UPFNs - pay and appeal?

[island]

Why do some TOCs say you have to pay a UPFN even if you want to appeal it? This seems rather unreasonable as it gives them an excuse to ignore/drag out your appeal.

 

[SS4]

Largely due to the reasons you highlight. It's possible they think that if they mess the customer around enough they'll drop the claim

Also I guess it means they'll be getting any interest since it's in their (no doubt tax-wise) account rather than yours

 

[bb21]

Why do some TOCs say you have to pay a UPFN even if you want to appeal it? This seems rather unreasonable as it gives them an excuse to ignore/drag out your appeal.

Are they allowed to do that, even if they could validate your given details?

 

[island]

Allowed? I don't know. They seem to think it is anyhow.

 

[LexyBoy]

Allowed? I don't know. They seem to think it is anyhow.

The relevant line being "Please note that appealing does not negate your liability to pay the amount owing within ten days."

I assume this means that if you haven't paid within ten days they will unleash the heavies, whilst your appeal won't have left the doormat after ten days.

It all sounds a bit dubious to me, I don't see why you should have to pay for something which you haven't used (in the case of already holding a valid ticket but being issued a UPFN).

(Could be a nice earner though, UPFN every single person on the train, demand they pay up then earn interest on it for a few months before refunding those who file a claim . Well, until one day when there's noone left on the train...)

 

[RPI]

there would need to be grounds to issue the UFN in the first place.

 

[Flamingo]

(Could be a nice earner though, UPFN every single person on the train, demand they pay up then earn interest on it for a few months before refunding those who file a claim . Well, until one day when there's noone left on the train...)

Do you know how long it takes to fill one of those damn things in? You'd be hard pushed to do 10 an hour!

 

[island]

And don't forget checking people's ID, phoning up to verify that they haven't given you a duff address, issuing them a zero-fare to get out the barrier...

 

[Flamingo]

And don't forget checking people's ID, phoning up to verify that they haven't given you a duff address, issuing them a zero-fare to get out the barrier...

My point exactly (except for the zero fare, they can wave the UPFN at the barrier)

 

[Jonny]

Of course, there is also the possibility that a claim against a TOC in order to reclaim a paid but allegedly unfair UPFN could be taken to County Court, then the TOC would have to consider paying it back or risk blowing the entire fares scheme open to challenge, under one of the various Unfair Contract Acts/Regulations that are intended to redress the balance of power back towards the consumer. Effective monopolies such as the railway are likely to not get a sympathetic hearing, claims against them would.

 

[island]

To be honest I am less convinced than you are about the scheme sinking. Leading precedent at the moment on the subject of increased charges where consumers fail to perform their obligations correctly is Abbey National & others vs Office for Fair Trading (i.e. the bank charges case), and it found that the terms requiring customers to pay sums of around £30 where they requested, by their actions, an unplanned overdraft were not assessible for fairness as long as they were written in clear, plain language. That would no doubt be cited by the TOCs in a County Court case.

Now, we are rather off-topic. The question was why should a passenger be obliged to pay a UPFN before any appeal to its validity is resolved?

 

[LexyBoy]

Do you know how long it takes to fill one of those damn things in? You'd be hard pushed to do 10 an hour!

Tongue was firmly in cheek! Of course it would be completely impractical, as well as a completely insane move for any TOC to make.

And, of course there needs to be a reason for filing a UPFN. In the vast majority (I guess) of cases this is very simple - wrong train on an Advance, no ticket at all, no Railcard etc etc. In these cases there is no grounds for appeal, so it's pretty simple (relatively speaking anyway). In a few cases though, the issue will be a dispute between the passenger and Guard/RPI about the validity of a ticket - e.g. being on an unusual (but valid) route. In this case, I don't see why the passenger should have to pay for an additional ticket (which they may not be able to afford) on top of the ticket they hold, if it is in fact valid.

By signing a UPFN does the passenger declare that they didn't hold a valid ticket? If so it doesn't leave much room in the case of disputed validity (unless the passenger is happy to go for the nuclear option as favoured by some forum members).

(BTW, I don't claim to know the legal issues of this, so it may well be completely above board and precedented elsewhere, but I'd still consider it unjust).

 

[island]

I believe (and someone who actually has a UPFN pad may correct me) that above the signature is a statement saying you agree you were unable to produce a valid ticket for inspection and will pay £whatever within 10 days.

 

[Flamingo]

My interpretation of the signature (and I'm not a lawyer) is that it is confirming the identity and address that was given (as giving a false address could be deemed an attempt to avoid paying the fare due). Also what it says is

This notice is authority to complete one single journey as detailed on this notice, ONLY on services operated by XXXX. I confirm that I have read and understood the Conditions of issue of this Notice

The UPFN pad does say

"If you wish to dispute your liability to pay this fare, a statement in writing giving a full explanation of your failure to produce a valid ticket or other authority to travel by rail, together with any information as to your journey relevant to that explanation must be sent by post or delivered to the address below so as to arrive within 10 days of you receiving this notice"

and

It is an offence to make any rail journey with the intent to avoid payment of the journey due.
Unless the amount owing is paid in full within 10 days of issue of this notice legal proceedings may be brought against you for non-payment.
We reserve the right to raise an administration fee if payment is not received within 10 days.

To my mind, the "may" and "reserve the right" in the last statement is just giving the TOC some wriggle room if somebody is blatantly kicking the a*se out of it with spurious appeals when they have been caught bang to rights.

Either way, if the passenger feels that they have a strong enough case, there are numerous avenues open to them, from the internal appeal, to Passenger Focus, or court, to prove their case.

Passengers travelling on tickets that are following the "usual" routes are not going to be an issue here, contrary to certain posts. The possibility for a UPFN being issued in these circumstances is on one of the routes that someone has studied the fares manual and routeing guide to find a loophole. If they have spent that much time, then they should be pleased at the chance to argue their discovery with the professionals and find out if they were correct or not!

Just to put this into perspective, has anybody here been issued a UPFN for a route they considered OK, but the guard did not?

 

[yorkie]

Someone asked for advice on this forum over a journey they undertook that involved a change of train on Advance tickets. They were delayed on the first train. The guard issued a UPFN for the second train. East Coast cancelled the UPFN. This took more than 10 days to sort out.

Also there was the Darlington/Durham incident with the Professor, again East Coast cancelled the UPFN, although that took very little time (due to the involvement of the media; some of the InterCity TOCs don't like bad press because their passengers are more likely to be leisure customers who can pick & choose, rather than commuters who have to lump it)

I would go beyond the advice given by EC to appeal just to that awful debt collection agency and, in addition to appealing to them, appeal to EC too. But I would also advise anyone in this situation to seek advice from us, and to ensure that you know your rights.

In the first case I mention above, it took someone to speak to a manager and go through the rules in detail to get the UPFN quashed. The people in the call centre couldn't cope with it. It also resulted in a memo to staff instructing them to honour journeys where a passenger suffers a delay on any train company. (The "it's a different company" excuse isn't accurate, the guard made this claim but I've since seen the manual which says "a train company" not "our train company"!)

Also, just remembered there was also the Berwick to London trip whe a family bought separate tickets to York to visit the NRM, and started 'short' at York. Again, the UPFN was cancelled...

If they're on dodgy ground and you know your rights and you present a good case, EC will cancel it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just to put this into perspective, has anybody here been issued a UPFN for a route they considered OK, but the guard did not?

The brother of a member here used the infamous Carlisle-Newcastle ticket via Leeds, and was charged for a new ticket. However I do not know if he paid up or was issued a UPFN. However he did get his money back. I got the impression he coughed up and was given vouchers back but I could be wrong (I could look into it, but it's academic).

Of course that alerted Northern to the anomaly, and it was removed not long after (but only in one direction initially)

Other people had been successfully using that route, armed with the relevant documentation from the Routeing Guide, for a while before that.

 

[OwlMan]

Just to put this into perspective, has anybody here been issued a UPFN for a route they considered OK, but the guard did not?

Yes I have.

Travelling from Nuneaton - Wakefield using Nuneaton - Derby & Derby - Wakefield return tickets.
I travelled via Leicester, Nottingham, Alfreton, Chesterfield etc.
The guard considered that I was off-route between Nottingham & Alfreton,

Nuneaton - Derby on map EM is valid via Nottingham (no doubling back because of Nottingham Group).

Derby - Wakefield on map SY is valid via Nottingham. So route was valid
The guard would not have it and gave me a UPFN from Nottingham - Chesterfield. On appeal the notice was wihdrawn.
(An offpeak return to Derby is 10p less than one to Nottingham)

Peter

 

[Flamingo]

Fair enough - (Pun intended!). The TOC did acknowledge it was wrong - and you acknowledge it was an anomaly!

I think my sole point in this (and other) posts on the subject, is that if a guard on a train is presented with something that a passenger has studied the routeing guides and fare manuals to find, they will
1. possibly be unaware of it
2. probably not be inclined to accept it without documentation (we are a suspicious breed, unfortunately), and
3. issuing a UPFN gives them a chance to refer the whole thing to someone who has got the time to go into it in greater detail and with greater resources than a guard on a train between A and B.
If the UPFN causes the passenger a certain amount of hassle in sorting it out as well, such is life (and nobody likes a smartass ). If they wanted to avoid the hassle, then they could have bought the "normal" ticket that 99.9% of passengers do.

I'm not really arguing for the TOC's, more looking at it from the coal-face point of view about a "reasonable" response when faced with something unusual.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes I have.

On appeal the notice was wihdrawn.
(An offpeak return to Derby is 10p less than one to Nottingham)

Peter

If it was valid, then I'm glad the UPFN was withdrawn.

 

[yorkie]

Unfortunately appealing UPFNs is a lengthy process (which can be stressful/time consuming) and it is absolutely right that the passenger asks for:

a) Suitable compensation
b) Suitable advice to be given to (the) guard(s)

in such circumstances.

I am told that at several TOCs the procedure is to contact Control and check, if they are unsure on the Routeing Guide. It really is up to the TOC to ensure they have suitable infrastructure in place to handle such queries. If some TOCs differ and have a 'issue UPFN now and look into it later' policy, I would like to know about it and do a bit of investigating of my own ...

So we may have to agree to disagree on that one

 

[RPI]

With the EC incidents technically they were right (but not moraly!) and the UFN's were cancelled as a goodwill gesture.

I'm not defending the initial issue as even the most desperate RPI colleagues of mine would have acted in the way EC did but legally I reckon they would have won in court as the terms of Advance tickets are clear as daylight!

 

[Flamingo]

You are assuming they have a policy?

 

[Deerfold]

Wouldn't it be good if someone could write an automatic RG piece of software - and TOC staff issued with it? Of course it'd probably have to be managed by ATOC as only they know when the RG is going to change.

 

[yorkie]

With the EC incidents technically they were right (but not moraly!) and the UFN's were cancelled as a goodwill gesture.

I'm not defending the initial issue as even the most desperate RPI colleagues of mine would have acted in the way EC did but legally I reckon they would have won in court as the terms of Advance tickets are clear as daylight!

I'll assume you are referring to the starting/finishing short matters that were reported in the media (and not the delay incident - the guard was in the wrong there and EC issued advice appropriately).

I'm unsure if you can really say that EC were technically in the right, because firstly I am unsure if starting/finishing short (particularly the latter) would be considered to be simply counted as a 'break of journey' (which the TOCs claim it can be), this is untested as far as I know. There is also the matter of whether the terms are fair, again this is untested as far as I know. There were also some good posts by DaveNewcastle from a legal perspective on this subject (here is an example).

Furthermore a member of EC barrier staff informed me that the alleged actions of detaining the Prof and issuing a UPFN were contrary to EC policy, and that barrier staff are instructed to let people out.

I do not think we can say EC would have won in court, I think there is a chance they would not have. EC do not want an embarrassing defeat at the courts, and they know there is a risk here. Therefore they will never let it reach court. That means that anyone in such a situation with a UPFN should not pay it and contest it. The precedent was set.

SWT attempted to issue penalty fares to people who stopped short, on Megatrain, and I was informed by SWT staff that the appeal was upheld and the penalty fares quashed. (Many people here, at the time, stated a PF was inappropriate anyway, and an excess should have been charged. The Megatrain small print does not over-rule penalty fare legislation!)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Wouldn't it be good if someone could write an automatic RG piece of software - and TOC staff issued with it? Of course it'd probably have to be managed by ATOC as only they know when the RG is going to change.

And it could be updated very occasionally with a loose interpretation of an out-of-date copy of the routeing guide, with the programmers having to guess which rule trumps which rule, and which order the rules should have to be followed in which order. It could be called RJIS...

 

[RPI]

Sorry yorkie, my post wasn't to clear, I ws just referring to the getting off the train short scenario.

The rules on Advance are clear on this but life is too short to go around "doing" people for finishing their journey short!

As much as I play devils advocate with you normally yorkie I'm with you on the rediculous situations that EC and SWT have landed themselves in on some of these stories!

 

[LexyBoy]

First of all, thanks to Flamingo for a very informative post - do I take it that you think someone with a good reason to appeal wouldn't have to pay up as well? I agree that many people who have looked hard to find advantageous loopholes will be happy to go through the hassle of appealing a UPFN, but they won't necessarily be able to pay up.

I'm unsure if you can really say that EC were technically in the right, because firstly I am unsure if starting/finishing short (particularly the latter) would be considered to be simply counted as a 'break of journey' (which the TOCs claim it can be), this is untested as far as I know.

It's a bit vague. For Advance tickets the T&Cs specifically forbid starting or stopping short as well as BoJ. For other tickets the ticket restrictions may prohibit BoJ without reference to starting/stopping short - I think this means to include all three, but the relevant section of the NRCoC is poorly worded IMO:

You may start, or break and resume, a journey (in either direction in the case of a return ticket) at any intermediate station, as long as the ticket you hold is valid for the trains you want to use. You may also end your journey (in either direction in the case of a return ticket) before the destination shown on the ticket. However, these rights may not apply to some types of tickets for which a break of journey is prohibited, in which case the relevant Train Companies will make this clear in their notices and other publications.

That 'may not apply' is especially annoying. Does it mean that, for some tickets where BoJ is prohibited, that starting/stopping short is also prohibited (where advertised by the TOC), and for other tickets only BoJ is prohibited? I don't think that's the intention, but that's how it reads.

 

[island]

My understanding is that break of journey is equivalent to starting/stopping short, i.e. if one isn't allowed, the other isn't either. But I might (a) be wrong and (b) find that a random TOC (let's say SWT) disagrees with me.

[Aside: There should definitely be a "random TOC" button on this board, ideally that loads a new one at random whenever the thread is reloaded ]

 

[LexyBoy]

My understanding is that break of journey is equivalent to starting/stopping short, i.e. if one isn't allowed, the other isn't either. But I might (a) be wrong and (b) find that a random TOC (let's say SWT) disagrees with me.

[Aside: There should definitely be a "random TOC" button on this board, ideally that loads a new one at random whenever the thread is reloaded ]

I don't think a TOC (for example, FGW) is likely to disagree with that - it would be advantageous to the customer!

It's confusing that some conditions specify all three, whilst others just one - I assume this is just due to sloppy drafting of the T&Cs, but it does cloud the waters somewhat.

 

[island]

Not to mention being almost certain not to stand up in court, if it ever gets there.

 

[penaltyfines]

Out of interest - you are required to give your name and address, but what compels you to sign the UPFN (or even read it) and therefore agree with its conditions?

If you have a valid ticket, you have a valid ticket, what the TM wants to do with it is up to them?

In theory could one not ignore any communication from the TOC, as they already have the necessary information (the ticket) to determine that it's valid, if otherwise them turn up at court and produce said valid ticket and see them lose?

 

[island]

While those are things you probably could do in theory, they are also things that will make it harder on yourself than it needs to be!

 

[Flamingo]

Out of interest - you are required to give your name and address, but what compels you to sign the UPFN (or even read it) and therefore agree with its conditions?

If you have a valid ticket, you have a valid ticket, what the TM wants to do with it is up to them?

In theory could one not ignore any communication from the TOC, as they already have the necessary information (the ticket) to determine that it's valid, if otherwise them turn up at court and produce said valid ticket and see them lose?

The UPFN will not be issued unless the Guard/RPI feels there is good grounds to do so. The argument is whether the ticket is valid or not. All the UPFN is saying when you sign is that you have understood the conditions (including appeal). Refusal to sign it would be grounds for calling BTP and doing it the hard way, IMHO. The argument could then be continued with the benefit of legal advice!