Irish Rail Fixed Penalty Notice, Rail Safety Act 2005

Laura4193 · 20-03-2017 5:47pm

Indricotherium wrote: »

Prove every single one of the journeys by CCTV? Ya mad scone, read the back of your ticket.

Tag on tag off.

There's an admission already made that the journeys were from Kilcock.

Only problem there is I know every single one isn't Kilcock, some are actually Maynooth/Tara where I'd leg it through the open gates.

Yeah you're not supposed to but again I had paid for Maynooth to Dublin at the least so not like I was trying to get away with anything, was just rushing.

Indricotherium · 20-03-2017 5:50pm

Laura4193 wrote: »

Only problem there is I know every single one isn't Kilcock, some are actually Maynooth/Tara where I'd leg it through the open gates.

Yeah you're not supposed to but again I had paid for Maynooth to Dublin at the least so not like I was trying to get away with anything, was just rushing.

You're back to the terms and conditions of the ticket you've paid for there.

Tag on and off or risk an assumption like this down the road.

flexcon · 20-03-2017 5:52pm

Indricotherium wrote: »

You're back to the terms and conditions of the ticket you've paid for there.

Tag on and off or risk an assumption like this down the road.

Anyone out there is there an online version for the terms and conditions with the tagging?

I'm trying to find it, but the IR site is acting slow on me and some pages are 404

Laura4193 · 20-03-2017 5:53pm

Indricotherium wrote: »

You're back to the terms and conditions of the ticket you've paid for there.

Tag on and off or risk an assumption like this down the road.

That's fair enough but any time I didn't tag on or off for Maynooth and Tara were already paid for as my ticket was prepaid for those journeys, just not including Kilcock so they've no right to charge me a Kilcock fare on those occasions as I was nowhere near Kilcock then.

Fred Swanson · 20-03-2017 5:55pm

This post has been deleted.

L1011 · 20-03-2017 5:55pm

Laura4193 wrote: »

The evidence they're going on though is the assumption that any time I didn't tag on or I didn't tag off that I was getting on to and from Kilcock which isn't true.

There were times gates would be open either at Tara or Maynooth and I'd run through without tagging.
Again, thinking it's a season ticket, it's already paid for.

I would imagine they are solely using evening tag-ins without a tag-out and morning tag-outs without a tag-in to work this out. The number of times those happened when not using Kilcock is, I assume, only a small amount of the total incidences. Its up to you to prove these events - they have good data and an admission that you were using the ticket to Kilcock.

Indricotherium · 20-03-2017 5:56pm

flexcon wrote: »

Anyone out there is there an online version for the terms and conditions with the tagging?

I'm trying to find it, but the IR site is acting slow on me and some pages are 404

probably the traffic due to this thread!

Laura4193 · 20-03-2017 5:59pm

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So would I be right in saying now that I've paid the actual fine I was originally quoted for that the criminal aspect of this has gone?
It would just be a civil case now?

LXFlyer · 20-03-2017 6:01pm

flexcon wrote: »

Anyone out there is there an online version for the terms and conditions with the tagging?

I'm trying to find it, but the IR site is acting slow on me and some pages are 404

https://www.leapcard.ie/en/PageSetting/ContentViewer.aspx?Val=CG%2fCj953WkPB%2b7fwjkLFshsyP7wecX6fiV0VBn3Q632F20yhboVXGTVmv%2b2bImvcFvyDWv8wk%2bd4E5kAGPCvjpJvBUgOhvVEg%2fB6ZgVyLiI6nLqx13jMpsQIKgDUASmGM793kdSI9FJOtf2oYKBBrP3uRbgVAG0ZGo31awr2Vmg%3d

2.4 In order to be valid, a Leap Card must:

(a) have a valid Ticket on it for which the Leap Card customer is eligible in accordance with the Conditions of Carriage of the relevant Transport Operator and that is valid for the whole journey being made; or

(b) have a positive Travel Credit balance (at the time of “Touch-On”) where the Leap Card does not contain a Ticket valid for that full journey;

(c) have been lawfully obtained;

(d) not have been intentionally damaged, defaced, altered or tampered with in any way.

2.5 You must have a valid ticket to travel. This means that when using Travel Credit or a ticket pre-loaded onto the Leap Card, you must always successfully “Touch-On” prior to commencing any journey. Leap Card customers will receive visual and/or audible signal notification when they successfully Touch-On.

If you using a Student Leap Card as an ID to buy paper tickets at discounted student fares you must present your Student Leap Card at the time of purchase in order to avail of the student fare. When using your Student Leap Card as an ID in conjunction with a student paper ticket you do not need to “Touch-On” your Student Leap Card. If you “Touch-On” you will be charged. You must have your Student Leap Card available for inspection when travelling on a discounted student ticket.

Further information is available in the “How to use a Leap Card” and “FAQs” sections of www.leapcard.ie.

If you are asked by an employee of a Transport Operator to show your ticket, show your Leap Card (or Student Leap Card if travelling using Leap Travel Credit or a Leap ticket). This can be checked to show that you have Touched-On correctly. If you do not have a valid ticket or you have not “Touched-On” you will be issued with a Standard Fare Notice by the Transport Operator subject to the Conditions of Carriage of that Transport Operator and may also be prosecuted for fare evasion.

Leap Card customers must also “Touch-Off” on Luas and Irish Rail services in accordance with the Conditions of Carriage of the relevant Transport Operator. Failure to Touch-Off in these circumstances when using Travel Credit will result in the maximum value of any journey which initiates from the Touch-On location having been charged to the Leap Card.

hullaballoo · 20-03-2017 6:01pm

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I was wondering do the bylaws include a provision that allows them to take a civil case to recover a debt for the full amount of what should have been paid without allowing a defendant to set off the money already paid.

In the absence such a provision, I cannot see how they can insist on getting paid the full amount of the fares on top of the money already paid in respect of the trips.

Laura4193 · 20-03-2017 6:02pm

What happens if a passenger has committed more than one offence?

Where a passenger has committed more than one offence, the Fixed Payment Notice will reflect an increased fine.

Just took that from their website.

Could I argue that because I paid my FPN and was quoted €108.10 when paying that that's it? That's all I was quoted even AFTER the letter had been sent out to me requesting 86 trips as well and they quoted the same number I called and paid on?

Fred Swanson · 20-03-2017 6:04pm

This post has been deleted.

Indricotherium · 20-03-2017 6:05pm

Laura4193 wrote: »

What happens if a passenger has committed more than one offence?

Where a passenger has committed more than one offence, the Fixed Payment Notice will reflect an increased fine.

Just took that from their website.

Could I argue that because I paid my FPN and was quoted €108.10 when paying that that's it? That's all I was quoted even AFTER the letter had been sent out to me requesting 86 trips as well and they quoted the same number I called and paid on?

I think IR will be seeing this as two separate projects.

1) €108 fine

2) recover monies owed for 86 journeys

Fred Swanson · 20-03-2017 6:05pm

This post has been deleted.

Indricotherium · 20-03-2017 6:06pm

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So it's balance of probabilities then on the 86 trips all starting in Kilcock?

hullaballoo · 20-03-2017 6:07pm

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

***Rabbit hole alert.***

I'm not answering that question because we could be here for days.

But short of a Supreme Court appeal on a point of law, can we get to the bottom of whether the bylaws say they can get paid on the double as they seem to think?

Indricotherium · 20-03-2017 6:11pm

hullaballoo wrote: »

***Rabbit hole alert.***

I'm not answering that question because we could be here for days.

But short of a Supreme Court appeal on a point of law, can we get to the bottom of whether the bylaws say they can get paid on the double as they seem to think?

Where are they looking to be paid on the double?

A ticket is only valid for the journey it covers.

The ticket the OP bought covers a journey that partially overlaps the one she took, but in no way is IR expecting to be paid on the double.

Look at it another way, if the OP had bought a Maynooth - Tara ticket, and had then proceeded to comute from Greystones to Drumcondra would you feel IR were looking to be paid on the double because the ticket paid for overlapped the journey taken?

Laura4193 · 20-03-2017 6:14pm

Indricotherium wrote: »

Where are they looking to be paid on the double?

A ticket is only valid for the journey it covers.

The ticket the OP bought covers a journey that partially overlaps the one she took, but in no way is IR expecting to be paid on the double.

Look at it another way, if the OP had bought a Maynooth - Tara ticket, and had then proceeded to comute from Greystones to Drumcondra would you feel IR were looking to be paid on the double because the ticket paid for overlapped the journey taken?

That's not the same.

I had a ticket covering me from Maynooth and Tara and Kilcock is one more stop so technically I was getting a free trip from Kilcock to Maynooth but Maynooth onwards was paid for every single month.

Your example above shows two completely different routes.
Mine was the same route just one stop out.

Fred Swanson · 20-03-2017 6:16pm

This post has been deleted.

Indricotherium · 20-03-2017 6:17pm

Laura4193 wrote: »

That's not the same.

I had a ticket covering me from Maynooth and Tara and Kilcock is one more stop so technically I was getting a free trip from Kilcock to Maynooth but Maynooth onwards was paid for every single month.

Your example above shows two completely different routes.
Mine was the same route just one stop out.

You need to stop thinking in terms of one extra stop.

You bought the ticket on the basis of it covering one journey, and you made another journey.

That these two overlap doesn't enter into it.

Laura4193 · 20-03-2017 6:21pm

Indricotherium wrote: »

You need to stop thinking in terms of one extra stop.

You bought the ticket on the basis of it covering one journey, and you made another journey.

That these two overlap doesn't enter into it.

Okay but I can't be the only that thinks it's madness?
For instance if I had no ticket whatsoever every day I'd be liable for the full amount too.

Doesn't seem particularly fair that I had a ticket that wasn't cheap and it's just disregarded.

In fact if I never even handed a ticket over IR would not be able to try chase me for any previous "offences".

Seems completely backwards.

hullaballoo · 20-03-2017 6:25pm

These conceptual acrobatics are all very well but the OP (or her employer) has paid x amount for the trips. IR are claiming that they should have been paid y amount.

They are now requesting the full payment of y having already been paid x, so if y is paid, IR will have been paid x + y.

In reality, they should only be paid once for the fares due, y. They have already penalised for incorrect payment by issuing the fine. That means that in order for them to be paid up in full for the trips, the amount they should be paid is y - x.

Fred Swanson · 20-03-2017 6:32pm

This post has been deleted.

flexcon · 20-03-2017 6:38pm

hullaballoo wrote: »

These conceptual acrobatics are all very well but the OP (or her employer) has paid x amount for the trips. IR are claiming that they should have been paid y amount.

They are now requesting the full payment of y having already been paid x, so if y is paid, IR will have been paid x + y.

In reality, they should only be paid once for the fares due, y. They have already penalised for incorrect payment by issuing the fine. That means that in order for them to be paid up in full for the trips, the amount they should be paid is y - x.

This. It's the only fair method I can see of calculating this. And in all honesty, Laura has a point.

She is being done for the full amount of unpaid for the ENTIRE journey, yet she actually paid for 90% of the journey. It's one stop. Plus, it's the same train! That is another point to consider, it really is a case of going one more stop than you paid for.

You get fined, and you owe the amount you should have paid. In this instance, the math is,

Take the total amount of the trips made from the furthest station, minus the already paid for card from the Maynooth station, plus the fine and you have your total.

Laura, how much is a ticket from the extra stop to the Maynooth stop?

Laura4193 · 20-03-2017 6:42pm

flexcon wrote: »

This. It's the only fair method I can see of calculating this. And in all honesty, Laura has a point.

She is being done for the full amount of unpaid for the ENTIRE journey, yet she actually paid for 90% of the journey. It's one stop. Plus, it's the same train! That is another point to consider, it really is a case of going one more stop than you paid for.

You get fined, and you owe the amount you should have paid. In this instance, the math is,

Take the total amount of the trips made from the furthest station, minus the already paid for card from the Maynooth station, plus the fine and you have your total.

Laura, how much is a ticket from the extra stop to the Maynooth stop?

€5.95 from Maynooth to Kilcock and Vice Versa

Laura4193 · 20-03-2017 6:46pm

I wonder could I even argue that my card cost x per month and the kilcock season card + Dublin bus add on cost y per month and I owe them the difference?

Fred Swanson · 20-03-2017 6:47pm

This post has been deleted.

flexcon · 20-03-2017 6:48pm

Laura4193 wrote: »

I wonder could I even argue that my card cost x per month and the kilcock season card + Dublin bus add on cost y per month and I owe them the difference?

So in your opinion what is the cost difference of the card you have, with the card you should have?

( not familiar with this rail system card as I don't use one )

Laura4193 · 20-03-2017 6:51pm

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Also how much is a Maynooth-Dublin single?

Only €4.60

Laura4193 · 20-03-2017 6:55pm

flexcon wrote: »

So in your opinion what is the cost difference of the card you have, with the card you should have?

( not familiar with this rail system card as I don't use one )

It would work out about €30-€40 a month I think.

I'd have to get taxsaver to quote me for the additional Dublin bus element but going from a Short hop rail only ticket at €152 to a Kilcock rail season ticket at €176 there's not a huge difference.

The ticket in particular that I had was bus and rail short hop at €180.

flexcon · 20-03-2017 6:55pm

So to get this straight.

Kilcock to Dublin one way is €10.55 ( Kilkock to Maynooth is €5.95 and Maynooth to Dublin is €4.60)

Kilcock to MAynooth is only 16min journey
Maynooth to Dublin is a 41 min journey.

holy balls, that is insane if correct.

Fred Swanson · 20-03-2017 6:57pm

This post has been deleted.

Laura4193 · 20-03-2017 6:59pm

Fred Swanson wrote: »

I reckon you owe €8.90-€4.60 for each journey. So 86 x €4.30 which is €369.80.

Do you mean €8.10 instead of €8.90 for the standard Kilcock to Dublin fare?

Fred Swanson · 20-03-2017 7:02pm

This post has been deleted.

Laura4193 · 20-03-2017 7:07pm

Fred Swanson wrote: »

€326.80 in that case then.

I'll have to try argue that then and hopefully it works.

For civil cases then, there's no way for me to come out worse than what they're asking from me at the moment is there?

Like the judge won't decide that if they're in favour of IR they'll throw on a fine or additional payment somehow

LXFlyer · 20-03-2017 7:08pm

flexcon wrote: »

So to get this straight.

Kilcock to Dublin one way is €10.55 ( Kilkock to Maynooth is €5.95 and Maynooth to Dublin is €4.60)

Kilcock to MAynooth is only 16min journey
Maynooth to Dublin is a 41 min journey.

holy balls, that is insane if correct.

There is a higher level of subsidy for fares within the Dublin Short Hop Zone, the boundaries of which are Balbriggan, Maynooth, Sallins and Kilcoole.

Outside of that area fares are higher due to a lower subsidy level as Intercity fares apply.

It sucks for people outside the Dublin Short Hop Zone, but there has to be a boundary somewhere.

Fred Swanson · 20-03-2017 7:10pm

This post has been deleted.

Indricotherium · 20-03-2017 7:46pm

Fred Swanson wrote: »

No, you won't come out any worse off. The Judge can't impose an extra penalty in a civil case.

Could the judge award costs against?

Fred Swanson · 20-03-2017 7:50pm

This post has been deleted.

GM228 · 20-03-2017 8:05pm

To answer hullaballoo's question - yes the bye laws allow CIE to charge the full cost of the portion of the journey which had no ticket.

The Board shall be entitled to recover the full fare for the distance actually travelled by the offender without a ticket or other authority.

Esel · 20-03-2017 8:10pm

OP, you yourself pay for the Taxsaver ticket - not your employer!

From https://www.taxsaver.ie/Commuters/ (bolding mine)

"Introduced by the Government in 1999, Taxsaver incentivises people to use public transport to and from work. It’s so simple! Your employer registers for Taxsaver on taxsaver.ie and buys tickets for you. The cost is deducted directly from your salary, and you get to save between 29% and 52% on the regular price, depending on ticket type and your tax band."

GM228 · 20-03-2017 8:13pm

Esel wrote: »

OP, you yourself pay for the Taxsaver ticket - not your employer!

From https://www.taxsaver.ie/Commuters/ (bolding mine)

"Introduced by the Government in 1999, Taxsaver incentivises people to use public transport to and from work. It’s so simple! Your employer registers for Taxsaver on taxsaver.ie and buys tickets for you. The cost is deducted directly from your salary, and you get to save between 29% and 52% on the regular price, depending on ticket type and your tax band."

If it's provided as Benefit in Kind only the employer pays.

Indricotherium · 20-03-2017 8:47pm

Fred Swanson wrote: »

In a DC case they would be very small esp given the amount claimed.

This is somewhat cavalier given that the op can't afford the initial fine.

Esel · 20-03-2017 8:48pm

GM228 wrote: »

If it's provided as Benefit in Kind only the employer pays.

Oops!

Fred Swanson · 20-03-2017 9:02pm

This post has been deleted.

lifeandtimes · 20-03-2017 9:17pm

Hi op,

Just want to give you my own experience with Irish rail and matters of tagging on and their machine incorrectly reading my card.

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057505194/1/#post97302078

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057612827/1/#post100115748

Turns out the day of court their barrister called me out and said they were withdrawing their application as I had been right all along.

Seems to me they'll try and get you to pay by any means like using their by laws etc before court but as soon as it comes to letting a judge with common sense decide they pull out.

Id say fight them all they way going by your experonce of know info to advise you of your jounry plus no signs of you doing anything wrong when you tag on and off and the confusion and inconsistencies in how of aa fine you actually but get legal advice of you're worried

Good luck

hullaballoo · 20-03-2017 9:39pm

GM228 wrote: »

To answer hullaballoo's question - yes the bye laws allow CIE to charge the full cost of the portion of the journey which had no ticket.

That does not mean they can get both the fare paid plus the entirety of the fare that ought to have been paid. That's what they appear to be looking for here.

OP, just to confirm, you are going to a solicitor in relation to this yes?

jimmycrackcorm · 20-03-2017 10:11pm

Laura4193 wrote:

Yes I'm getting legal advice Thursday evening but I'm hoping it doesn't go as far as court.

It's say let them chase the funds and go to court if necessary. They may not follow up given you've already paid the give. It's not like you haven't paid anything, already having a monthly ticket. I couldn't see you getting anything worse from a judge.

hullaballoo wrote:

That does not mean they can get both the fare paid plus the entirety of the fare that ought to have been paid. That's what they appear to be looking for here.

If anything it should only be the difference.

Marcusm · 20-03-2017 10:45pm

hullaballoo wrote: »

Does anyone know what powers IR have in relation to the recovery of unpaid fares? They are governed by their own set of laws but in the ordinary course, you'd think that they are only entitled to the difference between the fare paid and what ought to have been paid. That's how it would work with any private company seeking to recover this kind of debt. Unless they are specifically entitled to seek the full value of the fare that ought to have been paid without any kind of set-off in relation to the sums actually paid in respect of the trips, I find it hard to see how they could stand over the position that they are entitled to it?

Generally train companies, in my experience, follow a rule that you must at all times be in possession of an appropriate ticket for the entire journey you are taking. Failing that you are liable for a fine plus a standard fare (note not promotional or discounted or taking account of any part fare you may have) for the entire journey. There is arguably a penal element in this approach but in circumstances where, up until relatively recently in railway life, there were few means of capturing fare evaders, a sledgehammer was needed to encourage compliance.

What surprises me in all of this is, frankly, the thought process which could lead one to assume, having ordered a ticket from one station, that it was possible to simply embark on the journey from an earlier waypoint without at any stage considering that there might be a need to alter the ticket.

If through personal circumstances one omitted to rectify matters, I'd personally feel unable to assert unfair treatment.

Marcusm · 20-03-2017 10:55pm

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

To take the other side, Fred, would a DJ not be empowered to disregard a statement to the effect that "I was unaware that a ticket for a journey from Maynooth could not simply be equally valid from an earlier station" not be regarded as a pleading of mental incapacity.

Personally, I find it difficult to believe that an adult bestowed with a modicum of common sense and intelligence (i.e. Significantly less than prevailing in the public at large) would be unaware that they could not simply join the train at an earlier point without obtaining an additional ticket or permit to travel. I guess I am stating that I do not believe such a person could form an honest belief that they were not riding for free meaning that there was an intent to evade and 86 criminal acts. Perhaps I expect too much.

Irish Rail Fixed Penalty Notice, Rail Safety Act 2005

Comments