The use of the word 'Appeal' in this context seems troublesome and misleading to me, and some of our concerns about the UPFN flow from that unusual use.
The word 'Appeal' is used in legal circles (whether strictly as in the Court of Appeal or any other request to re-consider a matter) where it is always used to refer to an Appeal to an independent body (a Court, an Adjudicator, a Tribunal etc).
You wouldn't expect for example, that, following a dispute between the 2 parties to a contract who fall out over their business, that the aggreived party simply Appeals to the other party! They'd Complain to each other, but they'd Appeal to an independent body.
So, what does the rail industry think its doing by setting T&Cs, producing its own policies, and, in the event of a dispute, expecting to manage the Appeal process against itself?
That self-appointed authority to manage Appeals would be a good subject for a Judicial Review.
Maybe it is just a word, and the TOCs would claim that they don't purport to assume any judicial role by using the word 'Appeal'; maybe they'd argue that it is simply an informal complaints management system which has aquired the name. I hope that's all that's intended!
As for making payment at the same time as making an Appeal, then that would be a very extraordinary thing to do while making an Appeal, certainly in the usual sense - all charges and costs are generally suspended while an Appeal has been agreed to, even having only agreed that an Appeal may be heard in future.
Again, the TOCs suggestion that a payment should be made for the very matter that is being Appealed suggests that the word is not being used in the usual and legal sense.
If it is just a poorly named internal complaints procedure, then I guess they can devise and implement just about any policy they want, including the request for payment simultaneously with their 'Appeal' process - which isn't really an Appeal.
In fact, if we try to look for the opportunities for a passenger to make an Appeal in the legal sense, then they would HAVE TO have paid, (otherwise they'd have incurred no loss), and then they'd have to have had a Court Judgement against them. Then they'd at least have something to Appeal against!
So what's my analysis? Well, there seems to be nothing unlawful about the TOCs' request that a passenger pays the UPFN within 10 days AND makes an Appeal simultaneously, but conversely, any passenger who has a strong conviction that the UPFN has not been issued with adequate reason, then I say they should just get on with their 'Appeal' (and not pay). The TOCs' agreement that the UPFN need not be paid couldn't be influenced by whether or not the passenger had paid it or not. That influence would only affect whether there was a repayment to be made, or not.
(The passenger who's just a chancer, trying an appeal on the chance that they'll be lucky will, of course, expose themselves to loosing the appeal AND having not paid and therefore expose themselves to prosecution. That couldn't arise in the course of a legal Appeal where costs would have been suspended).
It would be helpful if the TOCs all agreed to rename the procedure, perhaps as a Request for a Review, or simply, Complaints. But then maybe they do like to presume more authority than they hold - they already like to be both prosecutor and judge in cases of assessing alledged Fare Evasion. The process of the one department sending a suspected Evader a Form to complete with details, which is returned to the same department, who then decide which law they will engage (if any) to prosecute the passenger is abhorrent. (You tell us as much as you can about your journey and then we'll try to find a law which we can use to prosecute you, based on your own evidence - We'll make sure our best lawyers help you to incriminate yourself). So perhaps the TOCs do like to assume judicial authority which they don't posess.
). If they wanted to avoid the hassle, then they could have bought the "normal" ticket that 99.9% of passengers do.
