Borrowing a railcard
Debbie
are not entitled, what law (if any) has been broken? Is it a criminal
matter?
Thanks.
Debs
Mr X
"Debbie" <debbiewi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:26014c22-8cfe-427a...@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> If someone borrows a railcard to obtain a cheaper fare to which they
> are not entitled, what law (if any) has been broken? Is it a criminal
> matter?
>
Peter Crosland
> are not entitled, what law (if any) has been broken? Is it a criminal
> matter?
It is criminal offence under the Theft Act to obtain a ticket in such a way.
Peter Crosland
Brimstone
http://www.grayhooperholt.co.uk/legal-articles/railway-fare-evasion.html
Janitor of Lunacy
Obtaining services by deception, formerly in the Theft Act 1978, now in the
Fraud Act 2003, by an implied representation that the presenter of the card
is actually entitled to use the card. Yes, it is a criminal matter. Expect a
fixed penalty at least, and a court fine and crimina record at worst. You
are unlikely to go to prison.
Mike Ross
wrote:
Well they're as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike:
"The conviction will have to be disclosed on every subsequent application for
employment. It never becomes "spent" like a driving offence for say speeding, it
will always have to be disclosed."
I'm not sure how much faith I'd place in information coming from lawyers who
have never heard of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.
"The conviction will stop you entering certain countries completely. If you are
convicted you will not be able to enter Australia or The U.S.A. to name the
biggest countries and again this will last indefinitely."
Can't speak for Australia, but you might well be OK with the USA; you would have
to get a visa, and it might well need a bit of special pleading, but it's
certainly possible.
Law 2 : Gray Hooper Holt 0
Not impressed in the slightest.
As for the original question, I'm a *little* less strident about it inevitably
being a criminal matter than all the others who have replied. IF the actual user
of the railcard was entitled to hold such a railcard, but hadn't actually got
their own (e.g. one student using a student railcard belonging to someone else,
while the second student is e.g. overseas) I'd be inclined to say it's more a
breach of contract matter - transferring something which is contractually
non-transferrable. Like J.Bloggs attempting to fly using a plane ticket in the
name of S.Bloggs. Or J.Doe renting movies using a membership card belonging to
S.Doe. A civil matter.
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Brimstone
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 22:58:46 +0100, "Brimstone"
> <brimston...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Debbie wrote:
>>> If someone borrows a railcard to obtain a cheaper fare to which they
>>> are not entitled, what law (if any) has been broken? Is it a
>>> criminal matter?
>>>
>> It's fraud and worth a court appearance and a criminal record.
>>
>> http://www.grayhooperholt.co.uk/legal-articles/railway-fare-evasion.html
>
> Well they're as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike:
>
> "The conviction will have to be disclosed on every subsequent
> application for employment. It never becomes "spent" like a driving
> offence for say speeding, it will always have to be disclosed."
>
> I'm not sure how much faith I'd place in information coming from
> lawyers who have never heard of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.
A minor detail that is beside the main point..
>
> "The conviction will stop you entering certain countries completely.
> If you are convicted you will not be able to enter Australia or The
> U.S.A. to name the biggest countries and again this will last
> indefinitely."
>
> Can't speak for Australia, but you might well be OK with the USA; you
> would have to get a visa, and it might well need a bit of special
> pleading, but it's certainly possible.
>
> Law 2 : Gray Hooper Holt 0
>
> Not impressed in the slightest.
>
> As for the original question, I'm a *little* less strident about it
> inevitably being a criminal matter than all the others who have
> replied. IF the actual user of the railcard was entitled to hold such
> a railcard, but hadn't actually got their own (e.g. one student using
> a student railcard belonging to someone else, while the second
> student is e.g. overseas) I'd be inclined to say it's more a breach
> of contract matter - transferring something which is contractually
> non-transferrable. Like J.Bloggs attempting to fly using a plane
> ticket in the name of S.Bloggs. Or J.Doe renting movies using a
> membership card belonging to S.Doe. A civil matter.
>
No, it isn't a civil matter. Many people have veen convicted of fare
dodging.
Mr X
"Brimstone" <brimston...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fKWdnTCvc64-bfLX...@bt.com...
> No, it isn't a civil matter. Many people have veen convicted of fare
> dodging.
>
However, given the fraud element of this they may be more inclined to.
DB.
"Debbie" <debbiewi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:26014c22-8cfe-427a...@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
I suggest you post your question to the ng."uk.railway". You'll
probably get replies there from 'grippers' who have seen this kind of
thing through.
--
DB.
White Spirit
You're allowed to lend someone your Oyster card, however, so I wonder
why they have a problem with lending of railcards.
Blah
Because Oyster card is pay per use - just another form of debit card, a
railcard enables a discount which may not be due to the bearer - ie
middle age man travelling on a student concession railcard.
White Spirit
> White Spirit wrote:
>> You're allowed to lend someone your Oyster card, however, so I wonder
>> why they have a problem with lending of railcards.
> Because Oyster card is pay per use - just another form of debit card, a
> railcard enables a discount which may not be due to the bearer - ie
> middle age man travelling on a student concession railcard.
Oyster cards can be loaded with Travelcards (I have monthly Zones 1 - 3,
for example) but I just checked and you can only lend your Oyster if
it's loaded with pre-pay only.
DB.
"Blah" <Bl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7darohF...@mid.individual.net...
Yes. We might perhaps say that the Oyster card is 'a different kettle
of fish'.
--
DB.
Mike Ross
wrote:
>Mike Ross wrote:
>> As for the original question, I'm a *little* less strident about it
>> inevitably being a criminal matter than all the others who have
>> replied. IF the actual user of the railcard was entitled to hold such
>> a railcard, but hadn't actually got their own (e.g. one student using
>> a student railcard belonging to someone else, while the second
>> student is e.g. overseas) I'd be inclined to say it's more a breach
>> of contract matter - transferring something which is contractually
>> non-transferrable. Like J.Bloggs attempting to fly using a plane
>> ticket in the name of S.Bloggs. Or J.Doe renting movies using a
>> membership card belonging to S.Doe. A civil matter.
>>
>No, it isn't a civil matter. Many people have veen convicted of fare
>dodging.
Of course they have, where there's an intention to avoid paying the fare - just
like walking out of a shop with no intention of paying for the goods. Which
doesn't come close to answering my point above; in the hypothetical case we're
dealing with, the person DID pay the fare. They just used a contractually
non-transferrable instrument to do so - at least, I assume that when you get a
railcard, you enter into a contract where one of the terms states that it's not
transferrable. That's why I say it *might* turn out to be 'it's a civil matter,
Sir'.
It might well even turn out to not be the traveller on the hook at all, but the
person who allowed the traveller to use the railcard; THEY are the person who
entered into a contract by buying a railcard and THEY are the person who broke
the contract by allowing someone else to use it; that person (the traveller)
isn't a party to the contract between the company and the railcard holder. If
they accepted the railcard in good faith they may well not be civilly OR
criminally liable.
Do you follow me?
At the *very* least, for it to be a criminal matter, the prosecution would have
to prove that the person who used the railcard *knew* that it was
non-transferrable.
Mike Ross
Not relevant to the present question. A complete red herring, in fact.
Brimstone
and must not be given, loaned, or resold to anyone else."
http://www.16-25railcard.co.uk/terms-and-conditions
If they've got one, they've signed that they have accepted the Terms &
Conditions.
The unauthorised user of the card can be done for fraud. The person to whom
the card was issued may well have to convince TPTB that they did not
willingly lend the card to the unauthorised user.
The card also carries a photograph of the person to whom the card was
issued.
Aard
wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:03:08 +0100, "DB." <an...@anon.tesco.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Blah" <Bl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:7darohF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> White Spirit wrote:
>
>>>> You're allowed to lend someone your Oyster card, however, so I wonder
>>>> why they have a problem with lending of railcards.
>>>
>>> Because Oyster card is pay per use - just another form of debit card,
>>> a railcard enables a discount which may not be due to the bearer - ie
>>> middle age man travelling on a student concession railcard.
>>
>>Yes. We might perhaps say that the Oyster card is 'a different kettle
>>of fish'.
>
>Not relevant to the present question. A complete red herring, in fact.
>
Stop carping on about it.
Mike Ross
wrote:
As I suspected. So it's a breach of contract.
>The unauthorised user of the card can be done for fraud.
Where's the fraud? They aren't party to the Terms &
Conditions you cited above. If they use another persons railcard and/or ticket
willingly given to them *in good faith*, as far as I can see they're not even
civilly liable, let alone criminally.
>The person to whom
>the card was issued may well have to convince TPTB that they did not
>willingly lend the card to the unauthorised user.
That I can agree with; in fact I said as much in my previous post; the owner of
the railcard is the one with the problem, not the user of the railcard. But
again I can see it as a civil matter only; it's a breach of contract and the
person who breached the contract is liable for any losses incurred by the train
company - in this case it would be the cost of the railcard, if the person who
used the railcard was entitled to buy their own but didn't, or the difference
between the railcard fare and the full fare they would otherwise have paid, if
they weren't so entitled. Plus costs of course. And/or they're liable to lose
the railcard, if such is provided for in the case of a breach of the Terms &
Conditions.
Peter Masson
"Mike Ross" <mi...@corestore.org> wrote
>
> That I can agree with; in fact I said as much in my previous post; the
> owner of
> the railcard is the one with the problem, not the user of the railcard.
> But
> again I can see it as a civil matter only; it's a breach of contract and
> the
> person who breached the contract is liable for any losses incurred by the
> train
> company - in this case it would be the cost of the railcard, if the person
> who
> used the railcard was entitled to buy their own but didn't, or the
> difference
> between the railcard fare and the full fare they would otherwise have
> paid, if
> they weren't so entitled. Plus costs of course. And/or they're liable to
> lose
> the railcard, if such is provided for in the case of a breach of the Terms
> &
> Conditions.
>
It seems to me that the user of the railcard could face prosecution, either
under the Theft Act or under Railway Byelaws. He has evaded the proper fare
for the journey he has made. It might be difficult to prove an offence by
the true holder of the railcard, unless admissions are made - after all, if
it had been used without the permission or knowledge of the true holder.
That said, the matter may well be dealt with by requiring the passenger to
pay the full fare (or a penalty fare, if it took place in a penalty fare
zone) as though no ticket had been held, and perhaps by withdrawing the
railcard. Incidentally, I have used the phrase 'true holder of the railcard'
rather than owner, as the T&Cs make it clear that the railcard remains the
property of the Train Companies.
Peter
Brimstone
The user has gained a pecuniary advantage to which they're not entitled.
Roy Badami
> It seems to me that the user of the railcard could face prosecution,
> either under the Theft Act or under Railway Byelaws.
Prosecution under the Railways Acts, would be a possibility, too (intent
to avoid payment of the proper fare).
-roy
Mr X
"Mike Ross" <mi...@corestore.org> wrote in message
news:inu075dg7n4climer...@4ax.com...
> That I can agree with; in fact I said as much in my previous post; the
> owner of
> the railcard is the one with the problem, not the user of the railcard.
> But
> again I can see it as a civil matter only; it's a breach of contract and
> the
> person who breached the contract is liable for any losses incurred by the
> train
> company - in this case it would be the cost of the railcard, if the person
> who
> used the railcard was entitled to buy their own but didn't, or the
> difference
> between the railcard fare and the full fare they would otherwise have
> paid, if
> they weren't so entitled. Plus costs of course. And/or they're liable to
> lose
> the railcard, if such is provided for in the case of a breach of the Terms
> &
> Conditions.
No so. Railway fare evasion is not a civil matter but a criminal one, by
virtue of the Railway Byelaws (also something to do with the Railways Act
1993).
The offence, and it is that, is not to produce on demand a valid ticket.
Beacuse the person doesn't have the right to the card the ticket is invalid.
This is a rather smart thing for the railways to do as it allows prosecution
rather than civil procedings.
Roy Badami
> No so. Railway fare evasion is not a civil matter but a criminal one, by
> virtue of the Railway Byelaws (also something to do with the Railways Act
> 1993).
> The offence, and it is that, is not to produce on demand a valid ticket.
> Beacuse the person doesn't have the right to the card the ticket is invalid.
> This is a rather smart thing for the railways to do as it allows prosecution
> rather than civil procedings.
And the thing about the offense under the Byelaws is that it is, in
essence, a strict liability offense (the only element of intent is that
you were present on the train for the purpose of travelling). Maximum
penalty is level 3 on the standard scale.
The relevent Railways Act is the Railways Act 1889 (as amended, natch)
though this one does require intent to avoid payment. Maximum penalty
was recently increased to 51 weeks' imprisonment.
-roy
Mr X
"Roy Badami" <r...@gnomon.org.uk> wrote in message
news:9a2cm.61973$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> The relevent Railways Act is the Railways Act 1889 (as amended, natch)
> though this one does require intent to avoid payment. Maximum penalty was
> recently increased to 51 weeks' imprisonment.
>
person did pay something, even if it was not enough!
Roy Badami
The actual wording is "Travels or attempts to travel on a railway
without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid
payment thereof".
Charles Ellson
wrote:
That is the "Regulation of Railways Act 1889" not the "Railways Act
1889" which does not exist. ISTR it is more common to prosecute under
theft or fraud laws which involve the possibility of heavier
penalties.
Mike Ross
>Mr X wrote:
>> "Roy Badami" <r...@gnomon.org.uk> wrote in message
>> news:9a2cm.61973$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> The relevent Railways Act is the Railways Act 1889 (as amended, natch)
>>> though this one does require intent to avoid payment. Maximum penalty was
>>> recently increased to 51 weeks' imprisonment.
>>>
>> Would fraudulantly using a railcard count as intent to avoid payment? The
>> person did pay something, even if it was not enough!
>
>The actual wording is "Travels or attempts to travel on a railway
>without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid
>payment thereof".
Which makes my point; I referred specifically to good-faith use of a borrowed
railcard; the element of intent is absent.
Peter Masson
"Mike Ross" <mi...@corestore.org> wrote
>
> Which makes my point; I referred specifically to good-faith use of a
> borrowed
> railcard; the element of intent is absent.
>
I'm not sure how use of a borrowed railcard can be in good faith, though
there might be circumstances of a genuine mistake (picked up friend's
railcard by mistake for his own) where criminal sanctions would be
draconian, though having to buy a new (full fare) ticket or pay a penalty
fare would not, IMHO, be unreasonable.
Peter
Mr X
railcard. I haven't got mine to hand but I'm sure they state they are not
transferable on them.
They avoided paying the fare, which is all that is rquired for a levle 3
fine as another poster has pointed out.
Jonathan Morton
news:h4qitl$hdm$1...@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
>>>The actual wording is "Travels or attempts to travel on a railway
>>>without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid
>>>payment thereof".
>>
>> Which makes my point; I referred specifically to good-faith use of a
>> borrowed
>> railcard; the element of intent is absent.
>>
> It won't be good faith use as the person was not entitled to the use of
> the railcard. I haven't got mine to hand but I'm sure they state they are
> not transferable on them.
> They avoided paying the fare, which is all that is rquired for a levle 3
> fine as another poster has pointed out.
You and Peter Masson are correct. Mike Ross is wrong when he writes "the
element of intent is absent". On the contrary, the intent is to secure the
discounted fare rather than the full fare that would otherwise be payable -
that's what railcards are for! Good faith is irrelevant - even supposing the
user of the card were found to have acted in good faith (which is unlikely).
Regards
Jonathan
Charles Ellson
<jonathan.mortonb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>"Mr X" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
>news:h4qitl$hdm$1...@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
>
>>>>The actual wording is "Travels or attempts to travel on a railway
>>>>without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid
>>>>payment thereof".
>>>
>>> Which makes my point; I referred specifically to good-faith use of a
>>> borrowed
>>> railcard; the element of intent is absent.
>>>
>> It won't be good faith use as the person was not entitled to the use of
>> the railcard. I haven't got mine to hand but I'm sure they state they are
>> not transferable on them.
>> They avoided paying the fare, which is all that is rquired for a levle 3
>> fine as another poster has pointed out.
>
>You and Peter Masson are correct. Mike Ross is wrong when he writes "the
>element of intent is absent". On the contrary, the intent is to secure the
>discounted fare rather than the full fare that would otherwise be payable -
>that's what railcards are for!
>
That is the intent to obtain a discount, it is not necessarily the
intent to be dishonest; it is the criminal act which is required to be
intentional not one of the elements which by itself does not amount to
a criminal act or is not intended to contribute to one. Somebody can
borrow my Oyster card with the intention of discounting their travel
costs but again they are not being dishonest.
>Good faith is irrelevant -
>
No it isn't - on many occasions it is the decider between an action
having honest or dishonest intent.
>even supposing the
>user of the card were found to have acted in good faith (which is unlikely).
>
The authorised user of the card will usually have been required to
acknowledge the attached conditions; this is probably not the case for
the borrower if the authorised user lends the card but WRT discount
cards/vouchers/etc. in general it is far from inevitable that use is
limited to one person. The primary wrongdoer (where applicable) is the
person to whom the card has been issued.
PDR
"Aard" <aard...@the.zoo> wrote in message
news:ojn075hvmfdcl7ls2...@4ax.com...
Well if you get it wrong you would have to shell out a lot in fines, so
these pearls of wisdom are important.
PDR
Jonathan Morton
news:hfq175hj3kvtvfvce...@4ax.com...
No, it's a strict liability offence. Take the wording again:
"Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid
his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof".
"His fare" means the correct fare, which in this case is the full
undiscounted fare. In taking a discount to which he was not entitled, he has
avoided payment of the full fare. The lack of dishonesty (if there is a lack
of dishonesty) is irrelevant.
> Somebody can
> borrow my Oyster card with the intention of discounting their travel
> costs but again they are not being dishonest.
Bad example, since PAYG Oyster cards are expressly transferable
>>Good faith is irrelevant -
>>
> No it isn't - on many occasions it is the decider between an action
> having honest or dishonest intent.
Agreed, but not in the case of strict liability offences.
> The authorised user of the card will usually have been required to
> acknowledge the attached conditions; this is probably not the case for
> the borrower if the authorised user lends the card but WRT discount
> cards/vouchers/etc. in general it is far from inevitable that use is
> limited to one person.
Hmmm. Most people would understand the significance of the need for a
photocard.
Regards
Jonathan
Mike Ross
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:18:59 +0100, "Jonathan Morton"
<jonathan.mortonb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>"Charles Ellson" <cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:hfq175hj3kvtvfvce...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 23:47:13 +0100, "Jonathan Morton"
>> <jonathan.mortonb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>You and Peter Masson are correct. Mike Ross is wrong when he writes "the
>>>element of intent is absent". On the contrary, the intent is to secure the
>>>discounted fare rather than the full fare that would otherwise be
>>>payable -
>>>that's what railcards are for!
>>>
>> That is the intent to obtain a discount, it is not necessarily the
>> intent to be dishonest; it is the criminal act which is required to be
>> intentional not one of the elements which by itself does not amount to
>> a criminal act or is not intended to contribute to one.
>
>No, it's a strict liability offence. Take the wording again:
>
>"Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid
>his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof".
>
>"His fare" means the correct fare, which in this case is the full
>undiscounted fare. In taking a discount to which he was not entitled, he has
>avoided payment of the full fare. The lack of dishonesty (if there is a lack
>of dishonesty) is irrelevant.
Errrr I don't mean to sound patronising, but can you read? Again, for emphasis:
"..without having previously paid his fare, AND with intent to avoid payment
thereof"
'and with intent'. That's an AND, not an OR. There are TWO elements to the
offence; it has to be proved that he didn't pay his fare, AND that he *intended*
to avoid payment. I'm sure a real lawyer will be along any minute to confirm,
but AFAIK any time you see the phrase 'with intent', or 'knowingly', it is NOT a
strict liability offence; it has to be proved not just that 'he did it' but that
'he intended to do it' - google 'mens rea'.
Al
> Mr X wrote:
> > "Roy Badami" <r...@gnomon.org.uk> wrote in message
> >news:9a2cm.61973$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >> The relevent Railways Act is the Railways Act 1889 (as amended, natch)
> >> though this one does require intent to avoid payment. Maximum penalty was
> >> recently increased to 51 weeks' imprisonment.
>
> > Would fraudulantly using a railcard count as intent to avoid payment? The
> > person did pay something, even if it was not enough!
>
> The actual wording is "Travels or attempts to travel on a railway
> without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid
> payment thereof".
>
I travel by train everyday to work. It is all paid for.
Mr X
train without a ticket because the ticket office is closed.
John B
> > "..without having previously paid his fare, AND with intent to avoid
> > payment
> > thereof"
>
> I thought that was meant to cover situations in which a person gets on a
> train without a ticket because the ticket office is closed.
It doesn't matter what it's *meant to cover*, it's what it *says*.
Which is that if there is no intent to avoid payment of the correct
fare, then you aren't guilty of the offence.
However, particularly if the railcard was a photocard one, I reckon
the user would struggle to convince a court he reasonably believed
that it was OK for him to use.
--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org
Brimstone
price to which he was not entitled for the journey undertaken shows intent
to defraud.
John B
wrote:
> > 'and with intent'. That's an AND, not an OR. There are TWO elements
> > to the offence; it has to be proved that he didn't pay his fare, AND
> > that he *intended* to avoid payment. I'm sure a real lawyer will be
> > along any minute to confirm, but AFAIK any time you see the phrase
> > 'with intent', or 'knowingly', it is NOT a strict liability offence;
> > it has to be proved not just that 'he did it' but that 'he intended
> > to do it' - google 'mens rea'.
>
> Using a railcard belonging to someone else to buy a ticket at a discounted
> price to which he was not entitled for the journey undertaken shows intent
> to defraud.
...unless he can convince the court he reasonably believed he was
entitled to use the other person's railcard.
Brimstone
Such railcards are applied for by and issued to a named individual and have
at least the name and signature of the person to whom it was issued and more
recent ones have their photograph.
How could another person reasonably believe that they might have entitlement
to use it?
Chris Tolley
> Such railcards are applied for by and issued to a named individual and have
> at least the name and signature of the person to whom it was issued and more
> recent ones have their photograph.
>
> How could another person reasonably believe that they might have entitlement
> to use it?
Some things that the railway issues are transferable. Many things
entitling someone to a discount are transferable. For example, today, my
wife went shopping in Tesco, and acquired a voucher for 5p per litre off
petrol. I subsequently filled the car.
Some railcards explicitly allow other unnamed persons to travel with the
holder. Those persons need not be the same on different uses of the
card. Someone might (incorrectly) infer from that that they are indeed
entitled to use the card in the absence of the railcard holder; after
all, they might argue, the railway is still being paid for the tickets,
whoever is actually travelling.
I'm not saying I'd support any of these interpretations, but people are
not all literate, intelligent, and familiar with every term and
condition of railway contracts. Some blunder their way through life with
a remarkable capacity for doing things sane people would avoid.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p10589934.html
(Five class 08 shunters in a line at Stratford Depot, 4 Jul 1981)
S
> White Spirit wrote:
> > Peter Crosland wrote:
>
> >>> If someone borrows a railcard to obtain a cheaper fare to which they
> >>> are not entitled, what law (if any) has been broken? Is it a criminal
> >>> matter?
>
> >> It is criminal offence under the Theft Act to obtain a ticket in such
> >> a way.
>
> > You're allowed to lend someone your Oyster card, however, so I wonder
> > why they have a problem with lending of railcards.
>
> Because Oyster card is pay per use - just another form of debit card, a
> railcard enables a discount which may not be due to the bearer - ie
> middle age man travelling on a student concession railcard.
What about the daily cap? If several people use the card and their
total use exceed the daily cap, then they are better off than if they
had used separate cards.
Jonathan Morton
> <snip because this is getting out of hand>
>
> emphasis:
>
> "..without having previously paid his fare, AND with intent to avoid
> payment
> thereof"
You're right, incidentally, that it isn't strict liability, but I don't
think it helps.
> 'and with intent'. That's an AND, not an OR. There are TWO elements to the
> offence; it has to be proved that he didn't pay his fare, AND that he
> *intended*
> to avoid payment.
The first part is easy - he hasn't paid his fare. He has, by misrepresenting
that he is the named card-holder, brought about an unsatisfactory
contractual position -probably there is no contract at all. That is a
problem for him, because it means that he hasn't paid his fare. Further, as
he did what he did deliberately, I suspect most courts would have no problem
with the intent.
>I'm sure a real lawyer will be along any minute.
Now it's my turn to sound patronising. You're not a real lawyer, are you?
Regards
Jonathan
Jonathan Morton
news:3d3stpe2gq3y$.akobg7ymudwi.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> Some things that the railway issues are transferable.
But railcards are not.
> Some railcards explicitly allow other unnamed persons to travel with the
> holder.
Indeed, a Family Railcard does - but the wording "with the holder" is
important.
Regards
Jonathan
Roland Perry
Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Jonathan Morton
<jonathan.mortonb...@btinternet.com> remarked:
>> Some railcards explicitly allow other unnamed persons to travel with the
>> holder.
>
>Indeed, a Family Railcard does - but the wording "with the holder" is
>important.
But there's no mention of that specific condition on the card - it just
says "I agree to the conditions of issue" (not even "conditions of
use"). Plus a reference to the NCoC and the lack of transferability, in
extremely small print on the back.
It could easily be made a lot clearer.
--
Roland Perry
Jonathan Morton
news:Y0jWkpCX...@perry.co.uk...
We agree there, Roland.
Regards
Jonathan
Brimstone
When applying for the card a form has to be completed which has the Terms &
Conditions attached and in which the fact that the card is non-transferable
is made clear. Apart from the reminder on the card how could it be made
clearer?
Roland Perry
Sat, 1 Aug 2009, Brimstone <brimston...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Some railcards explicitly allow other unnamed persons to travel
>>>> with the holder.
>>>
>>> Indeed, a Family Railcard does - but the wording "with the holder" is
>>> important.
>>
>> But there's no mention of that specific condition on the card - it
>> just says "I agree to the conditions of issue" (not even "conditions
>> of use"). Plus a reference to the NCoC and the lack of
>> transferability, in extremely small print on the back.
>>
>> It could easily be made a lot clearer.
>
>When applying for the card a form has to be completed which has the Terms &
>Conditions attached and in which the fact that the card is non-transferable
>is made clear. Apart from the reminder on the card how could it be made
>clearer?
It could explicitly state (on the front in readable size print) that
it's only valid if presented by one or other named cardholder.
--
Roland Perry
Brimstone
Roland Perry
I think you answered your own question: if it's on the YP Railcard, why
deliberately leave it off the Family Railcard?
--
Roland Perry
Brimstone
We're not discussing the Family Railcard.
Roland Perry
>>>>>>>> Some railcards explicitly allow other unnamed persons to travel
>>>>>>>> with the holder.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed, a Family Railcard does - but the wording "with the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>>> holder" is important.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But there's no mention of that specific condition on the card - it
>>>>>> just says "I agree to the conditions of issue" (not even
>>>>>> "conditions of use"). Plus a reference to the NCoC and the lack of
>>>>>> transferability, in extremely small print on the back.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It
^^ - the Family Railcard.
>>>>>>could easily be made a lot clearer.
>>>>>
>>>>> When applying for the card a form has to be completed which has the
>>>>> Terms & Conditions attached and in which the fact that the card is
>>>>> non-transferable is made clear. Apart from the reminder on the card
>>>>> how could it be made clearer?
>>>>
>>>> It
^^ - the Family Railcard.
>>>>could explicitly state (on the front in readable size print) that
>>>> it's only valid if presented by one or other named cardholder.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1334/1225296072_24567ffb36.jpg
>>
>> I think you answered your own question: if it's on the YP Railcard,
>> why deliberately leave it off the Family Railcard?
>
>We're not discussing the Family Railcard.
Yes we are. (See above).
--
Roland Perry
Colin Trunt
"Debbie" <debbiewi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:26014c22-8cfe-427a...@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> If someone borrows a railcard to obtain a cheaper fare to which they
> are not entitled, what law (if any) has been broken? Is it a criminal
> matter?
Obtaiining a reasonable price for a train journey with intent
to get fair value. Transport act 1985.
>
> Thanks.
> Debs