"No ticket, no travel" and automated machines

Grolschevik

TL/DR:
There's a frequent argument that goes on in Commuting over whether an automated ticket machine counts as a "booking office" in the CIE bye-laws, and the argument is that you don't have to use one if the actual office is unmanned. I think that argument is ridiculous, but what do you guys reckon?


(Here's the most recent one: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056744945). The quotes below are selected from here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=79758583)

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

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:

Quote:
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.

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is present and functioning, you could argue the point that you are entitled to travel without a ticket based on this out-of-date wording?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.

v

That barristers opinion does not cover the issue of a ticket machine not being an "office" ...

v

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".

v

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

Grolschevik

Jaysus! I must make the most boring threads!

The_Morrigan

Just to give you an example of an instance where you are not able to buy a ticket at the station ever.
The local station by my parents house is unmanned and does not have a ticket machine - there is a big notice that you must get on the train without a ticket and either get off the train at the next stop to purchase a ticket (where there is usually a 10 - 15 minute wait) or you buy it from the inspector on-board.

So from experience of having to alight the train without a ticket on numerous occasions, I think that wording is to deal with the small rural stations who wouldn't have been given the funding to have automated ticket machines or a person in a booking office. Obviously if you have the ability to buy a ticket, you should buy it, but if CIE do not provide the services to purchase a ticket you have to follow their instructions as to what you do next.

Simple eh?

CDB1985

There seems to be an obligation on the person to make an effort to obtain ticket.

I don't think it would be unreasonable to include using the available ticket machine as being included in the effort to get a ticket

The_Morrigan

Well I would have thought that a big sign on the ticket office window re-directing passengers to an alternative purchase point would be sufficient enough and anyone with any common sense would follow that direction unless they had the intention of evading the fare.

Grolschevik

Personally, the whole "it doesn't mention machines in the byelaws therefore I'm not obliged to use them" logic reminds me of Freeman logic.

hullaballoo

The Railway Safety Act 2005 ss.132 & 133 deal with fare evasion now. It's more difficult to get out of not having a ticket now.

Sorry, but I only have a link to the .pdf of this: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2005/en.act.2005.0031.pdf

ynotonavillus

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Well I would have thought that a big sign on the ticket office window re-directing passengers to an alternative purchase point would be sufficient enough and anyone with any common sense would follow that direction unless they had the intention of evading the fare.

A sign in the window does not change the Bye Laws.

The Bye Law states in simple terms, that if the office is closed then you may jump on the train and buy a ticket on the train or on arrival at your station.

No offence is committed until the passenger fails to take the first practicable opportunity to pay for the journey.

The real question is whether the RPU man was a source for the purchase of a standard ticket, and if he was whether the OP was proactive in trying to buy one or whether he was not.

If the RPU guys are not able to sell tickets, then no offence has occurred, unless, at the destination the passenger fails to take the first practicable opportunity to pay for the journey.

The bye laws must be interpreted in favour of the passenger, if they do not mention automatic machines as an alternative, then automatic machines are irrelevant to the legalities.

Even if he intended to evade the fare, no offence was committed until he actually failed to take the opportunity to purchase the ticket, on the train or at his destination ( as per the bye law).

"Failure to exercise common sense has not as yet been made a crime."

CDB1985

Pretty clear under Part 15 of the act. It doesn't mention methods of payment. Once they show it was your intention avoid paying then you are guilty of an offence.

(3) A passenger who—
a) travels or attempts to travel on a railway of a railway

undertaking without having previously paid his or her

fare, and with intent to avoid such payment,
is guilty of an offence.

Grolschevik

ynotonavillus wrote: »

No offence is committed until the passenger fails to take the first practicable opportunity to pay for the journey.

Refusing to use a machine would surely constitute such a failure.

ynotonavillus wrote: »

The bye laws must be interpreted in favour of the passenger, if they do not mention automatic machines as an alternative, then automatic machines are irrelevant to the legalities.

The phrase used is "booking office". The issue from my perspective is about whether it's reasonable to say the machine doesn't represent a booking office.

The_Morrigan

ynotonavillus wrote: »

A sign in the window does not change the Bye Laws.

The Bye Law states in simple terms, that if the office is closed then you may jump on the train and buy a ticket on the train or on arrival at your station.

No offence is committed until the passenger fails to take the first practicable opportunity to pay for the journey.

The real question is whether the RPU man was a source for the purchase of a standard ticket, and if he was whether the OP was proactive in trying to buy one or whether he was not.

If the RPU guys are not able to sell tickets, then no offence has occurred, unless, at the destination the passenger fails to take the first practicable opportunity to pay for the journey.

The bye laws must be interpreted in favour of the passenger, if they do not mention automatic machines as an alternative, then automatic machines are irrelevant to the legalities.

Even if he intended to evade the fare, no offence was committed until he actually failed to take the opportunity to purchase the ticket, on the train or at his destination ( as per the bye law).

"Failure to exercise common sense has not as yet been made a crime."

Such a pity that!

I understand what you are saying, and I'm not denying that the bye laws don't mention the automatic ticket machines.

But if challenged do the bye laws have to be interpreted literally, especially considering that they are so old?

The company has to be practical in their day to day dealings too and if that means pointing a customer to an alternative source of purchasing a ticket to save costs then that must be made acceptable by the authorities. Also on the flip side, the authorities must accept that passengers won't always been able to adhere to their alternatives if the machines don't work and there isn't a person on duty to sell tickets.

Times have changed, not all stations have ticket offices or staff on duty, not all trains have inspectors because you need a ticket to gain entry to platforms via the stalls and you need one to get out too.

It's not as easy as it was to evade the fare on a train because of the new technology rolled out across their network. If you take a journey where the full availability of new systems is in place, if you were unable to get a ticket prior to boarding you have to either jump the gate at the other end or purchase a ticket to get out through the gate.


In an ideal world, the bye laws would be updated to reflect current practices - but does that happen anywhere in reality? We often only change something when it is challenged or something goes horribly wrong.

Our man in Havana

So how is an illiterate person meant to use one of those machines?

Grolschevik

Our man in Havana wrote: »

So how is an illiterate person meant to use one of those machines?

Those would be extenuating circumstances. Similarly blindness or some other disability.

But, in all fairness, you might as well ask "how is an illiterate person supposed to know which station he's at?". Or someone who doesn't speak English?

Even the functionally illiterate can recognise the shapes of words.

ynotonavillus

I had not seen the 2005 act. But it seems that the Bye Laws are still in force,

under section 132 of the 2005 act, the customer that rides the train without a ticket only commits an offence if when faced with an officer/employee (1) Fails to produce a ticket, or (2) fails to pay the fare, or (3) fails to pay a penalty fare, or (4) or refuses to give his name and address.

It would seem that when read together with the Bye Laws, that a passenger who boarded the train in reliance on Bye law 4. Would be entitled to purchase a ticket/pay the correct fare to the officer/employee.

In the event that the the officer refuses to accede to this, then the passenger is entitled to proffer his name and address, and then to buy his ticket at the destination.

Section 133 is only activated when it is an authorised officer and he has reasonable grounds to believe that the passenger intends to evade the fare,Then he can issue a fixed penalty notice ALLEGING AN OFFENCE, in order for a conviction the officer will have to prove that the intention to evade the fare existed. ( not sure how he could do this, if faced with an explanation that the ticket office was closed)

Plainly being on the train without a ticket, by and of itself, ought not be sufficient to prove the offence, when there are legitimate grounds under the Bye laws to be on a train without a ticket....

Me still thinks that a machine is not a booking office, the Bye laws allow travel when no office is open, in a District Court The passenger that embarked at a station without an open office, intent on paying at his destination, would be unlikely to be convicted.

But probably best to buy a ticket.

Our man in Havana

Have the RPU ever tried such a case?

ynotonavillus

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Have the RPU ever tried such a case?

Don't Know.

Unusual situation, usually fixed penalty notices are in respect of objectively demonstrable offences. Such as driving in excess of speed limit, parking on yellow lines etc. The facts that amount to the offence are obvious.

Unless the RPU officer could give evidence that he actually saw you jump a barrier or you had a ticket for a shorter journey I am not sure how he could prove your intention.

Its a bit like shoplifting, how could a security guard prove that you intended to leave the shop without paying until you actually do, or in a service station where you move your car from the pump to allow another car to fill up.

ResearchWill

ynotonavillus wrote: »

I had not seen the 2005 act. But it seems that the Bye Laws are still in force,

under section 132 of the 2005 act, the customer that rides the train without a ticket only commits an offence if when faced with an officer/employee (1) Fails to produce a ticket, or (2) fails to pay the fare, or (3) fails to pay a penalty fare, or (4) or refuses to give his name and address.

It would seem that when read together with the Bye Laws, that a passenger who boarded the train in reliance on Bye law 4. Would be entitled to purchase a ticket/pay the correct fare to the officer/employee.

In the event that the the officer refuses to accede to this, then the passenger is entitled to proffer his name and address, and then to buy his ticket at the destination.

Section 133 is only activated when it is an authorised officer and he has reasonable grounds to believe that the passenger intends to evade the fare,Then he can issue a fixed penalty notice ALLEGING AN OFFENCE, in order for a conviction the officer will have to prove that the intention to evade the fare existed. ( not sure how he could do this, if faced with an explanation that the ticket office was closed)

Plainly being on the train without a ticket, by and of itself, ought not be sufficient to prove the offence, when there are legitimate grounds under the Bye laws to be on a train without a ticket....

Me still thinks that a machine is not a booking office, the Bye laws allow travel when no office is open, in a District Court The passenger that embarked at a station without an open office, intent on paying at his destination, would be unlikely to be convicted.

But probably best to buy a ticket.

From my understanding an offence as you say is only committed if you refuse to do as directed in section 132, but you left out the very important or in the section

132.—(1) Every passenger of a railway undertaking shall, on re- quest by an officer or employee of a railway undertaking, produce, and if so requested, deliver up to the officer or employee a ticket showing that his or her fare is paid and, if the fare has not been paid, shall upon request—
(a) pay, to the officer or employee—
(i) his or her fare from the place where he or she started
the journey by railway, or
(ii) such other fare for non-payment of a fare as fixed by the undertaking,
as the officer or employee decides, or

From my understanding (a friend was done) you are given the option to pay fare OR pay a fixed penalty notice, I think €100 (sorry thats the fixed penalty notice) if you fail to pay that in time then the matter goes to court. it is the officer or employee of Irish Rail who decides, so I assume if he decides I see this guy a lot always has a ticked I believe him then a normal fare, if he thinks the person is a chancer then the fixed penalty fare. If that not paid then fixed penalty notice issues. BTW if anyone thinks a ticket machine is not a ticket office refuse to pay, and go to court see how that works out.

ResearchWill

ynotonavillus wrote: »

Don't Know.

Unusual situation, usually fixed penalty notices are in respect of objectively demonstrable offences. Such as driving in excess of speed limit, parking on yellow lines etc. The facts that amount to the offence are obvious.

Unless the RPU officer could give evidence that he actually saw you jump a barrier or you had a ticket for a shorter journey I am not sure how he could prove your intention.

Its a bit like shoplifting, how could a security guard prove that you intended to leave the shop without paying until you actually do, or in a service station where you move your car from the pump to allow another car to fill up.

There have been cases and convictions, I know of one at least. As said the offence starts with section 132, if you can't show a valid ticket then given option pay fare or pay set evasion fare, then he is issued with fixed penalty notice I think currently €100 (you are given time for this) if not paid then matter goes to district court. Only evidence required is inspector saying no ticket and giving evidence to pay as requested.

ynotonavillus

ResearchWill wrote: »

, but you left out the very important or in the section ,,,,,,,,,such other fare for non-payment of a fare as fixed by the undertaking

See my (3) fails to pay a penalty fare,!!!

ynotonavillus

ResearchWill wrote: »

There have been cases and convictions, I know of one at least. As said the offence starts with section 132, if you can't show a valid ticket then given option pay fare or pay set evasion fare, then he is issued with fixed penalty notice I think currently €100 (you are given time for this) if not paid then matter goes to district court. Only evidence required is inspector saying no ticket and giving evidence to pay as requested.

Sat through load of similar stuff in district court a few weeks ago, wham bang thank you mam, RPU guy for utility Co says his piece Judge nods sagely, defendant says nothing... bang Fine and order to pay outstanding bills.

Then one bright spark pipes up about tecnhical issue, Silence... case thrown out.

Suspect that genuine passenger that had no ticket and was intent on buying at destination if he turned up in DC and swore that he had intended to pay his fare but was not able to do so, then he would get off.

It often happens in Mallow station that the Dublin train is waiting and a big queue forms at the window, the station master will tell passengers to get on the train and pay the ticket collector. (also covered in the Bye Laws)

Would an RPU guy then be able to impose the penalty fare on all of these passengers....

ResearchWill

ynotonavillus wrote: »

Sat through load of similar stuff in district court a few weeks ago, wham bang thank you mam, RPU guy for utility Co says his piece Judge nods sagely, defendant says nothing... bang Fine and order to pay outstanding bills.

Then one bright spark pipes up about tecnhical issue, Silence... case thrown out.

Suspect that genuine passenger that had no ticket and was intent on buying at destination if he turned up in DC and swore that he had intended to pay his fare but was not able to do so, then he would get off.

It often happens in Mallow station that the Dublin train is waiting and a big queue forms at the window, the station master will tell passengers to get on the train and pay the ticket collector. (also covered in the Bye Laws)

Would an RPU guy then be able to impose the penalty fare on all of these passengers....

I assume they would be aware of problems like Mallow, but all depends on the guy I suppose.

ResearchWill

ynotonavillus wrote: »

See my (3) fails to pay a penalty fare,!!!

Sorry missed that.

ynotonavillus

ResearchWill wrote: »

..... but all depends on the guy I suppose.

You have nailed it there, unfortunately too much power now is invested in "THE GUY" thankfully clampers are now gone in Galway, and in Cork.

Remember the guy in Westmeath that was prosecuted for leaving a shoebox at the bottle bank!!!!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1125/1224308109991.html

ResearchWill

ynotonavillus wrote: »

You have nailed it there, unfortunately too much power now is invested in "THE GUY" thankfully clampers are now gone in Galway, and in Cork.

Remember the guy in Westmeath that was prosecuted for leaving a shoebox at the bottle bank!!!!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1125/1224308109991.html

Hence why we must stand up to the Guy, too many get away with really bad behaviour. They forget their actions can come under scrunity aswell.

Carawaystick

ResearchWill wrote: »

From my understanding an offence as you say is only committed if you refuse to do as directed in section 132, but you left out the very important or in the section

132.—(1) Every passenger of a railway undertaking shall, on re- quest by an officer or employee of a railway undertaking, produce, and if so requested, deliver up to the officer or employee a ticket showing that his or her fare is paid and, if the fare has not been paid, shall upon request—
(a) pay, to the officer or employee—
(i) his or her fare from the place where he or she started
the journey by railway, or
(ii) such other fare for non-payment of a fare as fixed by the undertaking,
as the officer or employee decides, or

The fact you can't buy tickets at every station sort of makes the fixed penalty fare arbritary. Does everyone getting on at Broombridge have to pay a fixed penalty fare? as they can't buy a ticket to produce?

ynotonavillus

Carawaystick wrote: »

The fact you can't buy tickets at every station sort of makes the fixed penalty fare arbritary. Does everyone getting on at Broombridge have to pay a fixed penalty fare? as they can't buy a ticket to produce?

Arbitrary.....Absolutely, as per 23 above.....

Hilly Bill

If your appeal fails and you chose to go to court and lose do you get a criminal conviction?
Im not talking about ignoring the fine and then be taken to court but to chose to go to court after your appeal fails and want a third party to hear your case because you feel that you were wrongly fined.?

Anyone with first hand legal info on this please ?

Victor

It would be a criminal conviction - one is being prosecuted for an offence, not sued for the price of the ticket.

Hilly Bill

What im looking for Victor is proof of this or the opinion of someone in the legal profession . At the same time im not discounting your opinion on it.

Grolschevik

ResearchWill wrote: »

From my understanding an offence as you say is only committed if you refuse to do as directed in section 132, but you left out the very important or in the section

132.—(1) Every passenger of a railway undertaking shall, on re- quest by an officer or employee of a railway undertaking, produce, and if so requested, deliver up to the officer or employee a ticket showing that his or her fare is paid and, if the fare has not been paid, shall upon request—
(a) pay, to the officer or employee—
(i) his or her fare from the place where he or she started
the journey by railway, or
(ii) such other fare for non-payment of a fare as fixed by the undertaking,
as the officer or employee decides, or

From my understanding (a friend was done) you are given the option to pay fare OR pay a fixed penalty notice, I think €100 (sorry thats the fixed penalty notice) if you fail to pay that in time then the matter goes to court. it is the officer or employee of Irish Rail who decides, so I assume if he decides I see this guy a lot always has a ticked I believe him then a normal fare, if he thinks the person is a chancer then the fixed penalty fare. If that not paid then fixed penalty notice issues.

BTW if anyone thinks a ticket machine is not a ticket office, refuse to pay and go to court, see how that works out.

Just thought this opinion (bolded) deserved reiteration.