Luas ticket machine fault, fare €45

sean29

I only noticed now that the ticket-inspector took my second name instead of the first one. If I had given them a fake address I guess there would be no problem I signed my 3 e-mails with my first name.

monument

Victor wrote: »

OP, I'm informed that the machines keep a log of all activity, including attempted transactions. That may decide your mind, but realise time may be against you.

A court would not look well if such records are not kept when such is central to the person's defence.

While it is a fairly minor matter, a court will view it serious the possibility of giving somebody even a minor record.

gizmo555

Aard wrote: »

You can't exactly twist Veolia's arm into going into *their* CCTV footage to prove that *you* don't owe them money

Yes you can:

Under Section 4 of the Data Protection Acts, you also have a right to get a copy of your personal information. This applies to all types of information -for example, written details about you held electronically or on paper, photographs and CCTV images.

The maximum fee which can be charged is €6.35.

n97 mini

Losty Dublin wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0055/sec0066.html#sec66

Read and inwardly digest before your next post.

Perhaps you didn't read them before you posted?

AlekSmart

Steady boyz.......

(4) Where a passenger is found on a light rail vehicle without a valid ticket by an authorised person and the passenger refuses to pay the standard fare immediately, the authorised person may request the passenger to leave the light rail vehicle at the next stop and the passenger shall comply with such a request.

Therefore,equally,the authorised person may not make that request and instead follow the paper trail instead....;)

foggy_lad

AlekSmart wrote: »

Steady boyz.......



Therefore,equally,the authorised person may not make that request and instead follow the paper trail instead....;)

Indeed and when the inspector/authorised person goes the route of issueing a penalty fare you are asked to pay immediately or give your details so you can be sent reminders to pay within 14 days but what actual statute or Bye-law pertains to failing to pay the penalty fare within the specified timeframe?

It would appear from the information on the thread that not paying the penalty fare is not an offence?

n97 mini

foggy_lad wrote: »

It would appear from the information on the thread that not paying the penalty fare is not an offence?

We can't say that for definite. But we can say that the under the Bye Laws it's not.

Losty Dublin

gizmo555 wrote: »

Yes you can:

Under Section 4 of the Data Protection Acts, you also have a right to get a copy of your personal information. This applies to all types of information -for example, written details about you held electronically or on paper, photographs and CCTV images.

The maximum fee which can be charged is €6.35.

Provided that they still have the image when you contact them for same. The CCTV images won't be held onto for long; the Data Protection Commission website says that CCTV images can't be help onto any longer than is reasonable so it's likely that it will be erased within a month of it being recorded so you'd need to get onto them ASAP.

http://www.dataprotection.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=242

gizmo555

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Provided that they still have the image when you contact them for same. The CCTV images won't be held onto for long; the Data Protection Commission website says that CCTV images can't be help onto any longer than is reasonable so it's likely that it will be erased within a month of it being recorded so you'd need to get onto them ASAP.

http://www.dataprotection.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=242

Well yes, if they don't have the CCTV footage, obviously they can't give it to you.

Doesn't alter the point that, contrary to what the previous poster claimed, on request they must check if they do have the footage, and if they do, they are legally obliged to give you a copy.

PseudoFamous

Losty Dublin wrote: »

<snippity>

"J Corr"?

monument

Trying to claim they can't bring you to court for not paying the fine is not plausible. But this looks like...

Losty Dublin wrote: »

If they can't prosecute, I am sure you can explain away this beaut

...a possible breach of the Data Protection Act and maybe also libelous?

Keith186

sean29 wrote: »

Thanks everyone for replies.



I thought that was not possible until this morning! I took the luas at 5.30 again and I overheard the driver talking on his 'walkie talkie' that the machine ate some bloke's money a second ago! How about that?

In the meantime still no answer for my 3rd e-mail.

For a minute there I thought that you could've been 'some bloke ' putting the free travel revenge into action.

Losty Dublin

monument wrote: »

Trying to claim they can't bring you to court for not paying the fine is not plausible. But this looks like...




...a possible breach of the Data Protection Act and maybe also libelous?

I took the photo myself on a private IRRS tour; we had permission to take photos of whatever we liked. And I did

markpb

monument wrote: »

Trying to claim they can't bring you to court for not paying the fine is not plausible. But this looks like... ...a possible breach of the Data Protection Act and maybe also libelous?

Court rulings are public documents, there's no data protection issue that I'm aware of. You can search a lot of court cases on www.courts.ie.

Victor

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0055/sec0066.html#sec66

Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 (amended by Railway Safety Act 2005)

...

Bye-laws.


66.—(1) Bye-laws may be made—

(a) by the Agency, in relation to a railway, or

(b) with the consent of the Agency, by a railway undertaking in relation to a railway it operates or under its control,

in relation to any one or more of the following matters—

(i) the general regulation, subject to any statutory provisions in that behalf, of—

(I) the travelling upon or use of a railway, (including a requirement to travel with a valid ticket or pass and the issue of such), or

(II) the working of railway transport services by a railway undertaking,

(ii) the prevention of the commission of nuisances in or upon a railway,

(iii) the prevention of damage to railway infrastructure,

(iv) the removal from or the prohibition of the use on a railway of any vehicle or thing which is or may become a danger to life, health, the operation or maintenance of a railway or would otherwise interfere with the proper operation of a railway,

(v) the regulation of parking of vehicles on or adjacent to a railway,

(vi) the safe custody and return or disposal of any property found on a railway,

(vii) the repair, improvement, extension and development of a railway,

(viii) subject to any statutory provisions in that behalf, the regulation of works that would affect the operation or maintenance of a railway or would otherwise interfere with the proper operation of a railway.

(2) Bye-laws under this section may contain such incidental, subsidiary and ancillary provisions as the Agency or the railway undertaking making the bye-laws, considers necessary or expedient for the purposes of the bye-laws.

(3) The Agency, or, as the case may be, a railway undertaking may provide for reasonable charges in respect of matters provided for in bye-laws made by it under this section.

(4) Whenever, after the passing of the Railway Safety Act 2005, the Agency or a railway undertaking proposes to make bye-laws under this section, the following provisions have effect—

(a) the Agency or the undertaking, as the case may be, shall publish notice of the proposal at least once in at least 2 daily newspapers published in and circulating in the State or the area to which the bye-laws relate,

(b) the notice shall include—

(i) a statement of the purposes for which the bye-laws are to be made,

(ii) an intimation that a copy of draft bye-laws is open for public inspection at the principal offices in the State of the Agency or the undertaking, as the case may be,

(iii) an intimation that any person may submit to the Agency or the undertaking, as the case may be, objections to the draft bye-laws at any time during the period of 30 days commencing on the date of the first publication of the notice,

(c) the Agency or the undertaking, as the case may be, shall, during that period of 30 days, keep a copy of the draft bye-laws open for public inspection during ordinary office hours at its principal offices,

(d) any person who objects to the draft bye-laws may submit his or her objection to the Agency or the undertaking, as the case may be, in writing at any time during that period of 30 days and the Agency or the undertaking, as the case may be, shall consider the objections, and

(e) on the completion of that period of 30 days, the Agency or the undertaking, as the case may be, shall as it thinks proper, refrain from making the bye-laws or make the bye-laws either without modification or with modification as it thinks proper.

(5) Such details of bye-laws under this section shall be displayed on a railway, where practicable, in conspicuous places in such manner as—

(a) the Agency, where the bye-laws are made by it, or

(b) a railway undertaking, where the bye-laws are made by it, subject to any general direction of the Agency,

considers best adapted for giving information to the public. The absence of any such display is not a defence to a contravention of or failure to comply with such bye-laws.

(6) Bye-laws under this section shall not be made without the consent of the Minister.

(7) Every bye-law made under this section, after the passing of the Railway Safety Act 2005, shall be laid, where they are made by the Agency, by the Agency and where they are made by a railway undertaking, by the railway undertaking, before each House of the Oireachtas, as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the bye-law is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the bye-law is laid before it, the bye-law shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to anything previously done under it.

(8) A person who contravenes or fails to comply with a bye-law under this section is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €1,000.

(9) The liability of an offender to a fine under subsection (8) does not prejudice the recovery of any fare, tariff or fee payable by him or her to the Agency or a railway undertaking for any damage caused by him or her to property of the Agency or a railway undertaking.

http://www.luas.ie/luas-byelaws.html

Light Railway (Regulation of Travel and Use) Bye-laws 2004

...

Tickets

3. (1) A passenger shall not –

(a) travel or attempt to travel on a light rail vehicle without possession of a valid ticket,

(b) use or attempt to use a ticket other than under the terms and conditions under which it has been issued,

(c) use or attempt to use a ticket for more journeys than permitted by the ticket,

(d) forge, copy, deface or mutilate any ticket or use or attempt to use a ticket that has been forged, copied, defaced or mutilated,

(e) fail or refuse to produce a ticket to an authorised person for inspection when requested to do so,

(f) fail or refuse to produce a form of identification or other particular document to an authorised person for inspection when requested to do so where the validity of the ticket held by the passenger depends on the passenger being in possession of a form of identification or particular document,

(g) use or attempt to use a ticket without being in possession of a form of identification or other particular document where the validity of that ticket depends on the passenger using that ticket being in possession of a form of identification or particular document,

(h) transfer a ticket to any person where such ticket is not transferable,

(i) use or attempt to use a ticket that has issued to another person and is not transferable,

(j) where the validity of any ticket depends on the ticket being properly validated using a ticket validating machine, use or attempt to use a ticket which has not been so validated.

(2) An authorised person is entitled to retain any ticket or form of identification or other particular document required for use with that ticket.

(3) An operator may charge a reasonable fee for issuing or replacing any ticket or form of identification or other particular document required for use with any ticket.

(4) A person shall not issue any ticket other than when authorised in writing to do so by an operator.

(5) All tickets issued by or on behalf of an operator remain the property of the operator.


Standard fare

4. (1) A passenger, on entering a light rail vehicle, who is not in possession of a valid ticket, is liable to pay the standard fare.

(2) A passenger who is on a light rail vehicle without a valid ticket shall pay the standard fare to an authorised person immediately or, at the discretion of the authorised person and where the authorised person is satisfied as to the name and address of the passenger, within a period of 14 days of having so entered the light rail vehicle, to the operator concerned.

(3) An authorised person shall issue the relevant ticket to a passenger who has paid the standard fare and such a ticket entitles the passenger to travel to the next terminus.

(4) Where a passenger is found on a light rail vehicle without a valid ticket by an authorised person and the passenger refuses to pay the standard fare immediately, the authorised person may request the passenger to leave the light rail vehicle at the next stop and the passenger shall comply with such a request.

(5) In this Bye-law “standard fare” means a fare of €45.

The underlined bits are what creates the liability for you to be brought to court. Issuing a standard fare notice is a matter of convenience for the transport operator. Not paying the standard fare means you are in breach of the bye-laws, at which point the act kicks in.

foggy_lad

(3) A person who contravenes a bye-law under this section is guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €600 (£472.54).

I noticed the two convictions for fare evasion each recieved €750 fines plus costs, this may open the door for an appeal or overturning the conviction?

Victor

n97 mini wrote: »

Don't be silly.

Hadn't got a ticket, sure. But he paid for them, so why should he be fined? Is this about justice or a "told you so" attitude from you?

You get fined for not having a ticket. Your incorrect assertion is that you get fined for not paying. Sometimes the administration of the law has to take short cuts like this such that the law is enforceable. It may not be fair, but it is legal.

myself69 wrote: »

Hmmm this is interesting. Here is the bye-laws:

So not paying the standard fare just gets you kicked off.

No, each of the punishments - financial 'penalty' and removal from the tram can be given out.

foggy_lad wrote: »

Indeed and when the inspector/authorised person goes the route of issueing a penalty fare you are asked to pay immediately or give your details so you can be sent reminders to pay within 14 days but what actual statute or Bye-law pertains to failing to pay the penalty fare within the specified timeframe?

You are not "... asked to pay immediately ...", you "shall pay the standard fare to an authorised person immediately or ..." . It legal terms "shall" means there is no choice, it must happen. "May" means it can happen, at the choice of the relevant authority.

It would appear from the information on the thread that not paying the penalty fare is not an offence?

Breaching the bye-laws (not obeying the "shall") is an offence.

foggy_lad wrote: »

I noticed the two convictions for fare evasion each recieved €750 fines plus costs, this may open the door for an appeal or overturning the conviction?

Note, it is the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 amended by Railway Safety Act 2005, the maximum fine it €1,000 under section 66.

monument

Losty Dublin wrote: »

I took the photo myself on a private IRRS tour; we had permission to take photos of whatever we liked. And I did

It does not matter who you are or what permission you had.

markpb wrote: »

Court rulings are public documents, there's no data protection issue that I'm aware of. You can search a lot of court cases on www.courts.ie.

Sure court rulings are public documents, the image shown above however is not a court document.

For example, re it being libelous or not, there's very good reasons newspapers give the details they do (ie full names, ages, addresses)... To ID the accused / convicted and limit the amount of confusion -- why? If they did not, every other Mr X or Ms X named could sue if there's the remotest possibilty that somebody could mistake them for the accused / convicted person. These's also problems with reporting something so far after the case, compared to doing so the day or week after.

n97 mini

Victor wrote: »

You get fined for not having a ticket. Your incorrect assertion is that you get fined for not paying. Sometimes the administration of the law has to take short cuts like this such that the law is enforceable. It may not be fair, but it is legal.

Absolutely, but that's why we have courts: to administer justice. Notice not all Veolia's attempts at prosecuting people for not having a ticket were successful.

AlekSmart

monument wrote: »

.
Sure court rulings are public documents, the image shown above however is not a court document.

For example, re it being libelous or not, there's very good reasons newspapers give the details they do (ie full names, ages, addresses)... To ID the accused / convicted and limit the amount of confusion -- why? If they did not, every other Mr X or Ms X named could sue if there's the remotest possibilty that somebody could mistake them for the accused / convicted person. These's also problems with reporting something so far after the case, compared to doing so the day or week after.

It's actually the Court Ruling which is the element in the public domain here.

Once the description uttered,verbally or in writing,accurately describes the ruling then you can paint it up on O Connell Bridge House should you wish.

The only exceptions here,which tend to get the Court Reporters attention even more,are when an application is made to secure a Court Order as to secrecy.

As many posters here advise,taking the Court Route over any percieved injustice is to be undertaken only after full and frank deliberation....It's all about being prepared to lose,something which is often overlooked in the glow of moral certitude.

The Irish Courts in general are hugely reluctant to grant orders for non-disclosure,with Judges requiring significant evidence of a Public Interest requirement or significant Personal risk elements (Child Protection etc) before so doing.

The greater issue for me is how many of the fines were collected....:eek:

gizmo555

monument wrote: »

...a possible breach of the Data Protection Act and maybe also libelous?

Whatever about libel, the Data Protection Acts do not apply to private individuals. For example, if I take my camcorder to a local football game, the players and spectators do not have the right to demand copies of the video.

-Chris-

gizmo555 wrote: »

Whatever about libel, the Data Protection Acts do not apply to private individuals. For example, if I take my camcorder to a local football game, the players and spectators do not have the right to demand copies of the video.

Is that relevant to this discussion? Is there a difference when a business/organisation films a private person?

n97 mini

-Chris- wrote: »

Is there a difference when a business/organisation films a private person?

The DPA applies to information held by businesses/organisations, not information held by private citizens.

-Chris-

OK, just making sure gizmo555's post was in context.

gizmo555

-Chris- wrote: »

Is that relevant to this discussion? Is there a difference when a business/organisation films a private person?

Yes and yes.

Someone suggested a poster's picture of a list of names of people who had been fined for travelling on the Luas without tickets was a breach of data protection law. It's not, because the acts don't apply to data (including images) kept by individuals and only used for personal or recreational purposes.

On the other hand, the OP says he tried to buy a ticket from a machine and it kept his money without issuing the ticket. He has the right, contrary to what another poster asserted, to ask if there is CCTV footage of him using the machine and if there is to demand a copy of it.

BrianD

sean29 wrote: »

Thanks everyone for replies.



I thought that was not possible until this morning! I took the luas at 5.30 again and I overheard the driver talking on his 'walkie talkie' that the machine ate some bloke's money a second ago! How about that?

In the meantime still no answer for my 3rd e-mail.

There you go. Veoila do follow this things up. Machine failure is to be expected. Trams fail as well. The question is what did you do on the day? Did just say f**k it, I've paid and get on the tram or did you take action. The machine ate your money after all.

Really you are on a hiding to nowhere. I don't doubt that the machine didn't give you your ticket after you paid but you breached the by-laws twice and that's why you are in this situation. Best advice is to pay your standard fare and get on with it.

monument

n97 mini wrote: »

The DPA applies to information held by businesses/organisations, not information held by private citizens.

gizmo555 wrote: »

Whatever about libel, the Data Protection Acts do not apply to private individuals. For example, if I take my camcorder to a local football game, the players and spectators do not have the right to demand copies of the video.

No. The acts cover some privite individuals all the time and all privite individuals who publish personal data. The act is very powerful and very wide-ranging.

And as councils have found out there's even problems with 'naming and shaming' convicted litter offenders. Court reporting is viewed as quite diffrent.

AlekSmart wrote: »

It's actually the Court Ruling which is the element in the public domain here.

Once the description uttered,verbally or in writing,accurately describes the ruling then you can paint it up on O Connell Bridge House should you wish.

It does not matter what is in the public domain, if you publish a report on a wall or on the internet of the court results which only names the person and fails to firmly identifying them, you are leaving your self open to libel.

The company who put up the notice, the poster here who reproduced it and the website which kept it online are all possable targets.

BrianD

BrianD wrote: »

The question is what did you do on the day?

Exactly. You had 3 options OP.
1. Buy another ticket and follow up your lost money along the appropriate channels.
2. Use another mode of transport, and follow up your lost money along the appropriate channels.
3. Get on the Luas without a ticket and risk getting caught.

You made your choice and now you have a fine. The ticket machine was at fault for swallowing your money, not for making you take the Luas without a ticket.

monument

OP

Pay the fine or if you really don't want to and are willing to take another risk...

Use Data Protection Act to ask for two things:

• The CCTV footage, as already suggested by others.
  
• The ticket machine records for the one you used at the exact time you used or as close as you get. This is personal information under the act as it can be such when extra information is used (CCTV showing you use the machine, or just even you giving the date and time).

The act can be used regardless of what proceedings are planned or are on going.

gizmo555

monument wrote: »

No. The acts cover some privite individuals all the time and all privite individuals who publish personal data. The act is very powerful and very wide-ranging.

Fair enough - I was thinking along the lines that posting a picture on boards.ie is a "recreational purpose" but I suppose it amounts to publication too.