Unfair penalty fares

[rafael]

Payment by debit card and lack of barriers is generating millions of revenue from users who accidentally forget to tap in or out when distracted. This is unfair as the user never intended to avoid the fare.

10 days ago I had to rush to the airport for a family emergency and the usual Tottenham Hale to Stansted was off so I travelled from Stratford to Chelmsford to get the bus to Stansted.

When I touched out at Stratford, I got lost trying to find platform 11, as there are several corridors leading to both tube and train platforms.

As I didn’t find any barriers or ticket machines I stupidly assumed I could touch out in Chelmsford and the fare would automatically increase (not as far out as Gatwick, where you can, plus I’ve never ever been to Chelmsford before).

On arrival, I naively touched out and of course the card didn’t work. At that point I was surrounded like a criminal by several officers and issued a penalty notice, which I paid straight away, but I insisted I never intended to avoid a fare, I genuinely forgot to check the ticket arrangements for that particular journey.

With the worry of my family health and the rush to the airport, I genuinely did not notice any signs or announcements. Had there been barriers or ticket machines with signs near or at platform level, I would have clicked. As a commuter in London, occasionally one forgets to tap out simply because of distraction, as there are no barriers or reminders near touch out machines.

My appeal for the above fine was rejected, and I find this very unfair, as much as I hate fare evaders myself. Something needs to change.

I insist I never intended to avoid the fare, so I want to take my complaint further, out of principle. Millions of pounds are pocketed every year from genuinely distracted users. Many thanks

 

[AlterEgo]

When you say you’d like to take your complaint further, would you like to appeal at the second stage? (I assume you appealed only once, which leaves you two further appeals). Or, would you like to change the whole system? In which case, writing to your MP would be the way to go.

Note that Contactless is not yet available at Stansted Airport either although it should be added this year. Here is the current validity map: https://assets.nationalrail.co.uk/e...y_as_you_go_with_contactless_map_Feb_2025.pdf

 

[Haywain]

Payment by debit card and lack of barriers is generating millions of revenue from users who accidentally forget to tap in or out when distracted.

That's why the London contactless scheme has a mechanism for correcting missing touches, on a limited number of occasions.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Mar 2025 ==

This is unfair as the user never intended to avoid the fare.

Not that unfair as it allows it to be corrected.

 

[jfollows]

Intent doesn’t come into it, travelling without a valid ticket is a criminal offence and can be prosecuted in court. Just as exceeding the speed limit when driving is a criminal offence, and not intending to break the law is no defence. The Penalty Fare system is intended for this sort of thing, because it means the offender is unlikely to repeat the offence, and £50 isn’t going to do much more than cover the costs of the system.

So it’s unfortunate, but the original poster doesn’t seem to have much reason for an appeal to succeed.

If the paperwork, suitably redacted, can be posted here it might be that there is some kind of ‘technicality’ which invalidates it that other clever people here can spot.

 

[rafael]

I disagree. Of course traveling without a ticket is a criminal offence, the problem is all along my journey I genuinely thought I was traveling with a ticket, as you do when you touch in and out. When I boarded the train I had no idea where or how far Chelmsford was from Stratford, but assumed it would be close as it is just the second station, and the fact that I came out of the tube and boarded a train on a similar platform, like I can do in my usual commutes, did not even cross my mind that I should find a ticket office and purchase a ticket. No barriers, no signs, unlike in Tottenham Vale where you find barriers and ticket machines which prompt you to understand you need a ticket. Being used to traveling to and from Gatwick by touching in and out, that is the assumption I made. I never wanted to avoid buying a ticket, I thought touching out would suffice so there is definitely no criminal intent. Accepting a penalty implies admittance of intent to evade a fare, which was not the case.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Mar 2025 ==

I have often had people tailgating behind me as I enter barriers, I pointed this out to officers chatting to other officers nearby there and then on a couple of occasions, and they ignored me so I do feel strongly fare evaders should be prosecuted. But I never tailgated behind someone or tried to avoid paying the fare. The system inconsistency makes it very easy for genuine, frequent travellers to make genuine mistakes over the purchase of tickets, especially in tube to train connections, as it allows touching out in some stations but not in others, and that is the point of my post.

 

[notmyrealname]

If you want to do something about this, AlterEgo made some suggestions in post #2. Did that help you?

 

[AlterEgo]

I disagree. Of course traveling without a ticket is a criminal offence

Indeed it is - it's a strict liability matter, like speeding.

the problem is all along my journey I genuinely thought I was traveling with a ticket, as you do when you touch in and out. When I boarded the train I had no idea where or how far Chelmsford was from Stratford, but assumed it would be close as it is just the second station

I'm afraid this is the nub of the problem - you didn't check whether you could use Contactless. You can't use it at Stansted anyway, nor at Chelmsford, so regardless of the bus situation you made a mistake here.

Accepting a penalty implies admittance of intent to evade a fare, which was not the case.

It does not. A penalty fare is for people who have been careless, much in the same way parking charges, PCNs for misusing a box junction, and speeding fines are. If they wanted to, they could have prosecuted you in the magistrates' court for the offence. I know it does not feel like much consolation, but this is one you need to chalk up to experience, and be more clear about the ticket you need next time you travel outside London.

Nonetheless, you can try to change the system or appeal your penalty fare a second time. Which of those would you like the forum's help with? (Or both?)

 

[rafael]

I am sorry to disagree again. Misusing a box junction or speeding does involve intent, because they are consistently applied rules everyone understands and is obliged to learn. Traveling within a touch in and out system within Greater London for years makes you assume you are paying your fare at the end of the journey when you touch out. When I travel from Tottenham Hale to the airport I know I cannot just touch out because there are barriers just before the platform. But in Stratford I found no barriers or signs anywhere so I made the wrong assumption. The purpose of my post is not to claim my money back but to raise awareness that this problem is very frequent and that barriers and signs should be much more obvious and visible. Touching in and out in some stations but not in others is costing millions of pounds every year and it is private companies that benefit from this inconsistency. In the end, the victim once again is the regular commuter who is forced to fund the most expensive transport system in the entire world, as the stats this year have revealed. I am sick and tired of this.

 

[dosxuk]

Accepting a penalty implies admittance of intent to evade a fare, which was not the case.

Here is the root of your issue - you're wrong with this assertion. Penalty fares are not supposed to be offered when there is clear intent to avoid a fare - prosecution is the route that should be taken. Therefore you can not be admitting intent to evade a fare when you accept a penalty fare.

Penalty fares are for people, like you, who made a mistake. When you were stopped your story was believed and you were given the most-appropriate, and least severe, penalty that was available.

 

[rafael]

Here is the root of your issue - you're wrong with this assertion. Penalty fares are not supposed to be offered when there is clear intent to avoid a fare - prosecution is the route that should be taken. Therefore you can not be admitting intent to evade a fare when you accept a penalty fare.

Penalty fares are for people, like you, who made a mistake. When you were stopped your story was believed and you were given the most-appropriate, and least severe, penalty that was available.

I am sorry that you think a penalty of £100 is the least severe penalty. For a pensioner, this is an incredibly costly fare, so of course I paid it there and then in other to reduce it to £50. All along I wanted to travel from A to B and pay my fare, which I thought I could do by touching out. Everyone in London knows how easy it is to misunderstand the system when no barriers are visible. Every frequent commuter knows this. It is not clear cut and this is the point of my post.

 

[sportzbar]

I disagree. Of course traveling without a ticket is a criminal offence, the problem is all along my journey I genuinely thought I was traveling with a ticket, as you do when you touch in and out. When I boarded the train I had no idea where or how far Chelmsford was from Stratford, but assumed it would be close as it is just the second station, and the fact that I came out of the tube and boarded a train on a similar platform, like I can do in my usual commutes, did not even cross my mind that I should find a ticket office and purchase a ticket. No barriers, no signs, unlike in Tottenham Vale where you find barriers and ticket machines which prompt you to understand you need a ticket. Being used to traveling to and from Gatwick by touching in and out, that is the assumption I made. I never wanted to avoid buying a ticket, I thought touching out would suffice so there is definitely no criminal intent. Accepting a penalty implies admittance of intent to evade a fare, which was not the case.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Mar 2025 ==

I have often had people tailgating behind me as I enter barriers, I pointed this out to officers chatting to other officers nearby there and then on a couple of occasions, and they ignored me so I do feel strongly fare evaders should be prosecuted. But I never tailgated behind someone or tried to avoid paying the fare. The system inconsistency makes it very easy for genuine, frequent travellers to make genuine mistakes over the purchase of tickets, especially in tube to train connections, as it allows touching out in some stations but not in others, and that is the point of my post.

But the problem is you as you have just admitted "assumed". Assuming puts the onus on you, nobody else. It's really that simple whether you agree with it or not. Assuming is not a defence unfortunately as it is up to you to fully clarify and understand where and when contactless travel is available. Just take the hit this time and learn from it.....

 

[Jim the Jim]

I am sorry to disagree again. Misusing a box junction or speeding does involve intent, because they are consistently applied rules everyone understands and is obliged to learn. Traveling within a touch in and out system within Greater London for years makes you assume you are paying your fare at the end of the journey when you touch out. When I travel from Tottenham Hale to the airport I know I cannot just touch out because there are barriers just before the platform. But in Stratford I found no barriers or signs anywhere so I made the wrong assumption. The purpose of my post is not to claim my money back but to raise awareness that this problem is very frequent and that barriers and signs should be much more obvious and visible. Touching in and out in some stations but not in others is costing millions of pounds every year and it is private companies that benefit from this inconsistency. In the end, the victim once again is the regular commuter who is forced to fund the most expensive transport system in the entire world, as the stats this year have revealed. I am sick and tired of this.

But Chelmsford, crucially, is not in Greater London. I don't think I'd rely on contactless to travel to any out-of-London station without checking explicitly first.

 

[rafael]

I already took the hit, just like thousands of commuters who make this mistake every day. But TfL allows you to rectify the wrong assumption. Another inconsistency. Instead, Greater Anglia places enforcement officers at the end of the journey to issue fines. It would have been so much better if the officer had been placed at the start of the journey to issue tickets! Lesson learnt the hard way. Profit gone to the usual hands.

 

[AlterEgo]

I am sorry to disagree again. Misusing a box junction or speeding does involve intent, because they are consistently applied rules everyone understands and is obliged to learn.

No, being in a box junction wrongly does not involve intent, and nor does speeding. You don't have to intend to break the law, you just have to be careless, and the PCNs you get for these are intended to make you be more careful next time. You do have the obligation to know whether a ticket is valid for your journey; sometimes this is not intuitive, but nonetheless it is your responsibility, I'm afraid.

Traveling within a touch in and out system within Greater London

Here's the problem. You weren't travelling within Greater London, you didn't check where Chelmsford and Stansted are (Essex), and you didn't check whether you were using the right ticket. Whether a station is inside or outside the county of Greater London is of no relevance to whether contactless is valid there.

When I travel from Tottenham Hale to the airport I know I cannot just touch out because there are barriers just before the platform.

But that has no bearing on whether contactless is valid or not, another incorrect assumption! Many, many stations aren't barriered in the contactless zone; you pay your fare by tapping a reader. A barrier is of no relevance whether contactless is valid for the train you're about to catch either.

Touching in and out in some stations but not in others is costing millions of pounds every year and it is private companies that benefit from this inconsistency.

No it is not; the government is controlling the train companies' revenue and receiving the farebox - as well as pulling the strings on policy - and we have a de facto nationalised network.

In the end, the victim once again is the regular commuter who is forced to fund the most expensive transport system in the entire world, as the stats this year have revealed. I am sick and tired of this.

This is just a rant posted in a part of the forum where people are here to help you if you would like to challenge something. Nonetheless, if you don't want to see if there are technical grounds to appeal, or receive advice in how to contact MPs who might be able to change this, I hope the rant this morning has been cathartic in some way - and I hope you are more careful next time, to avoid unintentionally breaking the law. We don't agree that the system is particularly fair here, and you're preaching to the converted, but equally this isn't a place where sounding off will elicit much sympathy if you don't actually want any help.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Mar 2025 ==

Profit gone to the usual hands.

...the government.


You say you want to take your complaint further, out of principle, but - how? Tell us if you'd like some help, there is lots of expertise here even if most of the posts here have been rebutting your incorrect assumptions (something which it is important to do so you don't go barking up the wrong tree!).

 

[londonbridge]

In your opening post you state that you forgot to check the ticket arrangements for your journey. As they say, ignorance is no excuse.

 

[rafael]

No, being in a box junction wrongly does not involve intent, and nor does speeding. You don't have to intend to break the law, you just have to be careless, and the PCNs you get for these are intended to make you be more careful next time. You do have the obligation to know whether a ticket is valid for your journey; sometimes this is not intuitive, but nonetheless it is your responsibility, I'm afraid.


Here's the problem. You weren't travelling within Greater London, you didn't check where Chelmsford and Stansted are (Essex), and you didn't check whether you were using the right ticket. Whether a station is inside or outside the county of Greater London is of no relevance to whether contactless is valid there.


But that has no bearing on whether contactless is valid or not, another incorrect assumption! Many, many stations aren't barriered in the contactless zone; you pay your fare by tapping a reader. A barrier is of no relevance whether contactless is valid for the train you're about to catch either.


No it is not; the government is controlling the train companies' revenue and receiving the farebox - as well as pulling the strings on policy - and we have a de facto nationalised network.


This is just a rant posted in a part of the forum where people are here to help you if you would like to challenge something. Nonetheless, if you don't want to see if there are technical grounds to appeal, or receive advice in how to contact MPs who might be able to change this, I hope the rant this morning has been cathartic in some way - and I hope you are more careful next time, to avoid unintentionally breaking the law. We don't agree that the system is particularly fair here, and you're preaching to the converted, but equally this isn't a place where sounding off will elicit much sympathy if you don't actually want any help.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Mar 2025 ==


...the government.


You say you want to take your complaint further, out of principle, but - how? Tell us if you'd like some help, there is lots of expertise here even if most of the posts here have been rebutting your incorrect assumptions (something which it is important to do so you don't go barking up the wrong tree!).

Thank you for agreeing that “the system is not particularly fair here”. This may be a rant but it is also an attempt to highlight unfair systems with a view to improving them rather than just “taking it in the chin” submissively without questioning it, like most citizens do. I do want your help and you have helped, thank you. I will now take the route of contacting my MP, as it appears to be the only way forward. The use of contactless systems is very inconsistent (yes to Gatwick Sussex, no to Chelmsford which is closer to London and en route to Stansted) and tickets could be made more available around Stratford platforms, which are most confusing as they are mixed with tube platforms in the same space.

 

[dosxuk]

I am sorry that you think a penalty of £100 is the least severe penalty.

They would have been within their rights to report you for prosecution, which, barring procedural mistakes would have succeeded, resulting in you getting a criminal record. So, no, I'm not sorry to think that a £50 penalty is the less severe option.

If you have an issue with the options that are available when ticket irregularities are detected, then that is a topic for you to bring up with your MP. It's not a choice of the staff on the day or the TOC.

Everyone in London knows how easy it is to misunderstand the system when no barriers are visible.

You weren't in London any more. It is your responsibility to ensure that you have a valid ticket for your travel. Assuming that things work the same across the entire country (planet?) as it does in London is your mistake.

As others have said, if you want directing towards resources to change the rules, or assistance for appealing your penalty, this is the forum to ask. As it stands though, you were in the wrong, the railway appears to have applied the rules correctly and you have received the lowest possible penalty for your infraction of the rules. Complaining that you broke the rules and were appropriately punished but don't want to do anything about it is not likely to gather you much support.

 

[LAX54]

They would have been within their rights to report you for prosecution, which, barring procedural mistakes would have succeeded, resulting in you getting a criminal record. So, no, I'm not sorry to think that a £50 penalty is the less severe option.

If you have an issue with the options that are available when ticket irregularities are detected, then that is a topic for you to bring up with your MP. It's not a choice of the staff on the day or the TOC.

You weren't in London any more. It is your responsibility to ensure that you have a valid ticket for your travel. Assuming that things work the same across the entire country (planet?) as it does in London is your mistake.

As others have said, if you want directing towards resources to change the rules, or assistance for appealing your penalty, this is the forum to ask. As it stands though, you were in the wrong, the railway appears to have applied the rules correctly and you have received the lowest possible penalty for your infraction of the rules. Complaining that you broke the rules and were appropriately punished but don't want to do anything about it is not likely to gather you much support.

Whatever happened to people taking responsibilty for their own actions ? plus Chelmsford is not two stations away, it maybe on the ytain you caught, but there are quite a few between Stratford and Chelmsford.
Whenever I go to a location I am not sure of, I always check, then double check how to get there, and rules !

 

[furlong]

Penalty fares are not supposed to be offered when there is clear intent to avoid a fare - prosecution is the route that should be taken.

Incorrect. Penalty Fares are both available and intended to be used where there is clear evidence of intent to evade paying the fare. They act as a streamlined alternative to prosecution.

you can not be admitting intent to evade a fare when you accept a penalty fare.

A Penalty Fare is imposed on you - you do not "accept" it. No admission of intent is involved but the intent to evade payment is deemed to be present but need not be proven to court standards and there's a system of three appeals available.

Penalty fares are for people, like you, who made a mistake.

Penalty Fares may be issued to people who breach the Penalty Fare regulations, "mistake" or otherwise.

In short, use all three appeals and focus particularly on the situation and signage at Stratford. Retrace your route through the station and note if there were any readily visible Penalty Fares posters along the way (as required) and if so compare the wording on them with the regulations. If you post a copy of the notice you were given in full (all the standard text) on here but with personal details redacted, people can check it for errors.

 

[transportphoto]

When I touched out at Stratford I got lost trying to find platform 11, as there are several corridors leading to both tube and train platforms. As I didn’t find any barriers or ticket machines I stupidly assumed I could touch out in Chelmsford and the fare would automatically increase (not as far out as Gatwick, where you can, plus I’ve never ever been to Chelmsford before).

But in Stratford I found no barriers or signs anywhere so I made the wrong assumption.

Even if your journey was within Greater London, you had touched out. You would not have had a valid ticket for any further journey. You should have remedied this before continuing in any case.

(Within London, you would have been relying on continuation exit (and the system realising that perhaps you should not have touched out) to be charged correctly.)