad took the risk and it did'nt work to his advantage...

The only other place I suggest for an answer to this particular question now is perhaps the Jesuits up in the Milltown Institute...they're great men for the oul play on words stuff ?

-Chris-

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Exactly why don't Luas ticket inspectors have the right to approach a Luas fare dodger at a Luas ticket machine?

But in VolvoMan's story, it would be entirely possible for the sequence of events to have been.
Drunk guy (with ticket) gets off tram at wrong stop.
Drunk guy throws ticket in bin.
Drunk guy realises he's at wrong stop.
Drunk guy is honest enough to buy another ticket to cover him for the remainder of his journey.

I know it's not what happened in VM's case, but unless he said something self-incriminating there's nothing the Luas inspectors could have said that would refute the sequence above.

the groutch

once you get off any of the city centre Luas stops you're on a public street, if they try approach you, just keep walking, there's nothing they can do.

not that I condone fare evasion, but if you are going to anyway, dont give the inspector the pleasure of getting to fine you

wikkybikky

hello again SmartAlek , as advised by Chris the moderator I made this new thread to ask only if anyone could clarify exactly what jurisdiction the luas inspectors had. I didn't ask how to evade the fare or anything of that nature.

I really do not understand the great moral problem this simple question seems to raise.

HivemindXX

wikkybikky wrote: »

I really do not understand the great moral problem this simple question seems to raise.

Really? You really don't understand why the majority of people would have a problem with someone not buying a ticket and then self righteously claiming a loophole so they can get away with it?

Perhaps the fact that you are stealing from everyone else that uses the Luas, which includes a lot of people here, might explain it.

wikkybikky

where in this thread does it say anything about wanting to dodge fares ??

I really don't know how to make it any more clear than it already is, I just want to know if the inspectors can legally ask to inspect your ticket on the platform.

For the record I have never not paid for my luas journey but it does annoy me sometimes if I am in a hurry and have to wait for the inspector to look at the tickets of other people before me on the platform, it is an inconvenience at any time but particularly if you are running late

Losty Dublin

-Chris- wrote: »

But in VolvoMan's story, it would be entirely possible for the sequence of events to have been.
Drunk guy (with ticket) gets off tram at wrong stop.
Drunk guy throws ticket in bin.
Drunk guy realises he's at wrong stop.
Drunk guy is honest enough to buy another ticket to cover him for the remainder of his journey.

I know it's not what happened in VM's case, but unless he said something self-incriminating there's nothing the Luas inspectors could have said that would refute the sequence above.

If he got off he still needs to have had a valid ticket to travel in the first place and they'd be entitled to issue a standard fare if he hadn't got one. Your ticket or pass is proof that you have right to travel; lose it and lose your right to travel onwards.

drkpower

DWCommuter wrote: »

Until these matters are actually played out in a court of law, then nobody knows the answer.

That's not really true. It is akin to saying that, until we see a match between Barcelona and Wexford youths, we dont know which is better.....:pac:

There are a literally millions of points of law which could be argued either way (if you try hard enough). Very few of those points have ever been clarified by a court. The reason is that in the vast vast majority of cases, there is one explanation that is much more likely than another. In such cases, in a practical sense, we do know the answer.

This is one such case.

bk

wikkybikky wrote: »

where in this thread does it say anything about wanting to dodge fares ??

I really don't know how to make it any more clear than it already is, I just want to know if the inspectors can legally ask to inspect your ticket on the platform.

But we all know that the reason you are asking this is because your boyfriend was fair dodging, got caught and you are looking for a way for him to get off paying his fare.

wikkybikky

bk wrote: »

But we all know that the reason you are asking this is because your boyfriend was fair dodging, got caught and you are looking for a way for him to get off paying his fare.

as a moderator I am sure that you noticed the post that your fellow moderator Chris wrote in this thread
@everyone - please note this is a hypothetical situation bearing no relation to other threads... if you know the by-laws and have an opinion on this, please give your info.

is it too much to ask that you can respect that at least? regardless of what you think, I think and it seems a few others do that have replied that it is a salient point on its own and if some clarification on the matter was found it would be good for everyone.

I also take issue with you saying "we all know the reason"...I am sure there are many people who don't spend their entire day on this forum and perhaps didn't see the other thread that I made. I made this one without ANY reference to myself or my boyfriend. Again, as a moderator I would have expected you to have some sense and take it for what it is, but I guess you are not able to do that.

tinkerbell

There's been threads on this before. Once you step off the Luas you are on public property, the inspector can only approach you in the tram, not off it. However, some of those inspectors on the Luas ... well .... the way they approach things is questionable to say at best. They will still try to get you to hassle you on the footpath, but they have no right to. Just keep on walking.

Losty Dublin

wikkybikky wrote: »

as a moderator I am sure that you noticed the post that your fellow moderator Chris wrote in this thread
@everyone - please note this is a hypothetical situation bearing no relation to other threads... if you know the by-laws and have an opinion on this, please give your info.

is it too much to ask that you can respect that at least? regardless of what you think, I think and it seems a few others do that have replied that it is a salient point on its own and if some clarification on the matter was found it would be good for everyone.

I also take issue with you saying "we all know the reason"...I am sure there are many people who don't spend their entire day on this forum and perhaps didn't see the other thread that I made. I made this one without ANY reference to myself or my boyfriend. Again, as a moderator I would have expected you to have some sense and take it for what it is, but I guess you are not able to do that.

It's not exactly the sort of question you get asked at a table quiz though, is it?;)

-Chris-

bk wrote: »

But we all know that the reason you are asking this is because your boyfriend was fair dodging, got caught and you are looking for a way for him to get off paying his fare.

HivemindXX wrote: »

Really? You really don't understand why the majority of people would have a problem with someone not buying a ticket and then self righteously claiming a loophole so they can get away with it?

Perhaps the fact that you are stealing from everyone else that uses the Luas, which includes a lot of people here, might explain it.

Losty Dublin wrote: »

It's not exactly the sort of question you get asked at a table quiz though, is it?;)

Is this post not clear in its intent? Do I need to write in ALL CAPS or use bigger letters?

-Chris- wrote: »

@everyone - please note this is a hypothetical situation bearing no relation to other threads... if you know the by-laws and have an opinion on this, please give your info.

FFS

drkpower

tinkerbell wrote: »

There's been threads on this before. Once you step off the Luas you are on public property, the inspector can only approach you in the tram, not off it.

That is quite unlikely.

AlekSmart

Originally Posted by -Chris- View Post
@everyone - please note this is a hypothetical situation bearing no relation to other threads... if you know the by-laws and have an opinion on this, please give your info.

All very true -Chris-,but,we are now into some 63 responses on the topic since the original (now locked) thread.

It is somewhat difficult to seperate both threads as they refer to the same principle albeit whith hypothesis introduced in this particular one.

However,in the spirit of magnanimity i'm sure we can continue to await the contribution of a poster who can fulfill Wikkibikki's precise requirements.

What I am suggesting is that,realistically,the chances of this are,at best,fair (!) to middling.

I suspect that Veolia and the RPA themselves are confident of the robustness of their Standard Operating Policies relating to their Ticket Inspection procedures.

I would respectfully suggest that given the OP's initial post where she refers to...

My boyfriend was caught that way the other day, i REALLY dont want anyone to reply with the same old " he should have had a ticket"....i just want to know if anyone has successfully appealed a fine that was issued after the journey had been completed.

...then belatedly introducing an element of hypothesis is somewhat disingenuous.

As of now there remains afaik nobody who has successfully appealed a fine on these grounds.

There is always ,of course,the possibility that given enough committment,wikkibikki's boyfriend may well be the actual poster who answers that hypothetical question,it's only a matter of believing in one's own interpretation ?

-Chris-

AlekSmart wrote: »

All very true -Chris-,but,we are now into some 63 responses on the topic since the original (now locked) thread.

It is somewhat difficult to seperate both threads as they refer to the same principle albeit whith hypothesis introduced in this particular one.

However,in the spirit of magnanimity i'm sure we can continue to await the contribution of a poster who can fulfill Wikkibikki's precise requirements.

What I am suggesting is that,realistically,the chances of this are,at best,fair (!) to middling.

I suspect that Veolia and the RPA themselves are confident of the robustness of their Standard Operating Policies relating to their Ticket Inspection procedures.

I would respectfully suggest that given the OP's initial post where she refers to......then belatedly introducing an element of hypothesis is somewhat disingenuous.

As of now there remains afaik nobody who has successfully appealed a fine on these grounds.

There is always ,of course,the possibility that given enough committment,wikkibikki's boyfriend may well be the actual poster who answers that hypothetical question,it's only a matter of believing in one's own interpretation ?

Two requests on-thread to keep it hypothetical, escalating in their insistence, and you still feel it's appropriate to question a mod request/instruction on-thread?

I'm interested in the answer to this hypothetical question. It seems other people are too.
It's a pity that certain posters aren't able to separate this thread from the previous thread and allow us to find out (or find out that nobody knows) the relevant by-laws.

AlekSmart banned for 24 hours for ignoring mod instruction.

NuMarvel

Just a thought, but maybe this kind of question is better in the Legal Discussion forum, especially if the OP posts it there as a hypothetical question? I know that's not a legal advice forum, but the OP might get a wider range of opinions on the legal aspect of this. (Especially considering that the OP's first thread on the matter is so fresh in the minds of the regular posters in this forum.)

trellheim

Here are the ticketing bylaws

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/si/0100.html


The railway order gives power over the land :


The Red Line :

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1999/en/si/0059.html

Subject to the provisions of the Act the Board may acquire compulsorily and use all or such part of the lands shown on the deposited plan and specified in the Second Schedule to this Order as the Board may require for the purposes of the light railway or for purposes incidental or ancillary to such purposes.

DWCommuter

NuMarvel wrote: »

Just a thought, but maybe this kind of question is better in the Legal Discussion forum, especially if the OP posts it there as a hypothetical question? I know that's not a legal advice forum, but the OP might get a wider range of opinions on the legal aspect of this. (Especially considering that the OP's first thread on the matter is so fresh in the minds of the regular posters in this forum.)

Maybe it would be better off in the legal forum, but until a case like this is actually handled in a court of law, then we simply do not know.

Personally I don't advocate fare evasion, but its getting very tiresome when some posters insist on casting aspersions on those that do evade fares either through intent or circumstances, when the OT is about a specific point of law. Furthermore I dislike how a certain poster attempted to assume the character of the OPs boyfriend was a particular class of person via the use of certain linguistics. Pure ignorance and no doubt based on too many years at the helm.

ArmaniJeanss

I don't see how legally it would be any different to a store detective who has the right to stop you on the Grafton Street public highway and ask to see a receipt when you walk out of Brown Thomas with an unpaid for shirt.
No court has ever found anything fundamentally illegal in their actions in this situation so I don't see why it would be different when the 'product' is now a luas ticket and the store detective is a 'ticket inspector'.

* I'm no legal expert fwiw. *

bk

Here is my take on it, but note I am not a lawyer.

Yes, the ticket inspectors can approach you on the platform and ask to see your ticket and did you have a ticket to travel on the tram.

If you answer no, then they have you and where they asked you is irrelevant. You admitted to not having a ticket and therefore breaking the law. The judge is simply going to see you admitted to not having a ticket and find you guilty.

Where you admitted this is irrelevant. Just as it would be irrelevant to you admitting you committed a murder at the crime scene or in a garda station.

Now the more pertinent question (which doesn't apply to wikkybikky is really interested in) is if you just ignored the ticket inspectors, didn't respond to their questions and just walked away, can they detain you?

Actually I suppose the same question applies on the tram, can ticket inspectors detain you? What happens if you don't answer their questions, do they call the guards?