Did not evade fair. TOCs behaving like gangsters.

[KirkstallOne]

And you tried to Appeal it (I now note that, sorry I missed it before) but the Appeal was not allowed because it was not submitted in 21 days?

If I understood correctly they said - your appeal was late but we considered it anyway and rejected it. However because it was late we will not consider any further appeals.

 

[WesternLancer]

If I understood correctly they said - your appeal was late but we considered it anyway and rejected it. However because it was late we will not consider any further appeals.

Thanks for clarifying this point.

 

[furlong]

If I understood correctly they said - your appeal was late but we considered it anyway and rejected it. However because it was late we will not consider any further appeals.

What was quoted said they did not consider the appeal. They did (quite correctly) consider whether there was a sufficient reason they should consider it after the deadline and decided there was not.

 

[Haywain]

What was quoted said they did not consider the appeal. They did (quite correctly) consider whether there was a sufficient reason they should consider it after the deadline and decided there was not.

That is just splitting hairs.

 

[WesternLancer]

What was quoted said they did not consider the appeal. They did (quite correctly) consider whether there was a sufficient reason they should consider it after the deadline and decided there was not.

So there is a question as to if there was a reason why the OP did not submit an Appeal within the time limit - maybe related to whether they were given a PF slip / receipt by the inspector at the incident - which would have had the appeal details and ref number on it, without which submitting he appeal would have been difficult or perhaps not possible.

 

[furlong]

That is just splitting hairs.

It is an important distinction. Had they considered the appeal, then there would be 14 days to make a second appeal.
As it is, if there are new arguments not presented the first time (or presented poorly), nothing precludes a further attempt to persuade them to consider a late first appeal. (For example, if body camera footage emerges showing the passenger was never handed the notice.)

 

[AlterEgo]

The sum total of this is the OP did not have a ticket and did not attempt to buy one from the station ticketing facilities. Everything else is academic.

The penalty fare has been paid, and an appeal was not submitted in time.

The OP has no further recourse to appeal the notice.

A S27 attempt risks being seen as vexatious by the bank, because it is not being made on any grounds which would mean one would apply.

It is up to the OP to show on the balance of probabilities that they were unable to purchase a ticket from the machine, something that so far they have not been able to do, because they did not attempt to buy one from the machine. This applies whether they are making a form of civil claim against the train company or whether they are defending a criminal allegation (it is up to them to prove their defence on the balance of probabilities when relying on a statutory defence).

If you want the £100 back, you can either write to customer services, contact the press, or your MP. You may not get the money back. I recommend any correspondence be brief and to the point.

That's where you are at the moment.

 

[KirkstallOne]

What was quoted said they did not consider the appeal. They did (quite correctly) consider whether there was a sufficient reason they should consider it after the deadline and decided there was not.

Hmm yes, I didn’t parse it properly the first time, that does seem to be what they are saying although it is fairly ambiguous

Your appeal arrived at this office after the deadline. Having viewed this submission fully, there are no mitigating circumstances for consideration and the right to appeal has been forfeited.

It remains the responsibility of the passenger to ensure the safekeeping of their notice after issue.

Doesn’t seem to be any mention of considering ‘mitigation’ for a late appeal in the regulations, merely a clause that the appeal must be within 21 days or ‘within such longer period as the relevant Appeal Panel may allow’. They fact they state OP cannot appeal a second time implies they refused to allow the first, although the fact they ‘viewed this submission fully’ (presumably for late appeal mitigation but they don’t state that explicitly and we know the public often confuse mitigation with defence) is kind of misleading when there are no formal criteria for considering a late appeal!

OP I would be tempted to write back and ask them if they considered the appeal in terms of the defence raised under section 6 of the regulations, as a mis-considered reply may be to your advantage.

 

[tatitiliti]

Hi,

I have an issue appealing a penalty fare. I will give you a brief explanation and have the longer version I made a FB post of below.

At the end of June, I decided to go to a local festival midday to a station that's 10 minutes away. At my home station, there was nobody at the ticket office and my TOC C2C had yet another issue with their purchase system meaning that I was not able to purchase a ticket on their app and machine.

When I got to my destination station, I had a dispute with an officer. There were up to 10 security at the gates and I went to explain what's happened. To cut things short, an explosive argument and quite frankly inappropriate behaviour. The ticket officer accused me of attemting to commit fraud, when they know that there are often outages and issues with ticket purchases on C2C. Their apps and machines often have outages. In fact, 2 days later, I took a train ride to a local station and had to purchase my ticket at my destination, explaining to security.

I was infuriated at the ticket officer for accusing me of fraud. I explained that she did not know me, nor could she disprove what I say. She then said that I should have used contactless, even though Railcard Regulations state that I have the right to but a ticket at my destination if there's no means to purchase a Railcard ticket. Note that this is not TFL. She said that they would not physically let me out of the station unless I paid a penalty fare, knowing that this is against the law. She said that I do this or go back to my destination station. Now, for quick context, the last time I passed her in another local station, she subjected me to a degrading spot-check upon seeing my face.

They are not police officers. They possess no right to actually apprehend me, ferry me on a train back and prevent me from leaving a station. Knowing this, I could have left the station, but I agreed to take my name and details down upon speaking to another (more reasonable officer). I personally believe that the ticket officer deliberately did not issue a receipt in order to spite me.

I recently received a letter threatening use of a debt-collection agency, which can dock my credit score, if I did not pay within 14 days of the letter. Of course, I received the letter 9 days after its date via Royal Mail. It takes max 2 days for items to come via Royal Mail. They deliberately sent it after the date of the letter. They operate like Gangsters. I have asked my TOC for CCTV footage if they even have it and IRCAS denied my appeal. They said that it's my responsibility to take care of the receipt after issuing the penalty fare (even though I don't ever remember receiving any) and rejected out of hand since it's over 21 days later!

I originally appealed on the grounds that it was not lawful in the first place, as I have a right to purchase via railcard discount. I have asked my TOC for CCTV footage of the officer (they keep it for 3 months), but I fear that they will simply lie and claim that they don't have it, or refuse to hand it over as they often do.

I would like some advice on how to proceed further. I paid the £100 to avoid issues with mortgages etc in the future; as is the nature of the threat. I have decided to try Section 75, as I paid the penalty fare with a credit card. I believe that it's false representation to say I may travel with a valid ticket if there is no means to purchase a railcard ticket according to regulations, although I'm sure that there will be difficulty with the bank.

Long Version:

I understand your frustration with the overall system but it is what it is.

The fact is that you’ve boarded a train without a valid ticket while not attempting to use the ticket machine first - this will be obvious from CCTV. You can try appealing the three times on the grounds of no facility to purchase the ticket at your starting station (I doubt it will work) but I’d strongly advise you to refrain from letting your emotions get the better of you and taking this any further. They could technically prosecute you under RoRA if there’s clear evidence of you not using the ticket machine or no reports of it being defective.

People have given you some really good and pragmatic advice here to help you - ultimately it’s up to you whether you choose to take it.

EDIT: I missed that you’re out of time to appeal, which is entirely your responsibility. In that case, accept that you’ve paid the penalty fare and move on with your life.

 

[island]

Secondly, I sent a Subject Access Request on the 24th August as a basis to complain about improper/illegal behaviour by the officer

Such a request would fall to be refused on the grounds that it is vexatious.

As for the S75 application, that is doomed to fail on multiple grounds, not least that S75 gives you the same rights against the bank as you have against the payee, and you have no rights against the payee.

The PF having been paid and the appeal deadline having passed, the matter is now closed and I think you need to move on.

 

[KirkstallOne]

Yes I think I have to agree with the two posters above OP. It sounds like you were treated badly but just move on as there is not much else you can do, no point letting it eat you up. This is from someone who is still here after a very similar encounter three years ago which I came to the forum for advice on!

We see similar complaints frequently and cases first raised here were instrumental in last year’s mass quashings that you mention, and the commissioning of the ORR and MoJ reports, so it is helpful for you to raise these issues here.

 

[gray1404]

I still cannot work out if the OP was issued with penalty fare notice. If not then it was not issued in accordance with the regulations. Furthermore, their diagnosis of ADHD and the impact this has may have contributed to the reason for the delay in making an appeal. So this needs to be considered.

 

[Haywain]

I still cannot work out if the OP was issued with penalty fare notice.

If they were not, we would have to wonder how and why they came to both pay it and appeal.

 

[gray1404]

If they were not, we would have to wonder how and why they came to both pay it and appeal.

It looks like their first appeal was not allowed as it was out of time. Which is why I wonder if their medical condition could be offered in mitigation.

 

[greatkingrat]

If they were not, we would have to wonder how and why they came to both pay it and appeal.

It sounds like they got a letter chasing the penalty fare (the letter they were accusing c2c of fiddling the date of) and paid/appealed based on that letter, but by that point it was too late.

 

[John R]

It looks like their first appeal was not allowed as it was out of time. Which is why I wonder if their medical condition could be offered in mitigation.

Is there even a process for re-appealing in this circumstance? Appeal submitted late - consideration is given as to whether there are any mitigating circumstances that could warrant it being considered - decision is made that no such mitigation was submitted with it "eg, I'm sorry my appeal is late because...", so decision is not to consider the appeal - final answer.

 

[island]

Is there even a process for re-appealing in this circumstance? Appeal submitted late - consideration is given as to whether there are any mitigating circumstances that could warrant it being considered - decision is made that no such mitigation was submitted with it "eg, I'm sorry my appeal is late because...", so decision is not to consider the appeal - final answer.

Not as such, it would be by way of a free text letter to customer services. I don't think it would go anywhere, but I guess it costs nothing to try.

 

[John R]

Not as such, it would be by way of a free text letter to customer services. I don't think it would go anywhere, but I guess it costs nothing to try.

True, but given the somewhat confrontational approach of the OP to date, I'm inclined to agree that it is unlikely to be accepted.

 

[styles]

Solid advice in the last few posts.

I just want to add that if you do complain or ask for an appeal, you would do well to change your tone. Every other sentence in your original post (long version) you're slotting in facts about smart cards belonging to the issuer, revenue protection not having detention powers, or even trying to guess the architecture of their IT systems.

If nothing else, you've made a number of false assertions, from revenue protection not having detention powers to describing horizontal scaling of software hosting as 'devops', to saying there were no ticket purchasing facilities at the station when you didn't even try the machine.

If you have any chance of succeeding, you need to drop the know-it-all routine and put across a human story which describes the events (accurately) and why you may have missed the deadline for filing an appeal.

I doubt you'll have much success in any case, as this appears on the face of it to be a legitimately issued penalty fare which you've now paid. But if you do want to try and appeal to their better nature, which is all you can really do at this point, you need them to show some extra sympathy, which you want garner by quoting terms and conditions or trying to explain their IT architecture to them.

Chalk it up as a life lesson (always try the machine before boarding without a ticket, leave more time before getting your train, buy tickets using a different app/retailer) and move on I say.

 

[damola3]

Good evening all,

I would like to make a broader point at the disgraceful actions taken by the rail industry as a whole. I fought IRCAS and my The original post at longer length is:

Did not evade fair. TOCs behaving like gangsters.

Hi, I have an issue appealing a penalty fare. I will give you a brief explanation and have the longer version I made a FB post of below. At the end of June, I decided to go to a local festival midday to a station that's 10 minutes away. At my home station, there was nobody at the ticket office...

www.railforums.co.uk

A summary is that a year ago, ticket machines were not working, and so I travelled 3 stops down intending to purchase a ticket 5 stops away.

A (RPO) Revenue Protection Officer unprofessionally accused me of fraud and an explosive argument began (I even showed their app having issues at the time). With 10+ security, she threatened that they would detain me into the station and attempted to bully me into paying a fine on the spot, which I intended to always appeal.

She did not give me any document for the penalty fare and neither did I receive anything in the post until a few months later, where I received an IRCAS fine without even being able to read the penalty fare itself!

After stating that I never received the penalty fare, IRCAS said that it's my responsibility not to lose it and refused my appeal.

I then paid the £102.90 due to threat of prosecution, debt collection (credit score) etc.

I went to the TOC to submit a SAR (Subject Access Request) for the video footage of the incident, where there clearly was no occasion that I was actually handed a penalty fare, and handed this to my bank who committed the charge back of £100.

IRCAS then threatened me with prosecution, if I do not pay an even bigger amount by post!

I then posted a letter to IRCAS criticising their lack of due process, as without that video, I'm "guilty before proven innocent": they have the ability to request payment without any evidence or process even if I had never been at the station at the time!

They later folded, backed down and charged me the cost of a return ticket £2.90 to settle the incident.

Here's the kicker. In the video that I requested from the TOC via the SAR, they cut out almost half of the footage! Why?

There were at least 10 security by the gates on that day and the RPO threatened to detain me at the station if I did not pay on the spot.

Threatening to detain me at the very least is a Civil Offence, and so soon I will be taking the TOC to court. The video footage of the incident begins where I criticise the RPO for threatening to detain me and I tell her that it's illegal.

Originally, C2C told me that they will hand over the video footage within 2 days of getting a response, but it took almost 2 weeks if my memory serves me correctly. I believe that (understandably so), they were protecting themselves from any liability by the conduct of their RPO.

The reason that I took things so far, is to make a wider point about the nonsense with SJPs.

 

[Egg Centric]

Threatening to detain me at the very least is a Civil Offence, and so soon I will be taking the TOC to court. The video footage of the incident begins where I criticise the RPO for threatening to detain me and I tell her that it's illegal.

Take the TOC to court for what? You seem to have done better out of this than expected tbh, in that apart from all the wasted time (and I appreciate that that does have a cost) you're in financially the same position as if everything worked?

As has been posted here it can be legal for the RPIs to detain you - depends whether you'd given your details or not.

 

[Undiscovered]

Threatening to detain me at the very least is a Civil Offence, and so soon I will be taking the TOC to court.

We thank you for updating us on your progress.
It's been over a year now, since this process started, and we rarely hear back from those who have sought our advice, successful or not in their outcome.

Please keep us informed as to your upcoming events the legal arguments, and the representation you have, either self or professional solicitor. This, going forward, could be a landmark case.

 

[jon0844]

When you request CCTV or bodycam footage I believe the only parts you'll get are the parts where you are personally in it. Other people can be digitally removed/hidden and I am not even sure if you get audio.

Only a very limited number of people get full access, such as the police (but this is not a police issue). This is for your protection and also that of the people in the video footage.

 

[valoscore]

Threatening to detain me at the very least is a Civil Offence, and so soon I will be taking the TOC to court. The video footage of the incident begins where I criticise the RPO for threatening to detain me and I tell her that it's illegal.

Except it wasn't illegal, you provided the RPO with no evidence that the ticket machine was not working and by your own admission did not check it. The RPO had more than enough reasonable suspicion to detain you until police could arrive to obtain your details. All of this would be fully legal under The Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

It's been over a year, you have got your penalty fare refunded which is far more than you should have got and yet you are still pressing this. Whilst originally one or two of your points had at least some merit, going after them for this is frivolous at best and displaying pure ignorance at worst. Quite frankly it would not surprise me if you are now on all RPOs radar and can expect very little lenience if you do make any mistakes in future but this is the bed you have made. Quit whist you are ahead and going forward being meticulous in following ticketing rules and collect evidence protect you from any further accusations should similar situations occur.

 

[Egg Centric]

Except it wasn't illegal, you provided the RPO with no evidence that the ticket machine was not working and by your own admission did not check it. The RPO had more than enough reasonable suspicion to detain you until police could arrive to obtain your details. All of this would be fully legal under The Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

It's been over a year, you have got your penalty fare refunded which is far more than you should have got and yet you are still pressing this. Whilst originally one or two of your points had at least some merit, going after them for this is frivolous at best and displaying pure ignorance at worst. Quite frankly it would not surprise me if you are now on all RPOs radar and can expect very little lenience if you do make any mistakes in future but this is the bed you have made. Quit whist you are ahead and going forward being meticulous in following ticketing rules and collect evidence protect you from any further accusations should similar situations occur.

There's nothing about "reasonable suspicion" in my reading of the RORA. If OP gave his details that satisfied the requirement. I'm not a lawyer though and this is kind of thing where maybe other stuff gets added on to the law by interpretation, idk.

What we don't know is if the OP actually did.

I 100% agree with your general point that this is probably a waste of time and pragmatically a bad idea that is getting people's backs up, and that yes OP should indeed quit at this point for everyone's sake!

 

[Mattplans]

Quite frankly it would not surprise me if you are now on all RPOs radar and can expect very little lenience if you do make any mistakes in future but this is the bed you have made. Quit whist you are ahead and going forward being meticulous in following ticketing rules and collect evidence protect you from any further accusations should similar situations occur.

Well this certainly doesn't undermine the argument that the ToCs are behaving like gangsters. Why should the behaviour of RPOs in a future hypothetical fare irregularity be dictated by such an old issue - 'over a year ago'. to use your term.

Except it wasn't illegal, you provided the RPO with no evidence that the ticket machine was not working

This is ridiculous. Since when is it incumbent upon a passenger to prove that railway infrastructure isn't up to standard? What a horrible precedent to set. How are they even supposed to prove that?

Railway Byelaw 18(1) states:

"In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel."

Railway Byelaw 18(3) explicitly provides the legal exception if no purchasing facilities were available at the station:

"No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if:
(i) there were no facilities for issuing the necessary ticket for the journey being made at the station where the journey commenced;
(ii) there was a notice at the station where the journey commenced stating that there were no facilities for issuing tickets; (iii) an authorised person gave him permission to enter the train or compulsory ticket area; or (iv) an indicator card was obtained from a permit to travel machine at the station where the journey commenced."

As you can see, there's nothing in the byelaws about "providing an RPO with evidence that the ticket machine is not working". That's a completely fabricated caveat. It's this culture of making rules up on the spot that undermines the authority of the railway. Funny how RPOs are so frequently accused of doing that..

The suggestion that a claim should be abandoned because of a fear of repercussions from RPOs.. and they aren't gangsters? Sounds like gang behaviour to me. Quite literally suggesting that RPOs don't behave in the impartial manner of which they are expected. If people backed down that easily nothing would ever be achieved.

Kudos to the OP to following through. These people operate often outside of the confines of the law. They get away with bullying passengers (many such cases on this forum) and in some cases rely on the naivety of the citizen in not knowing their rights. In the Channel 4 show, how many RPOs suggested that people were compelled to offer Identification to them? Or show them their Apple ID? Should we expect any better from gangs of wannabe police rejects ?

 

[valoscore]

There's nothing about "reasonable suspicion" in my reading of the RORA.

I didn't meant reasonable suspicion in regards to the law, i mean that personally the RPO had nothing to work with to confirm OPs claim and therefore had to act on the suspicion that they were intentionally fare evading

Well this certainly doesn't undermine the argument that the ToCs are behaving like gangsters. Why should the behaviour of RPOs in a future hypothetical fare irregularity be dictated by such an old issue - 'over a year ago'. to use your term.

Is a waiter who you click your fingers at a gangster for then telling his colleagues you're rude and not to give you good service? Not an exact comparison but I hope you see my point on this one. while yes this incident has no legal bearing on anything going forward, RPOs operate with discretion like many other jobs in the world and OP certainly won't be getting any going forward if remembered. And they are certainly doing everything to be remembered!

As you can see, there's nothing in the byelaws about "providing an RPO with evidence that the ticket machine is not working". That's a completely fabricated caveat. It's this culture of making rules up on the spot that undermines the authority of the railway. Funny how RPOs are so frequently accused of doing that..

People need to stop thinking so legalese, a quick picture can make your life so much easier. whilst not required it certainly would have put the matter to bed much much sooner and can only work in your favour. It's hardly going out of ones way.

The suggestion that a claim should be abandoned because of a fear of repercussions from RPOs.. and they aren't gangsters? Sounds like gang behaviour to me.

That is not what i'm saying, because OP is already on the radar after presumably failing the attitude test in person, refer to waiter example. OP should abandon this claim because they cannot win, nor should they in any capacity, they failed to follow the appeals process within the set time frame. Honestly, if the appeal was sent in time and got to the 3rd independent appeal board, OP would, imo, have the PF overturned. But they didn't do that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jun 2026 ==

In the Channel 4 show, how many RPOs suggested that people were compelled to offer Identification to them? Or show them their Apple ID? Should we expect any better from gangs of wannabe police rejects ?

Also, having watched all episodes of this show, not once did any RPO say you must show your ID to anyone. They asked, which anyone can do, I can ask to see yours if I want.

 

[Mattplans]

Not the same thing (but still relevant to rights)

perp:You've got my details, yeah? Can I go now?
Inspector 1: No, not yet
Inspector 2: (correcting their colleague) It would be better for you to finish this.

As far as I'm concerned, it looks like the perp in this case has been led to believe he is being detained

 

[island]

As you can see, there's nothing in the byelaws about "providing an RPO with evidence that the ticket machine is not working". That's a completely fabricated caveat. It's this culture of making rules up on the spot that undermines the authority of the railway. Funny how RPOs are so frequently accused of doing that..

There doesn't need to be, because section 101 of the Magistrates Court Act provides for the burden of proving the exception, in this case that the machine is not working, to fall on the defendant.

 

[Mattplans]

There doesn't need to be, because section 101 of the Magistrates Court Act provides for the burden of proving the exception, in this case that the machine is not working, to fall on the defendant.

That’s not really fair, is it?