Ticket on train confusion - penalty fare

[furlong]

Please look at examples in other threads of how to lay out an appeal so they cannot ignore your arguments and you give yourself comeback through the courts if they do. In a case like this you must try to demonstrate that the regulations oblige them to uphold your appeal and that if they don't they may bear personal liability for acting in breach of their legal duties. In other words, they can only reject the appeal by presenting a legal argument that the courts would consider to be arguable i.e. this is an appeal based on facts and the interpretation of the law - not one based on their discretion. We can find the links to examples... Here is one https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/stansted-airport-fines.253779/post-6421189 Note the key statements about error of law and consequently the need to take and act upon legal advice to protect them personally if dismissing the appeal. Having been warned, if they choose not to and your position ultimately prevails, it may be possible to raise misfeasance. ("We didn't take the legal advice you recommended because we poorly-recompensed amateurs thought we understood the law better than the professional lawyers.")

Now that I've linked to a signage appeal, you might be able to throw in that line of argument too as a secondary argument. There is no word limit, by the way. Just submit a summary that references a longer attachment.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes exactly, Thameslink and GN are all in PF areas where facilities are always available to buy before boarding, once you get on the train you won't be able to buy a ticket for that specific train so unless he started it on the platform before boarding it would not have offered that service he boarded after it departs, probably would have gotten away with it had he finished the transaction before boarding as it will all be timestamped whatever site/app he bought it from.

This is the difficulty with different ways of operating, GN/TL have no guards to sell tickets, only inspectors so they come down hard, whilst most other TOC's have onboard staff happy to sell the same tickets supplemented with inspectors to go after the non payers, I do feel for the OP as he doesn't seem out to milk the system like many do, rules are the rules though unfortunately.

In what way does any of this invalidate the OP's ticket please and make them liable to pay a Penalty Fare? Ticket validity is binary, it either is valid or it is not.

Nobody disputes that the OP committed an offence, merely that they cannot be Penalty Fared for this, as they presented a valid ticket to the inspector.

 

[Urban Gateline]

It’s not even a debate. It’s unequivocally valid. Nobody can suggest that if the RPI or guard sold a ticket after departure that the ticket they sold for good money was not valid for the journey being made. Such a ticket allows the traveller to make their journey; it’s a very simple argument. Does anyone actually hold a contrary view - that if you purchase a ticket after departure it is de facto *not valid* to make the journey?

That's a bit different though isn't it when staff use discretion to sell onboard, they don't have any requirement to do that, it is on the OP requirement to buy before boarding which they did not, so the ticket can be marked as invalid when scanned onboard as it was purchased after boarding which is a breach where ticketing facilities exist to board without a valid ticket, I'm surprised with your years in the industry you don't know this.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 May 2024 ==

In what way does any of this invalidate the OP's ticket please and make them liable to pay a Penalty Fare? Ticket validity is binary, it either is valid or it is not.

Nobody disputes that the OP committed an offence, merely that they cannot be Penalty Fared for this, as they presented a valid ticket to the inspector.

Except it's NOT a valid ticket if not purchased before boarding in a penalty fare area.

 

[Cantab26]

Except it's NOT a valid ticket if not purchased before boarding in a penalty fare area.

Please cite an appropriate authority for this assertion.

For example, which part of the NRCOT or Penalty Fare Regulations has this effect?

 

[Watershed]

Yes exactly, Thameslink and GN are all in PF areas where facilities are always available to buy before boarding, once you get on the train you won't be able to buy a ticket for that specific train so unless he started it on the platform before boarding it would not have offered that service he boarded after it departs, probably would have gotten away with it had he finished the transaction before boarding as it will all be timestamped whatever site/app he bought it from.

We're talking about walk-up tickets here, so you don't buy a ticket "for a specific train" - yes, most ticket retailers make you select an itinerary in order to proceed with a purchase, but not all do this. And whether or not you've chosen an itinerary, this has no bearing on the validity of your ticket on earlier or later trains.

This is the difficulty with different ways of operating, GN/TL have no guards to sell tickets, only inspectors so they come down hard, whilst most other TOC's have onboard staff happy to sell the same tickets supplemented with inspectors to go after the non payers, I do feel for the OP as he doesn't seem out to milk the system like many do

That's as may be, but it doesn't really impact the arguments the OP is making in their appeals.

rules are the rules though unfortunately.

Exactly, and since the rules don't actually say that tickets bought after departure are invalid, the appeals body is completely wrong here. As usual!

Except it's NOT a valid ticket if not purchased before boarding in a penalty fare area.

That may be the line your employer or colleagues have taught you - but there is nothing in the NRCoT that says that tickets bought after departure are invalid. As @AlterEgo says, this would be a nonsensical position - it would render tickets sold by staff onboard invalid, which clearly cannot be the case.

 

[AlterEgo]

That's a bit different though isn't it when staff use discretion to sell onboard, they don't have any requirement to do that, it is on the OP requirement to buy before boarding which they did not, so the ticket can be marked as invalid when scanned onboard as it was purchased after boarding which is a breach where ticketing facilities exist to board without a valid ticket, I'm surprised with your years in the industry you don't know this.

This is a matter of fact and not opinion.

The Penalty Fares regulations provide that the test of whether a Penalty Fare is due is that a customer fails to show a valid ticket. Ticket validity is binary; tickets are either valid or they are not. A ticket purchased after departure is a valid ticket. You can cite no authority to say otherwise, and you have made up a nonsensical argument because that "feels right" rather than being based in fact.

Boarding a train without a valid ticket (and buying one later!) is a Bylaw offence for which the RPI would be entitled to report for prosecution. There is no dispute about this; the offence is complete the moment one boards a train without one. However, a Penalty Fare cannot be issued for this indiscretion.

"That's a bit different though" - there is no difference at all. As you go on to explain in the last line of your post, you say:

Except it's NOT a valid ticket if not purchased before boarding in a penalty fare area.

-which is wrong, you will be unable to cite any Bylaw, anything in the NRCoT, or the Penalty Fares regulations to support this. Yet, according to you, that proviso wouldn't apply if you were sold the ticket by a guard. On what grounds? Cite them.

Tickets bought on board trains, by whatever medium, are just as valid as ones bought prior to departure, but it may be the case that separately, a Bylaw offence has been committed.

As a valid ticket was presented to the RPI, no Penalty Fare can be issued. The correct action if they want to sanction the passenger is to report for prosecution.

 

[Cantab26]

I respectfully submit that the penalty fare is void because I presented a valid ticket upon inspection as required by 4.(1) of The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018. The ticket was valid in every respect as defined in 3.(2)(a) of the same. The purchasing of a ticket after boarding for the service and journey in question does NOT invalidate the ticket. The previous assessor stated that Condition 6.1 of the NRCoT establishes that the ticket presented was invalid, but this is incorrect. Condition 6 of the NRCoT states "In order to be valid, some Tickets must be activated or endorsed with a date of travel before you board a train. This is made clear in the terms & conditions of those Tickets." Therefore, some tickets do NOT need to have been activated or endorsed with a date of travel before boarding to be valid. In any case, while Condition 6.1 states that a valid ticket must be held before boarding, it does not follow that a ticket purchased after boarding is therefore invalid. This is the 'fallacy of the inverse' from basic logical reasoning. It may be that i) an act of boarding without a valid ticket is a transgression, and ii) in the time between said boarding and the purchasing of a ticket, the issuance of a Penalty Fare would have been legitimate; however, the law on penalty fares does not concern itself with the above i), and ii) is not relevant as a valid ticket was presented for inspection in accordance with 4.(1) of the law for the whole journey and (every other aspect as in 3.(2)(a)). Even if the inspectors felt that some 'punishment' was deserved because they believed I boarded without a ticket, they chose the wrong legal instrument; a penalty fare is for the failure of producing a valid ticket, only. There was no attempt at fare evasion and the company received the full fare prior to inspection.

This is unwieldy, hard to follow and strays into a lot of unnecessary and irrelevant commentary.

You should start drafting again from scratch if you intend to lodge a third appeal and make clear what your principal argument actually is i.e. you presented a valid ticket when asked.

 

[MotCO]

You should start drafting again from scratch if you intend to lodge a third appeal and make clear what your principal argument actually is i.e. you presented a valid ticket when asasked.

To reiterate what others have said, for every point you raise in your appeal, quote the relevant regulation in full and the source. Anything to make the reader's job easier will make it more likely that the appeal can be properly understood and succeed.

 

[allypally]

I am grateful for everybody's comments, and I welcome any further input anyone may have. Over the weekend, I will draft a third/final appeal in view of all the advice given and post it here.

 

[SuspectUsual]

@allypally maybe consider using bullet points to break up the flow of your next appeal and keep it really clear for the reader

 

[allypally]

Hello all,

Thanks for all the advice. Please find below the Final appeal I have prepared in view of all your links/comments!

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. I need to submit this on Tuesday, 28th May.

TIA!

Edited: background section in view of furlong's comments.
____

Dear Sirs,

I am grateful for the opportunity to appeal to the Final Appeal Panel in respect of the above-referenced penalty fare notice number. I am hopeful that after proper appraisal of the present case, you will understand that you are obliged to uphold the appeal in full view of the relevant law, as is your legal duty. You will appreciate
that, in accordance with the relevant facts and regulations, the present case is not a matter of discretion for the Final Appeal Panel; rather, it is simply matter of
correctly reading of the law in view of a simple set of facts. It is deeply unfortunate that neither of the previous assessors addressed the points of law I raised in my previous appeals.

My appeal is based on the following:
• The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 (herein “The Regulations”, etc.), Section 16(3)(a), i.e. that “the penalty fare was not charged in accordance with the requirements of these Regulations”; and
• The Regulations, Section 16(3)(d), i.e. that “there are compelling reasons why, in the particular circumstances of the case, the appellant should not be
liable to pay the penalty fare.”

For background, please see enclosed my first and second appeals and their rejections.

Relevant sections of The Regulations

• The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 Section 4(1), i.e. that “A person travelling by, present on, or leaving a train must, if required to do so by or on behalf of an operator, produce a valid travel ticket”; and
• The Regulations, Section 3(2)(a), i.e. that “In these Regulations any reference to a “valid travel ticket” is a reference to a travel ticket in a person’s possession which is valid for—
i) the day and time of the journey that person is making, has made or intends to make;
ii) the train and route used for that journey;
iii) the age of that person;
iv) use with any rail card in the possession of that person which they are entitled to use for that journey;
v) use in combination with any other travel ticket in the possession of that person which they are entitled to use for that journey; and
vi) the class of travel used by that person”.

Regulation 16(3)(a) grounds for appeal - ticket validity

Below, I have discussed the ticket validity along four lines:

1. I state my relevant actions of with regards to the penalty fare;
2. I demonstrate the invalidity of the First and Second Appeal assessors’ arguments;
3. I demonstrate why my ticket was valid using logical reasoning; and
4. I discuss the penalty fare in more practical terms.

1. I presented a valid travel ticket (Super Off-Peak) to the collector as required by Section 4(1) of The Regulations. The ticket was valid in every respect as defined in 3(2)(a) of the same.

2. The collector believed that because the ticket I presented for inspection was purchased after boarding the train, it was consequently invalid for the specific journey taken (“specific journey” will be understood to mean a journey between Stevenage and Alexandra Palace at a specific time on a specific day). That is, the collector believed that a ticket purchased on a train for that journey is invalid for that same journey as a direct result of it being purchased after that specific journey had begun (i.e. after that train had departed the station at which I boarded the train).

The assessor of the First Appeal appeared to agree with the collector as they state in the First Appeal Rejection “I understand a valid ticket was unavailable for inspection because a ticket wasn’t purchased prior to boarding the train.” The assessor of the Second Appeal made no comment to this effect. Neither assessor addressed the arguments I presented as to why a ticket purchased after boarding a train does not mean that ticket is invalid for that specific journey.

I respectfully submit that the first assessor incorrectly referenced condition 6.1 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT) as grounds to reject the First Appeal. NRCoT 6.1 states “You must hold a valid Ticket or authority to travel before you board a train where there was the opportunity to buy one unless one of the following circumstances applies...”. However, it is clear that the following is true:

• Breaching the NRCoT is not grounds for issuance of a penalty fare. Grounds for issuance of a penalty fare are described solely in The Regulations.
• Even if the above was false, it does not logically follow from Condition 6.1 of the NRCoT that purchasing a ticket after boarding a train invalidates the ticket for that journey. This is clearly a false conclusion based on fallacious logical reasoning following from Condition 6.1.
• The validity of a travel ticket is described in Section 3(2)(a) of The Regulations. Nowhere within is it stated that validity of a ticket for a rail journey is in dependent on, or anyway connected to, when (e.g. after a rail journey has begun) or where (e.g. on board a train) a ticket is purchased. A collector may only use the criteria listed in Section 3(2)(a) of The Regulations when determining the validity of a travel ticket for the purpose of issuing a penalty fare; there is no legal basis for any
alternative.

3. I further submit that The Regulations provide that the test of whether a penalty fare is due is that a customer fails to show a valid ticket. Ticket validity is binary; tickets are either valid or they are not. A ticket purchased after departure is a valid ticket. Consider the following reasoning:

• We know that some tickets can be purchased for a specific journey on-board a train (i.e after that journey has begun), for example from a Guard;
• We assume that tickets sold in such circumstances are in-fact valid (otherwise would be an absurdity);
• We know that The Regulations do not contain any provisions concerning the validity of tickets based on whether they were purchased on-board a train;
• Because The Regulations do not contain any provisions concerning the validity of tickets based on whether they were purchased on-board a train, there is no difference in terms of validity as a consequence of how they were purchased on a train, that is, for example, whether from a Guard or via a mobile App;
• Therefore, it follows that in the context of penalty fares, a ticket purchased via an app on-board a departed train is not invalid for that specific journey, i.e. the ticket does not contravene Section 3(2)(a) of The Regulations.
• The ticket I purchased on-board the train was therefore valid, as it satisfied the criteria laid out by Section 3(2)(a) of The Regulations;
• Thus, I presented a valid ticket for inspection as required by Section 4(1) of The Regulations.

4. In addition to the above and for completeness, I think it is worth discussing the practicalities of why the penalty fare was issued. It is clear that by boarding the train without a valid ticket, I was in breach of the Railway bylaws (as none of the exceptions to the bylaws applied to my circumstances). I believe that the collector issued a penalty fare as a ‘punishment’ of my breaching of the bylaws as an alternative to prosecution because prosecutions are bureaucratic, time-consuming, expensive and must withstand the burden of proof standards as determined by the Courts. In comparison, penalty fares are easy to issue. However, penalty fares are not a mechanism for collectors to dish-out punishments that they feel passengers deserve.

In my case, if the collector wanted to legally address my transgression of boarding without valid ticket, they should have prosecuted me. A penalty fare is for a failure to produce a valid ticket only. The collector chose the wrong legal vehicle to handle the matter. Moreover, it is also worth noting the following paragraph from the Second Appeal rejection, “Rest assured that Penalty Services is neither judge nor jury and we are not deciding anyone’s innocence or guilt when judging appeals so your honesty is not under any scrutiny whatsoever. Similarly, because there is no onus on the train company to prove there was any intention to avoid payment of the correct fare before issuing a penalty fare, the discretion guidelines are not based on intent.” This paragraph makes it clear that it is not the place of the Appeal Panels to make a judgement of whether or not the penalty fare issued was ‘deserved’, for example as an alternative to prosecuting me under the bylaws as discussed above. I note that the Appeal Panel is tasked solely with determining whether or not any of the criteria listed in Regulation 16(3) apply. The intent of my actions relating to my boarding the train without a ticket and my purchasing a ticket on-board the train, as well as the intent of the collector in issuing the penalty fare, are not for the consideration of the Appeal Panel.

Regulation 16(3)(d) grounds for appeal - compelling reasons

I respectfully submit that there are compelling reasons that I should not be liable to pay the penalty fare. I submit that I made an honest error in boarding without a
ticket, and, as I purchased a ticket prior to inspection, the train company received all monies due for the journey prior to my even knowing I had broken the bylaws in any way. I travel very frequently by train and, as I do not own a car, rely on the rail network for all domestic travel outside my local area. I fully support the railway operators in extracting all the monies they are duly owed for providing their services, and I support the penalty fare in general as a more cost-effective and efficient manner of obtaining said monies by avoiding the downsides of attempting prosecution. I did not (and would never) attempt to fare evade.

This is the first penalty fare I have ever been issued in my frequent use of the rail network. I also will ensure in the future to have a valid ticket before boarding any
train.

In conclusion, I do not believe it would be fair for me to have to pay a penalty fare given my honest behaviour and the circumstances of my mistake.

Closing remarks

Regulation 18(4) provides that “If the relevant Final Appeal Panel, after considering an appeal under this regulation, concludes that any ground specified in Regulation 16(3) applies, it must, subject to paragraph (7), allow the appeal.” The evidence and reasoning I have provided demonstrates that the penalty fare I received was not charged in accordance with The Regulations, due to the fact that I presented the collector with a valid travel ticket as defined in The Regulations themselves. The Regulations are extremely clear on this point as there is categorically no reference to the validity of a ticket vis-a-vis whether a ticket is purchased on-board a train. If a valid ticket is presented to a collector, a penalty fare must not be charged.

Therefore, I respectfully submit that the Final Appeal Panel is required under Regulation 18(4) to allow my appeal; to disallow my appeal would be an error of law.

If the Final Appeal Panel is minded to disallow my appeal, I would encourage it to take legal advice in relation to the interpretation of these provisions in order to inform its decision, and I hereby request that details of such legal analysis and/or advice be included in the decision.

Further, or in the alternative, I respectfully submit that Regulation 16(3)(d) applies for the reasons set out above, and I ask the Final Appeal Panel to find that there are compelling reasons I should not be liable to pay the penalty fare.

Yours sincerely,

 

[furlong]

It's up to you how much extra effort you want to put into this, but the initial summary paragraph should be a true outline of the argument - rather than a teaser! The 'background' is currently the argument, not background information.

In something of this length, number each sentence/point (each laid out as a separate paragraph) and ideally use more headings so it doesn't look so dense. (It's longer than it really needs to be and has duplication. It's better not to speculate as to someone else's motives without supplying evidence, and to focus on the core argument putting the digressions/expansions into footnotes if you don't want to omit them.)

 

[allypally]

It's up to you how much extra effort you want to put into this, but the initial summary paragraph should be a true outline of the argument - rather than a teaser! The 'background' is currently the argument, not background information.

In something of this length, number each sentence/point (each laid out as a separate paragraph) and ideally use more headings so it doesn't look so dense. (It's longer than it really needs to be and has duplication. It's better not to speculate as to someone else's motives without supplying evidence, and to focus on the core argument putting the digressions/expansions into footnotes if you don't want to omit them.)

Ok I've merged the background, and I will add more of the substantive arguement at the start.

I think I understand what you mean about each sentence basically being numbered - just like a long legal document/contract/judgement. I am writing it in Latex so it will be a pain to add this to my letter template but I agree ideally it's how it should be. It just ended up being longer than I thought...

Where do you think I can cut down?

 

[furlong]

Where do you think I can cut down?

Well it's very complicated at the moment and full of distracting digressions. Your basic argument - that when asked you presented a valid ticket purchased prior to the inspection so the regulations didn't allow a PF to be issued - is still far from obvious! This needs to spring out of the summary at the top before you launch into all the technical points.

 

[AlterEgo]

Well it's very complicated at the moment and full of distracting digressions. Your basic argument - that when asked you presented a valid ticket purchased prior to the inspection so the regulations didn't allow a PF to be issued - is still far from obvious! This needs to spring out of the summary at the top before you launch into all the technical points.

I agree with this. It should be in the first few sentences and be abundantly clear that this is the reason (and it would suffice as the sole reason) for the appeal.

 

[allypally]

So I am splitting off my lengthy discussion on ticket validity (points 2, 3, 4) above into a further section and I want to state my principal argument right at the start. How succint should it be? This is what I have so far:

Principal argument concerning ticket validity

I presented a valid travel ticket (Super Off-Peak) to the collector as required by Section 4(1) of The Regulations. The ticket was valid in every respect as defined in 3(2)(a) of the same. I respectfully submit that the appeal should be granted based on this fact alone. A collector may only use the criteria listed in Section 3(2)(a) of The Regulations when determining the validity of a travel ticket for the purpose of issuing a penalty fare; there is no legal basis for any alternative. Therefore, I respectfully submit that you are obliged to grant my appeal as to disallow my appeal would be an error of law.

Is that too short?

 

[30907]

So I am splitting off my lengthy discussion on ticket validity (points 2, 3, 4) above into a further section and I want to state my principal argument right at the start. How succint should it be? This is what I have so far:

Principal argument concerning ticket validity

I presented a valid travel ticket (Super Off-Peak) to the collector as required by Section 4(1) of The Regulations. The ticket was valid in every respect as defined in 3(2)(a) of the same. I respectfully submit that the appeal should be granted based on this fact alone. A collector may only use the criteria listed in Section 3(2)(a) of The Regulations when determining the validity of a travel ticket for the purpose of issuing a penalty fare; there is no legal basis for any alternative.

Is that too short?

I think you need to spell out that the ticket is valid despite the fact that you purchased it after boarding, and that the PF regulations do not allow a PF to be issue on that ground alone, rather than expect the reader to look the regulations up.

You should certainly reference them, and quote them in the next para (including NRCoT 6.1).

 

[allypally]

I think you need to spell out that the ticket is valid despite the fact that you purchased it after boarding, and that the PF regulations do not allow a PF to be issue on that ground alone, rather than expect the reader to look the regulations up.

You should certainly reference them, and quote them in the next para (including NRCoT 6.1).

Ok what about this:

I presented a valid travel ticket (Super Off-Peak) to the collector as required by Section 4(1) of The Regulations. The ticket was valid in every respect as defined in 3(2)(a) of the same. The ticket presented was valid regardless of the fact that it was purchased after departure, as Section 3(2)(a) of The Regulations (which concerns the validity of tickets) does not include any criteria relating to whether a ticket was purchased onboard a train or after the departure of a train, and nowhere else in The Regulations are such matters discussed. A collector may only use the criteria listed in Section 3(2)(a) of The Regulations when determining the validity of a travel ticket for the purpose of issuing a penalty fare; there is no legal basis for any alternative nor is there flexibility for discretion on the point.

Therefore, I respectfully submit that you are obliged to grant my appeal as to disallow my appeal would be an error of law.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 May 2024 ==


EDIT:

Thank you all for your feedback and your help over the past two months!

I've made it as clear as I can and I have submitted it.

I will let you how it goes either way!

Best,
allypally

 

[allypally]

Third appeal rejected

"We note you say you in your appeal that the penalty fare is void because you presented a valid ticket to the inspector.
That is, the penalty fare itself has no standing because the ticket you presented for inspection was valid...

We feel you probably purchased this ticket when you realised the Revenue Protection Officer was approaching you. If this not had been the case we feel you may not have bought a ticket.

We note you did not have a valid ticket before you boarded the train service, which you must have, and this remains your responsibity. A ticket purchased after the train has departed in not valid."


I was not aware the Final Appeal Panel made decisions based on their "feelings". I thought they would make decisions based on facts and law.

Do they really have such discretion?

 

[AlterEgo]

Third appeal rejected

"We note you say you in your appeal that the penalty fare is void because you presented a valid ticket to the inspector.
That is, the penalty fare itself has no standing because the ticket you presented for inspection was valid...

We feel you probably purchased this ticket when you realised the Revenue Protection Officer was approaching you. If this not had been the case we feel you may not have bought a ticket.

We note you did not have a valid ticket before you boarded the train service, which you must have, and this remains your responsibity. A ticket purchased after the train has departed in not valid."


I was not aware the Final Appeal Panel made decisions based on their "feelings". I thought they would make decisions based on facts and law.

Do they really have such discretion?

No, they do not have any such discretion. They must make their decisions based on the facts and can only disallow an appeal based on fact. They can’t decide an appeal based on their “reckons” or even try to ascertain your intent.

Based on the reply, I would refuse to pay the Penalty Fare in any case. No prosecution can result as you’ve appealed and if there is a civil claim against you then you can apprise your options from there. I am not aware of any civil claims for penalty fares in the county court that we’ve seen on this forum.

 

[allypally]

No, they do not have any such discretion. They must make their decisions based on the facts and can only disallow an appeal based on fact. They can’t decide an appeal based on their “reckons” or even try to ascertain your intent.

Based on the reply, I would refuse to pay the Penalty Fare in any case. No prosecution can result as you’ve appealed and if there is a civil claim against you then you can apprise your options from there. I am not aware of any civil claims for penalty fares in the county court that we’ve seen on this forum.

In the first rejection, it is explicitly stated that the case is not in any way to do with fare evasion. The third appeal panel are accusing me of attempted fare evasion, are they not?

In the second rejection, it is stated that the assessor is not there to judge any intentions.

I explicitly quoted that passage in my third appeal and also attached the whole rejection.

Then the third panel flip-flops and assigns intentions to me.

Should I ring the penalty fare line tomorrow and tell them I will see them in court? Or just do nothing and see if a civil action letter comes?

I've recently moved house so I should tell them so they send letters to the right address, no? (Although they have my email.)

 

[Watershed]

Third appeal rejected

"We note you say you in your appeal that the penalty fare is void because you presented a valid ticket to the inspector.
That is, the penalty fare itself has no standing because the ticket you presented for inspection was valid...

We feel you probably purchased this ticket when you realised the Revenue Protection Officer was approaching you. If this not had been the case we feel you may not have bought a ticket.

We note you did not have a valid ticket before you boarded the train service, which you must have, and this remains your responsibity. A ticket purchased after the train has departed in not valid."


I was not aware the Final Appeal Panel made decisions based on their "feelings". I thought they would make decisions based on facts and law.

Do they really have such discretion?

It's disappointing, though not entirely surprising, that the legally unqualified appeals panel has come to this decision. The panel would only have discretion on whether to allow your appeal if it were on the basis of "compelling reasons".

As your appeal was, in fact, on the basis that the Penalty Fare was issued otherwise than in accordance with the Regulations (which is purely a matter of law) the panel had no such discretion. They had an obligation to determine whether or not the facts matched the point of appeal, not whether they felt it was justified to issue a Penalty Fare under the circumstances.

All isn't lost, however. This decision doesn't force you to pay; all it means is that you haven't succeeded in appealling. As you have raised a first-stage appeal and the Penalty Fare wasn't cancelled before thar appeal was heard, the only option lawfully available to GTR (if they wish to pursue the matter further) is to make a civil claim against you for the value of the unpaid Penalty Fare.

Any such claim would be heard in the County Court, and given the relatively small amount in question it would almost certainly be allocated to the Small Claims Track. With the SCT the winning party is limited in the costs they can recover - essentially it is only Court fees, interest, and any direct costs of attending the hearing (travel/annual leave etc.). Legal fees are generally not recoverable.

In the event that judgement were to be made against you, this would not be a criminal conviction. It would purely constitute a civil debt - and if paid within 30 days of judgment, that would be the end of the matter.

Now, I'm not saying that this is definitely the best course of action. But it is certainly an option available to you and if I were you, it is one I would give strong consideration to given the absurdity of the appeals panel's decision. We have never heard of a train company attempting to pursue a Penalty Fare through the civil courts - so in my view it is a strategy which, whilst not entirely free of risk, is relatively low risk.

Whilst technically speaking, the proper route for appealing the appeals body's decision would be to raise a judicial review (which would be disproportionately expensive), you could of course raise, in your a defence to any civil claim, the same grounds of appeal that you used in your wrongly denied appeal.

 

[AlterEgo]

In the first rejection, it is explicitly stated that the case is not in any way to do with fare evasion. The third appeal panel are accusing me of attempted fare evasion, are they not?

In the second rejection, it is stated that the assessor is not there to judge any intentions.

I explicitly quoted that passage in my third appeal and also attached the whole rejection.

Then the third panel flip-flops and assigns intentions to me.

Should I ring the penalty fare line tomorrow and tell them I will see them in court? Or just do nothing and see if a civil action letter comes?

I've recently moved house so I should tell them so they send letters to the right address, no? (Although they have my email.)

It’s better to do nothing. It’s up to them to recover any monies they feel are due. Experience tells us that they don’t bother.

I wouldn’t bother updating your address.

@Watershed has given a more comprehensive reply than I have and I deign to his experience here. I also consider this a low risk strategy.

 

[allypally]

Thanks both.

I won't contact them.

This was at the bottom of the letter.

"There is no higher tier of appeal than the Independent Appeals Panel, but if you believe there has been a failure to
process your appeal correctly, you may wish to refer your case in writing to:- London TravelWatch, Europoint, 5-11
Lavington Street, London, SE1 0NZ; via the web at www.londontravelwatch.org.uk; or by e-mailing enquiries@londontravelwatch.org.uk.
London TravelWatch (LTW) is an independent statutory body set up by Parliament to consider complaints and
suggestions from rail users and make recommendations about services. Should you choose to contact them, you will
be advised by LTW whether further representation will be made on your behalf with regard to your case.
Meanwhile, I regret to advise that no more correspondence will be entered into by Penalty Services or the Independent
Appeals Panel unless it is requested by LTW as part of a procedural matter."

I welcome any further advice or comment, especially if it disagrees with what has been posted!

I will contact the LTW and post any updates here.

 

[MotCO]

I've recently moved house so I should tell them so they send letters to the right address, no? (Although they have my email.)

The danger with that is, if they do pursue the debt, you could end up with a County Court Judgement against you without knowing about it.

 

[Pushpit]

The other option would be to pay under protest, and for you then to use the Small Claim Court to reclaim that payment from the TOC, seeking a judge to review whether this is a legitimate approach.

 

[Hadders]

Moderator Note - discussion about whether a TOC can ban someone who doesn't pay a Penalty Fare from their services has been moved to a separate thread:

Can a TOC Ban Someone Who Doesn't Pay a Penalty Fare

Moderator Note - split from: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/ticket-on-train-confusion-penalty-fare.265255/page-3 the only option lawfully available to GTR (if they wish to pursue the matter further) is to make a civil claim against you for the value of the unpaid Penalty Fare Can they...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[island]

With the SCT the winning party is limited in the costs they can recover - essentially it is only Court fees, interest, and any direct costs of attending the hearing (travel/annual leave etc.). Legal fees are generally not recoverable.

Just to note legal fees can be claimed in the small claims track – but they’re capped at £80.

 

[Watershed]

Just to note legal fees can be claimed in the small claims track – but they’re capped at £80.

Legal fees can't be claimed, but fixed costs upon commencement of a claim can be, under Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 45.17.

I cannot foresee any circumstances under which a claim for an unpaid Penalty Fare could exceed £500, thus the relevant level of fixed costs would be £50 as per Table 2 of Practice Direction 45.

The above fixed costs must be specified in the claim form in order to be recoverable, and many claimants don't do so. It is questionable whether the railway would know (or remember) to do so in the unlikely event a Penalty Fare were to be taken to the County Court.

 

[allypally]

The danger with that is, if they do pursue the debt, you could end up with a County Court Judgement against you without knowing about it.

Yes, this is a bit worrisome. I will check about this, thank you.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jun 2024 ==

The other option would be to pay under protest, and for you then to use the Small Claim Court to reclaim that payment from the TOC, seeking a judge to review whether this is a legitimate approach.

Yes, I see the general advantage in getting ahead of things like this, however, given the advice of Watershed and AlterEgo, it seems like there is a strong chance the operator won't pursue civil litigation anyway, meaning there's a good chance I would be initiating something that would have just 'gone away' had I not pursued the matter. So paying and going to SCC would just be bringing hassle, trouble and cost onto myself for potentially no reason.