Penalty fare notice text.

[swt_passenger]

It’s often noted the in disputes section discussions that the wording on the vast majority of penalty fare notices is not quite the same as the regulations require.

The section “may have to pay…” vs “may be charged…”

But is there any evidence of a PF being cancelled on the basis of the text being different? I can’t remember anyone ever reporting back, but if it is such a clear cut issue, why is it never fixed?

 

[30907]

It’s often noted the in disputes section discussions that the wording on the vast majority of penalty fare notices is not quite the same as the regulations require.

The section “may have to pay…” vs “may be charged…”

But is there any evidence of a PF being cancelled on the basis of the text being different? I can’t remember anyone ever reporting back, but if it is such a clear cut issue, why is it never fixed?

I vaguely recall a previous discussion where it was suggested that the distinction was "de minimis" - "may have to be" clearly includes "may be charged" but excludes the interpretation "may be charged but so what?"

I doubt everyone agreed/ agrees and I am not intending to debate it.

 

[Haywain]

But is there any evidence of a PF being cancelled on the basis of the text being different?

In recent times we have not seen a successful appeal on the basis of this wording.

 

[island]

It is most unlikely indeed that if a case got to a court the issue would be resolved in the passenger's favour.

 

[AlterEgo]

I can’t recall any appeal being won on the basis of signage on the forum. Certainly not in the last few years.

 

[jon0844]

I can’t recall any appeal being won on the basis of signage on the forum. Certainly not in the last few years.

I think we'd have heard about it. It would be major news, especially if anyone who had paid a PF in the past could claim their money back.

 

[Hadders]

We had a case involving deficient signage at Tottenham Hale in 2023. I think there will be others as well but deficient signage is often mentioned alongside other reasons when an appeal is submitted so we never really know the exact reason for an appeal being upheld.

I must say that I'm surprised that the rail industry hasn't updated the Penalty Fare signage so it complies with the Regulations.

Stansted Airport fines

Went through today. Certainly is another huge poster on the right hand side above the ramp with a few different languages. It's all over the gates too. I wish the OP well with the appeal but I would be very surprised for GA to overturn it given how clear the signage is. Thanks - a few people...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Wolfie]

I vaguely recall a previous discussion where it was suggested that the distinction was "de minimis" - "may have to be" clearly includes "may be charged" but excludes the interpretation "may be charged but so what?"

I doubt everyone agreed/ agrees and I am not intending to debate it.

The whole "de minimis" debate cannot apply when the primary legislation specifies an exact form of words which MUST be used and, for whatever reason, a body choses to use anything other than that exact wording. I can say that based on Supreme Court rulings on litigation l was personally involved in for HMG. Essentially the law Lords view was that Parliament had chosen that form of words for good reason and it was not for others to second guess that.

However it is almost certainly true that a case would have to get to a Court of record to ensure that was so in practice. Lower level Courts are a whole other world.... What SHOULD happen is sadly not always what DOES happen... Getting to such a Court involves both risk and cost....

 

[furlong]

I've similarly never accepted that the alternative form of words being used would be capable of satisfying the regulations. Quite apart from the words simply being the wrong ones, they are inferior . I find the arrogance of the railway in assuming there'll be no adverse consequences from disregarding particular regulations astonishing when it would be so easy just to use the mandated words and avoid any risk of a future liability if at some future date it's decided that almost all Penalty Fares issued over the last few years were unenforceable for this reason and must be repaid. We saw what happened when the railway ignored the restrictions on the use of the Single Justice Procedure. This has the potential to be many times worse so why has the railway decided to take such an easily-avoidable risk?

 

[talldave]

I've similarly never accepted that the alternative form of words being used would be capable of satisfying the regulations. Quite apart from the words simply being the wrong ones, they are inferior . I find the arrogance of the railway in assuming there'll be no adverse consequences from disregarding particular regulations astonishing when it would be so easy just to use the mandated words and avoid any risk of a future liability if at some future date it's decided that almost all Penalty Fares issued over the last few years were unenforceable for this reason and must be repaid. We saw what happened when the railway ignored the restrictions on the use of the Single Justice Procedure. This has the potential to be many times worse so why has the railway decided to take such an easily-avoidable risk?

Incompetence, yet again!

 

[Wolfie]

Incompetence, yet again!

Or arrogance. The worst of it is that the decision was likely taken by someone at a relatively low level who had no real clue about the potential implications. I'm pretty sure, based on my own experiences, that any in-house lawyer would say "if the legislation specifies the wording then use that exact wording".

 

[island]

I can say that based on Supreme Court rulings on litigation l was personally involved in for HMG. Essentially the law Lords view was that Parliament had chosen that form of words for good reason and it was not for others to second guess that.

Please share the case citation for this.

 

[swt_passenger]

We had a case involving deficient signage at Tottenham Hale in 2023. I think there will be others as well but deficient signage is often mentioned alongside other reasons when an appeal is submitted so we never really know the exact reason for an appeal being upheld.

I must say that I'm surprised that the rail industry hasn't updated the Penalty Fare signage so it complies with the Regulations.

Stansted Airport fines

Went through today. Certainly is another huge poster on the right hand side above the ramp with a few different languages. It's all over the gates too. I wish the OP well with the appeal but I would be very surprised for GA to overturn it given how clear the signage is. Thanks - a few people...

www.railforums.co.uk

I suspect it would be a darn sight cheaper all round to amend the regulations to match the signage…

 

[AlterEgo]

I suspect it would be a darn sight cheaper all round to amend the regulations to match the signage…

Or just remove the signage element altogether and include penalty fares in the NRCoT.

 

[Cantab26]

Or just remove the signage element altogether and include penalty fares in the NRCoT.

That would not be possible as it would violate the general legal restraint on contractual penalties.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Apr 2025 ==

I suspect it would be a darn sight cheaper all round to amend the regulations to match the signage…

There isn’t even any need to do that. A minor amendment to insert 12 words into the regulations would be more than sufficient.

 

[fandroid]

I suspect it would be a darn sight cheaper all round to amend the regulations to match the signage…

But surely they haven't all followed exactly the same wrong wording? There must be TOCs who have taken legal advice and produced signage that complies exactly.

 

[swt_passenger]

But surely they haven't all followed exactly the same wrong wording? There must be TOCs who have taken legal advice and produced signage that complies exactly.

Possibly, but there’s not been many examples of the right words pictured. Be interesting to know the odds of any sign being being right.

 

[Haywain]

There must be TOCs who have taken legal advice and produced signage that complies exactly.

Alternatively, they may have taken legal advice and been advised that the wording used is acceptable.

 

[Watershed]

I think SWR's signage is compliant.