Penalty fare for No Ticket

[Mango_axx]

Hello everyone, I need some advices on the situation.

I was travelling from Selly Oak station to Birmingham New Street, but the ticket I had purchased earlier was a valid open-day return from University station to Birmingham New Street.

Selly Oak and University are adjacent stations on the same line, and the fare between either of them to New Street is exactly the same.

I was issued a Penalty Fare Notice because the ticket technically listed University as the origin station, not Selly Oak.

I submitted a formal appeal, I express that I had a fully paid valid ticket for the same route and price and I had no intention of fare evasion or financial gain.

But it was rejected. I am now preparing a second appeal. Thanks in advance for your help!

By the way, I did not sign the penalty fare notice, as I genuinely believed I was in the right. The staff member simply stated that I should be penalised and handed me the notice.

Thank you!

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Hello everyone, I need some advices on the situation.

I was travelling from Selly Oak station to Birmingham New Street, but the ticket I had purchased earlier was a valid open-day return from University station to Birmingham New Street.

Selly Oak and University are adjacent stations on the same line, and the fare between either of them to New Street is exactly the same.

I was issued a Penalty Fare Notice because the ticket technically listed University as the origin station, not Selly Oak.

I submitted a formal appeal, I express that I had a fully paid valid ticket for the same route and price and I had no intention of fare evasion or financial gain.

But it was rejected. I am now preparing a second appeal. Thanks in advance for your help!

By the way, I did not sign the penalty fare notice, as I genuinely believed I was in the right. The staff member simply stated that I should be penalised and handed me the notice.

Thank you!

Welcome to the forum!

Unless there's something technically wrong with the notice you were issued with (and someone will probably be along real soon to discuss this) you don't have grounds for appeal. Your journey appears to have been Selly Oak to New Street: you only had a ticket for the shorter journey of University to New Street: so you didn't have a valid ticket for the journey you were making. That the fare would have been the same doesn't come into it.

Although this is harsh, it's the logic the railway will follow. So my suggestion is to pay the penalty fare promptly before the £50 penalty element goes up to £100.[/s]

(Edited to get stations the right way round)

 

[Watershed]

Welcome to the forum.

Unfortunately, the train company was - in principle- legally entitled to issue a Penalty Fare to you. The fact that the fare is the same from Selly Oak as it is from University doesn't mean that you can use a University ticket to travel from Selly Oak. I would suggest you buy a ticket from Selly Oak in future, in case you want to travel from there rather than University station.

Nevertheless, you have the right to appeal your Penalty Fare three times. Regulation 16 of the Penalty Fares Regulations sets out the possible grounds for appealing a Penalty Fare:

(a) the penalty fare was not charged in accordance with the requirements of these Regulations;

(b) the appellant is not the person liable for the payment of the penalty fare;

(c) the appellant owns a season ticket valid for the journey in question but was not in possession of the season ticket at the time the penalty fare was charged; or

(d) there are compelling reasons why, in the particular circumstances of the case, the appellant should not be liable to pay the penalty fare.

It would be helpful if you could upload a redacted copy of your Penalty Fare and appeal correspondence so that we can review whether any of these grounds, particularly subparagraph (a), might apply. This might be based on the Penalty Fare being filled out incorrectly, or the signage at the station potentially not meeting the requirements of the Regulations. There have been numerous threads where the issue of non-compliant signage has been discussed; the best draft of such an appeal I'm aware of is here. Your refusal to sign the Penalty Fare won't make any difference to its validity.

However in principle, given that there are facilities to buy a ticket at Selly Oak, the main ground of appeal you'd likely be falling back on is 'compelling reasons' under subparagraph (d). That is very much at the discretion of the appeals assessors, and understandably they will only grant such appeals if the circumstances really are 'compelling'.

They might view your circumstances as being compelling, since you have not actually avoided paying for any of the fare - though the discretionary nature of this appeal ground means there can be no guarantees. We often see appeals (especially 'compelling reasons' ones) accepted by the second or third stage appeals bodies, even where a first or second appeal is rejected.

I would encourage you to pursue all three stages as there is no cost or risk associated with this. The 'clock' on the 21 day period for the reduced penalty of £50 vs £100 is stopped during any time that you're awaiting a decision on one of your three appeals.

 

[saismee]

I had purchased a valid open-day return from University station to Birmingham New Street.

There's no such thing as an open-day return. Do you mean "anytime day return" (SDR) or "off-peak day return" (CDR)? Open returns don't seem to be available to these stations. These tickets both allow break of journey, so you could buy a ticket between Selly Oak and Birmingham New Street and still travel to/from University if you'd like.

However in principle, given that there are facilities to buy a ticket at Selly Oak, the main ground of appeal you'd likely be falling back on is 'compelling reasons' under subparagraph (d). That is very much at the discretion of the appeals assessors, and understandably they will only grant such appeals if the circumstances really are 'compelling'.

They might view your circumstances as being compelling, since you have not actually avoided paying for any of the fare - though the discretionary nature of this appeal ground means there can be no guarantees. We often see appeals (especially 'compelling reasons' ones) accepted by the second or third stage appeals bodies, even where a first or second appeal is rejected.

I would encourage you to pursue all three stages as there is no cost or risk associated with this. The 'clock' on the 21 day period for the reduced penalty of £50 vs £100 is stopped during any time that you're awaiting a decision on one of your three appeals.

I agree with this. The train operator hasn't actually lost anything on this journey and I think it is a little ridiculous to issue a PFN in this case. Was it the Rail Delivery Group who mentioned something about not taking action in cases where the operator hasn't lost any money? I can't find a thread but I remember reading something like that here.

 

[Mango_axx]

There's no such thing as an open-day return. Do you mean "anytime day return" (SDR) or "off-peak day return" (CDR)? Open returns don't seem to be available to these stations. These tickets both allow break of journey, so you could buy a ticket between Selly Oak and Birmingham New Street and still travel to/from University if you'd like.


I agree with this. The train operator hasn't actually lost anything on this journey and I think it is a little ridiculous to issue a PFN in this case. Was it the Rail Delivery Group who mentioned something about not taking action in cases where the operator hasn't lost any money? I can't find a thread but I remember reading something like that here.

Thank all for your reply!!!

It was an off-peak day return ticket, and I travelled during the off-peak period.

Honestly, I find this situation quite ridiculous.

If I had bought a return ticket from Selly Oak to Birmingham New Street, I would have been allowed to board at University station with no issue.

But if I buy a ticket from University to Birmingham New Street, I apparently face a penalty for boarding at Selly Oak, even though both stations are on the same line and the fare is exactly the same.

I usually choose "University" when buying tickets simply because it's more convenient for checking the train schedule.

 

[Watershed]

Thank all for your reply!!!

It was an off-peak day return ticket, and I travelled during the off-peak period.

Honestly, I find this situation quite ridiculous.

If I had bought a return ticket from Selly Oak to Birmingham New Street, I would have been allowed to board at University station with no issue.

But if I buy a ticket from University to Birmingham New Street, I apparently face a penalty for boarding at Selly Oak, even though both stations are on the same line and the fare is exactly the same.

I usually choose "University" when buying tickets simply because it's more convenient for checking the train schedule.

I definitely sympathise with you. However, as the saying goes - "the law is an ass" - the fact that it's unreasonable for the validity to work this way doesn't change the legal position. As mentioned, at best it might give rise to a 'compelling reasons' appeal.

 

[Mango_axx]

Welcome to the forum.

Unfortunately, the train company was - in principle- legally entitled to issue a Penalty Fare to you. The fact that the fare is the same from Selly Oak as it is from University doesn't mean that you can use a University ticket to travel from Selly Oak. I would suggest you buy a ticket from Selly Oak in future, in case you want to travel from there rather than University station.

Nevertheless, you have the right to appeal your Penalty Fare three times. Regulation 16 of the Penalty Fares Regulations sets out the possible grounds for appealing a Penalty Fare:


It would be helpful if you could upload a redacted copy of your Penalty Fare and appeal correspondence so that we can review whether any of these grounds, particularly subparagraph (a), might apply. This might be based on the Penalty Fare being filled out incorrectly, or the signage at the station potentially not meeting the requirements of the Regulations. There have been numerous threads where the issue of non-compliant signage has been discussed; the best draft of such an appeal I'm aware of is here. Your refusal to sign the Penalty Fare won't make any difference to its validity.

However in principle, given that there are facilities to buy a ticket at Selly Oak, the main ground of appeal you'd likely be falling back on is 'compelling reasons' under subparagraph (d). That is very much at the discretion of the appeals assessors, and understandably they will only grant such appeals if the circumstances really are 'compelling'.

They might view your circumstances as being compelling, since you have not actually avoided paying for any of the fare - though the discretionary nature of this appeal ground means there can be no guarantees. We often see appeals (especially 'compelling reasons' ones) accepted by the second or third stage appeals bodies, even where a first or second appeal is rejected.

I would encourage you to pursue all three stages as there is no cost or risk associated with this. The 'clock' on the 21 day period for the reduced penalty of £50 vs £100 is stopped during any time that you're awaiting a decision on one of your three appeals.

Thank you very much for your reply !!

Attached is the draft of my first appeal, which was unfortunately declined. I’ve also uploaded a copy of the Penalty Fare Notice for your reference.

I’ve also included a part of their response. I’m not sure if it’s a standard template reply.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal:
I am writing to formally appeal the penalty fare notice issued to me while I was travelling from Selly Oak station to Birmingham New Street.

I had previously purchased a valid open day return ticket from University station to Birmingham New Street, which is on the same rail line and to the same destination. On the day of travel, I boarded the train at Selly Oak station instead of University. This was an honest mistake, as I believed the ticket would still be valid — the fare from Selly Oak to Birmingham New Street is identical to that from University, and both stations are located on the same line.

I understand that, technically, I boarded at a different station than stated on my ticket. However, there was no intention to evade the fare, nor was there any financial benefit involved. I kindly ask you to take these circumstances into consideration and waive the penalty fare, given the genuine misunderstanding and the fact that the fare remains the same.

Please find attached a copy of the original ticket and the penalty fare notice for your reference. I would greatly appreciate your reconsideration of this matter.

Thank you very much for your time and understanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response:
The transport user is required to show on request a valid ticket. The journey for which a ticket is valid is clear on purchase. Additionally, it is the responsibility of the transport user to allow sufficient time to ensure full use of all ticket purchasing facilities prior to travel.

On assessment your appeal has been declined, however you have the right to re-appeal.

You may submit a further appeal by creating a new appeal online at www.appealservice.co.uk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[John R]

It is worth noting that the ORR (the Statutory Rail Regulator for the benefit of the OP) was critical of the Penalty Fare review process in its very recent review of ticketing and revenue protection practices, and the failure of those reviewing to accept an appeal where compelling reasons apply.

4. Revenue protection policies and practices | Office of Rail and Road

www.orr.gov.uk

Under 4.24 it says:-

Transport Focus’s 2020 report found cases of appeals where clearly compelling reasons were not accepted and where it had to intervene. We did not find sufficient evidence to assure ourselves that the system has improved since then. The fact that Transport Focus and London TravelWatch continue to intervene on behalf of passengers after an appeal has been denied a third time is indicative of this.

Also, a few paragraphs above:-

4.18 We saw evidence of appeal bodies focusing on the strict liability aspect of the ticket irregularity, regardless of whether a passenger had made an innocent mistake and the proportionality of the financial impact to the TOC in relation to this.

It might be worth noting these in any appeal, particularly the third one. Clearly proportionality is in play here, given that the OP did not avoid any of the fare due.

 

[Haywain]

ticket technically listed University as the origin station, not Selly Oak.

There's no "technically" about it, you bought a ticket that said it was for a journey from University to New Street. If you board a train at Selly Oak you need a ticket that is valid from there, not just sold at the same price.

 

[Watershed]

Another point that has just come to mind is that your ticket arguably was valid for the journey you made from Selly Oak. This is because the routes along which tickets are valid are determined under condition 13.1 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT). Subparagraph 13.1.3 refers to the routes permitted in the Routeing Guide.

The Routeing Guide is a long and complicated document, but this journey is classified as a 'local journey' which means the rules set out in page F7 of the Routeing Guide in Detail document apply. These state that:

If there is a common routeing point, the permitted route is the shortest route or a route which is longer by no more than 3 miles

Doubling back between University and Selly Oak is no more than 3 miles longer than the shortest route from University to Birmingham, since the distance between the two stations is less than 1.5 miles (it's about 0.72 miles). Therefore, your ticket was valid to double-back via Selly Oak, and you were entitled to start your journey at Selly Oak.

Therefore I'd revise my previous conclusion that your ticket wasn't valid, to that it (at least arguably) was and therefore you should not have been issued with a Penalty Fare regardless of any other factors.

Thank you very much for your reply !!

Attached is the draft of my first appeal, which was unfortunately declined. I’ve also uploaded a copy of the Penalty Fare Notice for your reference.

Thanks for uploading the PF. Immediately the first thing that comes to mind is that the PF's value is wrong. They should have charged you £3.10 as that's the single fare from Selly Oak to University, but they've actually charged you £3.80. That would be a ground of appeal I'd raise, as it means that the PF has not been issued in accordance with the Regulations - i.e. you are appealing on the basis of Regulation 16(a).

It may only seem a trivial difference but given that they are trying to penalise you for a mere breach of the 'letter of the law', you're quite entitled to hold them to the same standard.

I’ve also included a part of their response. I’m not sure if it’s a standard template reply.

I wouldn't say it's fully templated, but to a large degree it does appear to be.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal:
I am writing to formally appeal the penalty fare notice issued to me while I was travelling from Selly Oak station to Birmingham New Street.

I had previously purchased a valid open day return ticket from University station to Birmingham New Street, which is on the same rail line and to the same destination. On the day of travel, I boarded the train at Selly Oak station instead of University. This was an honest mistake, as I believed the ticket would still be valid — the fare from Selly Oak to Birmingham New Street is identical to that from University, and both stations are located on the same line.

I understand that, technically, I boarded at a different station than stated on my ticket. However, there was no intention to evade the fare, nor was there any financial benefit involved. I kindly ask you to take these circumstances into consideration and waive the penalty fare, given the genuine misunderstanding and the fact that the fare remains the same.

Please find attached a copy of the original ticket and the penalty fare notice for your reference. I would greatly appreciate your reconsideration of this matter.

Thank you very much for your time and understanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response:
The transport user is required to show on request a valid ticket. The journey for which a ticket is valid is clear on purchase. Additionally, it is the responsibility of the transport user to allow sufficient time to ensure full use of all ticket purchasing facilities prior to travel.

On assessment your appeal has been declined, however you have the right to re-appeal.

You may submit a further appeal by creating a new appeal online at www.appealservice.co.uk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
View attachment 185844

I think for your second stage appeal I would therefore raise the following arguments. You might want to slightly reformat this, but you can use it as the basis for your appeal.

1. You're appealing under Penalty Fares Regulation 16(a), as the PF was not issued in accordance with the requirements of the Regulations in two respects:
   • a) Under Regulation 4(1), the requirement was for you to produce a valid ticket on request. Based on the Routeing Guide in Detail, you were entitled to travel on a route within 3 miles of the shortest route, which would include doubling back via Selly Oak. Your ticket was therefore valid to start your journey at Selly Oak and you accordingly produced a valid ticket - therefore there were no grounds for issuing a Penalty Fare in the first place.
   • a) Under Regulation 9(1A)(a), the Penalty Fare should have been for £100 plus the "full single fare applicable". This is £3.10 from Selly Oak to University (include a screenshot from WMT's website showing this, I'd suggest), but they've actually charged you £3.80 for the fare.
   • b) Under Regulation 8(2), a "standard notice" complying with the requirements of paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 must be displayed at the entrance to every platform of your origin station. Here I would then attach a picture of whichever poster(s) are present at Selly Oak, showing that the wording does not meet the aforementioned requirements: the requirement under paragraph 1(1)(c) is that
     • A standard notice must contain ... the wording “Please buy your ticket before you travel otherwise you may be charged a Penalty Fare”
   • ...however the notice does not contain this wording. It likely contains similar wording, but it does not have the exact wording specified in the Regulation - in quotation marks. There can be no leeway given for the fact that the wording has substantially the same meaning; your ticket had substantially the same validity as one from University to Birmingham, but that did not mean it was equivalent to a ticket from University or valid for travel from Selly Oak. In the same vein, even a small degree of non-compliance with the signage requirement means the Penalty Fare has not been issued in accordance with the requirements of the Regulations.
2. You're appealing under Penalty Fares Regulation 16(d), as you believe there are compelling reasons why your appeal should be allowed:
   • Regardless of the matter of valid routes, you had paid the same fare as a ticket from Selly Oak, and there was no fare avoided or financial loss to the company through you buying the University ticket.
   • As per the above-linked ORR review of revenue protection policies, the proportionality of the financial impact to the TOC should be considered as a factor when deciding appeals. The strict liability question of the ticket's validity must not be the sole consideration when deciding an appeal.

Hope that helps!

 

[soil]

View attachment 185844

This PFN is invalid and MUST be cancelled.

The first two appeals are typically a sham, but the third appeal is an actual independent panel, so should succeed.

Relevant legislation

The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018

These Regulations make provision for the charging of penalty fares for the failure to produce, when required to do so, a ticket or other authority authorising a person to travel by train or to be present in a compulsory ticket area at a station.

www.legislation.gov.uk

9(2A)

(2A) In paragraph (1A), “the full single fare applicable” is the full single fare for the journey in question from the boarding station to the station that the penalty fare authorises the person to travel to


Then 16

The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018

These Regulations make provision for the charging of penalty fares for the failure to produce, when required to do so, a ticket or other authority authorising a person to travel by train or to be present in a compulsory ticket area at a station.

www.legislation.gov.uk

2) An appeal under this regulation must be made—


(b)on one or more of the grounds specified in paragraph (3).

(3) The grounds on which an appeal under this regulation may be made are that—

(a)the penalty fare was not charged in accordance with the requirements of these Regulations;

(d)there are compelling reasons why, in the particular circumstances of the case, the appellant should not be liable to pay the penalty fare

[(d) could apply, in that you know it's the same fare, and it's simply a booking engine anomaly that leads you to buy the same fare, but there's no need to raise it, as you win outright under (a)]

(7) If the relevant Appeal Panel, after considering an appeal under this regulation, concludes that any ground specified in paragraph (3) applies, it must allow the appeal.

The full single fare is £3.10, not £3.80

Purchase flexible walk-up fares for any British train journey

Purchase flexible single/return tickets & Travelcards – in 3 clicks, at face value with no fees. Every British rail fare shown, railcard discounts included.

www.brfares.com

Absurd situation.

No idea where they've got this number from.

 

[pica]

Another point that has just come to mind is that your ticket arguably was valid for the journey you made from Selly Oak. This is because the routes along which tickets are valid are determined under condition 13.1 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT). Subparagraph 13.1.3 refers to the routes permitted in the Routeing Guide.

The Routeing Guide is a long and complicated document, but this journey is classified as a 'local journey' which means the rules set out in page F7 of the Routeing Guide in Detail document apply. These state that:

Doubling back between University and Selly Oak is no more than 3 miles longer than the shortest route from University to Birmingham, since the distance between the two stations is less than 1.5 miles (it's about 0.72 miles). Therefore, your ticket was valid to double-back via Selly Oak, and you were entitled to start your journey at Selly Oak.

I believe this is incorrect. Doubling back is generally prohibited even for local journeys (as the example on page F7 makes clear, or the bottom of page 2 here).

The incorrect fare objection stands, however.

 

[yorkie]

There's no "technically" about it, you bought a ticket that said it was for a journey from University to New Street. If you board a train at Selly Oak you need a ticket that is valid from there, not just sold at the same price.

It is valid from Selly Oak.

It's the same price, and therefore this rule, which is applied by journey planners, applies:

In certain circumstances, a doubleback is permitted via the journey origin and/or destination.
If there is a doubleback through the journey origin, then it is valid provided that:

• The fare from the origin to the first change station is not more than the fare from the overall
• journey origin to the destination.
• The fare from the first change station to the destination is not more than the fare from the
• overall journey origin to the destination.
• The part of the journey from the first change station to the end of the Local Journey is itself a
• valid Local Journey, except that another doubleback through the journey origin is not
• permitted.
• Where the journey origin is in a station group, there is no doubleback through the origin station

However, many journey planners won't allow a double-call at the named origin station, even though there is nothing officially preventing it

That said, in the opposite direction, there is a very strong argument against a double-call at the destination station, on the basis that a ticket expires once the destination is reached, which would preclude travelling via Selly Oak on the return portion.

The fact that WMT are arguing over a 0p difference in fares says a lot about what's wrong with the rail industry in Great Britain. It also says a lot about the people issuing these Penalty Fares, in terms of their lack of knowledge, lack of application of common sense, and dubious morals. However, it's best not to get into such a debate further, as it doesn't really help the original poster. But it's worth noting the sort of people/companies/systems that we are dealing with here.

 

[John R]

The fact that WMT are arguing over a 0p difference in fares says a lot about what's wrong with the rail industry in Great Britain. It also says a lot about the people issuing these Penalty Fares, in terms of their lack of knowledge, lack of application of common sense, and dubious morals. However, it's best not to get into such a debate further, as it doesn't really help the original poster. But it's worth noting the sort of people/companies/systems that we are dealing with here.

Agree entirely, and as I noted above, the Rail Regulator agrees that some of these practices are inappropriate. The immateriality point as there is no fare difference should be raised in any appeal, with particular reference to the document I linked to, to drive home the point that there are compelling circumstances why a penalty fare should not have been issued.

 

[Watershed]

I believe this is incorrect. Doubling back is generally prohibited even for local journeys (as the example on page F7 makes clear, or the bottom of page 2 here).

The incorrect fare objection stands, however.

The 'basic' Routeing Guide Instructions do say that doubling back is prohibited for local journeys. However they are supplemented and contradicted in several areas by the Routing Guide in Detail. I would suggest the more comprehensive document, described as being "in Detail", would take precedence. In any event, any ambiguity must be interpreted in the consumer's favour under section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act.

The example on the bottom of of page F7 of the Routeing Guide in Detail demonstrates that doubling back is permitted in some cases; Stratford to Solihull via Birmingham involves doubling back between Tyseley and Birmingham.

Admittedly, the same paragraph also claims that doubling back via Banbury would not be permitted due to failing the "route test". However, no explanation is given of what this "route test" means or involves - or why the Banbury example is any different to doubling back between Tyseley and Birmingham, which we are told is permitted. Therefore, I don't think the Banbury example explains or sets out any kind of enforceable rule or restrictions.

 

[yorkie]

The routeing guide instructions for journey planners are slightly different to those in the public PDF documents, but do absolutely allow doubling back in the circumstances applicable to this case, as quoted in my post #13 above.

 

[island]

I would suggest the more comprehensive document, described as being "in Detail", would take precedence. In any event, any ambiguity must be interpreted in the consumer's favour under section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act.

Section 69 does not say that, it says that if a term (singular) in a contract could have multiple meanings, the meaning most favourable to the consumer is to prevail. It says nothing about multiple terms which contradict one another. Nevertheless, case law has tended to interpret contradictions and inclarities in a contract against the person who wrote the contract, so for that reason the customer is still likely to benefit from the more favourable interpretation.