Northern Rail Penalty Fare Notice

[Haywain]

The Conditions state:

The lowest priced Ticket available for immediate travel that would have entitled the passenger to start the journey at Poppleton may well be a ticket from Poppleton, in which case it is correct to calculate the excess from Poppleton.

If any industry systems are incapable of issuing that, and are tied to the original origin/destination, then that is a flaw with those systems. If they cannot be overridden, then the only remaining option would be to allow the customer to make the shorter journey without additional payment (which is arguably the common sense approach).

I think that it's a matter of interpretation and yours is different to mine.

 

[yorkie]

I think that it's a matter of interpretation and yours is different to mine.

I don't think there's much in the way of interpretation; the lowest fare for a journey from Poppleton may well be a fare from Poppleton, however if there is any ambiguity, then under consumer law, the interpretation that is most favourable to the customer is the interpretation that should prevail.

In any case, the charge stated appears to be entirely consistent with what the conditions say, so I see this as a moot point.

 

[furlong]

Good result, although the letter hasn't been properly proofread as it still makes erroneous references to "the full single fare applicable", despite admitting that only the difference is due.

The confusion is understandable, as the letter shows the Appeals Panel defiantly acting - with the best of intentions - in breach of the regulations under which it operates. The Appeals Panel has no business specifying what fare is actually due in the circumstances. All it is allowed to do is decide if the appeal is upheld or not. If it is upheld then the full single fare REMAINS payable as it correctly states. To go beyond that, it needs to explain the source of its authority!

The underlying point is that the Final Appeals Panel is supposed to be independent of the train company - and moreover needs to be seen to be independent. Yet the statement that the train company is going to settle for a lower amount than what the regulations specify is due are words that can ONLY have been written by that very train company itself or with its specific authority, so those words have no business appearing in a letter issued by what is supposed to be an independent third party! This particular Appeals Panel is so close to the train company that the train company lets it take decisions on its behalf and inform the passenger of them in the same body of text as its own decisions that the regulations require to be handled independently of the train company!

 

[londonbridge]

I laughed at “the penalty fare notice should be invalided”…..presumably none of the appeal board studied English grammar in great depth.

 

[sansyy]

Looks like you got an even better deal considering with the excess fare and the original advance ticket you still managed to pay less than a regular off-peak ticket so well done!

 

[yorkie]

Looks like you got an even better deal considering with the excess fare and the original advance ticket you still managed to pay less than a regular off-peak ticket so well done!

Nope. The sum of the original fare plus excess correctly equals the fare for the journey made, which is £9.30.

Edit: I've just looked up the fare myself; the Off Peak Single is only £6.05, so it's a £3.25 overcharge. The original poster should not pay anything more than this amount, in my opinion. I would be rejecting/contesting a £9.30 charge as clearly incorrect.

https://www.brfares.com/!faredetail?orig=POP&dest=HGT&rlc=YNG&rte=1000&tkt=CDS

​ Standard​ SINGLE​	​ OFF-PEAK DAY S [B1] CDS​
Fares Period​	From 5 Feb 24​
From​	POPPLETON​	​	​
To​	HARROGATE​	​	​
Route​	.​	​
Railcard / Discount​	YNG 16-25 RAILCARD [R1]​

PRICE & DISCOUNT STATUS
Fare set by:​	NTH NORTHERN​
Passengers per ticket:​	1 adult OR 1 child​
Discount Status​	Status Code (shown on ticket)​	Price​
16-25​	16-25​	£6.05*​

Don't forget, the excess is to the lowest priced fare (also known as the appropriate fare), not the highest priced fare.

 

[sansyy]

Nope. The sum of the original fare plus excess correctly equals the fare for the journey made, which is £9.30.

Ah that is my bad, I forgot to calculate it with a railcard added and assumed it as more than it was

 

[yorkie]

Ah that is my bad, I forgot to calculate it with a railcard added and assumed it as more than it was

No worries.

Edit: just to clarify, the amount stated is correct, as travel was at a time when Off Peak wasn't valid and the minimum fare for the Railcard wasn't met.

 

[Watershed]

No worries; I only realised what the correct amount should have been when I went to look up the fares myself. The amount stated earlier by the OP isn't right.

The incident occurred on a weekday (14th December), and travel began before 10am. Therefore the minimum fare rule on the 16-25 Railcard means that no discount applies. Accordingly £9.30 is the correct fare due.

That being said, I'm not convinced that the Appeals Panel would have correctly calculated the amount due if travel had been after 10am!

 

[robbeech]

This particular Appeals Panel is so close to the train company that the train company lets it take decisions on its behalf and inform the passenger of them in the same body of text as its own decisions that the regulations require to be handled independently of the train company!

Anyone who believes these ‘independent’ panels to be remotely independent is misguided at best.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Who is on the independent appeals panel? What are their qualifications to sit in judgement? How are they appointed and remunerated?

 

[Watershed]

Who is on the independent appeals panel? What are their qualifications to sit in judgement? How are they appointed and remunerated?

There was a recent thread when applications opened for the panel to be reconstituted. The specifications stated the following as essential:

• You can commit to the equivalent of between 10-15 days per year, including days for initial training, in London, in April 20
• You are wholly independent from any Train Operating Companies, or subsidiaries, contractors, related service providers and rail passenger grou
• You are able to work remotely with a secure internet connection.

And asked for an example of each of the following competencies:

• Problem solving and critical thinking
• Strategic thinking
• Influential communication

They are appointed by a board at Transport Focus. The pay is only £10 per case (+£2 if you're the chair of a meeting) so realistically speaking it is effectively a voluntary role.

 

[Puffing Devil]

There was a recent thread when applications opened for the panel to be reconstituted.

Thank you. I completely missed that discussion. Nice pin money if you can get through 6 cases an hour. Something I could consider when retirement beckons.

I am glad it is appropriately independent, even if it is not fully competent. My concern was that it was staffed with industry insiders and associates.

 

[ainsworth74]

Thank you. I completely missed that discussion. Nice pin money if you can get through 6 cases an hour. Something I could consider when retirement beckons.

I am glad it is appropriately independent, even if it is not fully competent. My concern was that it was staffed with industry insiders and associates.

You're also liable for your own insurance as well which might rather eat into any profit margin to be had!

 

[John R]

You're also liable for your own insurance as well which might rather eat into any profit margin to be had!

That's crazy. I wouldn't sign up for that, even if it was twice the going rate. For one thing, just the hassle of trying to find an insurer which understood the risk and thus premium to charge.

 

[Watershed]

Thank you. I completely missed that discussion. Nice pin money if you can get through 6 cases an hour. Something I could consider when retirement beckons.

I am glad it is appropriately independent, even if it is not fully competent. My concern was that it was staffed with industry insiders and associates.

The biggest problem is, I would expect, the level of training given to assessors. The decisions we've seen would seem to suggest that many are simply not aware of the full contents of the Penalty Fares Regulations. It's not an overly long Regulation so you'd expect assessors to be familiar with the entirety of it.

I'm also aware of at least one member of forum staff whose application was rejected. That does make you wonder about who they are accepting...

 

[Puffing Devil]

The biggest problem is, I would expect, the level of training given to assessors. The decisions we've seen would seem to suggest that many are simply not aware of the full contents of the Penalty Fares Regulations. It's not an overly long Regulation so you'd expect assessors to be familiar with the entirety of it.

I'm also aware of at least one member of forum staff whose application was rejected. That does make you wonder about who they are accepting...

I'm thinking that they're looking for people with judicial experience. The indemnity issue is a concern, though. Whilst the rate of pay isn't what a lot of people would look for in full time employment, it's a nice bonus if you're drawing a pension.

 

[spag23]

it's a nice bonus if you're drawing a pension.

In which case income tax would reduce it to £8/case, or maybe even £5.50-£6.