Purchased ticket on Trainpal and received penalty fare

[Johnny3894]

Hello, it's my first time posting in this forum.

So on 15th May, I purchased an offpeak day return ticket with 16-25 railcard (My railcard is valid) from Birmingham New Street to University (Birmingham). I selected the timeslot of 13:23 for the outbound and 16:56 for the return. In trainpal the showed that I can purchase a offpeak day return ticket, and it showed me time of alternative trains that I could take, including the one that I took around 17:20 (sorry it has been a while and I forgot the exact time). When I returned to Birmingham New Street I was stopped by the fare officer and showed them my ticket. He said my ticket was invalid, as trains around 16:30 to 18:00 is peak trains (Which I wasn't aware of, as trainpal sold me an offpeak ticket, I would certainly not evade fare if I'm aware of it.) Later he issued me an penalty fare which I appealed for twice (both failed, hoping for support for the final appeal). At the station I explained my circumstances to the staff, he said it is highly likely for my appeal to be successful as this is just a genuine mistake. I guess that makes me to expect my appeal to be successful which is not the case at the moment.

I've attached the two appeal results letter in time order. I hope that either my appeal is successful, or I could make trainpal somehow pay for my penalty fare (which I doubt they would, they're just a wicked company). I'm here to ask whether there is any legal grounds for my circumstance to either overturn the penalty fare, or make trainpal to be responsible for my penalty fare.

Thank you for reading this far and I really appreciate all kinds of support that I could get from you all.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jul 2025 ==

Sorry I forgot to attach the letters, here they are.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

@Johnny3894. Welcome to the forum. Have tried replicating booking a similar journey for today, and Trainpal was only offering me an Anytime Day Return (or 2 x Anytime Day Singles) for the journeys at or around the time of day you mention, so not sure exactly what you've done to be offered an Off Peak Day Return, but having said that, I'm wondering whether the appropriate action by revenue protection on the Thursday in question was to have issued you with a 35p excess, rather than a Penalty Fare?

 

[mikeg]

Do you have any evidence of it showing the times you could take, such as itinerary on the eticket showing it was valid on this service? If you were travelling to the itinerary the ticket should have been honoured either way on contractual grounds (it matters not that you booked through a third party, as a National Rail accredited retailer, they are acting as agents on behalf of all TOCs). Either way, a penalty fare is inappropriate, an excess should have been charged in line with the National Rail Conditions of Travel. A further question: With which TOC did you travel when you received the penalty fare?

Furthermore, the appeals service declining the appeal is concerning when it's not a penalty fare situation and there may be contractual reasons why the ticket should have been honoured.

I furthermore wish to clarify in which direction you were travelling in the evening peak. Birmingham Stns to University has restriction GF on the off peak day return, which only applies departing specified stations, of which University is not one:

Not valid on trains timed to depart before 09:30.

In addition, not valid Mondays ‐ Fridays on any train departing Birmingham New Street, Birmingham Snow Hill, Birmingham Moor Street, Five Ways or Jewellery Quarter between 16:34 and 18:01.

This does not apply if passengers hold tickets for through journeys, i.e. if a change of train is required at one of these five stations to complete their journey.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jul 2025 ==

It is perhaps worth mentioning that the LNER app is also offering off peak day returns for those timings assuming you travelled from New Street on the outward and University inbound

 

[Brum900]

Even West Midlands Railway's own website and app sells these journeys as an off-peak return. I would use a screenshot that as conclusive proof.

 

[AlterEgo]

Regardless of all this stuff and nonsense, an off peak ticket being used in the peak is not a penalty fare matter and may only be disposed of by paying an excess fare. The penalty fare is abortive on these grounds.

Of course the penalty fares appeal assessor declined it because frankly they’re incompetent and just want you to pay the penalty fare. Joke system where anons on the internet do a better job then the RPI and the person handling the appeal. All the time.

 

[Watershed]

Could you upload a copy of the original Penalty Fare, with any reference number/name etc. removed? Just so that we have clarity on the details shown (e.g. start and end station, time, reason for being issued).

Firstly, it sounds like your ticket actually was valid for the time you travelled, as the evening peak restrictions only apply for departing Birmingham city centre - not for arriving into Birmingham. If you were travelling into Birmingham then there was absolutely no basis for the Penalty Fare and a final, third-stage appeal should succeed on that basis alone.

Furthermore, even if you were travelling at a time of day when restrictions applied to your Off-Peak ticket, the correct outcome would have been to charge you the difference to the Anytime fare. It is not permitted to issue you with a Penalty Fare. The National Rail Conditions of Travel (section 9.5) are very clear that this is the procedure which should be followed.

We can help you draft a third, final appeal once we have all of the necessary facts.

 

[John R]

Here is the relevant condition of the NRCoT.

Where you:
9.5.1 are using a time-restricted Ticket (such as an “off-peak” or “super-off-peak” Ticket) that is correctly dated but invalid for the service on which you are travelling; or
9.5.2 are using a route for which your Ticket is not valid; or
9.5.3 break your journey when you are not permitted to do so;
you will be charged the difference between the fare that you have paid and the lowest price Ticket that is valid for the train you are using.

https://assets.nationalrail.co.uk/e8xgegruud3g/77fuBWp62YPSrGwBP1mNQX/5f912e6484a2dc7efbad3b4ed0c9b383/National_Rail_Conditions_of_Travel_2024.pdf

I'm not sure whether you are out of time for a third appeal, but I would most definitely not pay the penalty fare, and tell WMR you will see them in court, and you will be contacting your MP about it. Firstly, it appears your ticket was valid, and secondly, even if it wasn't, WMR has not handled with it in the appropriate manner.

 

[Johnny3894]

Hi, thanks for all the replies. Thanks for all the support otherwise I would not know that what they're doing is illegal.

Just extra info, I took a West Midlands train, and my return journey (which is the journey that I received the fare) was from University, to Birmingham New Street.

I only had the proof that I can buy the offpeak ticket at said time on the 16 May (I took a screenshot immediately after I received the fare) on Trainpal. When I checked few days later they've patched it and sold anytime return only.

I received the second appeal results on 3 July so I believe I still had a few days to submit the final appeal.

I've also attached the original penalty fare, sorry it might not be very clear but it has been a while.

 

[John R]

The attached image is a screenshot from BRFares.com,

Look up fares for any train journey in Britain

Full details of all British rail Single, Return & Season tickets and Travelcards. Built-in Season Ticket Calculator.

www.brfares.com

which lists all fares and restrictions.

You will see that the restriction (code GF albeit not shown) is only FROM "Birmingham Stations" (which for this purpose is New St) in the afternoon, so more confirmation that the ticket was valid.

Attachments shows the off peak ticket price of £2.35 with railcard, and the following restriction:-

Outward & Return:​ M-F FROM 0930 & NOT VALID FROM BHAM STNS 1635-1800​ Ticket issued from:​ BIRMINGHAM STNS​

Fare Setter: WEST MIDLANDS PTE​

 

[Hadders]

I suggest you post your draft appeal in this thread so that we can proof read it for you.

Getting the wording and terminology correct is extremely important when it comes to this sort of thing, especially as this is the final appeal.

 

[fandroid]

I'm likely to be doing a similarly timed trip tomorrow from BHM to UNI and back. I'll deliberately buy a return for that leg (I'll be travelling from/to Reading) and test the system

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2025 ==

Having had a look at that restriction code myself, I think the longer worded part might be interpreted as not allowing train departures from the listed stations, in any direction , in the evening peak. As most trains from UNI towards BHM stop (and depart again) at Five Ways (which is on the list) they might be caught in the restriction. That begs the question of how limited stop trains might be covered, or not. I'll try to capture a screen shot of the full wording.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2025 ==

 

[mikeg]

I'm likely to be doing a similarly timed trip tomorrow from BHM to UNI and back. I'll deliberately buy a return for that leg (I'll be travelling from/to Reading) and test the system

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2025 ==

Having had a look at that restriction code myself, I think the longer worded part might be interpreted as not allowing train departures from the listed stations, in any direction , in the evening peak. As most trains from UNI towards BHM stop (and depart again) at Five Ways (which is on the list) they might be caught in the restriction. That begs the question of how limited stop trains might be covered, or not. I'll try to capture a screen shot of the full wording.

I did notice that, irrespective, many journey planners including LNER and perhaps formerly Trainpal don't seem to interpret it that way. If the passenger has been given that itinerary it must be honoured under consumer rights grounds. The wording could also do with being clearer, but the electronic restrictions, or at least their interpretation, seem more lenient.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Having had a look at that restriction code myself, I think the longer worded part might be interpreted as not allowing train departures from the listed stations, in any direction , in the evening peak. As most trains from UNI towards BHM stop (and depart again) at Five Ways (which is on the list) they might be caught in the restriction. That begs the question of how limited stop trains might be covered, or not. I'll try to capture a screen shot of the full wording.

Five Ways doesn't come into it, given you boarded the train at University, and journey planners reflect that.

If you'd instead been heading from New Street to University, the PM peak restriction would apply.

 

[fandroid]

Five Ways doesn't come into it, given you boarded the train at University, and journey planners reflect that.

If you'd instead been heading from New Street to University, the PM peak restriction would apply.

But the words don't specify direction, they just say "trains departing ..... Five Ways" between the specified times. So it's the trains that are being identified, not the passenger nor their journey. Commuters (from Five Ways) are as likely to be heading towards Litchfield as they are Bromsgrove, so the restriction would make some sense if applied to all trains passing through central Birmingham.

I agree that if the OP was given the itinerary stated on an Off-Peak ticket, then it should be honoured. But the best strategy must be to rely on pointing out that an excess should have been charged, and a Penalty Fare notice was totally out of order. They've got the heavy cudgels out to enforce a piffling little underpayment.

Even if a Penalty Fare was applicable, some di minimis should apply in a sensible world.

 

[Hadders]

But the words don't specify direction, they just say "trains departing ..... Five Ways" between the specified times. So it's the trains that are being identified, not the passenger nor their journey. Commuters (from Five Ways) are as likely to be heading towards Litchfield as they are Bromsgrove, so the restriction would make some sense if applied to all trains passing through central Birmingham.

I agree that if the OP was given the itinerary stated on an Off-Peak ticket, then it should be honoured. But the best strategy must be to rely on pointing out that an excess should have been charged, and a Penalty Fare notice was totally out of order. They've got the heavy cudgels out to enforce a piffling little underpayment.

Even if a Penalty Fare was applicable, some di minimis should apply in a sensible world.

My view is that if the restriction was intended to apply from University then University would be specifically mentioned in the text.

That it isn't, and isn't in the unpublished restrictions either, (used by online ticketing systems) suggests to me that the restriction doesn't apply from University (and isn't intended to either).

 

[furlong]

The 3rd paragraph resolves the error in the wording of the previous paragraph. If you assume the incorrect interpretation (any train stopping at those stations) that third paragraph makes no sense: why would it be OK to change train at one of those stations yet not be OK to stay on a train passing through the same station?

The intention is clear. But in the appeal, simply rely on an itinerary argument.

 

[185]

Ticket has been issued correctly, no error by agent. Only error is by RPI who's assumed University is amongst the afternoon peak restricted stations... it's not.

What's unforgivable isn't the RPIs error, but the PF Appeal people for not bothering to read that fare's rules or realising that even if it was restricted, it's not a PF anyway.

In fairness, at least it's not a Northern Penalty Fake.

 

[John R]

Ticket has been issued correctly, no error by agent. Only error is by RPI who's assumed University is amongst the afternoon peak restricted stations... it's not.

What's unforgivable isn't the RPIs error, but the PF Appeal people for not bothering to read that fare's rules or realising that even if it was restricted, it's not a PF anyway.

In fairness, at least it's not a Northern Penalty Fake.

So three errors here:-

1. The initial one of saying the ticket is invalid.
2. Assuming it was invalid, the issuance of a Penalty Fare, which isn't the appropriate remedy
3. The refusal twice of the Appeal.

All in all a shocking state of affairs, and one that should be raised with the OP's local MP.

 

[Johnny3894]

Again thanks for all the replies, but I’m getting a little confused now. So it’s my ticket valid, and if it’s valid, what reasoning should I include in my appeal? I do apologise as my first language isn’t English, so I might have to use chatgpt to generate an appeal letter for me. I’ll amend it myself, and put it up here so everyone could have a look and provide some insights.

With regard to the MPs everyone mentioned, I’ve heard that they would not answer emails like these and they wouldn’t really care. Is that the case?

 

[Watershed]

Again thanks for all the replies, but I’m getting a little confused now. So it’s my ticket valid, and if it’s valid, what reasoning should I include in my appeal? I do apologise as my first language isn’t English, so I might have to use chatgpt to generate an appeal letter for me. I’ll amend it myself, and put it up here so everyone could have a look and provide some insights.

I would structure your appeal to include the following reasoning. I'll let you draft something up, but it can be pretty similar to this.

1) Your ticket was valid for the train you took, as the evening peak time restriction under restriction code GF only applies to departing Birmingham, not to arriving in Birmingham - which is what you were doing. You should include a copy of the wording of restriction code GF (available at nre.co.uk/GF - and refer to the fact that this link is printed on the ticket).

You can also refer to the screenshot you took when buying your ticket which showed the 17:26 train as valid for the Off-Peak fare, and the fact that it's also offered for the 17:26 on both National Rail Enquiries and West Midlands Trains' own website (make sure you search for a return journey involving the trains you used). Therefore, you met the requirement to produce a valid ticket under Regulation 4(1) of the Penalty Fares Regulations.

2) The Penalty Fare Notice does not state a reason why it has been issued - it states "Reason: Other" and provides no further explanation. Penalty Fares Regulation 5(2)(b) requires "an explanation of why the person is being charged a penalty fare" to be provided at the time of issuing the PF. Should WMT suggest that they did provide an explanation why you are being charged, the burden of proof on this point lies on WMT as per Regulation 16(4).

3) Even if your ticket had restricted at that time of day, this would not mean that it failed to be a "valid ticket". Condition 9.5.1 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT) clearly states that in such a circumstance, you will simply be charged the difference to the cheapest appropriate ticket. It does not give train companies the right to issue a Penalty Fare in such a case. Therefore, again, you met the requirement to produce a valid ticket under Regulation 4(1) of the Penalty Fares Regulations and hence there were no grounds for issuing a Penalty Fare.

Each of these grounds of appeal constitute a failure by WMT to comply with the Penalty Fare Regulations, which means that "the penalty fare was not charged in accordance with the requirements of these Regulations" under Regulation 16(3)(a). Accordingly, the appeal panel is obliged to allow your appeal.

With regard to the MPs everyone mentioned, I’ve heard that they would not answer emails like these and they wouldn’t really care. Is that the case?

It really depends on your MP; some are really good in terms of helping with constituents' problems whilst others are not. There is no harm in contacting them, I would say - although you might want to wait until the outcome of this appeal, so that you can refer to that. If it's successful, you can point to the fact that there were multiple failures of process and that you should not have needed to appeal three times. If it's unsuccessful, you can ask for their help in getting back the Penalty Fare amount you are wrongly being forced to pay. Either way you can ask them to speak to the company, and the Department for Transport, to ask what they're doing to prevent this from happening again.

 

[Hadders]

Again thanks for all the replies, but I’m getting a little confused now. So it’s my ticket valid, and if it’s valid, what reasoning should I include in my appeal? I do apologise as my first language isn’t English, so I might have to use chatgpt to generate an appeal letter for me. I’ll amend it myself, and put it up here so everyone could have a look and provide some insights.

With regard to the MPs everyone mentioned, I’ve heard that they would not answer emails like these and they wouldn’t really care. Is that the case?

@Watershed has given some excellent advice in how to set out the appeal but do post a draft here so we can make sure the wording is right.

I would focus on the appeal for now, contact with the MP can wait. In my experience they often don't want to get involved in a 'live' case but you should have a really strong case to make to them once the appeal is decided.

 

[soil]

So three errors here:-

1. The initial one of saying the ticket is invalid.
2. Assuming it was invalid, the issuance of a Penalty Fare, which isn't the appropriate remedy
3. The refusal twice of the Appeal.

All in all a shocking state of affairs, and one that should be raised with the OP's local MP.

They also appear to be in breach of The Companies Disclosure Regulations by not disclosing their identity (ITAL Group Ltd, trading as Appeal Service) on their letters.
They also seem confused about their trading name, whether it is "Appeal Service" or "Appeals Service".

However, it's important to note that what's happened is

1 Stage 1 - this is considered by ITAL Group - incompetent, and while the "Appeal Service" website claims to provide "a truly independent and impartial appeals service", the ITAL Group website suggests that this is not the case at all - ITAL Group sell fare enforcement services to TOCs and gain 100% of their revenue from TOCs, so it's clearly implausible to describe their service as genuinely independent.
2 Stage 2 - again considered by ITAL Group - same again
3 Stage 3 - this is sent to ITAL Group but only for administrative reasons - they forward it on to an actual independent panel set up in 2024, the members of which are all lawyers, magistrates, arbitrators, etc.

Therefore the fact that they've been wrong on the issue of the PF and the first 2 'appeals' has no bearing on the final appeal, which should be heard properly, providing the OP takes the time to properly explain their case in their appeal as discussed elsewhere in the thread.

 

[Hadders]

They also appear to be in breach of The Companies Disclosure Regulations by not disclosing their identity (ITAL Group Ltd, trading as Appeal Service) on their letters.
They also seem confused about their trading name, whether it is "Appeal Service" or "Appeals Service".

However, it's important to note that what's happened is

1 Stage 1 - this is considered by ITAL Group - incompetent
2 Stage 2 - again considered by ITAL Group - same again
3 Stage 3 - this is sent to ITAL Group but only for administrative by an independent panel, the members of which are all lawyers, magistrates, arbitrators, etc.

Therefore the fact that they've been wrong on the issue of the PF and the first 2 'appeals' has no bearing on the final appeal, which should be heard properly, providing the OP takes the time to properly explain their case in their appeal as discussed elsewhere in the thread.

Discussion about the competence of ITAL and their identity is worthy of debate, but this should be done in a separate thread to avoid taking this thread off-topic, which is to assist @Johnny3894 with their 3rd stage appeal.

We haven't seen exactly what was submitted at the stage 1 or stage 2 appeals so I think we need to be careful when referring to ITAL as incompetent.

 

[soil]

Discussion about the competence of ITAL and their identity is worthy of debate, but this should be done in a separate thread to avoid taking this thread off-topic, which is to assist @Johnny3894 with their 3rd stage appeal.

We haven't seen exactly what was submitted at the stage 1 or stage 2 appeals so I think we need to be careful when referring to ITAL as incompetent.

My point was to clarify the difference between the next step and the previous two in the context of the suggestion to contact the MP, which doesn't seem to be appropriate at this stage: Parliament brought in the IAP precisely to resolve concerns about the independence and effectiveness of PF appeals services, so it doesn't seem like an MP issue particularly.

 

[John R]

The timing can be debated, (and I agree it should follow the outcome of the third appeal) but I think it is appropriate as regardless of any appeal outcome, WMR is issuing Penalty Fares to people when they shouldn’t be. How many times a day does that inspector make that mistake with a ticket where the only issue is the time of day, and how many others are doing it? And how many passengers will pay without bothering to appeal even the once?

 

[Starmill]

The timing can be debated, (and I agree it should follow the outcome of the third appeal) but I think it is appropriate as regardless of any appeal outcome, WMR is issuing Penalty Fares to people when they shouldn’t be. How many times a day does that inspector make that mistake with a ticket where the only issue is the time of day, and how many others are doing it? And how many passengers will pay without bothering to appeal even the once?

It's in the Northern guide for revenue staff to issue Penalty Fares in these circumstances, so maybe it's in WMT's as well. Several other companies routinely did this for years. It's unlikely that the inspector will be considered to have made a mistake, they were likely to be following the process set out for them by their manager.

 

[Johnny3894]

Hi, I've written and amended a draft of appeal with the help of chatgpt, hopefully I've put all the points that everyone mentioned, and I'll attach the screenshots and my tickets when I'm actually submitting the appeal form on the website.

1. My ticket was valid for the service I used I held an Off-Peak Return ticket, which is subject to Restriction Code GF. According to the wording of Restriction Code GF (available at www.nre.co.uk/GF, as printed on the ticket itself), the evening peak restriction applies only to departures from Birmingham between 16:34 and 18:01. It does not apply to arrivals into Birmingham during this time, which was the direction of my travel. Additionally, I include a screenshot taken from both Trainpal, which is an authorised ticket seller and where I purchased this exact ticket, and West Midlands Train's website, with the same train is still shown as available at the Off-Peak fare when searching return journeys involving the same trains. Under Regulation 4(1) of the Penalty Fares Regulations, I produced a valid ticket for my journey. Therefore, the Penalty Fare should not have been issued.
2. The Penalty Fare Notice did not include a valid reason The Penalty Fare Notice states the reason as simply "Other" , without any explanation. Under Regulation 5(2)(b) of the Penalty Fares Regulations, the notice must include an explanation of why the person is being charged a penalty fare at the time of issue. This requirement was not met. If West Midlands Trains claim that a verbal explanation was provided, I would refer to Regulation 16(4), which states that the burden of proof is on the operator to demonstrate that the regulation was complied with.
3. Even if a restriction applied, a Penalty Fare is not permitted Even if it were incorrectly considered that my Off-Peak ticket was not valid at that time, this would not mean that I failed to produce a valid ticket. Under Condition 9.5.1 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT), if a passenger is found to be travelling with a ticket that is not valid for the time of travel, they are liable to pay the difference to the cheapest valid fare, not a Penalty Fare. The Conditions do not allow train operators to issue Penalty Fares in such cases. Therefore, again, I satisfied the requirement to produce a valid ticket under Regulation 4(1), and there were no lawful grounds to issue a Penalty Fare.

 

[Watershed]

That sounds good. I would remove the reference to a potential a verbal explanation of the reason for issue - a verbal explanation would not be compliant anyway, as it has to be written. Regulation 5(2) refers:

the collector must provide that person with the following information in writing at the time the penalty fare is charged

So you can just remove the world "verbal" and make that sentence say "If West Midlands Trains claim that an verbal explanation was provided, I would refer to Regulation 16(4)...."

I would also include the point I made in my last paragraph about Regulation 16(3)(a). You could copy that whole paragraph as it stands, just replacing "your" with "my" in the last sentence: "Accordingly, the appeal panel is obliged to allow my your appeal."

 

[Johnny3894]

That sounds good. I would remove the reference to a potential a verbal explanation of the reason for issue - a verbal explanation would not be compliant anyway, as it has to be written. Regulation 5(2) refers:


So you can just remove the world "verbal" and make that sentence say "If West Midlands Trains claim that an verbal explanation was provided, I would refer to Regulation 16(4)...."

I would also include the point I made in my last paragraph about Regulation 16(3)(a). You could copy that whole paragraph as it stands, just replacing "your" with "my" in the last sentence: "Accordingly, the appeal panel is obliged to allow my your appeal."

Thanks for the advice. I've submitted the final version of the appeal. I'll update this thread when I've received results of the final appeal, and hopefully it'll be a good one.