Kontrolafgift på 750 kr. for manglende gyldig rejsehjemmel. Den gyldige billet lå på klagerens hotelværelse, og blev efterfølgende indsendt.

Transkript

1 AFGØRELSE FRA ANKENÆVNET FOR BUS, TOG OG METRO Journalnummer: Klageren: Indklagede: XX Kina Metroselskabet I/S v/metro Service A/S CVRnummer: Klagen vedrører: Parternes krav: Ankenævnets sammensætning: Kontrolafgift på 750 kr. for manglende gyldig rejsehjemmel. Den gyldige billet lå på klagerens hotelværelse, og blev efterfølgende indsendt. Klageren ønsker annullering af kontrolafgiften for den glemte billet. Indklagede fastholder kontrolafgiften. 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 Metroselskabet I/S v/metro Service A/S er berettiget til at opretholde kravet om klagerens betaling af kontrolafgiften på 750 kr. Klageren skal betale beløbet til Metro Service A/S, som sender et girokort til klageren. Da klageren ikke har fået medhold i klagen, tilbagebetales klagegebyret ikke, jf. ankenævnets vedtægter 24, stk. 2, modsætningsvist. 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, som er bosiddende i Kina, rejste den 10. december 2015 med metroen, og da metroen havde forladt Kastrup st., var der kontrol af klagerens rejsehjemmel. Her blev han pålagt en kontrolafgift på 750 kr. for manglende rejsehjemmel. Stewarden har som årsag på den elektroniske kontrolafgift noteret: intet forevist. Klageren anmodede den 10. december 2015 Metro Service om annullering af kontrolafgiften og anførte bl.a. til støtte herfor, at han havde købt en 24-timersbillet, men havde glemt denne på hotellet. Den 11. december 2015 fastholdt Metro Service deres kontrolafgift med følgende begrundelse: 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 before boarding the train. It is your responsibility to ensure that your ticket is valid for the entire journey. Furthermore, you must be able to show the ticket or card in case of a ticket inspection. All information regarding tickets, as well as the zone system, is available by the entrance at every station. Yellow call points are available at all our stations as well. They will connect you to an operator in our control tower in case you need assistance. These are manned 24 hours. Neither tickets nor clip cards are personalized, i.e. with a photo of the ticketholder and are therefore only valid for the person, who presents it during ticket inspection. Considering the above, you will be charged the full amount of the fine, which we request that you pay as soon as possible ANKENÆVNETS BEGRUNDELSE: Klageren kunne ved kontrollen i metroen den 10. december 2015 ikke forevise gyldig rejsehjemmel, fordi han havde glemt sin 24-timers billet på hotellet. Kontrolafgiften blev herefter pålagt med rette. Klagerens efterfølgende indsendelse af upersonlig billet og kvittering for køb af denne kan efter ankenævnets faste praksis, ikke føre til et andet resultat, idet efterfølgende forevisning af klippekort eller upersonlige billetter ikke kan tages i betragtning ved bedømmelsen af, om der ved kontrollen blev forevist gyldig rejsehjemmel. Dette er et område med stor mulighed for omgåelse af reglerne om ved kontrollen at forevise gyldig billet, hvorfor ankenævnet ikke finder, at der er grundlag for at fravige reglerne om, at passageren selv bærer ansvaret for korrekt billettering. RETSGRUNDLAG: 2

3 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 rejekort, skal betale en kontrolafgift på 750 kr. PARTERNES ARGUMENTER OVER FOR ANKENÆVNET: Klageren har anført, at: I bought a DAY TICKET at CPH metro station around 17:30 this afternoon and got off at Fermon station(two stops from airport) where my hotel located. Then, I went to airport to pickup my friend in the evening but unfortunately I forgot to bring the ticket with me. I left it in my purse at hotel. Because of this, I ve received a ticket from the metro inspector on the way back from airport to hotel. After that, I send a claim to Metro Customer Service and attaching with picture of the DAY TICKET as for providence. However, in return, the Metro Service declined my request. This is totally not acceptable by me. I ve been travelled to Copenhagen several times and every time I bought ticket at machine in the station. This time I also bought a ticket which is valid for 24 hours and shouldn t be expired until 17:30 the next day as indicated on the ticket. Here I attached the the message that I received from my credit card company which was sent to me right after I purchased this ticket at CPH airport metro station. It indicated clearly the time (China time, GMT+8, which is 7 hours ahead of CET time) I bought the ticket was at 00:18 (CET 17:18) Dec.11th with amount DK80 (in blue) and event venue was also shown on the message as Metrostation LufthavneKastrup DK. In addition, it is also indicated in the message the last four digits 9703 of my credit card which I used for the ticket purchasing. I also attached the copy of my credit card with both the card number and my name on it as for your reference. Therefore, I think the feedback from Metro Customer Service is not reasonable at all and here I would like to ask for your help to review and support me with the waiver of fine since it is TRUTH that I DID buy the ticket. Klageren har indsendt bankudskrift samt kopi af billetten. 3

4 Indklagede har anført, 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 wall contain travel information in both English and Danish. As a ticket is not personalized and is therefore only valid for the person who shows it at the time of ticket inspection - subsequent viewing is not accepted nor is documentation/transaction from a bank statement. In this case the complaint had forgotten the ticket at her hotel which both the complaint and the steward has stated, and it is therefore undeniably that the complainant has entered the metro without a valid ticket to present when asked for by the inspector. Based on the above we find the fare evasion ticket issued correctly as the complainant could not present a valid ticket when asked for, and this is why we maintain our claim of DKK 750,-. RELEVANTE BILAG: 4

5 På ankenævnets vegne Tine Vuust Nævnsformand 5