Irish Rail Fixed Penalty notice

Laura4193

Hi,

I'll try to keep this as short as possible. I get a monthly ticket on my leap card from work for the bus and rail. I had only moved to Maynooth when I started the job and told them I'd more than likely be getting the train from Maynooth. A couple of months later and I started getting on at Kilcock as it was handier for parking.

I never thought anything was wrong, certainly didn't think I was dong anything wrong. Kilcock is a very small station, no Iirsh Rail staff, no smart card machine, just a ticket vending machine with the smart card top up facility on it.

Last week an inspector scanned my card on the train and told me it wasn't valid for Kilcock as I was out of the "Short Hop Zone". He then slapped me with €100 fine plus the full fare of €8.10.

I then offered him my personal leap card which had sufficient credit but he refused. My card was confiscated but he told me to go in and ask for the manager and explain that Kilcock would be included in the zone in June and that it wasn't "user-friendly".

I subsequently did that two days later and turns out the manager told me that in fact the inspector had told him I was told to come in to pay ALL my fares that I "avoided" which would be over €1,000.

Hand on heart I did not intentionally avoid fares, I don't have to pay anyway my job does for me! I was genuinely clueless to this "zone" thing.

Now on looking into the Rail Safety Act I can see you have to have intent to avoid paying the fare, me offering my personal leap card shows I didn't but whats the odds of that holding up?

Bottom line is I can't afford it. This is why my job pays for me, I earn less than €20,000 a year.

Anyone know where I stand on this or what I can do?

Dravokivich

I thought an Inspector would only fine you for the instance you were travelling without a ticket? If you have not received any other fines, you should not have any additional charges.

Offering to hand over the Leap Card, makes no odds as with Irish Rail these can only be used at stations that have the validators installed.

I also think you are getting a bit mixed up saying your work pays for it. If these are TaxSaver products you have on your leap Card. You are paying for it.

You can enquire with your work about potentially getting a point to point taxsaver for Killcock, untill Killcock is within the Short Hop Zone.

punisher5112

If they investigate and find one has been using for quite some time fines can be increased.

Sure there was one a good while back was fined around the €10k mark as they hadn't paid in years.

Isambard

so you bought a ticket from one station but travelled from one further out and it didn't occur to you that the fare might be more from there?

cython

Dravokivich wrote: »

I thought an Inspector would only fine you for the instance you were travelling without a ticket? If you have not received any other fines, you should not have any additional charges.

Offering to hand over the Leap Card, makes no odds as with Irish Rail these can only be used at stations that have the validators installed.

I also think you are getting a bit mixed up saying your work pays for it. If these are TaxSaver products you have on your leap Card. You are paying for it.

You can enquire with your work about potentially getting a point to point taxsaver for Killcock, untill Killcock is within the Short Hop Zone.

With all due respect, none of us know the OP's circumstances, and their employer could actually be paying for the ticket for them as a benefit in kind, so to speak, but because of the tax relief via the taxsaver scheme, there would be no taxation payable on the BIK either. Similar to employers being able to simply give employees a bike tax free every five years under the bike to work scheme without requiring a salary sacrifice (provided it is under €1k, obviously). Neither you nor I know this for certain either way.

To stay on topic though, as others have said it's a tricky situation, and I don't think offering your card once demonstrates that you had no intent - while you may not be one, any number of chancers would willfully evade the fare and offer their card the rare time they got caught, as this would still be cheaper for them.

Laura4193

Isambard wrote: »

so you bought a ticket from one station but travelled from one further out and it didn't occur to you that the fare might be more from there?

No, my employer bought me a generic "Rail and Bus" ticket. It's a smart card, it has nothing printed on it and it doesn't specify stations, or well at least that's what I thought - like a rambler ticket for the bus.

I was oblivious to the fact that one station out wasn't covered, I had assumed it was. That was my mistake.

I had no financial gain from being on the train a stop later/earlier as the ticket wasn't paid for by me anyway.

My ignorance was to blame but I wasn't trying purposely to evade fares and that's what I'm trying to prove.

Laura4193

cython wrote: »

With all due respect, none of us know the OP's circumstances, and their employer could actually be paying for the ticket for them as a benefit in kind, so to speak, but because of the tax relief via the taxsaver scheme, there would be no taxation payable on the BIK either. Similar to employers being able to simply give employees a bike tax free every five years under the bike to work scheme without requiring a salary sacrifice (provided it is under €1k, obviously). Neither you nor I know this for certain either way.

To stay on topic though, as others have said it's a tricky situation, and I don't think offering your card once demonstrates that you had no intent - while you may not be one, any number of chancers would willfully evade the fare and offer their card the rare time they got caught, as this would still be cheaper for them.

Thanks.

I know it looks really bad and I can understand the difficulty in differentiating between a chancer and someone who genuinely just had no idea that what they were doing was wrong.

I'm hoping the fact that my employer paying for it will prove that i had no financial gain from "evading" the fare to show I wasn't doing so intentionally.

I would have gained more so from work paying the extra every month for me to get off and on a stop early as opposed to me facing the backlog in a lump sum from my own pocket.

punisher5112

Laura4193 wrote: »

No, my employer bought me a generic "Rail and Bus" ticket. It's a smart card, it has nothing printed on it and it doesn't specify stations, or well at least that's what I thought - like a rambler ticket for the bus.

I was oblivious to the fact that one station out wasn't covered, I had assumed it was. That was my mistake.

I had no financial gain from being on the train a stop later/earlier as the ticket wasn't paid for by me anyway.

My ignorance was to blame but I wasn't trying purposely to evade fares and that's what I'm trying to prove.

The onus is on you unfortunately in your situation as we take your word.

I would suggest you contact them in writing or email and put your case to them with all your info and how the card came through the job and so on. See can you work on the price(fine).

Best of luck but its one of those things they can't discriminate between the 2. Someone caught not paying or wrong ticket has to be come down on as huge amounts of revenue is lost and it's across all modes of transport.

Isambard

do you understand that there are people who will do what you have done deliberately in the hope that they don't come across an Inspector between Kilcock and Maynooth, thus affording a cheaper fare? How are IE to know you are genuine and not one of those people?

It may not have benefitted you but it has effectively cost IE revenue and you can't blame them for chasing it. Maybe you could talk to them and make a reasonable offer that you can afford in the hope of resolving this?

hungry hypno toad

Similar thread in Legal Discussion, keep an eye on the responses on that thread.

GM228

hungry hypno toad wrote: »

Similar thread in Legal Discussion, keep an eye on the responses on that thread.

Both by the OP:-

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057717077/1

Laura4193

GM228 wrote: »

Both by the OP:-

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057717077/1

Yeah they had mentioned the Transport forum to me.

Dravokivich

cython wrote: »

With all due respect, none of us know the OP's circumstances, and their employer could actually be paying for the ticket for them as a benefit in kind, so to speak, but because of the tax relief via the taxsaver scheme, there would be no taxation payable on the BIK either. Similar to employers being able to simply give employees a bike tax free every five years under the bike to work scheme without requiring a salary sacrifice (provided it is under €1k, obviously). Neither you nor I know this for certain either way.

To stay on topic though, as others have said it's a tricky situation, and I don't think offering your card once demonstrates that you had no intent - while you may not be one, any number of chancers would willfully evade the fare and offer their card the rare time they got caught, as this would still be cheaper for them.

What are you on about? Op clearly doesn't know what they have. I suggested what they may have, and something else in a similar guise they could speak with their employer about to get the right ticket.

cython

Dravokivich wrote: »

What are you on about? Op clearly doesn't know what they have. I suggested what they may have, and something else in a similar guise they could speak with their employer about to get the right ticket.

If you look at what I emphasised from your post, I simply pointed out that the employer could in fact be paying for this, and not the OP, and explained the pretty simple mechanism as to how. You, on the other hand, had straight out told the poster that they were wrong and had to be paying for it themselves (not just "suggested what they may have" as you have since put it), and that their employer couldn't be paying for it, which is frankly an assumption on your part. Just because most tickets purchased via tax saver involve a salary sacrifice does not mean that all must, and indeed the relevant legislation allows for tickets to simply be provided.

I'd suggest you familiarise yourself with these things before you try to tell posters so assertively that they are wrong is all.

Dravokivich

cython wrote: »

If you look at what I emphasised from your post, I simply pointed out that the employer could in fact be paying for this, and not the OP, and explained the pretty simple mechanism as to how. You, on the other hand, had straight out told the poster that they were wrong and had to be paying for it themselves (not just "suggested what they may have" as you have since put it), and that their employer couldn't be paying for it, which is frankly an assumption on your part. Just because most tickets purchased via tax saver involve a salary sacrifice does not mean that all must, and indeed the relevant legislation allows for tickets to simply be provided.

I'd suggest you familiarise yourself with these things before you try to tell posters so assertively that they are wrong is all.

I never said that nor leaned towards it. It's clear the OP didn't understand what was going on and my post in it's entirely was informative regarding that. You make of it what you want, but don't taint my comments with your assumptions.

n97 mini

Is your ticket valid anywhere in the SHZ (short hop zone)? It was announced late last year that Kilcock will be included in the SHZ from this summer. They couldn't include it straight away (unlike Sallins) due to technical issues.

So it seriously sucks if you get done for traveling on a SHZ ticket from a station that should have been in the SHZ from December last!

XPS_Zero

If mini is correct it would depend on timing that may be your only odds of appeal

The only time I ever heard of a successful appeal was my own. It hit me that one of the two basic elements of an offence (intent, or recklessness) wasn't there so I argued take me to court you can't show intent since there was none
But in my case I could point to CCTV showing my repeatedly trying to top up my card

You have nothing to prove your intentions

Their solicitor in court would argue that all passengers are reasonably expected to be aware of basics like the Short Hop Zone verses say going to Mullingar and the difference between a Commuter and Intercity ticket. You can argue it's just one station but that's a weak argument since they have to stop the SHZ somewhere

I don't think you'd win if you fought in court, I'd craft the appeal to target the fines for OTHER journeys saying you have no evidence of how many journeys I took outside other than that one

beauf

In theory they can check on the CCTV. They did that in the UK.

I think appealing it on the basis you had nothing to gain, sounds like a good idea. I have no idea if it would be successful.

Victor

XPS_Zero wrote: »

I don't think you'd win if you fought in court, I'd craft the appeal to target the fines for OTHER journeys saying you have no evidence of how many journeys I took outside other than that one

Unless they see exiting the system every morning, without entering the system and vice versa in the evening, for a definable period.

oppenheimer1

So is the lesson here to be as uncooperative as possible with the inspectors should they come across you. And if you don't have a valid ticket, never give them your leap card?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

MOH

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

So is the lesson here to be as uncooperative as possible with the inspectors should they come across you. And if you don't have a valid ticket, never give them your leap card?

Pretty much, yes.

goingnowhere

You are required to present the Leap Card, you do not own it.

Failure to produce the ticket/card is a fine
Failure to provide name and address is a fine

Non cooperation may result in your detention as is permitted under the Transport Act

You are not obliged to provide any further information, name, address where from and where travelling to.

Hilly Bill

Laura4193 wrote: »

Hi,

I'll try to keep this as short as possible. I get a monthly ticket on my leap card from work for the bus and rail. I had only moved to Maynooth when I started the job and told them I'd more than likely be getting the train from Maynooth. A couple of months later and I started getting on at Kilcock as it was handier for parking.

I never thought anything was wrong, certainly didn't think I was dong anything wrong. Kilcock is a very small station, no Iirsh Rail staff, no smart card machine, just a ticket vending machine with the smart card top up facility on it.

Last week an inspector scanned my card on the train and told me it wasn't valid for Kilcock as I was out of the "Short Hop Zone". He then slapped me with €100 fine plus the full fare of €8.10.

I then offered him my personal leap card which had sufficient credit but he refused. My card was confiscated but he told me to go in and ask for the manager and explain that Kilcock would be included in the zone in June and that it wasn't "user-friendly".

I subsequently did that two days later and turns out the manager told me that in fact the inspector had told him I was told to come in to pay ALL my fares that I "avoided" which would be over €1,000.

Hand on heart I did not intentionally avoid fares, I don't have to pay anyway my job does for me! I was genuinely clueless to this "zone" thing.

Now on looking into the Rail Safety Act I can see you have to have intent to avoid paying the fare, me offering my personal leap card shows I didn't but whats the odds of that holding up?

Bottom line is I can't afford it. This is why my job pays for me, I earn less than €20,000 a year.

Anyone know where I stand on this or what I can do?

You were travelling outside the zone hence the fine. You owe them 108 unless you told them that you have been doing it for a while and nothing was said then. A fella got fined a hefty amount when he was found to be over travelling on a point to point card.

punisher5112

Hilly Bill wrote: »

You were travelling outside the zone hence the fine. You owe them 108 unless you told them that you have been doing it for a while and nothing was said then. A fella got fined a hefty amount when he was found to be over travelling on a point to point card.

If you read back they have put up the fine as they have been found to have been doing it for a while. Ignorance isn't an excuse.

oppenheimer1

goingnowhere wrote: »

You are required to present the Leap Card, you do not own it.

Failure to produce the ticket/card is a fine
Failure to provide name and address is a fine

Non cooperation may result in your detention as is permitted under the Transport Act

You are not obliged to provide any further information, name, address where from and where travelling to.

I have no problem with them issuing a fine or asking for an address, they are v very welcome to post it to me in Germany

They can't make you present the leap card if you tell them you don't have one

XPS_Zero

See that's it

If you haven't tagged outside the zone this it's not in leap history (I assume they see far more data for longer back, attached to your leap card number than you do when you log in) how do they prove it beyond searching through 100s of hours of CCTV

Being abroad won't help you avoid it
It will end in a conviction which will pop up on screen when border agents scan your passport back in Dublin, may affect visa applications outside the EU (especially the US which is completing its transition to full blown police state now where they don't even need a legit excuse to harras you, CBP is filled with power drunk lunatics) and anytime you're stopped by the Guards here it will pop up on PULSE

It's not gonna make them care, our cops I mean not as if it's assault, my point is it won't go away the fine will just get bigger until eventually under the new fines laws they'll take it from your wages via revenue

n97 mini

punisher5112 wrote: »

If you read back they have put up the fine as they have been found to have been doing it for a while. Ignorance isn't an excuse.

Ignorance is a defence. To be committing fraud you need to know you were doing it, ie it has to have been intentional.

Not paying a fine which is on solid legal ground is an offence. In this case if the op genuinely didn't realise they were doing wrong then the grounds for the fine are not secure.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Phil.x

XPS_Zero wrote: »

See that's it

If you haven't tagged outside the zone this it's not in leap history (I assume they see far more data for longer back, attached to your leap card number than you do when you log in) how do they prove it beyond searching through 100s of hours of CCTV

Being abroad won't help you avoid it
It will end in a conviction which will pop up on screen when border agents scan your passport back in Dublin, may affect visa applications outside the EU (especially the US which is completing its transition to full blown police state now where they don't even need a legit excuse to harras you, CBP is filled with power drunk lunatics) and anytime you're stopped by the Guards here it will pop up on PULSE

It's not gonna make them care, our cops I mean not as if it's assault, my point is it won't go away the fine will just get bigger until eventually under the new fines laws they'll take it from your wages via revenue

Phil.x

Tell me this, (I don't know the area/stations) but why didn't the machine refuse his leap card or charge him extra at the end if his leap isn't for the kilcock station.

cython

Phil.x wrote: »

Tell me this, (I don't know the area/stations) but why didn't the machine refuse his leap card or charge him extra at the end if his leap isn't for the kilcock station.

There are no validators in Kilcock at all, and zonal tickets can move freely through exit and entrance barriers where there are validators regardless of whether they tagged on at the start of the journey, or the end of the previous one. Similarly, zonal season tickets don't incur a per journey charge to levy extra, as they are pre-paid "full access" for that zone.

Hilly Bill

punisher5112 wrote: »

If you read back they have put up the fine as they have been found to have been doing it for a while. Ignorance isn't an excuse.

But if they can't tag on then how could it register the starting point. The Rpu need to know exactly how many times its been done previously before deciding on a figure.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Hilly Bill

n97 mini wrote: »

Ignorance is a defence. To be committing fraud you need to know you were doing it, ie it has to have been intentional.

Not paying a fine which is on solid legal ground is an offence. In this case if the op genuinely didn't realise they were doing wrong then the grounds for the fine are not secure.

The op still travelled outside the limits and got fined. Using the excuse of ah sure i didnt know is not really a solid defense.

Victor

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As its a 'civil' prosecution (by Irish Rail, not the Garda / DPP), does this apply?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

goingnowhere

Fare evasion is a criminal offence

Payment of the fare due is a civil matter

The leap card is retained in evidence to review travel patterns

n97 mini

Hilly Bill wrote: »

The op still travelled outside the limits and got fined. Using the excuse of ah sure i didnt know is not really a solid defense.

There has to be intent. This is basic stuff.

(b) having paid his or her fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeds by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance, and with intent to avoid such payment, or

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2005/act/31/section/132/enacted/en/html

beauf

Sounds like an honest mistake. Not sure why people want to put the boot in.

magicbastarder

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

they're not - we don't specifically have miranda rights in ireland, and AFAIK we follow the 'judge's rules'; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judges%27_Rules

the OP had also not been arrested at this point.

GM228

magicbastarder wrote: »

they're not - we don't specifically have miranda rights in ireland, and AFAIK we follow the 'judge's rules'; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judges%27_Rules

the OP had also not been arrested at this point.

Yes we follow Judge's Rules which is only applicable to Gardaí. A caution must be issued under Rule 2, the wording of the caution comes under Rule 5 which is similar to the so called Miranda Right with the exception of no mention of a solicitor.

Do you wish to say anything in answer to the charge? You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so, but whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence

Obviously the above only apply to the Gardaí.

GM228

n97 mini wrote: »

There has to be intent. This is basic stuff.



http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2005/act/31/section/132/enacted/en/html

But there are two types of intent in criminal law, one where you specifically do something on purpose and one where you do something which brings about another result - i.e not checking the ticket was valid brought about the result of fare evasion. It is known as Oblique Intent. It is an established principle in law which has been dealth with under the general heading of "intent".

The problens with the word intent in Irish law is it isn't defined and has been divided into two types of intent as opposed to the one general meaning and it can be established in different ways.

The inference of intent is drawn from evidence. Foresight and recklessness for example can be evidence for intent. The OP could be considered recklessness for not checking the ticket was valid and should have foreseen the possible consequences of not checking.

GM228

n97 mini wrote: »

Ignorance is a defence. To be committing fraud you need to know you were doing it, ie it has to have been intentional.

Not paying a fine which is on solid legal ground is an offence. In this case if the op genuinely didn't realise they were doing wrong then the grounds for the fine are not secure.

Ignorance is not a defence.

Ignorantia legis neminem excusat is a principle first established in 1800 and still held today by the Supreme Court.

Dravokivich

goingnowhere wrote: »

Fare evasion is a criminal offence

Payment of the fare due is a civil matter

The leap card is retained in evidence to review travel patterns

You wont establish a pattern by holding the Leap Card. its activity history only has a record of the last 5 transactions.

L1011

Dravokivich wrote: »

You wont establish a pattern by holding the Leap Card. its activity history only has a record of the last 5 transactions.

The card itself has that.

The Leap systems, and Irish Rail systems, have a LOT more. Log on to your own account to see for starters.

n97 mini

GM228 wrote: »

But there are two types of intent in criminal law, one where you specifically do something on purpose and one where you do something which brings about another result

You've been on wikipedia! Oblique intent (aka indirect intent) is still a form of intent. The OP didn't do anything on purpose. They claim to have been completely unaware.

ED E

n97 mini wrote: »

You've been on wikipedia!

He's done a lot more than that.

GM228

n97 mini wrote: »

You've been on wikipedia! Oblique intent (aka indirect intent) is still a form of intent. The OP didn't do anything on purpose. They claim to have been completely unaware.

I stay away from the rubbish in Wikipedia. Instead I'm speaking from a settled Irish case involving intent.

Indirect intention is "where the defendant is acting for one purpose but brings about another". It does not have to be on purpose as you say.

This was tested in the DPP vs Douglas & Hayes [1985] ILRM 25 case where someone was convicted with intent to cause murder despite them not actually trying to kill someone on purpose. The intent came about from their recklessness and foresight.

Dravokivich

L1011 wrote: »

The card itself has that.

The Leap systems, and Irish Rail systems, have a LOT more. Log on to your own account to see for starters.

All you'll need is the card number. Not the card.

n97 mini

GM228 wrote: »

I stay away from the rubbish in Wikipedia. Instead I'm speaking from a settled Irish case involving intent.

An example:
Person drives car recklessly in an urban area and kills a pedestrian. Two intents, one direct, one indirect.
Person drives car safely and with due care in an urban area and kills a pedestrian.
Same outcome, but no-one goes to jail.

The term oblique and the example you've given are straight from internet searches.

I've bounced this case off a legal person who says that IE would have bit of a job trying to prove intent.