The perils of ticket inspectors.

Losty Dublin

From time to time we hear of complaints about revenue offices who work on board trains, buses and the Luas. The below story shows a little of the hassle they encounter on a regular basis and how far some passengers will take their case under the assumption that they are in the right.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/woman-who-called-ticket-inspector-a-fat-bastard-loses-damages-claim-1.2097068

Tow

Good at least one ticket inspector was doing his job, unlike on the Red Luas line were they turn a blind eye to the hards...

mikemac1

The red line inspectors skip people and zero in for the quiet office workers who don't talk back.

Last year an inspector was getting called Africa by a group but of course he skipped the tracksuit brigade and came straight to me

nokia69

mikemac1 wrote: »

The red line inspectors skip people and zero in for the quiet office workers who don't talk back.

Last year an inspector was getting called Africa by a group but of course he skipped the tracksuit brigade and came straight to me

in fairness what you do in his place

Hilly Bill

Losty Dublin wrote: »

From time to time we hear of complaints about revenue offices who work on board trains, buses and the Luas. The below story shows a little of the hassle they encounter on a regular basis and how far some passengers will take their case under the assumption that they are in the right.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/woman-who-called-ticket-inspector-a-fat-bastard-loses-damages-claim-1.2097068

Im disgusted that costs wasnt awarded against her.

hfallada

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Im disgusted that costs wasnt awarded against her.

Agree! There is no disincentive for people to chance a claim, if they wont have to pay out of pocket. It would be handy if the travel cards had a reference number that the inspectors could call a hotline and key in the number. The hotline could tell them the identity of the card to ensure its not defaced. I know with medical marijuana cards in the US. They often dont have names on the cards, but a reference number than can confirm the authenticity of the card over the phone.

coylemj

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Im disgusted that costs wasnt awarded against her.

What would be the point? The court reports states that she's unemployed and lives in Donnycarney so I'm thinking she won't be the owner of any assets worth chasing. An award for unrecoverable costs wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on.

Losty Dublin

hfallada wrote: »

Agree! There is no disincentive for people to chance a claim, if they wont have to pay out of pocket. It would be handy if the travel cards had a reference number that the inspectors could call a hotline and key in the number. The hotline could tell them the identity of the card to ensure its not defaced. I know with medical marijuana cards in the US. They often dont have names on the cards, but a reference number than can confirm the authenticity of the card over the phone.

There is a special DSP phone line that CIE and Luas staff can ring to check up on pass. It isn't much use outside of office hours, though.

nokia69

coylemj wrote: »

What would be the point? The court reports states that she's unemployed and lives in Donnycarney so I'm thinking she won't be the owner of any assets worth chasing. An award for unrecoverable costs wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on.

it might stop other false claims in the future

we have a real problem with this type of claim in the country

if she had to pay a small sum out of her welfare every week it would be a good thing

Slippin Jimmy

It's outrageous that she didn't get her 50k.

This is Ireland, she deserves it!

On a serious note, ****ing delighted for her.

8-10

mikemac1 wrote: »

The red line inspectors skip people and zero in for the quiet office workers who don't talk back.

Last year an inspector was getting called Africa by a group but of course he skipped the tracksuit brigade and came straight to me

That's shocking if that actually happens. Doesn't the line have security guards with the inspectors?

Hilly Bill

coylemj wrote: »

What would be the point? The court reports states that she's unemployed and lives in Donnycarney so I'm thinking she won't be the owner of any assets worth chasing. An award for unrecoverable costs wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on.

So let them chance their arm for €50,000 without any comebacks? Take it out her welfare and charge her with fraud ?

Gatling

What was stupid her pass was obviously tampered with using tipex .
Then she goes on she's had to apply for more travel passes .
That should be stopped you missuse a pass you should permanently barred from having one again

BowWow

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Im disgusted that costs wasnt awarded against her.

Award costs against her legal team - they were probably working on a "no foal, no fee" basis. Would make everyone think twice about frivolous claims.

end of the road

nokia69 wrote: »

it might stop other false claims in the future

we have a real problem with this type of claim in the country

if she had to pay a small sum out of her welfare every week it would be a good thing

unfortunately it wouldn't stop them. i agree we have a problem with them though

coylemj

BowWow wrote: »

Award costs against her legal team - they were probably working on a "no foal, no fee" basis. Would make everyone think twice about frivolous claims.

Her lawyers clearly had an incentive to succeed, otherwise they get nothing. An unemployed person taking a defamation case for €50,000 though is completely laughable, just goes to show that the ambulance chasers are able to make a living even taking on case with no merit like this one.

She lives in Donnycarney and has a bit of argy bargy with a ticket inspector on a train from Tralee to Cork, presumably in front of people who don't know her from Adam. Even if the judge accepted her version of events, you have to ask how much money she would have been awarded - what reputation did she have to be damaged?

n97 mini

RPU officers alighted at my station and waited for the next train that I was getting on, and I got chatting to one. It was startling how little he knew about services on my line and other. But, when they got on the train I was quite impressed how they operated, all three of them taking a carriage at a time and working from opposite ends and the middle. They were even cute enough to wait for the train to start pulling out before they moved to their next carriage.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Im disgusted that costs wasnt awarded against her.

Irish Rail have essentially bottomless pockets so their employees and agents can bring a private citizen to court without any worry of loss to themselves. Bit like the council will bring you to court over a satellite dish but your neighbour won't. So a bit of balance has to be struck, it's not ideal though.

Heisenberg1

n97 mini wrote: »

RPU officers alighted at my station and waited for the next train that I was getting on, and I got chatting to one. It was startling how little he knew about services on my line and other. But, when they got on the train I was quite impressed how they operated, all three of them taking a carriage at a time and working from opposite ends and the middle. They were even cute enough to wait for the train to start pulling out before they moved to their next carriage.



Irish Rail have essentially bottomless pockets so their employees and agents can bring a private citizen to court without any worry of loss to themselves. Bit like the council will bring you to court over a satellite dish but your neighbour won't. So a bit of balance has to be struck, it's not ideal though.

Did you read the article ? She brought IE to court for a damges claim.

n97 mini

Heisenberg1 wrote: »

Did you read the article ? She brought IE to court for a damges claim.

I did. My point is that costs were not awarded against her as part of the ruling for a reason. i.e. while she ultimately didn't win, she wasn't punished for trying.

Grolschevik

n97 mini wrote: »

I did. My point is that costs were not awarded against her as part of the ruling for a reason. i.e. while she ultimately didn't win, she wasn't punished for trying.

She'd still have to pay her own solicitors, unless they agreed a 'no foal no fee' contingency type arrangement.

Hilly Bill

n97 mini wrote: »

I did. My point is that costs were not awarded against her as part of the ruling for a reason. i.e. while she ultimately didn't win, she wasn't punished for trying.

She should have. You get punished if you fail in an appeal about penalty points so why is this different? Court costs should be awarded against anyone who fails in actions like this especially when it was done in spite.

n97 mini

Hilly Bill wrote: »

She should have. You get punished if you fail in an appeal about penalty points so why is this different?

This is nothing to do with penalty points, but since you brought them up the constitutionality of being punished for losing an appeal has been questioned.

coylemj

n97 mini wrote: »

I did. My point is that costs were not awarded against her as part of the ruling for a reason. i.e. while she ultimately didn't win, she wasn't punished for trying.

I think that judge is pretty plaintiff-friendly, only the other week he refused to approve a personal injury settlement until the money was increased meaning that an amount was agreed by both sides and he said it wasn't enough. And then we wonder why insurance premiums keep going up!

n97 mini

coylemj wrote: »

I think that judge is pretty plaintiff-friendly, only the other week he refused to approve a personal injury settlement until the money was increased meaning that an amount was agreed by both sides and he said it wasn't enough. And then we wonder why insurance premiums keep going up!

That's justice for you. No-one said it was cheap!

dowlingm

coylemj wrote: »

I think that judge is pretty plaintiff-friendly, only the other week he refused to approve a personal injury settlement until the money was increased meaning that an amount was agreed by both sides and he said it wasn't enough. And then we wonder why insurance premiums keep going up!

think the hint is in the "approve" there. Judges aren't rubber stamps.

coylemj

dowlingm wrote: »

think the hint is in the "approve" there. Judges aren't rubber stamps.

Has a judge ever refused to approve a settlement because it was too high? It sounds to me like a one-way street, hence my comment on the effect on insurance premiums.

Spanish Eyes

It is just too easy for people to defraud the transport system.

Not enough inspectors.... who would pay for themselves if they were visible to the travelling public.

I just discovered today that Irish Rail do not have any personnel on board to adjudicate ticket/seating issues or anything else. Only the driver. Now s/he is going to be great help when trundling along at Xmph on the track to Cork, Galway, Sligo etc.

False economy. Even if they blitzed once a week on different days/times it would satisfy those who actually DO pay.

And another thing, what do the inspectors do when they are NOT checking these things out?

I have never evaded a fare in my life. I, and I suppose many like me are enraged to see the blatant fare evasion that goes on, day in, day out.

Up yer game all you public transport facilities please.

Otherwise the fares keep going up.... for those who actually PAY for them!

Hilly Bill

They gets blitzed the same time regularly Across the country.

AlekSmart

n97 mini wrote: »

I did. My point is that costs were not awarded against her as part of the ruling for a reason. i.e. while she ultimately didn't win, she wasn't punished for trying.

It's worth noting that some Judges are becoming realistic in their application of verdicts.....

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/mother-33-who-claimed-dublin-bus-driver-called-her-scum-loses-50000-damages-case-30964285.html

Judge Linnane said it was Ms Connington’s own evidence that she had been using “some language” and therefore the bus driver had been entitled to eject her. Dismissing Connington’s claim, with an order for costs against her, the judge said she had failed to prove her case.

Now Judge Linnane's ruling in this case will be recieving some attention in chambers everywhere.

Bearing in mind this was Circuit Court proceedings,the plaintiff will have substantial legal fees to be paid.

It's entirely open to the successful side to seek attachment orders and/or enforce a charge on a persons property to secure payment of costs,even if this may take decades....payment WILL be secured :eek:

dowlingm

In terms of reserved seats, maybe IE could be told that they must staff all trains where they are selling reservations? At least the revenue from them would be paying for better execution of the product...

Red Alert

I agree: if a journey is long enough that reserving a seat makes sense, there should be a member of staff on board.