Irish Rail Fixed Penalty Notice, Rail Safety Act 2005

flexcon

Marcusm wrote: »

I can believe that the person in work who ordered the ticket could form an honest belief that you needed a ticket to Maynooth. It beggars belief to suggest that having specified Maynooth, you formed such a. Elite that you could use it from another station. How far do you think you could have extended your ticket? Sligo? At what position not do you accept that you might have been expected to take personal responsibility? Had you told your office you were travelling from rural Kildare they so of likely have pressed you to specify a station. By your own admission you specified Maynooth. That to me would be the end of the story and I don't see how this is open for discussion still.

Sligo?> Suggest to google the distance from Kilcok and Maynooth! It's in the same area. Even looking at google maps, it's one stop away around the corner, 18 mins journey. And now they are infact adding it into the SHZ from June, so I guess even IR realized that looks and sounds daft. Haven't been in the area but doing google maps, it looks just as much as a needed commuter station as Maynooth itself. I spoke about this topic to a work friend who worked with Ryanair before, logistics and planning etc and there observation on this was also how silly it is to end the SHZ zone in any major hub ( Maynooth ), and not at least one stop beyond ( Kilock)

I agree Laura's ignorance to this was silly, but it's just that. To be fined and pursued like someone deliberately fare avoiding is not right by IR. Especially with all the info provided in this thread.

I think the free legal advice is the best bet, I have no dealings in this area so taking advice from users like ourselves would be misguided

Indricotherium

flexcon wrote: »

Sligo?> Suggest to google the distance from Kilcok and Maynooth! It's in the same area. Even looking at google maps, it's one stop away around the corner, 18 mins journey. And now they are infact adding it into the SHZ from June, so I guess even IR realized that looks and sounds daft. Haven't been in the area but doing google maps, it looks just as much as a needed commuter station as Maynooth itself. I spoke about this topic to a work friend who worked with Ryanair before, logistics and planning etc and there observation on this was also how silly it is to end the SHZ zone in any major hub ( Maynooth ), and not at least one stop beyond ( Kilock)

I agree Laura's ignorance to this was silly, but it's just that. To be fined and pursued like someone deliberately fare avoiding is not right by IR. Especially with all the info provided in this thread.

I think the free legal advice is the best bet, I have no dealings in this area so taking advice from users like ourselves would be misguided

I suggest you Google Irish rails fare zones

Laura4193

Indricotherium wrote: »

I suggest you Google Irish rails fare zones

Why would you Google something unless you actually believed there to be something wrong?

I never knew I was doing anything wrong and there were no signs to tell me otherwise.

flexcon

Indricotherium wrote: »

I suggest you Google Irish rails fare zones

Ok and then do what? Sorry your post lacks context to what you then want me to do?

My suggesting to google the distance from Kilcok to Maynooth was in direct reference to the OP saying " ....train to sligo" where no one mentioned this and was in fact a station 25 times greater in distance away than the one we are talking about,

GM228

hullaballoo wrote: »

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.

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

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?

You would be surprised how often this comes up hullaballoo, and oddly enough more often than not seems to happen where people have tickets to Maynooth and are travelling on to Kilcock and Enfield rather than at any other location. At least one similar case seems to come up at each months sitting and they are only the ones who failed to pay the penalty.

Even though someone may have a "valid ticket", to say Maynooth, once they go beyond that point they don't have a valid ticket for the journey being undertaken (the journey is Dublin to Kilcock, not Maynooth to Kilcock), and so they become liable for the full fare which is in accordance with the Railway Safety Act 2005 which makes you liable for the fare from the point that your journey commenced. I have actually seen someone dispute this in the DC when that was their defence for failure to pay the penalty and full fare, the above view was held by the judge and the person convicted and fined.

Obviously a different judge may hold a different view but it depends on who you get and obviously a different view altogether may be held for a civil recovery of debt.

But until such an issue is referred to the HC on a point of law DC judges will continue to apply their own interpretation on what is/isn't a valid ticket.

Laura4193

GM228 wrote: »

At least one similar case seems to come up at each months sitting and they are only the ones who failed to pay the penalty.

I have actually seen someone dispute this in the DC when that was their defence for failure to pay the penalty and full fare, the above view was held by the judge and the person convicted and fined.

So GM228 in your opinion now that:

1. I have actually paid the penalty and the fare for the day my Card was confiscated,
2. their systems are solely telling me I'm fully paid up, and
3. I called their office after receiving the letter about all unpaid fares on the number quoted to me on the letter and the staff there told me €108.10 was my liability
do you believe this will result in anything?

GM228

Laura4193 wrote: »

So GM228 in your opinion now that:

1. I have actually paid the penalty and the fare for the day my Card was confiscated,
2. their systems are solely telling me I'm fully paid up, and
3. I called their office after receiving the letter about all unpaid fares on the number quoted to me on the letter and the staff there told me €108.10 was my liability
do you believe this will result in anything?

Nobody can answer your question unfortunately, but the reason why the system shows you are fully paid up is as I already explained because the system can't show the second debt as the system relates only the a penalty notice and the associated fare as per the Railway Safety Act.

The letter you got is in relation to a civil debt, it's a seperate issue.

Laura4193

GM228 wrote: »

Nobody can answer your question unfortunately, but the reason why the system shows you are fully paid up is as I already explained because the system can't show the second debt as the system relates only the a penalty notice and the associated fare as per the Railway Safety Act.

The letter you got is in relation to a civil debt, it's a seperate issue.

Oh yeah I understand they are separate issues, it just puzzles me that the letter says to call 1850 366 222 to pay the total and they add the two fees together, and I did call two days later and was only charged €108.10.

Do they really expect people to say "Oh no, you didn't charge me enough, charge me the rest"?

hullaballoo

GM228 wrote: »

You would be surprised how often this comes up hullaballoo, and oddly enough more often than not seems to happen where people have tickets to Maynooth and are travelling on to Kilcock and Enfield rather than at any other location. At least one similar case seems to come up at each months sitting and they are only the ones who failed to pay the penalty.

Even though someone may have a "valid ticket", to say Maynooth, once they go beyond that point they don't have a valid ticket for the journey being undertaken (the journey is Dublin to Kilcock, not Maynooth to Kilcock), and so they become liable for the full fare which is in accordance with the Railway Safety Act 2005 which makes you liable for the fare from the point that your journey commenced. I have actually seen someone dispute this in the DC when that was their defence for failure to pay the penalty and full fare, the above view was held by the judge and the person convicted and fined.

Obviously a different judge may hold a different view but it depends on who you get and obviously a different view altogether may be held for a civil recovery of debt.

But until such an issue is referred to the HC on a point of law DC judges will continue to apply their own interpretation on what is/isn't a valid ticket.

There is a conflation of the types of proceedings at issue in this thread.

There will be no criminal prosecution in relation to the OP here because she paid the FPN fine together with the full fare that was due for the day she was "caught" so to speak.

IR appear to now want to pursue some 86 other rail journeys for the money they believe is owed. That is a civil claim and the bylaws quoted do not appear to apply outside of the specific procedure in relation to the criminal side.

In order to pursue the OP for the debt, it seems that civil proceedings are what is required here and in the ordinary course of such proceedings, the money already paid in relation to the fares should be set off against the debt.

The arguments over a ticket being "invalid" and that it therefore logically follows that the money in respect of the fares actually paid was somehow never actually paid are a red herring and is the sort of conceptual acrobatics I was referring to earlier. It is not a concept known to law outside of the very specific bylaws that do not appear to apply in this case.

Indricotherium

hullaballoo wrote: »

There is a conflation of the types of proceedings at issue in this thread.

There will be no criminal prosecution in relation to the OP here because she paid the FPN fine together with the full fare that was due for the day she was "caught" so to speak.

IR appear to now want to pursue some 86 other rail journeys for the money they believe is owed. That is a civil claim and the bylaws quoted do not appear to apply outside of the specific procedure in relation to the criminal side.

In order to pursue the OP for the debt, it seems that civil proceedings are what is required here and in the ordinary course of such proceedings, the money already paid in relation to the fares should be set off against the debt.

The arguments over a ticket being "invalid" and that it therefore logically follows that the money in respect of the fares actually paid was somehow never actually paid are a red herring and is the sort of conceptual acrobatics I was referring to earlier. It is not a concept known to law outside of the very specific bylaws that do not appear to apply in this case.

I think you are giving undue weight to the fact that the journey the ticket purchased covers overlaps with the actual journeys taken, and to the geographical proximity of Maynooth and Kilcock. The terms and conditions of using the train service are clear.

Also, given that Kilcock lacks the facilities required to comply with the terms and conditions of a leap card, it should be plain to anyone using the station that it is not a valid ticket.

flexcon

So even if the figure is around 700 euro or so they are claiming from the OP. Would IR really go to court over that? Would cost more in solicitors fees for the company to show up surely? Or is the debt outsourced to a collection agency?

Laura4193

Indricotherium wrote: »

Also, given that Kilcock lacks the facilities required to comply with the terms and conditions of a leap card, it should be plain to anyone using the station that it is not a valid ticket.

There are stations within the SHZ that do not have the facilities to tag on and off, so no it is not "plain" to anyone.

Also, there are leap card facilities in Cork. Are they part of the SHZ? No.
It's not that black and white.

Laura4193

flexcon wrote: »

So even if the figure is around 700 euro or so they are claiming from the OP. Would IR really go to court over that? Would cost more in solicitors fees for the company to show up surely? Or is the debt outsourced to a collection agency?

By the sounds of their letter they have their very own legal department.

L1011

flexcon wrote: »

So even if the figure is around 700 euro or so they are claiming from the OP. Would IR really go to court over that? Would cost more in solicitors fees for the company to show up surely? Or is the debt outsourced to a collection agency?

They have solicitors as full time staff across the group.

Losty Dublin

Laura4193 wrote: »

There are stations within the SHZ that do not have the facilities to tag on and off, so no it is not "plain" to anyone.

Also, there are leap card facilities in Cork. Are they part of the SHZ? No.
It's not that black and white.

What stations within the Short Hop Zone don't have Leap Card tag readers?

And please don't say Broombridge as I used it to tag off a couple of weeks ago

hullaballoo

Indricotherium wrote: »

I think you are giving undue weight to the fact that the journey the ticket purchased covers overlaps with the actual journeys taken, and to the geographical proximity of Maynooth and Kilcock. The terms and conditions of using the train service are clear.

Also, given that Kilcock lacks the facilities required to comply with the terms and conditions of a leap card, it should be plain to anyone using the station that it is not a valid ticket.

No, it's irrelevant whether IR view the fare paid or the ticket in question as valid or not.

I am having a genuine difficulty understanding how or why some people seem to think that IR would be entitled to get paid for 86 Dublin-Maynooth tickets PLUS 86 Dublin-Kilcock tickets.

nosilver

OP would have a good chance of appeal based on all the publicity aroung Kilcock (and sallins) beings added to the short hop zone for 2017.

Sallins was added 1st dec. and a lot of the media had this date and also the fact that Kilcock would be added to short hop too.

Even TFI site gives details but no specific date.
https://www.transportforireland.ie/no-fare-increase-for-75-of-public-transport-users-in-2017/

I'd argue (and assumign that you did not use it before 1st dec) that there was much publicity in Oct & Nov about kilcock being added to short hop and this can be confimed by various searches. The issue is you mixed up the very highly publicised start of the sallins new pricing with the kilcock new pricing and had erroneously assumed that both would have been changed at the same time.

Considering you had a ticket valid from Maynooth, I would hope it would be looked at in your favour, but if not, i'd take chance with court for same argument

GM228

hullaballoo wrote: »

There is a conflation of the types of proceedings at issue in this thread.

To clarify I was speaking in relation to the criminal side of things to show where the issue of full fare due stems from, I did say "obviously a different view altogether may be held for a civil recovery of debt".

hullaballoo wrote: »

There will be no criminal prosecution in relation to the OP here because she paid the FPN fine together with the full fare that was due for the day she was "caught" so to speak.

Correct in relation to the actual time they were caught, however if IE were to have strong evidence of some of the other occassions it would be possible to bring seperate criminal proceedings under the Transport Act 1950.

hullaballoo wrote: »

IR appear to now want to pursue some 86 other rail journeys for the money they believe is owed. That is a civil claim and the bylaws quoted do not appear to apply outside of the specific procedure in relation to the criminal side.

In order to pursue the OP for the debt, it seems that civil proceedings are what is required here and in the ordinary course of such proceedings, the money already paid in relation to the fares should be set off against the debt.

The arguments over a ticket being "invalid" and that it therefore logically follows that the money in respect of the fares actually paid was somehow never actually paid are a red herring and is the sort of conceptual acrobatics I was referring to earlier. It is not a concept known to law outside of the very specific bylaws that do not appear to apply in this case.

** The ticket being invalid and any implications is no doubt an arguement which would be put forward in any civil case regarding terms and conditions of contract as there is an element of contract law, terms and conditions are at play here as a result of the conditions of carriage which allow for the full fare to be claimed.

I'm pretty certain that there's something in either the Railway Act 1924 or the Regulation of Railway Acts 1840-1893 to give legal force to railway Conditions of Carriage/terms and conditions and there's also EU Regulation 1371/2007 which has something in it with regards the conditions of carriage forming an integral part of the contract for service for railway tickets.

**Contract Law isn't my strong point in this context BTW.

Losty Dublin

hullaballoo wrote: »

No, it's irrelevant whether IR view the fare paid or the ticket in question as valid or not.

I am having a genuine difficulty understanding how or why some people seem to think that IR would be entitled to get paid for 86 Dublin-Maynooth tickets PLUS 86 Dublin-Kilcock tickets.

Presumably they are accounting it as return single trips as distinct to return fares. There was a court case a few years ago when a persistent fare evader was stung for owed fares at court.

CIARAN_BOYLE

hullaballoo wrote: »

No, it's irrelevant whether IR view the fare paid or the ticket in question as valid or not.

I am having a genuine difficulty understanding how or why some people seem to think that IR would be entitled to get paid for 86 Dublin-Maynooth tickets PLUS 86 Dublin-Kilcock tickets.

There wasn't a dublin to Kilcock ticket. There was one single travel anywhere you want in the shz ticket. The op didn't pay for any Dublin to Maynooth tickets.

I can see an argument for Irish rail being charged for 86 Kilcock to Maynooth tickets.

flexcon

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

There wasn't a dublin to Kilcock ticket. There was one single travel anywhere you want in the shz ticket. The op didn't pay for any Dublin to Maynooth tickets.

I can see an argument for Irish rail being charged for 86 Kilcock to Maynooth tickets.

Yes and that argument seems to be most fair, which comes to around €350 euro. Not the €800 or so being pursued by IR. That part stings, as from the info we have received, the OP isn't knowingly evading a fair and has co operated up to this point, including paying the fine. goes back to how if you accidentally get the wrong ticket as a tourist you are penalized the same way as a known fare evader from central Dublin. no discretion given here.

Laura should in my opinion pay the fairs from Kilock to Maynooth owed, and that should be the end of it. IR should accept this, as that is the revenue lost, and not the entire journey.

GM228

L1011 wrote: »

They have solicitors as full time staff across the group.

Correct, they have their own legal firm. "Coras Iompair Eireann" is a registered legal firm with the Law Society.

Indricotherium

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

There wasn't a dublin to Kilcock ticket. There was one single travel anywhere you want in the shz ticket. The op didn't pay for any Dublin to Maynooth tickets.

I can see an argument for Irish rail being charged for 86 Kilcock to Maynooth tickets.

I'd just be thankful that they are accepting the Kilcock story and not assuming the OP was coming from Sligo.

Laura4193

Indricotherium wrote: »

I'd just be thankful that they are accepting the Kilcock story and not assuming the OP was coming from Sligo.

Oh seriously! They seen me get on at Kilcock.

Some of these responses are getting ridiculous now.

Am I supposed to be thankful they're charging me over and above €700 for a fare I didn't even know I was evading?

There were multiple FREE journeys I could have taken with that travel ticket and I admitted what I was doing out of decency and the utter shock that something so penalising wasn't advertised more.

I didn't deserve to be slapped with over €800 and the threat of a court appearance. I've been trying my best here to do what they ask but I cannot give them money I don't have and certainly not money I would have paid in the first instance. I would have carried on getting a bus or train fro maynooth and hopping on a bus in Blanchardstown other mornings.

flexcon

Indricotherium wrote: »

I'd just be thankful that they are accepting the Kilcock story and not assuming the OP was coming from Sligo.

seriously? Love that attitude.

Pretty sure the evidence of, place of work, renting records, and lack of any CCTV footage at all would be a great way to counter claim back ( if at all possible ) and get money out of IR for an accusation like that.

Indricotherium

Laura4193 wrote: »

Oh seriously! They seen me get on at Kilcock.

I've been trying my best here to do what they ask but I cannot give them money I don't have

Make them an offer.

Laura4193

Indricotherium wrote: »

Make them an offer.

I did. €108 and they took it. I have no more to give, that €108 was tough enough.
But the chasing after me for the previous fares I cannot and will not be able to afford.

Laura4193

Laura4193 wrote: »

I did. €108 and they took it. I have no more to give, that €108 was tough enough.
But the chasing after me for the previous fares I cannot and will not be able to afford.

GM228 wrote: »

You made an offer of €108 in regards the 86 fares or you paid the €108 penalty?

In regards to the penalty. I paid that in full, it was all I could manage.
I've edited my post for clarification.

GM228

Laura4193 wrote: »

I did. €108 and they took it. I have no more to give, that €108 was tough enough.
But the chasing after me for the previous fares I cannot and will not be able to afford.

Have you actually spoken with IE in relation to the 86 fares at all? Such as trying to make a compromise etc?

Laura4193

GM228 wrote: »

Have you actually spoken with IE in relation to the 86 fares at all? Such as trying to make a compromise etc?

Not since I received the letter and then paid over the phone no.

The letter told me to call and pay over the phone for both the unpaid fares and penalty, so I called and paid and they only charged me the penalty and told me my travel card would be posted out to me and nothing about the unpaid fares at all. Although, the letter says I won't get the card back until I pay everything so they have both contradicted each other.

So at the minute I'm praying I might get lucky because there's obviously been a mistake somewhere down the line and I hope my card will just be in the post this week.

If not, then yes I'll have to talk to IE but only after I see the solicitor on Thursday evening.