Misleading discount message on SWR Penalty Fare Notice

[Puffing Devil]

Looking at the PF Notice in this thread



The notice states: "Amount Due: £132.50. If paid within 21 Days* this is reduced to £82.50." It then clarifies: "* Beginning with the day following the day on which the notice is charged. No account will be taken of any time on appeal."

When read in isolation, this asterisked clarification is highly misleading. It suggests that if you appeal, the 21-day clock for the discounted payment continues to tick, effectively forcing you to pay the reduced amount within that initial window or lose the discount, even while your appeal is pending.

However, this interpretation directly conflicts with the stated policy intent and effect of the regulations, as clarified in the Explanatory Memorandum to The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018.

The Memorandum explicitly states that: "The regulations also 'stop the clock' on the time limit for the payment of a penalty fare if a passenger has appealed." It goes on to explain: "This means that, pending the consideration of their appeal, a passenger will not have to make payment of the penalty fare or incur administration fees for late payment." Furthermore, it highlights: "There was unanimous agreement from consultees to take forward 'stopping the clock' for payment of penalty fares."

Therefore, the wording on this GTR notice is potentially misleading because, according to the official Explanatory Memorandum, the 21-day discount deadline for a Penalty Fare IS indeed paused when the fare is on appeal. The "time limit for the payment of a penalty fare" that stops includes the period for paying the discounted amount.

This discrepancy between the literal wording on the penalty fare notice and the stated policy intent in the Explanatory Memorandum is a significant issue. Passengers should not be pressured into paying a penalty fare to secure a discount when their right to appeal suspends the payment deadline. Rail operators must ensure their notices clearly and accurately reflect the full intent of the regulations, preventing any confusion that might disadvantage passengers during the appeals process.

I would suggest that a passenger could argue that the notice, by misrepresenting the effect of an appeal on the discount period, deprived them of their full rights under the regulations or caused them to miss the opportunity for a reduced fare under false pretences.

 

[Watershed]

To me, the wording does correctly describe the way it works ("no account will be taken" is trying to say "these days don't count towards the 21 days"), albeit in a very confusing and excessively formal manner. I agree that the wording should be improved to be more readable and clearly understood for the average person. Indeed we have seen a number of posters who are understandably under the mistaken belief that the 21 days continue to run whilst they are appealing, leading them to pay earlier than they have to.

 

[jfollows]

I’m sure we’ve had this discussion before, but I agree with @Watershed (I think) in that I believe it’s worded correctly but might be improved for clarity, because people other than @Puffing Devil have read the wrong interpretation.

Just one example at https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/merseyrail-penalty-fare-is-this-valid.285765/

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Jun 2025 ==

It may also be required by the legislation (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/366)

(2A) in respect of England, the information provided by the collector must also include

(a)in respect of the amount of the penalty fare—

(i)the reduction in the amount of the penalty fare if it is paid within 21 days beginning with the day following the day on which the penalty fare is charged; and

(ii)the fact that the 21 days to pay the reduced amount of the penalty fare does not include any time on appeal;

although that wording isn’t exactly the same as used by SWR and others.

 

[Haywain]

I would suggest that a passenger could argue that the notice, by misrepresenting the effect of an appeal on the discount period, deprived them of their full rights under the regulations or caused them to miss the opportunity for a reduced fare under false pretences.

Whilst the wording is not as clear as it could be, I am struggling to see the disadvantage to the recipient of a PFN. If they don't appeal the wording has no effect whatsoever and if they do appeal and pay before the initial 21 days jhas expuired they will receive a refund if their appeal is successful. If they appeal unsuccessfully they will only be expected to pay the higher amount when the extended period has expired, and I would expect that a pyment portal will only ask for and accept the lower amount prior to that, so they may get an unexpected surprise in the amount expected.

 

[Puffing Devil]

To me, the wording does correctly describe the way it works ("no account will be taken" is trying to say "these days don't count towards the 21 days"), albeit in a very confusing and excessively formal manner. I agree that the wording should be improved to be more readable and clearly unde

While it's true that the legal wording "no account will be taken" is a formal way of phrasing things, its interpretation in the context of the discount period has been explicitly clarified by the Explanatory Memorandum. The Memorandum states that the regulations "stop the clock" on the time limit for payment of a penalty fare if an appeal is lodged. This means the 21-day period for the discount is paused. Therefore, the notice's wording, implying that the clock continues to run for the discount, is not merely confusing; it's a misrepresentation of the actual effect of the appeal on the discount timeline, which is that the period is suspended. The fact that many posters are under the mistaken belief that the 21 days continue to run validates that the wording is misleading and creates a potential disadvantage, as it may prompt them to pay prematurely.

I’m sure we’ve had this discussion before, but I agree with @Watershed (I think) in that I believe it’s worded correctly but might be improved for clarity, because people other than @Puffing Devil have read the wrong interpretation.
Just one example at https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/merseyrail-penalty-fare-is-this-valid.285765/

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Jun 2025 ==

It may also be required by the legislation (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/366)
although that wording isn’t exactly the same as used by SWR and others.

The Merseyrail PF Notice has different wording that covers the right to appeal, but it has a clock-ticking deadline for when payment is due, with no reference to the appeal process.

You are correct that Regulation 5(2A)(a)(ii) mandates the inclusion of the phrase "the fact that the 21 days to pay the reduced amount of the penalty fare does not include any time on appeal". The issue isn't whether the notice must contain this phrase (it must), but how that phrase is interpreted and presented in practice, especially when read by a layperson.

As established by the Explanatory Memorandum, the regulations intend that the payment deadline (including for the discounted fare) is paused during an appeal. The legal wording "no account will be taken of any time on appeal" is intended to convey that the appeal time does not extend the period, because the period is already paused. The problem arises when this legal nuance is presented without the broader context of the "stop the clock" provision, leading to a misleading impression that the 21-day discount window is absolute and unaffected by an appeal. The notice provides the literal legal phrasing, but without the necessary explanatory context that clarifies its actual effect, it inadvertently creates misinformation about the passenger's rights.

Whilst the wording is not as clear as it could be, I am struggling to see the disadvantage to the recipient of a PFN. If they don't appeal the wording has no effect whatsoever and if they do appeal and pay before the initial 21 days jhas expuired they will receive a refund if their appeal is successful. If they appeal unsuccessfully they will only be expected to pay the higher amount when the extended period has expired, and I would expect that a pyment portal will only ask for and accept the lower amount prior to that, so they may get an unexpected surprise in the amount expected.

The disadvantage arises precisely from the misinformation about the discount deadline. If the recipient genuinely believes an appeal does not pause the discount period, they are put in a difficult position.

One such difficulty is the pressure to pay. They might feel compelled to pay the discounted amount immediately within the initial 21 days to secure the reduction, rather than taking the necessary time to prepare and fully pursue their appeal. This scenario could lead to them paying a penalty fare that they ultimately do not owe, to avoid a larger charge later.

Another concern is unnecessary financial outlay. Should they pay the discounted amount and their appeal is subsequently successful, they would then have to wait for a refund, which represents an avoidable temporary financial expenditure. The Explanatory Memorandum's "stop the clock" provision is specifically designed so a passenger "will not have to make payment of the penalty fare or incur administration fees for late payment" pending appeal. If the notice misleads them into making a payment, this important safeguard is undermined.

There is also the risk of being charged a higher amount if they wait. If, based on the notice's wording, they decide not to pay within the initial 21 days because they are appealing, thinking they've lost the discount eligibility anyway, they might be unexpectedly presented with the higher, non-discounted amount at a later stage. While a payment portal might initially request the lower amount, the wording on the notice itself could lead them to believe they are no longer eligible for it if they choose to appeal and not pay immediately. The core disadvantage here is the absence of clear, accurate information at the outset, which forces passengers into making decisions under potentially false pretences.

 

[Kilopylae]

I agree with PuffingDevil that the plain English meaning of "no account will be taken of any time on appeal" is that the fact that it spent some time on appeal won't make a difference, i.e. that it doesn't matter if you appeal it, 21 days is 21 days. The fact that it's included at all makes it seem to the casual reader as if they've added it specifically to clarify that appealing does not stop the clock. It's plainly dishonest in intent, even if it's technically permissable.

 

[Egg Centric]

Whilst the wording is not as clear as it could be, I am struggling to see the disadvantage to the recipient of a PFN. If they don't appeal the wording has no effect whatsoever and if they do appeal and pay before the initial 21 days jhas expuired they will receive a refund if their appeal is successful. If they appeal unsuccessfully they will only be expected to pay the higher amount when the extended period has expired, and I would expect that a pyment portal will only ask for and accept the lower amount prior to that, so they may get an unexpected surprise in the amount expected.

You are assuming that the penalty fare is a trivial sum of money, which it may be to you and me but isn't to a lot of the fare evader demographic. £50 alone is almost 6 hours work at minimum wage for an 18 year old, but we may conceivably be talking a few hundred quid penalty fare. 34% of working age British people have less than £1k in savings. Unnecessary time pressure on them to pay it isn't a good thing.