S.I. No. 109/1984 and "No Ticket, No Travel, No Excuses"

n97 mini

Could this be made a sticky so that people understand where Irish Rail's Marketing Dept (and the high horses) and the Law actually differ. Contrary to the blanket statement "No Ticket, No Travel, No Excuses" a person can travel without a ticket in the instance where, for example, there is no ticket machine and the ticket office is closed:

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.

That's S4 of S.I. No. 109/1984 — Coras Iompair Éireann Bye-Laws (Confirmation) Order, 1984.

L1011

Some clarification for those who come out with "a ticket machine is an office" or "they didn't have ticket machines in 1984" as they usually do.


Irish Rail most certainly had ticket machines in 1984 - they introduced them they day they introduce Maynooth commuter line services, although they did withdraw them many years before the touchscreen units appeared. If they had intended a ticket machine, which cannot offer every ticket, to be seen as an "office" they would have had to say so.

n97 mini

MYOB wrote: »

Irish Rail most certainly had ticket machines in 1984 - they introduced them they day they introduce Maynooth commuter line services

I saw the one in Leixlip Louisa Bridge station in late 1999. It was like the older London Underground machines: a button for every stop on the network. I'd say they'd be worth a few quid now.

But I digress. Regardless of the situations, the Bye Laws do cite two instances where it is possible to travel without a ticket, debunking the "No Ticket, No Travel" mantra.

AlekSmart

n97Mini 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,

What,I wonder is the legal definition of the Board "giving notice"...?

Also I note the rather specific reason of "so as not to delay the departure of the train from the station"......rather enough there for a day or two in the Law Library I should think ?

foggy_lad

AlekSmart wrote: »

What,I wonder is the legal definition of the Board "giving notice"...?

Also I note the rather specific reason of "so as not to delay the departure of the train from the station"......rather enough there for a day or two in the Law Library I should think ?

For some stations leaving the gate open that leads onto the platform is considered "notice" that the station is unattended/unmanned, every station will be different and Broombridge is in a league all its own:D

n97 mini

AlekSmart wrote: »

What,I wonder is the legal definition of the Board "giving notice"...?

There probably isn't one, as it's the practical implementation of the law that is important. I'm sure a judge would rule that "lights off and nobody home" is giving notice in a practical sense.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Also I note the rather specific reason of "so as not to delay the departure of the train from the station"......rather enough there for a day or two in the Law Library I should think ?

That's the simpler of the two, imho. It simply gives leave for an agent of CIE to tell someone to board a train without a ticket.

dowlingm

I don't see the part which covers "I overslept/the queue was too long/the train was on the platform and I was afraid it would go without me" and the myriad other ways in which posters here expect IE to simply accept when being known to do so opens the door for the scam artists to take the p!ss.

LXFlyer

I'm not quite sure what's new about any of this - it has always been the case that where there are no facilities to buy the ticket appropriate to your journey at the station of departure that you do so at the next available point (i.e. destination or changing point).

What's new is that roughly two/three years ago IE became far more rigorous in issuing standard fare penalties.

Losty Dublin

dowlingm wrote: »

I don't see the part which covers "I overslept/the queue was too long/the train was on the platform and I was afraid it would go without me" and the myriad other ways in which posters here expect IE to simply accept when being known to do so opens the door for the scam artists to take the p!ss.

Don't forget other classics such as

• "I look respectable, I wear a suit"
• "I've a car parked somewhere"
• "I'm a mother and it's time for dinner/Bosco/homework"
• "Don't you recognise me, I make this trip once a week"
• "He had it in for me"
• "I know my rights, you can't fine me"
• "This wasn't the case the last time I got a train. Last year. In London"
• "A man on the internet/in the pub said that..."

Or the all time classic...

"I didn't know you actually need a ticket"

All we need now is Larry Gogan to count them down to Number One :cool:

n97 mini

lxflyer wrote: »

What's new is that roughly two/three years ago IE became far more rigorous in issuing standard fare penalties.

And erroneous slogans such as the one the one the thread title...

AlekSmart

n97 mini wrote: »

And erroneous slogans such as the one the one the thread title...

Nah that's small beer...."Serving the ENTIRE Community" is far more nonsensical ?

n97 mini

AlekSmart wrote: »

Nah that's small beer...."Serving the ENTIRE Community" is far more nonsensical ?

Only a select few people can get away with a statement like that without having others blathering "oh, no matter what CIE do you won't be happy... did they steal your crisps" etc

AlekSmart

n97 mini wrote: »

Only a select few people can get away with a statement like that without having others blathering "oh, no matter what CIE do you won't be happy... did they steal your crisps" etc

OH...is there a prize then ?

Losty Dublin

AlekSmart wrote: »

OH...is there a prize then ?

A golden fixed penalty notice.

NuMarvel

After reading this thread, I predict we'll be seeing another "Appealing an Irish Rail fine" thread soon

AngryLips

So, if I'm interpreting this statutory instrument correctly, anyone can board a train without a ticket if the station is unattended. And that the only obligation on the passenger is to purchase a ticket either on board or at the alighting station.

Is that correct? So, even where a ticket machine is present and functioning, you could argue the point that you are entitled to travel without a ticket based on this out-of-date wording? At any point on your journey should you get stopped by a member of staff all you have to do is pay the normal fare (not the standard fare).

Correct me if I'm wrong...

Grolschevik

The juicy bits from an article (by a barrister) on p33 of this linked PDF:

The juicy bits from an article (by a barrister) on p33 of this linked PDF:
http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/Gazette/Gazette%202011/November%202011.pdf


"The most important statutory provision in relation to fare evasion is section 132 of the Railway Safety Act 2005. This section creates two offences. Firstly, where an employee of Irish Rail asks for a ticket, and a passenger does not have one, the passenger must do one of three things:
1) Pay the standard fare,
2) Pay another fare as determined by Irish Rail,
or
3) Give the employee his name and address.

Failure to do one of these things is an offence, with a maximum fine of €1,000 (section 132(2)). Secondly, under section 132(3), where a passenger attempts to travel on a train without paying a fare, and “with intent to avoid such payment”, he is guilty of an offence. Again, the maximum fine is €1,000.

This second offence is the most important one and goes to the core of the issue. In order to have committed the offence, the passenger must be on a train without a ticket (the actus reus) and intend to avoid paying the fare (the mens rea). The implications of this will be discussed below. Both of these fines are in addition to the requirement to pay a standard fare for the journey.

These offences have to be read in conjunction with statutory instrument 109 of 1984, enacted under section 22(4) of the Transport Act 1950. Bye-law 3 of that SI states that no person shall travel on a train without a valid ticket. It is unclear what the impact of this is, as it is expressly stated that bye-law 3 is not an offence. Bye-law 4 states: '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'."

...

"Any passenger in default will need to explain why they did not buy a ticket before travel. Irish Rail RPU officers now receive automatic updates on whether the ticket office was open, how many vending machines were in operation, and whether those machines accepted credit cards or issued change."

...

"I would suggest that central to this question of intention are the actions of the ticketless passenger once they board the train. In order to show that they intended to buy a ticket, there may be some obligation on the passenger to seek out the RPU officer, explain the situation, and buy a ticket. If a ticketless passenger merely waits for an RPU officer to ask for their ticket, then it will be much harder to prove that there was no intention to evade."

...

"The best advice is to buy a ticket before travel. But that does not always happen. If a passenger is on a train without a ticket and has the intention of evade, then they have committed a criminal offence. The District Court trial is a standard criminal trial and Irish Rail needs to prove both elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt."

...

"In order to convince the court that they did not have an intention to evade a fare, the passenger would need a good reason for not prepurchasing a ticket, and probably needs to seek out an RPU officer as soon as he has boarded the train."

Grolschevik

AngryLips wrote: »

So, if I'm interpreting this statutory instrument correctly, anyone can board a train without a ticket if the station is unattended. And that the only obligation on the passenger is to purchase a ticket either on board or at the alighting station.

Is that correct? So, even where a ticket machine is present and functioning, you could argue the point that you are entitled to travel without a ticket based on this out-of-date wording? At any point on your journey should you get stopped by a member of staff all you have to do is pay the normal fare (not the standard fare).

Correct me if I'm wrong...

Where a ticket machine is working and capable of issuing your desired ticket, failure to use it would indicate that you had an intention to evade the fare, as indicated in the quotes in the previous post.

AngryLips

...in other words IR's motto of "No Ticket, No Travel, No Excuses" pretty much stands true once you consider these additional rules.

Nothing to see here, move along now.

KCAccidental

I wonder what reception a certain Senator would get on this board if she told her sorry tale and planned to appeal?

L1011

That barristers opinion does not cover the issue of a ticket machine not being an "office". Ergo its pretty much useless for the case at hand - that no sane person can claim a machine is an office; and that TVMs existed in some considerable number when the byelaws were put in place.

AlekSmart

MYOB wrote: »

That barristers opinion does not cover the issue of a ticket machine not being an "office". Ergo its pretty much useless for the case at hand - that no sane person can claim a machine is an office; and that TVMs existed in some considerable number when the byelaws were put in place.

Plus..it's one learned friend's Opinion...nothing more.

I have little doubt but that a similarly gowned individual will be found to offer a totally opposing opinion.

It's far more realistic to take the Paddy Power view...two flies crawling up the Courtroom wall,which will fall off first ?....but remember if YOU lose,YOU pay....for everything

Capt'n Midnight

Would it be of any use to write an IOU note to IR dated , timed and signed saying there was no one / no working ticket machine at the named station you got on the train at and your intention of buying a regular ticket.

Grolschevik

MYOB wrote: »

That barristers opinion does not cover the issue of a ticket machine not being an "office". Ergo its pretty much useless for the case at hand - that no sane person can claim a machine is an office; and that TVMs existed in some considerable number when the byelaws were put in place.

Granted, it's an opinion. However, I'm not so sure that a machine wouldn't be considered equivalent to an office by a court. Courts tend to use the "reasonable person" principle on issues like this, and avoiding a fare on the basis that the office was closed while there was a working machine would, I am guessing, be seen as "not reasonable".

Anyway, the barrister seems himself to consider machines to be an equivalent, at least in this sentence: "Irish Rail RPU officers now receive automatic updates on whether the ticket office was open, how many vending machines were in operation, and whether those machines accepted credit cards or issued change."

L1011

Grolschevik wrote: »

Granted, it's an opinion. However, I'm not so sure that a machine wouldn't be considered equivalent to an office by a court. Courts tend to use the "reasonable person" principle on issues like this, and avoiding a fare on the basis that the office was closed while there was a working machine would, I am guessing, be seen as "not reasonable".

Anyway, the barrister seems himself to consider machines to be an equivalent, at least in this sentence: "Irish Rail RPU officers now receive automatic updates on whether the ticket office was open, how many vending machines were in operation, and whether those machines accepted credit cards or issued change."

A "reasonable person" does not consider a machine to be an office. There is no other wording in the SI.

There are many reasons that someone may not wish to use a TVM. They offer a limited set of tickets, do not take cards below a certain value, do not offer change above a certain value, offer change in coins, etc.

Threads on here would suggest that said RPU data is either rarely given or often woefully inaccurate. Then add in the not actually RPU staff in terminal stations who definitely have no access to this info.

n97 mini

AngryLips wrote: »

...in other words IR's motto of "No Ticket, No Travel, No Excuses" pretty much stands true once you consider these additional rules.

Nothing to see here, move along now.

Incorrect. As the barrister explained if you have no ticket for the purposes of fare dodging you're breaking the law. If you have no ticket for one of the reasons in the SI you're not breaking the law.

Our man in Havana

Grolschevik wrote: »

Where a ticket machine is working and capable of issuing your desired ticket, failure to use it would indicate that you had an intention to evade the fare, as indicated in the quotes in the previous post.

And if you are unable to read?

LXFlyer

As I said above, if you are unable to purchase the ticket appropriate to your journey at your boarding station (eg the ticket machine doesn't sell it), then it is permissible to board a train and pay at the first possible opportunity, such as your destination or an interchange station.

foggy_lad

lxflyer wrote: »

As I said above, if you are unable to purchase the ticket appropriate to your journey at your boarding station (eg the ticket machine doesn't sell it), then it is permissible to board a train and pay at the first possible opportunity, such as your destination or an interchange station.

There is no legal obligation on any passenger or intending passenger to buy a ticket from the machines as they are not a booking office!

Grolschevik

MYOB wrote: »

A "reasonable person" does not consider a machine to be an office. There is no other wording in the SI.

I do. Or at least see it as a reasonable equivalent in most circumstances. I'm betting a District judge would, too.

MYOB wrote: »

There are many reasons that someone may not wish to use a TVM. They offer a limited set of tickets, do not take cards below a certain value, do not offer change above a certain value, offer change in coins, etc.

That's fair enough: if it can't sell you your ticket because of limited availability etc, then ok. And you would have to seek out an RPU officer at the first opportunity to explain this and pay your fare retrospectively. If they fine you, I think you'd still need to make that argument in court, or at least in an appeal to the RPU.

Our man in Havana wrote: »

And if you are unable to read?

As above; fair enough.

lxflyer wrote: »

As I said above, if you are unable to purchase the ticket appropriate to your journey at your boarding station (eg the ticket machine doesn't sell it), then it is permissible to board a train and pay at the first possible opportunity, such as your destination or an interchange station.

Agree. What I disagree with is the apparent argument that, just because the ticket guy has closed up for few minutes to go to the jacks, the fact that you can only buy a ticket from a machine automatically leads to "Woo hoo! Free train day!".

If the machine doesn't sell your ticket, won't take your card, is broken or you cannot read, then if the office is closed, get on the train by all means and explain and pay at your destination.

foggy_lad wrote: »

There is no legal obligation on any passenger or intending passenger to buy a ticket from the machines as they are not a booking office!

I think you're wrong here, taking a far too literal interpretation of the statute. If you have an intention to evade, you're committing an offence. Refusal to use a machine on principle, because of a poorly worded bye-law, looks to me to be an intention to evade.

I look forward to you testing your theory in the courts.

AlekSmart

Grolschevik wrote: »

I look forward to you testing your theory in the courts.

Why do I suspect that will be left to others.....;)

corktina

the Law usually looks at what is reasonable.
It is not reasonable to not use a machine to buy a ticket when requested.

NuMarvel

If people haven't done so, can I suggest they have a look at this thread - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056181086.

The OP in that case boarded a DART after seeing the ticket office was closed, didn't try to use the ticket machine, was fined, but the fine was overturned on appeal. What's noticeable here is that the OP still paid the proper fare at this destination.

It's hard to know for certain why IE overturned the fine in that case, but it would seem that at least in some cases a passenger isn't obliged to try and use the ticket machine.

foggy_lad

Grolschevik wrote: »

I do. Or at least see it as a reasonable equivalent in most circumstances. I'm betting a District judge would, too.

I doubt a Judge would see it as reasonable because they see reasons every day why people would not use these machines from people being illitrate to others not having change and not being able to use technology.

That's fair enough: if it can't sell you your ticket because of limited availability etc, then ok. And you would have to seek out an RPU officer at the first opportunity to explain this and pay your fare retrospectively. If they fine you, I think you'd still need to make that argument in court, or at least in an appeal to the RPU.



As above; fair enough.



Agree. What I disagree with is the apparent argument that, just because the ticket guy has closed up for few minutes to go to the jacks, the fact that you can only buy a ticket from a machine automatically leads to "Woo hoo! Free train day!".

If the machine doesn't sell your ticket, won't take your card, is broken or you cannot read, then if the office is closed, get on the train by all means and explain and pay at your destination.

The problem is that the Updating you mentioned in a previous post obviously does not happen regularly as when people board without tickets they are not believed by RPU and are criminalised and embarrassed on the spot. I boarded a train in Newbridge once and the ticket checker/seller was about to issue fines a family of about 9 people until I backed up their claim that the booking office in Newbridge was closed. The ticket checker asked me privately was i sure it was closed and i noted that the hatch was blocked off and a sheet of paper with the days remaining train times were posted up on the window blocking anyone from seeing into the office. He suggested to the family that next time they use the vending machine but i quickly piped up that it was broken and accepting credit cards only.

I think you're wrong here, taking a far too literal interpretation of the statute. If you have an intention to evade, you're committing an offence. Refusal to use a machine on principle, because of a poorly worded bye-law, looks to me to be an intention to evade.

I look forward to you testing your theory in the courts.

If you refuse to use the machine out of principle because you are not obliged by any statute to use it than you are trying to evade paying your fare? wow! do you work for RPU or Irish Rail in some capacity because that is the way they see everything passenger related? Guilty until proven innocent!

What is the point of handing out punitive fines as well as charging the full fare to persons who present themselves at the ticket barrier at Heuston or Connolly to buy a ticket which they could not buy from the booking office at the station they boarded at?

AlekSmart wrote: »

Why do I suspect that will be left to others.....;)

I have never used those ticket machines to buy a ticket and possibly never will(I have used them to collect online tickets) Myself and a lot of others hate putting money into machines like this as when something goes wrong it is too easy for the incompetants in Irish Rail to tell you it is nothing to do with them and you have to write in to X Y and Z to beg them to give your money back!

Losty Dublin

NuMarvel wrote: »

If people haven't done so, can I suggest they have a look at this thread - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056181086.

The OP in that case boarded a DART after seeing the ticket office was closed, didn't try to use the ticket machine, was fined, but the fine was overturned on appeal. What's noticeable here is that the OP still paid the proper fare at this destination.

It's hard to know for certain why IE overturned the fine in that case, but it would seem that at least in some cases a passenger isn't obliged to try and use the ticket machine.

I remember that case from a year ago.

To be honest, we don't know why the fixed penalty notice was overturned, if indeed that it was, as it's just OP's word to go on. It's best to take any assumption about it at arms length though there is some comfort in the fact that an appeal may well work at times. That said, the OP was a minor which may have a bearing on the case in question.

foggy_lad

Losty Dublin wrote: »

I remember that case from a year ago.

To be honest, we don't know why the fixed penalty notice was overturned, if indeed that it was, as it's just OP's word to go on. It's best to take any assumption about it at arms length though there is some comfort in the fact that an appeal may well work at times. That said, the OP was a minor which may have a bearing on the case in question.

Typical Irish Rail response, "The passenger is lying!".

Grolschevik

NuMarvel wrote: »

If people haven't done so, can I suggest they have a look at this thread - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056181086.

The OP in that case boarded a DART after seeing the ticket office was closed, didn't try to use the ticket machine, was fined, but the fine was overturned on appeal. What's noticeable here is that the OP still paid the proper fare at this destination.

It's hard to know for certain why IE overturned the fine in that case, but it would seem that at least in some cases a passenger isn't obliged to try and use the ticket machine.

I'd say the fine was overturned because the fare was paid at the destination...

foggy_lad wrote: »

I doubt a Judge would see it as reasonable because they see reasons every day why people would not use these machines from people being illitrate to others not having change and not being able to use technology.

Every day they also see people chancing their arm (eg trying to get out of a speeding fine because their name was spelled incorrectly). And it doesn't wash with them.

foggy_lad wrote: »

If you refuse to use the machine out of principle because you are not obliged by any statute to use it than you are trying to evade paying your fare? wow! do you work for RPU or Irish Rail in some capacity because that is the way they see everything passenger related? Guilty until proven innocent!

Yes. If you refuse to buy a ticket when you have an opportunity to buy a ticket, that counts as fare evasion in my book.

And why is it that people always assume that those who disagree with them must therefore work for whatever vested interest is under discussion?

foggy_lad wrote: »

What is the point of handing out punitive fines as well as charging the full fare to persons who present themselves at the ticket barrier at Heuston or Connolly to buy a ticket which they could not buy from the booking office at the station they boarded at?

In my opinion, that shouldn't happen, if you can prove that you were unable to buy a ticket.

foggy_lad wrote: »

I have never used those ticket machines to buy a ticket and possibly never will(I have used them to collect online tickets) Myself and a lot of others hate putting money into machines like this as when something goes wrong it is too easy for the incompetants in Irish Rail to tell you it is nothing to do with them and you have to write in to X Y and Z to beg them to give your money back!

So do you regularly board without having a valid ticket and pay at the other end? Or do you make alternative booking arrangements?

Also, that's bordering on a paranoid vending machine phobia! Does it extend to parking machines and coffee machines too?

L1011

Grolschevik wrote: »

I do. Or at least see it as a reasonable equivalent in most circumstances. I'm betting a District judge would, too.

I completely disagree.

Grolschevik wrote: »

That's fair enough: if it can't sell you your ticket because of limited availability etc, then ok. And you would have to seek out an RPU officer at the first opportunity to explain this and pay your fare retrospectively. If they fine you, I think you'd still need to make that argument in court, or at least in an appeal to the RPU.

Seeing as trains do not generally *have* RPU officers, it is not reasonable to expect someone to "seek out" one. Paying at the destination station was deemed entirely acceptable until IE went on a desperate revenue scavenging operation recently.

Grolschevik wrote: »

I think you're wrong here, taking a far too literal interpretation of the statute.

I think its you trying to take an interpretation of what is quite clearly written here.

TVMs existed at a huge quantity of stations at the time of the statute. That is an irrefutable fact.

This would play a major role in proving that a machine does not compromise an "office" - there is no play for interpretation based on TVMs being newer than the statute.

Grolschevik

MYOB wrote: »

I completely disagree.

Right, well we're not going to get anywhere here then. It'll have to be tested in court eventually, or maybe they'll just get around to rewording the statute!