AFGØRELSE FRA ANKENÆVNET FOR BUS, TOG OG METRO. To kontrolafgifter på hver 750 kr. Tog kvittering i stedet for billetterne i billetautomaten.

Transkript

1 AFGØRELSE FRA ANKENÆVNET FOR BUS, TOG OG METRO Journalnummer: Klageren: Indklagede: XX og YY England Metroselskabet I/S v/metro Service A/S CVRnummer: Klagen vedrører: Parternes krav: To kontrolafgifter på hver 750 kr. Tog kvittering i stedet for billetterne i billetautomaten. Klageren ønsker kontrolafgifterne annulleret Indklagede fastholder disse Ankenævnets sammensætning: Nævnsformand, landsdommer Tine Vuust Asta Ostrowski Torben Steenberg Bjarne Lindberg Bak Alice Stærdahl Andersen Ankenævnet for Bus, Tog og Metro har på et møde den 19. april 2016 truffet følgende AFGØRELSE: Metro Service A/S skal frafalde kravet om klagernes betaling af kontrolafgifterne på i alt kr. mod klagernes betaling af rejsen. Som følge af at ankenævnet med denne afgørelse ændrer den hidtidige praksis i sager med lignende omstændigheder, skal Metro Service ikke betale kr. til ankenævnet for tabt sag. Da klageren har fået medhold i klagen, tilbagebetales klagegebyret, jf. ankenævnets vedtægter 24, stk ooo - Hver af parterne kan anlægge sag ved domstolene om de forhold, som klagen har vedrørt. Klageren henvises til at søge yderligere oplysning om eventuel bistand i forbindelse med sagsanlæg på og /eller eget forsikringsselskab om eventuel forsikringsretshjælp. 1

2 SAGENS OMSTÆNDIGHEDER: Klageren og hans kæreste, som er bosiddende i England, var på ferie i København. Den 1. november 2015 rejste de med metroen fra Amager Strand i zone 02 i retning mod Lufthavnen st. i zone 04. Forinden troede de, at de med betalingskort havde købt billet i en billetautomat, idet de havde modtaget en talon, hvorpå der stod: creditcard receipt. Talonen var imidlertid en kreditkortkvittering, hvorpå det på dansk fremgik, at betalingen var blevet afvist. Efter metroen havde forladt Amager Strand st., var der kontrol af deres rejsehjemmel, hvorpå klageren og dennes kæreste blev pålagt en kontrolafgift på 750 kr. hver, idet de ikke kunne forevise gyldig billet. Af stewardens noter for de to pålagte kontrolafgifter fremgår: pax billet var ugyldig og udløbet rejsehjemmel. Den 3. november 2015 anmodede klageren Metro Service om annullering af de to kontrolafgifter og gjorde følgende gældende: The "CREDIT CARD RECEIPT" printed. No tickets printed. We waited for the tickets to print. None came out of the machine. We do not speak Danish. The words "CREDIT CARD RECEIPT" were very clear. We did not understand (later explained to us) that the word "AFVIST" meant "declined". It is in bad faith to expect us to understand "AFVIST" when you offer English as a choice. We thought the machine was faulty because we had paid and had received a receipt. We do not accept the fines. Den 11. november 2015 fastholdt Metro Service deres kontrolafgifter med den begrundelse, at der er et selvbetjeningssystem i Hovedstadsområdet, hvor passageren selv er ansvarlig for at have gyldig billet, inden påstigning, og at denne kunne forevises på forlangende. Endelig henviste de til de gule opkaldspunkter. 2

3 Den 13. november 2015 anmodede klagerne igen om at få annulleret kontrolafgifterne med den begrundelse, at der ikke var en engelsk oversættelse af ordet AFVIST på kvitteringen, at de havde forsøgt at betale, samt at det var at snyde folk og tage deres penge at give dem en kontrolafgift. Den 20. november 2015 fastholdt Metro Service atter kontrolafgifterne. ANKENÆVNETS BEGRUNDELSE: Den kollektive trafik i Hovedstadsområdet kører efter et selvbetjeningsprincip, hvor det er passageren, der som udgangspunkt bærer ansvaret for at være korrekt billetteret. Klageren og dennes kæreste kunne ved kontrol i metroen ikke forevise gyldige billetter, idet de alene var i besiddelse af en kreditkortkvittering på den afviste betaling. Kontrolafgiften blev herefter pålagt med rette i selve kontrolsituationen. Imidlertid oplever ankenævnet et stærkt stigende antal sager med ikke-dansktalende passagerer, som rejser uden billet af den ene eller anden årsag. På den baggrund henstiller ankenævnet til, at det endnu mere tydeligt skiltes på perronerne på engelsk, at det koster en kontrolafgift på 750 kr. at stige på metroen uden billet, og at billetter ikke kan købes om bord. På kvitteringen for den afviste betaling var der en engelsk tekst: CREDIT-CARD RECEIPT, NOT A TICKET, men selve oplysningen om, at betalingen var afvist, fremgik alene på dansk med ordet: AFVIST. På kvitteringen figurerede derudover teksten køb efterfulgt at det beløb, som klageren havde bestilt billet for. I dette tilfælde DKK 72,00. Det var således efter ankenævnets opfattelse ikke tydeligt for klageren, som er ikke-dansktalende, at der ikke var betalt for billetterne, og at købet var afvist. Klageren var derfor i berettiget forventning om at have betalt for billetterne, men at disse grundet en fejl ved automaten ikke blev udskrevet. Ankenævnet finder herefter, at der har foreligget sådanne særlige omstændigheder, at klageren og dennes kæreste skal fritages for at betale de pålagte kontrolafgifter ved rejse uden gyldig rejsehjemmel, mod at de betaler for rejsen. Ankenævnet bemærker, at der i et tilfælde som det foreliggende ikke ses at være omgåelsesmuligheder, da automaten netop ikke har udstedt billetter, som andre passagerer vil kunne anvende som rejsehjemmel. I de tilfælde hvor et køb måtte være gået igennem med udstedelse af billetter, og en passager alene foreviser kvitteringen for købet, vil der ikke stå AFVIST på denne, og omstændighederne vil derfor ikke være sammenlignelige med nærværende sag. 3

4 Ankenævnet finder desuden anledning til at opfordre Metro Service til at tilføje på engelsk på kvitteringen, når en betaling afvises, således at denne tekst ikke udelukkende står på dansk. Metro Service opfordres derudover til at frafalde kontrolafgifterne i lignende verserende sager både i ankenævnet og i Metro Services sagsbehandlingsafdeling, indtil teksten er påført på engelsk på kvitteringen. Som følge af at ankenævnt med denne afgørelse ændrer den hidtidige praksis, skal Metro Service ikke betale kr. til ankenævnet for tabt sag. RETSGRUNDLAG: Ifølge 2, stk. 1, jf. 3 nr. 3 i lovbekendtgørelse nr. 686 af 27. maj 2015 om lov om jernbaner, gælder loven også for metroen. Af 14 stk. 1, fremgår jernbanevirksomhedernes adgang til at opkræve kontrolafgift og ekspeditionsgebyr for passagerer, der ikke foreviser gyldig rejsehjemmel (billetter og kort). Jf. 14 stk. 4, fastsætter transportministeren nærmere regler om jernbanevirksomhedens adgang til at opkræve kontrolafgift og ekspeditionsgebyr, jf. stk. 1. I henhold til 4 i bekendtgørelse nr.1132 om kontrolafgifter af 08. september 2010, fastsætter jernbanevirksomheden bestemmelser om kontrolafgift i forretningsbetingelserne. Trafikselskaberne i Hovedstadsområdet har vedtaget fælles rejseregler, hvori hjemmelen til udstedelse af kontrolafgift fremgår. Det anføres således bl.a., at passageren skal have gyldig rejsehjemmel til hele rejsen, og at denne skal kunne vises frem for kontrolpersonalet under hele rejsen, ved udstigning, i metroen indtil metroens område forlades, og i S-tog og lokalbanetog indtil perronen forlades. Passagerer, der ikke på forlangende viser gyldig billet eller kort, herunder korrekt ind-checket rejsekort, skal betale en kontrolafgift på 750 kr. PARTERNES ARGUMENTER OVER FOR ANKENÆVNET: Klageren anfører at: By providing an English selection on your ticket machines, then not supplying English translation for the word "Advist", you clearly try to trick people, then arrest them, then fine them and steal their money. We tried to pay. We offered to pay at the station upon exit with your officers. We had no idea that we had been denied payment. This is very bad faith by you and your system and you clearly are trying to scare visitors to your country into paying for something that you have not done correctly. We refuse to pay the fine. We spent about 1000 pounds in your country as tourists for a long weekend. How dare you then treat us like criminals when the problem was your machine, not us. Again, as we originally tried to do with no person in your station to help us, we would be happy to pay the fare for the tickets. Send instructions on how to do that. We will not pay the fine. If that means that we can never visit your wonderful country again, then that is fine. We will not. We will also tell others and journalist colleagues of our treatment by you and that you try to steal tourists' money. Send us the instructions on how to pay the original amount of the tickets, and we will do so im- 4

5 mediately. This is crazy. You cannot offer English as a choice and then claim that we must understand Danish! You simply cannot treat people this way. I will fight this all the way to the European Courts if I have to. It is wrong what you are doing, and you cannot get away with stealing people's money. Indklagede anfører at: Like all other means of public transportation in the greater Copenhagen area, the Copenhagen Metro employs a self-service system, where the passenger is responsible for being in possession of a valid ticket, for the entire journey, before boarding the train. Passengers must be able to present a valid ticket on demand to the ticket inspectors. In cases where passengers are not able to present a valid ticket, a fare evasion ticket will be issued, which is currently DKK 750, - for adults. This basic rule is a prerequisite for the self-service system that applies to travel by public transport. The above mentioned information is available on as well as on our information boards which are placed at every station. The information boards contain travel information in both English and Danish. In case the passengers have questions, need assistance or guidance for buying the ticket, the call point on the ticket vending machine can be used. The call point will connect the passenger directly to an operator in our control tower, which is manned 24 hours a day. Our Metro staff is trained to issue fare evasion tickets to all customers without a valid ticket. They do not distinguish between an intentional or unintentional mistake. They only check the validity of the ticket. In case a valid ticket for whatever reason - cannot be presented on demand our staff are instructed to issue a fare evasion ticket. In the case in question, the complainants are met by two stewards inspecting tickets on the 1 th of November 2015 at between Amager Strand station and Lufthavnen station As the two companions presents a receipt but no tickets a fare evasion ticket is issued to each of them, according to the travel regulations. As the metro is operating as an open system it is always the passengers own responsibility to make sure that a valid ticket can be presented at any time if a steward asks for it. On the receipts printed by our ticket vending machines, it is clearly stated if the print is a receipt and not a ticket. In the case in question, the couple used a credit card receipt instead of tickets. On the first line of the receipt, it says: CREDITCARD RECEIPT, NOT A TICKET. In order to ensure one holding a valid ticket, passengers must inspect their ticket prior to entering the train. If the couple had done so, it would have be clear that they did not hold valid tickets. The ticket vending machines are programmed to issue ticket (or tickets) first, and in the end issuing the receipt. In case something goes wrong, the machine prints a receipt, so the customer can see that we did not charge the credit card. In a case like this - where a credit card is rejected - it is possible to try to buy tickets by using the other ticket vending machine at the station (at Islands Brygge station 2 ticket vending machines are available). And if the passenger is still having trouble buying a ticket, he or she should use the yellow call point to get help and instructions. 5

6 The complainants has attached a copy of the receipt, marking with a blue circle CREDITCARD RE- CEIPT : but the very same line clearly says NOT A TICKET, here highlighted in yellow: If the complainants had read the print/receipt carefully they would have been aware that they had not purchased any tickets. In their complaint the complainants writes: you clearly try to trick people, then arrest them, then fine them and steal their money. And they also writes: We have spent about 1000 pounds in your country, how dare you treat us like criminals and we will tell others and journalist colleagues that you try to steal tourists money. We are very sorry if the couple has felt mistreated, but must reject the claims that we should have arrested them, having deceived them and stole their money. All though we are pleased that the complainants has spent about 1000 pounds on their visit to Copenhagen, we believe it is not relevant to the case in question. We must point out that we do not take into consideration whether the lack of a valid ticket is due to a conscious or unconscious act, and we do not treat passengers like criminals and we, for sure, do not arrest them, trick them and steal from them. Since we want to treat all passengers equally, we only consider the fact that it is the customer's responsibility - before boarding the train - to secure a ticket, which can be presented on demand. 6

7 It is evident and undeniable that the complainants has entered the metro without valid tickets which is why we find the fare evasion tickets correctly issued, and therefore maintain our claim towards the complainants for paying the two fines of 750 dkk each. Finally, we must draw attention to a previous comparable complaint ( ), where the decision was made in favor of the respondent company. På ankenævnets vegne Tine Vuust Nævnsformand 7