Discussion on Penalty Fare Values

[Bletchleyite]

Moderator Note:
Split from:

EMR - Penalty Fare - initial appeal refused (genuine circumstances)

Good Evening All Details are as follows: - its not often I use the train service (and the below is a prime example of why); - purchased ticket(s) using Trainline.com to travel from Barnsley>Sheffield>Ilford(London) - was expecting to receive an e-ticket but for some reason had to collect paper...

www.railforums.co.uk

Paying the fare due isn’t a penalty though, it’s simply the fare due.

The problem is that in some cases it's questionable that it is actually due, at least morally. Such as in this case.

Yes, sure, someone else could have used it, but sometimes just a little bit of customer service and benefit-of-the-doubt would do the railway no harm at all. It's getting worse than Ryanair (because at least Ryanair can only charge people, not drag them to Court).

 

[185143]

Paying the fare due isn’t a penalty though, it’s simply the fare due.

Not necessarily.

If someone gets a Penalty Fare despite the TVM not working and successfully appeals, they will have paid the single fare in both directions, assuming they're making a return journey. So will have paid nearly double the fare due. And that's before railcard discounts, assuming they're appropriate.

If you've appealed on a technicality then that's a bit different as you have presumably done something wrong.

 

[30907]

Apologies for the novice question, but why would evidencing the receipt work against me? Do you have a link to this para.7 please?

My thought was - submitting the receipt only says you bought a ticket. The reader spotted the receipt and may have ignored (or decided to ignore) the actual tickets.
I was referring to para. 7 of their letter to you.

Anyway you have better technical grounds for appeal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If someone gets a Penalty Fare despite the TVM not working and successfully appeals, they will have paid the single fare in both directions, assuming they're making a return journey. So will have paid nearly double the fare due. And that's before railcard discounts, assuming they're appropriate.

That's a wider debate. Originally when the £100/£50 thing was being proposed it was going to be "£100/£50 as the penalty, then whatever walk up ticket you would have bought had you bought it when you should have", which I wholeheartedly agreed with (I'd rather a higher penalty component than the rather unfair "pick a random three digit number" situation of some Anytimes). It's sneaked back to being an Anytime, which is itself a penalty in some cases because it's so unreasonably high, and in some cases (e.g. Avanti) is a fare hardly anyone ever pays.

 

[185143]

That's a wider debate. Originally when the £100/£50 thing was being proposed it was going to be "£100/£50 as the penalty, then whatever walk up ticket you would have bought had you bought it when you should have", which I wholeheartedly agreed with (I'd rather a higher penalty component than the rather unfair "pick a random three digit number" situation of some Anytimes). It's sneaked back to being an Anytime, which is itself a penalty in some cases because it's so unreasonably high, and in some cases (e.g. Avanti) is a fare hardly anyone ever pays.

Avanti don't do Penalty Fares, but otherwise I'd agree.

£100/50 as a "fine" is akin to private parking "fines", so doesn't seem unreasonable. They don't then slap a ticket on your car and then demand payment of the highest parking charge as well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Avanti don't do Penalty Fares, but otherwise I'd agree.

True. EMR do, though, and their Anytimes are as bad.

 

[Haywain]

£100/50 as a "fine" is akin to private parking "fines", so doesn't seem unreasonable. They don't then slap a ticket on your car and then demand payment of the highest parking charge as well.

Maybe not, but if the fare wasn't added on there would be little real incentive to buy a ticket, especially if the cost of that ticket was over £50. Whether it should be an Anytime fare is another matter.

 

[NTIAEP]

Hi All - this is the OP from the original thread here....to clarify.....

If I was unable to eventually produce the ticket, then I understand and would grudgingly pay both the Penalty Fare AND Full Single Fare . But if I can produce the actual ticket (albeit later), why should I have to pay the 'Full Single Fare' component, i.e. pay for the journey twice?

 

[island]

Hi All - this is the OP from the original thread here....to clarify.....

If I was unable to eventually produce the ticket, then I understand and would grudgingly pay both the Penalty Fare AND Full Single Fare . But if I can produce the actual ticket (albeit later), why should I have to pay the 'Full Single Fare' component, i.e. pay for the journey twice?

Morally, you shouldn't, but the law as written currently says you must.

 

[AdamWW]

Maybe not, but if the fare wasn't added on there would be little real incentive to buy a ticket, especially if the cost of that ticket was over £50. Whether it should be an Anytime fare is another matter.

Right - this isn't the same as parking where the fine itself is much larger than the parking costs will be so they should certainly add on at least the walk-up fare that could have been purchased for the journey.

But the £50/£100 is the penalty element, so it's not obviously necessary to add a further penalty varying from £0 to £100s by using the anytime fare when cheaper walk-up tickets are applicable.
(And resulting in the ridiculous that the penalty is larger for evading an off peak ticket than for evading a much more expensive peak one).

 

[Fawkes Cat]

it's not obviously necessary to add a further penalty varying from £0 to £100s by using the anytime fare when cheaper walk-up tickets are applicable.

The problem with this is that it adds complexity. 'Anytime fare' is simple and easy to define: 'cheapest available walk-up' may vary from station to station, what if you get the 0929 peak train but it's running late so arrived at off-peak 0931, there are two of us so couldn't we be fined on a Duo, and so on. Given that PFs are issued on the train, would the railway really want to make things more difficult for the staff who already do this?

 

[Haywain]

But if I can produce the actual ticket (albeit later), why should I have to pay the 'Full Single Fare' component, i.e. pay for the journey twice?

There is a requirement to be able to present a ticket for inspection, on demand. This is something that you were unable to do and whilst you will feel that a penalty is harsh, if there were no penalty in such circumstances the response to any ticket inspections would simply be, "I'll dig it out and show it to you later", which would be a fare dodgers free pass.

 

[Kite159]

There is a requirement to be able to present a ticket for inspection, on demand. This is something that you were unable to do and whilst you will feel that a penalty is harsh, if there were no penalty in such circumstances the response to any ticket inspections would simply be, "I'll dig it out and show it to you later", which would be a fare dodgers free pass.

Or for two people to attempt to share the same ticket, knowing they can submit an appeal saying "it was lost but I found it again" to get them off the hook.

 

[AdamWW]

The problem with this is that it adds complexity. 'Anytime fare' is simple and easy to define: 'cheapest available walk-up' may vary from station to station, what if you get the 0929 peak train but it's running late so arrived at off-peak 0931, there are two of us so couldn't we be fined on a Duo, and so on. Given that PFs are issued on the train, would the railway really want to make things more difficult for the staff who already do this?

Maybe I'm being unreasonable but at least at first glance this doesn't seem to me a good enough reason for levying penalties in such an unfair way.

It seems to come down to "this is easiest for us and lets us extract more money from people who have made an honest mistake"

Or "We've built a fare system so complex we can't cope with it"

Guards do, after all, manage to sell tickets other than advances to people who have a legitimate reason for not buying before boarding.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Maybe I'm being unreasonable but at least at first glance this doesn't seem to me a good enough reason for levying penalties in such an unfair way.

It seems to come down to "this is easiest for us and lets us extract more money from people who have made an honest mistake"

Or "We've built a fare system so complex we can't cope with it"

Guards do, after all, manage to sell tickets other than advances to people who have a legitimate reason for not buying before boarding.

Then we must agree to disagree.

 

[fandroid]

There is a requirement to be able to present a ticket for inspection, on demand. This is something that you were unable to do and whilst you will feel that a penalty is harsh, if there were no penalty in such circumstances the response to any ticket inspections would simply be, "I'll dig it out and show it to you later", which would be a fare dodgers free pass.

Except that they've had to go through the appeals process in order to stand a chance of getting the penalty element removed. Not exactly a fare dodger's free pass.

It would be useful to have a real court case where the "full fare" was defined. On every train service it's possible to define what a layman would think of as the full fare - whether it's an Anytime Fare, Offpeak Fare or a Super Offpeak fare. And every Penalty Fare is associated with a particular train service, with a few borderline cases where the Penalty Fare is imposed at an exit barrier.

 

[AdamWW]

It would be useful to have a real court case where the "full fare" was defined. On every train service it's possible to define what a layman would think of as the full fare - whether it's an Anytime Fare, Offpeak Fare or a Super Offpeak fare. And every Penalty Fare is associated with a particular train service, with a few borderline cases where the Penalty Fare is imposed at an exit barrier.

I've read about a few cases for repeated evasion with large demands for fares to be repaid where lawyers have successfully argued that the correct compensation is what the person would have paid if they hadn't been cheating.

Maybe there are also cases where that argument failed but I don't think I've come across any.

Then we must agree to disagree.

It seem that we must.

However, thinking about this some more, surely the ability to work out the appropriate walk-up ticket for a journey goes hand in hand with the ability to know if someone has a valid ticket or not?

 

[Haywain]

Except that they've had to go through the appeals process in order to stand a chance of getting the penalty element removed. Not exactly a fare dodger's free pass

I am referring to the the previous poster objecting to still being required to pay the fare after the PF element has been removed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am referring to the the previous poster objecting to still being required to pay the fare after the PF element has been removed.

Which does feel unfair in the case of a mislaid ticket.

This does feed into a point I've made before, which is that it should be an option to have a named, non transferrable ticket which can then be retrieved and reissued if lost (or if your phone battery runs out, or whatever), perhaps against a very nominal admin fee (£5?) to prevent people doing it all the time. That would avoid this "paying again" issue where a ticket was purchased but for whatever reason could not be presented.

But I suspect the railway would prefer to continue to dole out profitable PFs and settlements and rake it in than do something for good customer service of this nature.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

It's sneaked back to being an Anytime, which is itself a penalty in some cases because it's so unreasonably high

It would be useful to have a real court case where the "full fare" was defined. On every train service it's possible to define what a layman would think of as the full fare - whether it's an Anytime Fare, Offpeak Fare or a Super Offpeak fare.

Some TOCs may have decided that the amended regulations say they can issue PFNs based on the Anytime single fare where an Off-peak fare was appropriate, but we have a recent instance on this forum of an appeal against a PF being successful in such a case. It was found that because the wrong fare was charged, the PF was not correctly issued. The persons to whom the PFs were issued were only obliged to pay the Off-peak fares for their travel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Some TOCs may have decided that the amended regulations say they can issue PFNs based on the Anytime single fare where an Off-peak fare was appropriate, but we have a recent instance on this forum of an appeal against a PF being successful in such a case. It was found that because the wrong fare was charged, the PF was not correctly issued. The persons to whom the PFs were issued were only obliged to pay the Off-peak fares for their travel.

That case was of them not doing the fare to the next stop, wasn't it?

 

[CyrusWuff]

The increase to £100 (£50 when paid within 21 days) in England didn't alter paragraph 6 of Regulation 9 of the 2018 Penalty Fare Regs.

As such, the "full single fare" due is still that which would have applied had a ticket been purchased prior to boarding, but without Railcard discounts. (Subject to the destination being a calling point for that particular train.)

So for someone travelling from Birmingham to London on Chiltern when a Super Off-Peak is valid, for example, that would be the Super Off-Peak Single on route "via High Wycombe", and not the Any Permitted Anytime Single.

However, some TOCs now apply Condition 9.2.1 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel instead of issuing a Penalty Fare, and charge the undiscounted Anytime Single instead.

For example: If travelling from Plymouth to Reading at a time when Super Off-Peaks are valid, a Penalty Fare would be £100 (reduced to £50 if paid within 21 days) plus £58.70 for the ticket.

An undiscounted Anytime Day Single, meanwhile, is £154.50.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

That case was of them not doing the fare to the next stop, wasn't it?

No. There was a bit of confusion caused by the fact that a fare of £4.40 was initially quoted. It turned out that related to the appeal on behalf of the OP's daughter (child fare). In the adult case, the OP had a PF issued for £109.50/£59.50 (on the basis of the £9.50 Anytime single fare from Preston to Blackpool North). The appeal panel said the full single fare applicable was £8.80 (the Off-peak fare being valid at the time of travel) and upheld the appeal.

The appeal was actually made on the ground of incorrect signage, but since it had already found the PF was issued for the wrong amount, the appeal panel didn't consider that point.

 

[AlterEgo]

No. There was a bit of confusion caused by the fact that a fare of £4.40 was initially quoted. It turned out that related to the appeal on behalf of the OP's daughter (child fare). In the adult case, the OP had a PF issued for £109.50/£59.50 (on the basis of the £9.50 Anytime single fare from Preston to Blackpool North). The appeal panel said the full single fare applicable was £8.80 (the Off-peak fare being valid at the time of travel) and upheld the appeal.

The appeal was actually made on the ground of incorrect signage, but since it had already found the PF was issued for the wrong amount, the appeal panel didn't consider that point.

Interestingly the appeal succeeded for a reason not cited in the appeal. I suspect they didn’t want to entertain an appeal on the signage at such a large station.