Irish Rail - fighting them in court

irish_goat

Jayronimo wrote: »

I didnt have a 500e note,i had a 50e note which is accepted at booking offices

Where does it say they accept €50 notes but not €500 notes?

Jayronimo

irish_goat wrote: »

Where does it say they accept €50 notes but not €500 notes?

I did not say they didn't accept 500e notes as i am sure they do,i should hope so

thee glitz

Van.Bosch wrote: »

The board did not give notice nor were you instructed to board without a ticket.

What more notice would be required that the station is unattended other than it was unattended and the office was closed.

My reading of this is

4. Where the Board gives notice that a station is unattended or the booking office is closed, or where any person is instructed
by an authorised person to board a train at a station without purchasing a ticket at the booking office so as not to delay the departure
of the train from the station, any person not in possession of a valid ticket entitling him or her to travel may enter a
vehicle at that station for the purpose of travelling but that person must obtain a ticket...

IR are obviously concerned about trains leaving on time. OP boarded the train as to acquire change for the TVM would have delayed
the departure. The thought of leaving passengers, prepared to pay, behind on the platform does not appear to be IR policy.

I don't think I'd fight this in court myself, maybe try get them back to the original fine first, unfair as that may seem.

Jawgap

Chris___ wrote: »

And I'd imagine most if not all of these people never intended to buy one or intentionally bought the wrong ticket. The courts listen to both sides of the story. The judge doesn't just bang the gable guilty guilty guilty.

True, but the judge will examine intent and base it on the OP's actions - so what he did when exited the train will be of relevance. If the ticket inspector says he came straight up to the exit - that's pretty much game over.

Likewise, the "I-only-had-a-50" defence won't run because unless it was an urgent (proper urgent, not 'here-comes-the-next-DART' urgent) situation then what was the OP's excuse by walking a whole kilometer to the nearest shop to get change?

Jawgap

Van.Bosch wrote: »

What if the booking office didn't have change, what would you have done?

Just to note, conditions of carriage state...

Iarnród Éireann may not always be in a position to give change, nor be in a position to process credit or debit cards either at stations or on trains.

So they'll happily take your money if you want to give it, but if they can't break a 50 then presumably you get a change ticket or something?

Jawgap

thee glitz wrote: »

What more notice would be required that the station is unattended other than it was unattended and the office was closed.

My reading of this is

4. Where the Board gives notice that a station is unattended or the booking office is closed, or where any person is instructed
by an authorised person to board a train at a station without purchasing a ticket at the booking office so as not to delay the departure
of the train from the station, any person not in possession of a valid ticket entitling him or her to travel may enter a
vehicle at that station for the purpose of travelling but that person must obtain a ticket...

IR are obviously concerned about trains leaving on time. OP boarded the train as to acquire change for the TVM would have delayed
the departure. The thought of leaving passengers, prepared to pay, behind on the platform does not appear to be IR policy.

I don't think I'd fight this in court myself, maybe try get them back to the original fine first, unfair as that may seem.

Yes, but he (assuming it's a he) wasn't instructed to board and by-law 4 is an exception to by-law 3 which is fairly clear......

Except as provided in Bye-Law No. 4, no person other than an authorised person shall—

.......

(2) enter any vehicle for the purpose of travelling unless and until he or she or someone on his or her behalf shall have obtained from the Board or from an authorised person a ticket or other authority entitling him or her to travel therein.

You can't just cherry pick the bits out that suit and cite them out of context.

hardCopy

Jayronimo wrote: »

I did not say they didn't accept 500e notes as i am sure they do,i should hope so

Plenty of retailers would never even accept a €100 note, never mind a €500. Far too much risk for one transaction heaped on a cashier who has probably never seen one in real life, how could they decide if the note was real or fake?

Jayronimo

hardCopy wrote: »

Plenty of retailers would never even accept a €100 note, never mind a €500. Far too much risk for one transaction heaped on a cashier who has probably never seen one in real life, how could they decide if the note was real or fake?

This is irrelevant to the post,i had a 50e note

n97 mini

hardCopy wrote: »

Plenty of retailers would never even accept a €100 note, never mind a €500.

They certainly wouldn't accept it if they were closed, like the booking office was.

thee glitz

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, but he (assuming it's a he) wasn't instructed to board and by-law 4 is an exception to by-law 3 which is fairly clear......

You can't just cherry pick the bits out that suit and cite them out of context.

That's the point though, by-law 4 is an exception to by-law 3.

goingnowhere

OP is not being prosecuted under SI 109 1984

They are being prosecuted under http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2005/en/act/pub/0031/sec0132.html#sec132

Specifically
132 (1) (a) (ii) such other fare for non-payment of a fare as fixed by the undertaking

This was inacted by http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2006/en/si/0576.html

Jawgap

thee glitz wrote: »

That's the point though, by-law 4 is an exception to by-law 3.

Yes, and for the exception to apply the conditions specified in it must be met. They weren't in this case.

L1011

goingnowhere wrote: »

OP is not being prosecuted under SI 109 1984

They are being prosecuted under http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2005/en/act/pub/0031/sec0132.html#sec132

Specifically
132 (1) (a) (ii) such other fare for non-payment of a fare as fixed by the undertaking

This was inacted by http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2006/en/si/0576.html

Is the "other fare ... as fixed by the undertaking" not specifically the penalty fares fixed in the byelaws, though? Which have their own rules - in the byelaws - for validity.

The other offence (132 2 a i) requires proof of intent to travel without payment which, with no ticket office open and a TVM that doesn't take all forms of payment or offer all potential tickets, is not going to be easy to prove.

bucketybuck

The old saying about picking your battles comes to mind. The OP seems to believe that he will win this in court but judging by the majority of responses it seems clear that it will not be a straightforward case or easy victory at all, so you have to wonder why a sensible person would be taking the risk. Is it really worth it?

Losty Dublin

The longer this thread goes on the more obvious it is that OP really hasn't a clue in what he is doing in taking this to court. There are a lot of consequences that will arise if he loses his case, which is a very real possibility given his uneven and uneasy story. Self convinced you may well be of your innocence and how you have been hard done but that is not close to enough; you need to be sure of your facts, all of the permutations and factors at play and how they will be read by a judge in court.

Once again, I'd strongly suggest to OP that if want to defend this in court and to avoid prosecution then you should obtain legal advice immediately.

MOH

corktina wrote: »

I don't think so. There are notices forbidding you to enter a train without a ticket and the onus is on you to go get change

IE have a habit of putting up notices which have no basis in the bye-laws, such as the blanket "No ticket. no excuse" ones, whereas there are a
number of situations in which you can validly be on a train without a ticket.
(I'm not saying the OP is such a case, merely that the signs are inaccurate)

Todd Toddington III wrote: »

There will be a definition of a booking office somewhere in that legal document, at the beginning usually. whatever that definition states will tell you if it's worth it or not going to court, ie if it states a booking office includes a vending machine then your screwed

Given the bye-laws pre-date the current TVMs, I don't believe there is.

Regarding the court cases, I've never come across the whole "ticket machine is a booking office" argument going that far, but it may have.


I'd definitely second continuing to try in touch with RUI. They'll probably have a fair idea about how similar cases have gone in the past.

While I agree completely with the OP, and in the same situation I'd feel the same way, I'm not sure it's worth fighting. There are dozens of cases of people approaching IE staff at their destination station and trying to pay for a ticket after being unable to do so at the origin (for whatever reason) and getting fined. If IE put half as much effort into running a proper rail service as they do fining passengers, they might approach basic levels of competence.

Might be best to just pay the fine



Actually, just came across this thread from a couple of years ago.

AlanG

from The Central Bank, may be relevant:

Is a shop or retail outlet obliged to accept high denomination banknotes in payment for goods?

All denominations of euro banknotes are legal tender. However, a retail outlet has discretion as to the particular denomination of notes that it will accept in exchange for goods, especially in relation to high denomination notes.

http://www.centralbank.ie/paycurr/notescoin/Pages/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.aspx

thee glitz

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, and for the exception to apply the conditions specified in it must be met. They weren't in this case.

The station was unattended. I don't know if that constitutes the board giving notice that it was. If so, the condition was met,

Jawgap

thee glitz wrote: »

The station was unattended. I don't know if that constitutes the board giving notice that it was. If so, the condition was met,

There was a working vending machine there - so unless the OP can show that the imperative of his travel, he'll have to explain why he couldn't have left the station and got change, or where was he before he arrived at the station that he couldn't have got change before he arrived there.

At some level the law may well be on his side, but the facts aren't - which means if you are going to argue the law you'll need a solicitor (or it would be a good idea to have a solicitor) - how much will that cost? Combine it with the day off work and the fact that he could still get pinged by the judge, and it would be better just to pay the fine, learn the lesson and move on.

......and maybe get a Leap Card.

n97 mini

Hmm, those machines are actually able to handle €50 notes and do accept them, but only for fares above €31.

The machine should have a sticker on it indicating as much. Is this the case do you remember?

corktina

the thing is....if you turn up in court and state you intended to pay at destination, will they believe you? To mis-quote someone...they would say that wouldn't they! No doubt hundreds have already used that excuse

The suspicion will be that if there had been no Inspector there, you would have gone on your way without paying. Not saying that was your intention, but it would be the case in 99% of cases

Jayronimo

n97 mini wrote: »

Hmm, those machines are actually able to handle €50 notes and do accept them, but only for fares above €31.

The machine should have a sticker on it indicating as much. Is this the case do you remember?

Yes it did have a sticker

n97 mini

That would be considered fair warning.

Jayronimo

n97 mini wrote: »

That would be considered fair warning.

I would have had change if there wasnt a booking office,it was 4 oclock in the day,i never expected it to be closed.Is one of thee reasons they have a booking office for people with 50e notes?

Jawgap

Jayronimo wrote: »

I would have had change if there wasnt a booking office,it was 4 oclock in the day,i never expected it to be closed.Is one of thee reasons they have a booking office for people with 50e notes?

I understand what you are saying - and while it may be poor public / customer service on the part of IE not to have the ticket office open or machines that accept 50s (and dispense change in notes), the onus is still on you to make sure you have a valid ticket for travel.

thee glitz

Jawgap wrote: »

unless the OP can show that the imperative of his travel, he'll have to explain why he couldn't have left the station and got change

There's no mention of imperative to travel, only that train departure is not delayed, which is a little strange but that's what it reads.

Jawgap wrote: »

where was he before he arrived at the station that he couldn't have got change before he arrived there.

That's something you might hear when you don't have your homework done.I wonder is the station
normally open so paying with €50 is usually acceptable, not that OP would necessarily have known that.

Probably better off to pay the thing but I'll ask a legal buddy of mine.

edit: I see OP didn't expect it to be closed.

MOH

From another thread I was reading earlier, if you're seriously thinking about taking this to court might be worth asking for CCTV footage of the ticket machine at the time you approached it to buy the ticket. Would possibly help show intent to buy a ticket, especially if you actually put the €50 in it and it was rejected.

I also thing para. 4 of SI 109/1984 is ambiguous: I read "Where the Board gives notice that a station is unattended or the booking office is closed, or where any person is instructed by an authorised person to board a train at a station ...."

to mean either:
- the board has given notice that the station is unattended; or
- the booking office is closed

as opposed to:
- the board has given notice that the station is unattended; or
- the board has given notice that the booking office is closed.


Also, even if the ticket machine was considered a de facto booking office, the actual booking office was closed. So you could argue regardless that "the booking office was closed".

end of the road

Jawgap wrote: »

As others have said, cut your loses and pay the penalty

he attempted to pay as soon as he could, at the station once he arrived as per the relevant section. so he'd be best not to pay irish rail anything until he has at least consulted legal advice and see from there.

Jawgap

end of the road wrote: »

he attempted to pay as soon as he could, at the station once he arrived as per the relevant section. so he'd be best not to pay irish rail anything until he has at least consulted legal advice and see from there.

Really? Because my reading was that once he arrived at his destination he went for the exits instead of the ticket office?

end of the road

Jawgap wrote: »

From their site.....

that rule doesn't mention a ticket machine. so it will be whatever way the judge decides to interpret it.

Jayronimo

Jawgap wrote: »

Really? Because my reading was that once he arrived at his destination he went for the exits instead of the ticket office?

I was on my way to the booking office,which is at the exit,you pass it to exit

end of the road

Jawgap wrote: »

In the absence of a smiley I'll take it you're serious.....

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/clampdown-on-rail-fare-evaders-nets-over-900000-30786815.html

i'd hardly imagine those are the full cases taken by irish rail. proving the penalty fare system doesn't work in stopping fare evaders, at least not the way they have it set up. probably good money in what ones they do get though

bucketybuck

Jayronimo wrote: »

I was on my way to the booking office,which is at the exit,you pass it to exit

You said the inspectors were at the exit. You have to pass the booking office to reach the exit. So how did you reach the inspectors before the booking office?

Can you clarify where the inspectors were?

Stheno

bucketybuck wrote: »

You said the inspectors were at the exit. You have to pass the booking office to reach the exit. So how did you reach the inspectors before the booking office?

Can you clarify where the inspectors were?

At the barriers he said earlier

end of the road

LexieOnRale wrote: »

When you say there were inspectors waiting at the exit does that mean you were exiting the station without a ticket? You asked for honest opinions in your original post, you have 6 pages of honest opinions and you just disagree with all of them, just waiting for someone to tell you that you're right.

You didn't have the correct money so you're at fault. If you're getting on the bus and it won't take a 50, do you go get change or argue to be let on anyway?

irrelevant whataboutery. fact is he attempted to pay once he left the train before he exited. others would just try walk through and say nothing and hope for the best. he made an effort so he should have been met half way. this is just used as a cash cow for IE. it clearly isn't going to stop fare evasion, never has never will.

Jayronimo

bucketybuck wrote: »

You said the inspectors were at the exit. You have to pass the booking office to reach the exit. So how did you reach the inspectors before the booking office?

Can you clarify where the inspectors were?

They were stood on the ramp heading up towards the exit.before the exit and booking office

Gatling

Its looks to me a case of could have ,would have ,should have

end of the road

Van.Bosch wrote: »

The board did not give notice nor were you instructed to board without a ticket.

how do you know the board didn't give notice somewhere that he didn't see such as online. the days of CIE putting out an announcement for everything via radio or the local paper for example are i'd imagine long gone

end of the road

Van.Bosch wrote: »

It is the same argument.

its not

bucketybuck

After numerous examples I now know why he is call "end of the road". Because his arrival generally signals the end of the road for my interest in a thread.

Good luck with your case, though I still feel you would be best served moving on.

Jawgap

end of the road wrote: »

that rule doesn't mention a ticket machine. so it will be whatever way the judge decides to interpret it.

Yes, and the judge will want an explanation as to why someone travelled without a valid ticket - especially as there was a functioning ticket machine there. Saying you didn't get a ticket because it was too far for you to walk to get change, I would submit is not going to wash it with a district judge - if he's having a bad day and decides to make an example of you (bearing in mind these cases are typically brought in batches) he could drop a multiple of the penalty fare on you.

Jayronimo wrote: »

I was on my way to the booking office,which is at the exit,you pass it to exit

I don't know the station - but were you at the exit when intercepted by the revenue protection people or were you intercepted before the booking office - if you were trying to exit and there's no evidence of you even trying to see if you could pay at the booking office you're going to have a very hard time proving that it was your intention to pay.

If you did approach the ticket office, then get onto IE and make sure they preserve the CCTV footage.

Again, it's the passenger's duty to make sure they have a valid ticket and poor customer service from IE doesn't absolve you from that - it may be a basis for some mitigation with the judge.

end of the road

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, but he (assuming it's a he) wasn't instructed to board and by-law 4 is an exception to by-law 3 which is fairly clear......



You can't just cherry pick the bits out that suit and cite them out of context.

the original law effectively allows him to board. thats it.

end of the road

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, and for the exception to apply the conditions specified in it must be met. They weren't in this case.

how do you know. the booking office was closed. therefore as finding an alternative would cause delay of the train he is allowed to board once he can purchase a ticket either on the train or on arrival

Jawgap

end of the road wrote: »

irrelevant whataboutery. fact is he attempted to pay once he left the train before he exited. others would just try walk through and say nothing and hope for the best. he made an effort so he should have been met half way. this is just used as a cash cow for IE. it clearly isn't going to stop fare evasion, never has never will.

Well the story seems to be shifting because originally there was no mention of trying to access the ticket office.....

Jayronimo wrote: »

......When i got off my Dart at my stop in Sandycove there were inspectors waiting at the exit.I informed them that i didnt have a ticket and the reasons why,i also said that i was willing to pay for my journey now in accordance with


.........

I was denied the opportunity to pay,which i think is illegal? and told that i should have went to the nearest shop to get change,which is over a km away,which i thought was rude.I was then issued with my fine.I appealed my fine to no avail,stating what i just wrote here.

No mention of a ticket office and it sounds like the OP, in his original version, got off, saw the inspectors and tried to pay the fare to them.

end of the road wrote: »

the original law effectively allows him to board. thats it.

Actually it doesn't - and if you think that will wash with a judge who has probably heard every excuse going you are sadly mistaken

end of the road

Jawgap wrote: »

There was a working vending machine there - so unless the OP can show that the imperative of his travel, he'll have to explain why he couldn't have left the station and got change, or where was he before he arrived at the station that he couldn't have got change before he arrived there.

At some level the law may well be on his side, but the facts aren't - which means if you are going to argue the law you'll need a solicitor (or it would be a good idea to have a solicitor) - how much will that cost? Combine it with the day off work and the fact that he could still get pinged by the judge, and it would be better just to pay the fine, learn the lesson and move on.

......and maybe get a Leap Card.

the vending machine isn't mentioned anywhere in any of the bits of law you quoted. the only potential refference to one is a bit i quoted on page 1.

end of the road

Jawgap wrote: »

Tt would be better just to pay the fine

it wouldn't. as doing so would give irish rail validity in screwing people under contradictory by laws.

Jawgap wrote: »

Tlearn the lesson

what lesson. there is no lesson to learn. he attempted to pay twice.

Jawgap wrote: »

Tmove on.

no, he shouldn't move on. infact if he can he should find an alternative such as dublin bus or his car.

Jayronimo

Jawgap wrote: »

Well the story seems to be shifting because originally there was no mention of trying to access the ticket office.....



No mention of a ticket office and it sounds like the OP, in his original version, got off, saw the inspectors and tried to pay the fare to them.



Actually it doesn't - and if you think that will wash with a judge who has probably heard every excuse going you are sadly mistaken

I was making my way to the ticket office which is also the exit.the inspectors were stood before the exit i had to pass them to reach the booking office

Jawgap

end of the road wrote: »

how do you know. the booking office was closed. therefore as finding an alternative would cause delay of the train he is allowed to board once he can purchase a ticket either on the train or on arrival

him not buying a ticket would not have delayed the departure of the train :rolleyes:

There was a working vending machine, he had cash - what was the reason preventing him from walking up to the Berkeley Court and asking for change there?

It was the middle of the afternoon, there was no emergency - therefore no reason why the OP had to be on the next DART.

If it was the last DART or he needed to be somewhere as matter of genuine urgency it would be a different matter.

Any reason why the OP couldn't have walked up to Northumberland Ave and hopped on a No. 7 bus - worst case scenario he'd have gotten a change ticket or he could have broken the 50 on the way to the bus stop.

end of the road

Jawgap wrote: »

I understand what you are saying - and while it may be poor public / customer service on the part of IE not to have the ticket office open or machines that accept 50s (and dispense change in notes), the onus is still on you to make sure you have a valid ticket for travel.

or buy one once he arrived which he tried to do as per section 4

Van.Bosch

end of the road wrote: »

how do you know the board didn't give notice somewhere that he didn't see such as online. the days of CIE putting out an announcement for everything via radio or the local paper for example are i'd imagine long gone

if they did i imagine the RPU would have been aware of it.