Expecting Mother Penalized for Fare Evasion While Sitting on Train Floor

Daisy Mumba’s journey from Reading to Sheffield was anything but pleasant. At seven months pregnant, she found herself unable to reach her booked seat due to overcrowding. Instead, she was forced to sit on the floor of the train, frequently getting up to allow other passengers to pass by.

The situation worsened for Daisy when a small issue with her ticket led to serious complications. Although she purchased a ticket for £70 before traveling, she was left with a conviction for traveling without a valid ticket. This experience serves as a cautionary tale for anyone who depends heavily on technology.

Daisy, a 32-year-old teacher from Sheffield, had attended a wedding and bought her ticket via the Trainline app, which directed her to change trains in Reading. The trouble began when she couldn’t get to her assigned seat and had to sit near the restroom. As a ticket inspector came by to check tickets, Daisy confidently showed her electronic ticket on her phone. However, she was told it was invalid because she needed to have it printed.

“I have been using the app for over ten years and have never been told I needed to print my ticket,” Daisy recounted.

To resolve the confusion, Daisy went to a ticket office in Sheffield and had her ticket printed out, believing this would be the end of the matter. However, weeks later, she received a court notice stating she had boarded the train without a valid ticket.

Daisy filled out the necessary paperwork and pled not guilty, providing evidence of her ticket purchase, including a photo of the printed ticket, a screenshot of the ticket on her app, and a record of the transaction from her bank. Unfortunately, the evidence she submitted never reached the court, and she was found guilty in her absence, leading to a £600 fine.

Daisy’s story highlights how a minor mistake can quickly escalate into a situation that spirals out of control. The issue stemmed from her ticket type, which required a physical printout for presentation to the ticket inspector. Conflicting information arose from the CrossCountry website, which claims that most journeys do not require paper tickets. In Mumba’s case, she discovered that her specific ticket type indeed needed to be printed.

Trainline also explained that while electronic tickets are available for many journeys, they were not offered for Daisy’s route. Following her conviction, CrossCountry communicated with her requesting proof of her ticket for the journey. Daisy, however, only received notifications about her prosecution, not about any inquiry regarding her ticket. After her evidence was lost in the process, she received news of her fine imposed by Northampton magistrates court.

CrossCountry clarified that they cannot accept proof of purchase or booking references since it could lead to unauthorized refunds for unscanned tickets, a problem affecting ticket operators. They expressed regret that Daisy’s journey was impacted by overcrowding but emphasized the legal necessity of passengers holding valid tickets before boarding.

After the situation garnered attention and with support from the media, CrossCountry stated they would notify the court at Daisy’s next hearing to seek dismissal of the case. They acknowledged the stress and challenges faced by passengers in situations like hers and encouraged people to thoroughly check their tickets for accuracy and format before traveling.

Daisy felt that her unnecessary ordeal stemmed from confusion and circumstances beyond her control. She expressed fear of the repercussions of having a criminal record, especially as a teacher, stating, “I am not a criminal, nor am I in the wrong. I have all the evidence supporting my ticket purchase.” Her experience shines a light on the challenges faced by modern travelers as they navigate a blend of technology and traditional systems in public transport.