Proved I'm a student... but still being fined?!

freeth

On May 27th I took a train to Galway on a return student ticket, purchased online for about €26. I would normally drive but my Mum is a nervous passenger so we took the train- "relaxing"..

The ticket inspector came around and I suddenly realised I didn't have my card, I'd left it in my pencil case as we'd have exams the week prior (d'oh).

I explained to the ticket inspector who calmly wrote out a fine docket and told me to email a copy of my student card to the email address. I did so as soon as I was back in Dublin, along with a letter from my college proving I'm enrolled.

THEN TODAY- I get an email saying I am still being charged a €50 fine, almost double what my ticket originally cost. I GET IT - I didn't have my student card, fine, BUT- I then proved I was a student and therefore was entitled to a student fare. Surely those fees are there to catch out chancers and piss takers?? I'm the sort of person that would never risk something like that, even last week when all the punters were piling onto a luas after forbidden fruit, I insisted on buying a ticket....even though I'm pretty sure no one else did.

I'd normally just pay it and move on, but surely the discounted rates are there to protect the financially vunerable? I'm a mature student and also currently on Jobseekers (you can sign on for summer) until my work starts in July.

Is there anything to be done? I'm genuinely broke but it's also the principle of the whole thing....

goingnowhere

At the time of inspection you didn't have the required ID, your ticket was not valid

Game over

thomasj

It's in the terms and conditions you MUST be in possession of the correct id WHEN travelling and if you dont you're fined.

Mrs OBumble

freeth wrote: »

...surely the discounted rates are there to protect the financially vunerable? I'm a mature student and also currently on Jobseekers (you can sign on for summer) until my work starts in July.

Are you having a laugh? The real financially vulnerable are students who cannot sign on. You can. You aren't.

And who keeps their student ID in their pencil case? You Get a grown up wallet, and use it to carry the stuff you should be carrying.

goingnowhere

Both must be presented, either on its own is insufficient, and means both conditions are met

The penalty is difference with the equivalent adult single fare + 100 euro fine for evasion

martyoo

He didn't have a valid ticket! Suck it up OP.

Losty Dublin

sugarman wrote: »

It must clearly be wrote in the t&c's, along with the €50 fine that it makes no mention of otherwise its not binding.

As I said, let it go to court. It'll be thrown.

When you book a student ticket online, a huge big warning popup comes on the screen and says....

"The following information is relevant to the ticket(s) you have selected.

You have chosen a Student Ticket. Students can purchase InterCity tickets with either a valid college ID, a valid Student Travelcard or a valid Translink Student Discount card in the passengers name. Failure to produce a valid ticket, appropriate ID or surcharge where necessary will result in a fine of €100 together with the relevant unpaid fare."

To book the ticket he needed to click on a green "Book Ticket" button on the warning popup. No way that OP can't have been aware that he needed his ID when on board.

Time

sugarman wrote: »

It must clearly be wrote in the t&c's, along with the €50 fine that it makes no mention of otherwise its not binding.

As I said, let it go to court. It'll be thrown.

Same here, especially since the Ticket Inspector (it seems) led the OP to believe that the fine would be overturned. They'd have to go to court and stand up and explain that one.

sugarman

sugarman wrote:

Where does it say that?

In the exact same place you quoted and made bold?!?!

Ticket AND valid id

bk

sugarman wrote: »

Where does it say that?

It only mentions failure to produce a valid ticket and student ID under the t&c. Not just the ID on its own and no reference to the €50.

Id let it go to court, any judge will throw it.

I'm confused, your clearly bolded the word and there.

The word and used in legal documents (and computer science) means you need to have both the ticket and the id at time of inspection!

Otherwise it would use the word or.

If the OP goes to court like you advise, then the OP will most likely end up with a €1,000 fine + legal costs + possibility of a criminal conviction.

It really would be an open and shut case for a judge. The idea is that if you buy a student ticket (or any non regular ticket) you most have the valid ID to prove your entitlement to that ticket at time of inspection. It really is that simple and frankly it makes logical sense.

hasdanta

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Are you having a laugh? The real financially vulnerable are students who cannot sign on. You can. You aren't.

And who keeps their student ID in their pencil case? You Get a grown up wallet, and use it to carry the stuff you should be carrying.

No need to be so condescending. As OP stated they had college exams and during exams you must have some form of ID on you (i.e. their student card) and you're not allowed to bring a wallet into the exam centre, hence why it must've been in his/her purse/wallet.

XPS_Zero

First I STRONGLY advise you to check the DSP rules about students, because there is a clause in the Social Welfare Acts specifically excluding students from signing on, that may or may not have been changed but I'm pretty sure it has not, make sure you read the fine print very carefully and if you've made an 'oops ' quietly sign off without saying a word. The student emergency finance system is meant to be grants, only in special circumstances do I recall an option of summer sign on.


Second, there are several issues here:


1. It is irresponsible to not take your student ID with you in a wallet, that is what everyone does, that way you have it everywhere you go, so learn from this lesson, you will always need it if on public transport, if out on the pi1ss and the guards want to see ID etc


2. According to IE rules you are in the wrong, according to the law you are in the right, it's up to you if you wanna take a chance and roll the dice. The conditions of travel on public transport are rules UNDER the law rather than the law itself (same way the law is under the constitution and cannot be incompatible with it, ie can't pass a law banning protest), they are rules passed by ministerial order, by the executive branch, they must be comparable with the law and any parts that are not are void (but the onus is on YOU to show that parts incompatible, this is where we get into the how big a deal do you wanna make out of this). Legally there are two aspects of a crime mindset and action. You must have both for a crime to be present. Not only must you not have had a student card you must be trying to defraud IE by not being a student.



You are a student, and can prove that, so therefore there is no crime, regardless of what the rules say. You had no intent to defraud them, you were dumb, careless and reckless not malicious. So you can tell them that and they might believe you'll push it to court, or think they're calling your bluff and ACTUALLY take it to court then a judge could decide yes you are correct, or disagree (for whatever reason) and say no i triple your fine.


So in a very technical sense you can prove you are right but you may be worth your while just saying this ^ then saying 'but look I should have had it with me if you will keep the fine at the original 50 i'll pay it without further challenge', then if they decide to push the full whack id say 'well ive nothing to loose then' and take it to court. That's what I'd do, up to you. The judge might look down on you for being careless not having the card with you, or the technical argument may work (would with most judges). If your college has no expiry date on the card DO NOT challenge it your case is hopeless.

alroley

XPS_Zero wrote: »

First I STRONGLY advise you to check the DSP rules about students, because there is a clause in the Social Welfare Acts specifically excluding students from signing on, that may or may not have been changed but I'm pretty sure it has not, make sure you read the fine print very carefully and if you've made an 'oops ' quietly sign off without saying a word. The student emergency finance system is meant to be grants, only in special circumstances do I recall an option of summer sign on.

Most students are not allowed to sign on during summer, but mature students are definitely allowed. This was something I found out after I finished college as a mature student :rolleyes:

bk

I'd say if the OP seriously was considering going to court, then first of all seek professional legal advice.

Any time you think you might want to go to court, you should always seek professional legal advice first.

You might win a court case, but the gamble your taking is that you will lose and be fined up to €1,000 + legal costs + most worryingly a criminal conviction (which might hamper future work prospects, visa's to the US, etc.).

I'd say it would not be a gamble worth taking over €50. And of course if you seek legal advice (as you should), then it would cost a lot more then €50.

Best to just pay up and take it as a lesson learned.

freeth

thanks everyone for the helpful (And some not so helpful!) advice.

Slept on it and decided I will send them an email/letter and try to appeal. The first time, when I sent in my details, I didn’t even know I was appealing because the inspector made it seem like if I sent in a copy of my card, it would all be grand. Presumably this is a tactic of his to avoid getting into arguments on the train, I don’t blame him, but it was fairly misleading.

I know *technically* I was in the wrong but god damnit if we all went around paying fines without questioning them what kind of society would this be?! 😛

Also:-

1. Of course I have a wallet, as someone else mentioned, you can only bring restricted items into an exam hall, hence why I had to take it out.

2. You can sign on as a mature student for summer break. I’m not entitled to grant/other financial aid (I pay for college off my work savings).

Addle

sugarman wrote: »

Where does it say that?



It only mentions failure to produce a valid ticket and student ID under the t&c. Not just the ID on its own and no reference to the €50.

Id let it go to court, any judge will throw it.

It also stated that proof of status is required when you bought ticket online.
No excuses OP.

GM228

XPS_Zero wrote: »

2. According to IE rules you are in the wrong, according to the law you are in the right, it's up to you if you wanna take a chance and roll the dice. The conditions of travel on public transport are rules UNDER the law rather than the law itself (same way the law is under the constitution and cannot be incompatible with it, ie can't pass a law banning protest), they are rules passed by ministerial order, by the executive branch, they must be comparable with the law and any parts that are not are void (but the onus is on YOU to show that parts incompatible, this is where we get into the how big a deal do you wanna make out of this). Legally there are two aspects of a crime mindset and action. You must have both for a crime to be present. Not only must you not have had a student card you must be trying to defraud IE by not being a student.



You are a student, and can prove that, so therefore there is no crime, regardless of what the rules say. You had no intent to defraud them, you were dumb, careless and reckless not malicious. So you can tell them that and they might believe you'll push it to court, or think they're calling your bluff and ACTUALLY take it to court then a judge could decide yes you are correct, or disagree (for whatever reason) and say no i triple your fine.


So in a very technical sense you can prove you are right but you may be worth your while just saying this ^ then saying 'but look I should have had it with me if you will keep the fine at the original 50 i'll pay it without further challenge', then if they decide to push the full whack id say 'well ive nothing to loose then' and take it to court. That's what I'd do, up to you. The judge might look down on you for being careless not having the card with you, or the technical argument may work (would with most judges). If your college has no expiry date on the card DO NOT challenge it your case is hopeless.

There are a number of things incorrect about your post XPS in relation to the "rules" and the requirement for mens rea (a guilty mind).

Terms and conditions can play a vital part in many offences, a common area where this occurs is motor insurance offences where a violation of the terms of your policy can and does see people prosecuted for driving with no insurance even with what is otherwise a valid policy.

There are two different parts of the Railway Safety Act 2005 (as amended) dealing with the issue, one quite rightly as you point out requires intent and so mens rea, the other does not, it is a strict liability offence - the guilty mind does not apply. People are prosecuted for this all the time.

The real question I have is how a €50 "fine" has been issued when statute prescribes a €100 penalty, or "such other fare", but that is not a fare.

bk

GM228 wrote: »

The real question I have is how a €50 "fine" has been issued when statute prescribes a €100 penalty, or "such other fare", but that is not a fare.

Yes, I was wondering that. Perhaps it is an administrative cost for all the trouble that the OP caused.

As in, it cost money for the ticket inspector to write out the ticket, go back to his office, enter the ticket details in a system, send out letters, respond to OP's emails, etc.

All of that doesn't come for free. An administrative cost to cover those costs does seem fair enough.

Perhaps they agreed to wave the €100, but still need to cover admin costs.

trellheim

My advice is to take the lump and pay it.

idnkph

I would say in your appeal that you were misled by the inspector and what he advised and led you to believe different and feel conned into the fine. Just to see what they come back with.

bk

idnkph wrote: »

I would say in your appeal that you were misled by the inspector and what he advised and led you to believe different and feel conned into the fine. Just to see what they come back with.

How could the OP be "conned" into the fine, when the fine was completely justified? The Bye-laws are very clear, you must have a ticket AND ID at time of inspection. The OP didn't have a fine, so the inspector rightfully issued a FPN.

The Inspector seems to have told the OP to email the fines office with their proof of student ID and they will look into it. It seems they did and only charged the OP €50 extra rather then €100 + ticket difference (I assume the €50) which they were entailed to charge.

That seems fair enough to me. After all the OP's mistake has cost the company a lot of admin effort. Should that not come with a cost?

As for accusing the inspector of "conning" you, can you imagine how well that will go down with the fines office, you accusing a colleague of theirs of being a conman. Hmm.. Sure to go well!

paulieeye

it could just be lack of communication in IE. Send them an email and they'll probably cancel it.

I got grabbed on the Luas before and had left my monthly ticket at home. They fined me but one email did the job with a picture of the monthly ticket...it could of been anyones ticket!!

idnkph

bk wrote:

As for accusing the inspector of "conning" you, can you imagine how well that will go down with the fines office, you accusing a colleague of theirs of being a conman. Hmm.. Sure to go well!

How much more out of context could you take my post? There is a difference between saying the colleague is a conman and saying you feel a bit conned by what you were led to believe.

paulieeye wrote:

I got grabbed on the Luas before and had left my monthly ticket at home. They fined me but one email did the job with a picture of the monthly ticket...it could of been anyones ticket!!

Its like getting a parking fine for non display of a ticket and then getting a valid ticket from anyone I the vicinity and going in to the fines office and they cancel it there and then. I have done this on a couple of occassions.

magicbastarder

it's wonderful that we have a system which deals with the following three scenarios in essentially the same way:
1) i bunk onto public transport in the hope that a ticket inspector won't show and i'll get to travel for free
2) i make a genuine mistake and travel on public transport without having paid for my ticket, but without the intention to do so
3) i make a genuine mistake and travel on public transport, being entitled to the ticket i have, but have forgotten supporting documentation.

granted, the differences between 1 and 2 are never going to be easy to distinguish; but why can't there be a system where a proven genuine mistake (as in a card which pre-existed the 'offence') is dealt with with what - for the sake of convenience - i'll call a 'ticket inspection fee'. say €10 or €15.

TL;DR - the system treats 'not paying for your ticket' and 'paying for your ticket but not having the paperwork' the same. this is nuts.

magicbastarder

to draw a corollary - driving without a licence (as in, not actually being a qualified driver) is - as is common sense - treated more seriously than being asked to present your licence at a checkpoint but not having it in your possession. no-one seems to think this is wrong.

Xterminator

magicbastarder wrote: »

TL;DR - the system treats 'not paying for your ticket' and 'paying for your ticket but not having the paperwork' the same. this is nuts.

The ticket inspectors cannot determine intent. I know you might like each ticket inspector to have the wisdom of judge judy, but is simple terms they check if have a valid ticket ( and the ticket is not valid unless you have the supporting documentation). They standard penalty is applied if you do not. There is no egregious penalty.

Its quite simple really and it comes down to personal responsibility. The traveller must have a valid ticket, and its incumbent on the traveller to be sure they have whatever documentation is needed.

paulieeye

idnkph wrote: »

Its like getting a parking fine for non display of a ticket and then getting a valid ticket from anyone I the vicinity and going in to the fines office and they cancel it there and then. I have done this on a couple of occassions.

ya, I think like most things you can get away with it if you're civil and believable. People who work in these places largely dont give a shiit and have been in similiar situations themselves.

magicbastarder

Xterminator wrote: »

The ticket inspectors cannot determine intent.

you're possibly getting the difference between 1 and 2, and 2 and 3 mixed up in my examples above. intent is irrelevant if you've paid for the ticket, and can prove it, but do do not have the proof on your person at the point of inspection.

what i'm trying to say is that if you've paid for your ticket, but cannot prove it *on the spot* - this should be treated differently to someone who simply cannot prove they've paid. it's not rocket science.

devnull

magicbastarder wrote: »

you're possibly getting the difference between 1 and 2, and 2 and 3 mixed up in my examples above. intent is irrelevant if you've paid for the ticket, and can prove it, but do do not have the proof on your person at the point of inspection.

Yeah but you've forgot about the type of evasion where someone lends someone else a ticket for the day and the other person then tries to use the excuse they have a ticket in their name so they shouldn't be fined.

I've seen this happen in other countries and as such they've been able to abuse a system where already having a ticket is protection from a fine, so it doesn't always work the way you say.

magicbastarder

but if it's case of needing (missing) supporting documentation, can that not be handled at appeal stage?

devnull

magicbastarder wrote: »

but if it's case of needing (missing) supporting documentation, can that not be handled at appeal stage?

Fare evasion can be basic and it can be sophisticated.

I know in Poland sophisticated schemes like the following are rifle:
- Tara has a pass in her name. She never carries it and gives it to her friend Mary.
- When Mary is asked for a pass she shows Taras pass and is not challenged
- When Tara is caught without a ticket she asks Mary for the pass back temporarily.
- Tara submits pass and gets off fine and hands it back to Mary to use and cycle repeats.

Now I know that photos mean that this is unlikely to happen, but I've known people who look similar who are all sharing a pass in this way and honestly a lot of the inspectors don't exactly check the photos in any detail anyway.

Do inspectors here really check the photo ID in detail or even really look at it on students or just take a quick look that ahh, it's student leap, we'll let them through without comparing the photos?

The point is how do you determine between someone who has genuinely forgotten a ticket, and those who have lent the ticket to someone else who is actively using it at the time? And if so, which one is technically evading, if not both?