Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
If you genuinely thought you were entitled to free travel at the time of the incident, then personally I find it interesting you chose to use the phrase "Fair(sic) dodging" in your thread title rather than something that sounded a bit more like a mistake/accident?
Thanks for your answers. I suspected as much. Rather imaginative!
I think this is the first time we have had a thread like this on the forum and so we'll need to work through the legal perspectives. On the face of it, it seems nonsense to think that TfL is entitled to treat Reading Station as a TfL compulsory ticket area and impose Penalty Fares on passengers of non-TfL train companies. But what does the legislation actually say? Are there loopholes or has it been enabled somehow?
You were not travelling on a TfL service (which would only be the Elizabeth Line from Reading).
It is not a Compulsory Ticket Area within the meaning of the Penalty Fares Regulations that cover National Rail.
Do TfL Byelaws apply to Reading station? (I.e. not on board TfL trains at the station.)
"railway" means:
(a)the railways and railway premises of Transport for London and any of its subsidiaries including any train, other vehicle, station, depot, track and any associated equipment; and
(b)any train, or other vehicle and any associated equipment which is for the time being used by a person or body for the purposes of providing railway services under an agreement with Transport for London or any of its subsidiaries;
Reading Station is surely not "railway premises" of Transport for London?
Is there any mechanism under which it could be argued that TfL byelaws do apply to the whole, or part, of Reading station in parallel with the national railway byelaws?
17.Compulsory ticket areas
(1)No person shall enter a compulsory ticket area on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket.
"compulsory ticket area" means any part of the railway identified by a notice stating that no person may enter there without being in possession of a valid ticket;
"Operator" means:
(a)Transport for London and any of its subsidiaries; or
(b)any person or body granted the authority by Transport for London or any of its subsidiaries to act as operator in relation to any part of the railway;
XC is surely not an Operator within that definition?
"ticket" includes;
(a) a ticket (including one issued by another railway undertaking) authorising the person for whom it is issued to make the journey covered by the fare paid on a train provided by the Operator (whether or not it also authorises that person to make a journey on a train provided by another railway undertaking);
...
Not an exclusive definition, but all the definitions presented are qualified by the Operator. It doesn't look as though "ticket" was intended to include a ticket only for use on a different operator.
Schedule 17 says:
1(1)In this Schedule unless the context otherwise requires—
“compulsory ticket area” means that part of a station which, under the byelaws of the person providing a train service to which this Schedule applies, passengers are not permitted to enter without a fare ticket, general travel authority or platform ticket;
“fare ticket” means a ticket (including one issued by a third person) showing payment of a fare and authorising the person in respect of whom it is issued to make a single journey covered by that fare on a local service or train service to which this Schedule applies, or to make that journey and a return journey (whether or not it also authorises him to make a journey on a service provided by a third person);
So can any part of Reading Station be deemed a "compulsory ticket area" within the meaning of Schedule 17? (Putting to one side, for now, the inadequate notices.)
I don't recall any reported prosecutions!
Note how those last two definitions work together. If the schedule applies, does this not mean that you must not enter Reading station unless you have a ticket for the Elizabeth Line?
The basic provision to charge a TfL Penalty Fare is this:
4(1)Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, if a person travelling on a train service fails to produce a fare ticket or a general travel authority on being required to do so by an authorised person, he shall be liable to pay a penalty fare if required to do so by an authorised person.
...
(2)Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, a person is travelling on a train service to which this Schedule applies at any time when he is on a train forming part of that service or is in a compulsory ticket area.
...
(8)For the purposes of sub-paragraph (7)(b) above, in a case where the transfer takes place at a station controlled by a third person, “compulsory ticket area” means such area at that station as corresponds with a compulsory ticket area within the meaning of this Schedule.
Note how the jurisdiction for Penalty Fares in compulsory ticket areas comes from the applicability of the byelaws.
Now regarding the specific incident, I'd throw in that, based on what the OP said, both 'Boarded at' (past tense) and 'Destination' on the notice were false, and that alone ought to render the notice invalid (and suggest questions over the circumstances of issue).
TfL also states in its Appeals Policy
A Penalty Fare Notice is issued when a passenger travelling on a TfL service fails to produce on demand a valid travel mandate when required to do so by an authorised person.
The OP was neither travelling on nor intending to travel on a TfL service.
All that said, the National Rail Byelaws state
(2) Where the entrance to or exit from any platform or station is via a manned or an automatic ticket barrier no person shall enter or leave the station, except with permission from an authorised person, without passing through the barrier in the correct manner.
and any appeal would need to consider what further investigation might discover and the risk of alternative action being taken.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
@Mrfares13 One more question. Were there a lot of inspectors present doing extra checks on people's tickets at the time and looking to be stopping and talking to lots of people? Of was there just a lone inspector, or maybe a couple of them, doing this?
Thanks for your answers. I suspected as much. Rather imaginative!
I think this is the first time we have had a thread like this on the forum and so we'll need to work through the legal perspectives. On the face of it, it seems nonsense to think that TfL is entitled to treat Reading Station as a TfL compulsory ticket area and impose Penalty Fares on passengers of non-TfL train companies. But what does the legislation actually say? Are there loopholes or has it been enabled somehow?
You were not travelling on a TfL service (which would only be the Elizabeth Line from Reading).
It is not a Compulsory Ticket Area within the meaning of the Penalty Fares Regulations that cover National Rail.
Do TfL Byelaws apply to Reading station? (I.e. not on board TfL trains at the station.)
Reading Station is surely not "railway premises" of Transport for London?
Is there any mechanism under which it could be argued that TfL byelaws do apply to the whole, or part, of Reading station in parallel with the national railway byelaws?
XC is surely not an Operator within that definition?
Not an exclusive definition, but all the definitions presented are qualified by the Operator. It doesn't look as though "ticket" was intended to include a ticket only for use on a different operator.
Schedule 17 says:
So can any part of Reading Station be deemed a "compulsory ticket area" within the meaning of Schedule 17? (Putting to one side, for now, the inadequate notices.)
I don't recall any reported prosecutions!
Note how those last two definitions work together. If the schedule applies, does this not mean that you must not enter Reading station unless you have a ticket for the Elizabeth Line?
The basic provision to charge a TfL Penalty Fare is this:
Note how the jurisdiction for Penalty Fares in compulsory ticket areas comes from the applicability of the byelaws.
Now regarding the specific incident, I'd throw in that, based on what the OP said, both 'Boarded at' (past tense) and 'Destination' on the notice were false, and that alone ought to render the notice invalid (and suggest questions over the circumstances of issue).
TfL also states in its Appeals Policy
The OP was neither travelling on nor intending to travel on a TfL service.
All that said, the National Rail Byelaws state
and any appeal would need to consider what further investigation might discover and the risk of alternative action being taken.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
@Mrfares13 One more question. Were there a lot of inspectors present doing extra checks on people's tickets at the time and looking to be stopping and talking to lots of people? Of was there just a lone inspector, or maybe a couple of them, doing this?
Thanks for your answers. I suspected as much. Rather imaginative!
I think this is the first time we have had a thread like this on the forum and so we'll need to work through the legal perspectives. On the face of it, it seems nonsense to think that TfL is entitled to treat Reading Station as a TfL compulsory ticket area and impose Penalty Fares on passengers of non-TfL train companies. But what does the legislation actually say? Are there loopholes or has it been enabled somehow?
You were not travelling on a TfL service (which would only be the Elizabeth Line from Reading).
It is not a Compulsory Ticket Area within the meaning of the Penalty Fares Regulations that cover National Rail.
Do TfL Byelaws apply to Reading station? (I.e. not on board TfL trains at the station.)
Reading Station is surely not "railway premises" of Transport for London?
Is there any mechanism under which it could be argued that TfL byelaws do apply to the whole, or part, of Reading station in parallel with the national railway byelaws?
XC is surely not an Operator within that definition?
Not an exclusive definition, but all the definitions presented are qualified by the Operator. It doesn't look as though "ticket" was intended to include a ticket only for use on a different operator.
Schedule 17 says:
So can any part of Reading Station be deemed a "compulsory ticket area" within the meaning of Schedule 17? (Putting to one side, for now, the inadequate notices.)
I don't recall any reported prosecutions!
Note how those last two definitions work together. If the schedule applies, does this not mean that you must not enter Reading station unless you have a ticket for the Elizabeth Line?
The basic provision to charge a TfL Penalty Fare is this:
Note how the jurisdiction for Penalty Fares in compulsory ticket areas comes from the applicability of the byelaws.
Now regarding the specific incident, I'd throw in that, based on what the OP said, both 'Boarded at' (past tense) and 'Destination' on the notice were false, and that alone ought to render the notice invalid (and suggest questions over the circumstances of issue).
TfL also states in its Appeals Policy
The OP was neither travelling on nor intending to travel on a TfL service.
All that said, the National Rail Byelaws state
and any appeal would need to consider what further investigation might discover and the risk of alternative action being taken.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
@Mrfares13 One more question. Were there a lot of inspectors present doing extra checks on people's tickets at the time and looking to be stopping and talking to lots of people? Of was there just a lone inspector, or maybe a couple of them, doing this?
While this approach may have merit by the letter of the law, it overlooks two things:
- the potential for the OP's friend, who has staff travel facilities and so presumably works for some part of the railway, to get into trouble at work if this matter goes further, and
- the fact that the OP did something wrong (at the very least, not passing through a barrier in the correct manner, and certainly trying not to pay the fare they should have done). A £50 penalty for this isn't unjust and may be the wake up call a 16 year old needs about the importance of obeying the rules. In that light, if they pursue the rather legalistic approach given here, it's hard to see them getting any sympathy from whoever deals with the case: OP's appeal would only succeed if it was legally and factually right on every point.
My advice would continue to be to pay the fine, learn the lesson and walk away without doing it again.
Thanks for your answers. I suspected as much. Rather imaginative!
I think this is the first time we have had a thread like this on the forum and so we'll need to work through the legal perspectives. On the face of it, it seems nonsense to think that TfL is entitled to treat Reading Station as a TfL compulsory ticket area and impose Penalty Fares on passengers of non-TfL train companies. But what does the legislation actually say? Are there loopholes or has it been enabled somehow?
You were not travelling on a TfL service (which would only be the Elizabeth Line from Reading).
It is not a Compulsory Ticket Area within the meaning of the Penalty Fares Regulations that cover National Rail.
Do TfL Byelaws apply to Reading station? (I.e. not on board TfL trains at the station.)
Reading Station is surely not "railway premises" of Transport for London?
Is there any mechanism under which it could be argued that TfL byelaws do apply to the whole, or part, of Reading station in parallel with the national railway byelaws?
XC is surely not an Operator within that definition?
Not an exclusive definition, but all the definitions presented are qualified by the Operator. It doesn't look as though "ticket" was intended to include a ticket only for use on a different operator.
Schedule 17 says:
So can any part of Reading Station be deemed a "compulsory ticket area" within the meaning of Schedule 17? (Putting to one side, for now, the inadequate notices.)
I don't recall any reported prosecutions!
Note how those last two definitions work together. If the schedule applies, does this not mean that you must not enter Reading station unless you have a ticket for the Elizabeth Line?
The basic provision to charge a TfL Penalty Fare is this:
Note how the jurisdiction for Penalty Fares in compulsory ticket areas comes from the applicability of the byelaws.
Now regarding the specific incident, I'd throw in that, based on what the OP said, both 'Boarded at' (past tense) and 'Destination' on the notice were false, and that alone ought to render the notice invalid (and suggest questions over the circumstances of issue).
TfL also states in its Appeals Policy
The OP was neither travelling on nor intending to travel on a TfL service.
All that said, the National Rail Byelaws state
and any appeal would need to consider what further investigation might discover and the risk of alternative action being taken.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
@Mrfares13 One more question. Were there a lot of inspectors present doing extra checks on people's tickets at the time and looking to be stopping and talking to lots of people? Of was there just a lone inspector, or maybe a couple of them, doing this?
Very interesting points of law if the OP had not tailgated through the barrier. If the OP had walked through an open barrier, I suspect no laws or byelaws could be proved to have been broken.
Yeah this is what I was thinking. Since the tailgating was what i did, the TOCs i used afterwards are irrelevant as that's not why I'm being punished. Unless there are any laws I'm not aware off.
Two wrongs don't make a right. No need to mention anything about why you did it or involve your friend - if it was imposed unlawfully (and we need to wait for the opinions of some other forum contributors, not just me, and give us time to consider all the possibilities) then it should be cancelled. (And that can happen in 6 months' time if you're really worried and paid it now, waited for the negligible chance of a youth prosecution to time out, then raised the matter.)
Yet one more question - after this happened, did you then buy the correct ticket for the journey you were making? Where did you buy this? (e.g. from one of the inspectors? On your phone with which app or website? From one of the ticket machines?) And can you prove this? (E.g. still have the ticket or payment proof)
And that can happen in 6 months' time if you're really worried and paid it now, waited for the negligible chance of a youth prosecution to time out, then raised the matter.)
While the 'appeal by post' instructions don't appear to quote a deadline neither do they mention six months. The general understanding is that an appeal needs to be lodged within 21 days.
(There'd be no time limit if it turned out TfL had no authority to treat Reading as its CTA or to impose PFs on passengers of other TOCs - you'd be looking at a review of all such PFs.)
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Nobody else has yet commented on the strength of any legal basis TfL must use to issue a PF such as the one in question and I don't recall anything like this being a previous topic of discussion. FOI requests might even be needed to get to the bottom of it and that would take time.
Two wrongs don't make a right. No need to mention anything about why you did it or involve your friend - if it was imposed unlawfully (and we need to wait for the opinions of some other forum contributors, not just me, and give us time to consider all the possibilities) then it should be cancelled. (And that can happen in 6 months' time if you're really worried and paid it now, waited for the negligible chance of a youth prosecution to time out, then raised the matter.)
Yet one more question - after this happened, did you then buy the correct ticket for the journey you were making? Where did you buy this? (e.g. from one of the inspectors? On your phone with which app or website? From one of the ticket machines?) And can you prove this? (E.g. still have the ticket or payment proof)
I have no proof of me having a ticket for the journey i made afterwards
edit: However i do have proof that i was on a crosscountry train after receiving my penalty fare if thats of any help
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
(There'd be no time limit if it turned out TfL had no authority to treat Reading as its CTA or to impose PFs on passengers of other TOCs - you'd be looking at a review of all such PFs.)
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Nobody else has yet commented on the strength of any legal basis TfL must use to issue a PF such as the one in question and I don't recall anything like this being a previous topic of discussion. FOI requests might even be needed to get to the bottom of it and that would take time.
Not sure you're quite getting this 'stop digging' thing - it may well be that there isn't a CTA but do you want your friend's sacking on your conscience?
In any case (a) how do you have GWR's revenue protection's team number? (b) if you mean GWR customer service, this is a complete waste of time the answer will be random, they won't have a clue what you're talking about.
If you happen to be in Reading any time soon, CTAs have to be very well signed so you could likely rule it in/out one way or another.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Nobody else has yet commented on the strength of any legal basis TfL must use to issue a PF such as the one in question and I don't recall anything like this being a previous topic of discussion. FOI requests might even be needed to get to the bottom of it and that would take time.
Not really a good idea. I am asking very technical legal questions that need lawyers to answer.
To fill in the gap earlier about the signage, minimal tiny blue TfL signage has been in place for some time, but - and you couldn't make this up - most of the tiny stickers on the barriers at that gateline face people leaving the station instead of people entering! (You have none of the "readily visible" stipulations with TfL PFs!) There are also tiny stickers above the barcode scanners. In my view, woefully inadequate both in wording and location, but not necessarily insufficient to meet the minimal legal requirements (as TfL would no doubt argue the mere presence of the barrier makes the need for a ticket clear).
I have no proof of me having a ticket for the journey i made afterwards
edit: However i do have proof that i was on a crosscountry train after receiving my penalty fare if thats of any help
Yes, proof you travelled on XC would help, BUT I was asking where and how you purchased a ticket. Cash or card? (They should be able look up the record of the purchase.) But don't answer my question or say any more about this on here if you actually still didn't buy one!
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Oh that one's easy. It says on it that it is a Transport for London Penalty Fare for entering a compulsory ticket zone. Penalty Fares like this are used on Elizabeth Line trains terminating at Reading.
Reading Station is not a Compulsory Ticket Area under the Railway (Penalty Fares) Regulations. (It's not on the DfT's list and doesn't possess the mandatory signage.)
Although both are called Penalty Fares, both the legislative underpinnings and large parts of the implementations are very different. A TfL PF for a CTA breach relies on the applicability of TfL byelaws. (Otherwise this gets recursive and quite unpalatable: I've not mentioned this so far, but if you were to interpret the NR byelaws as importing the TfL CTA definition, and this legitimising a TfL CTA PF such as the one under discussion, you've then put at risk all NR Byelaw 18(1) "In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area" prosecutions at Reading because PFs, either NR or TfL, should always have been issued instead. Let me restate that. If Reading station is, as a matter of fact, a Compulsory Ticket Area under the Penalty Fares Scheme of TfL, then all NR Byelaw 18(1) prosecutions for boarding a train at Reading since that happened may need to be reopened and abandoned. There's no fine for breaching 17(1) as it's expected that a PF will be imposed.)
We are trying to give advice to a 16 year old over a £50 penalty.
I would suggest that when we start 'asking very technical legal questions that need lawyers to answer' we have stopped giving practical advice that is likely to help the OP. It is not proportionate to what will help them.
That will depend on the answers. I might have missed something, but it looks to me as though this PF may have opened another can of worms for railway prosecutions and TfL may do well to just cancel it (and remove those blue stickers).
1. It is possible that the Penalty Fare has been issued incorrectly. If it is going to be appealed on this basis it would need to be worded in a very technical way, (and I don't judge @Mrfares13 ability to do this) but many people seeking our advice to not have the capability to do this.
2. @Mrfares13 was travelling with a member of staff. It is best not to draw any more attention to this case than is absolutely necessary. This is because an investigation into a staff travel irregularity could result in severe consequences for the member of staff.
I would pay the Penalty Fare to prevent the matter from escalating.
The OP states in Post #1 that they tailgated through the barriers, yet in Post #17 that they thought they could travel free with a staff member; So why tailgate at all? This does not add up.
Surely a simple appeal on the basis it was not issued in accordance with the regulations because 1. Reading is not a compulsory ticket area and 2. A penalty fare cannot therefore be issued from Reading to Reading.
There is a 16 year old who obviously is not short of money as if he bought train tickets to Barnsley and back (which he hasn’t provided firm details) and a ticket for the game spent over £100. Probably a season ticket holder for over £400. He has brought in a friend who works in rail who probably doesn’t know about any of this so why keep giving him advice about trying to give him technical way to find a way around it. He said he would pay it a long time ago and that should have ended the thread. I appreciate he said he won’t mention the persons name but why take the risk and carry this on any further.
Surely a simple appeal on the basis it was not issued in accordance with the regulations because 1. Reading is not a compulsory ticket area and 2. A penalty fare cannot therefore be issued from Reading to Reading.
Reading Station is not a Compulsory Ticket Area under the Railway (Penalty Fares) Regulations. (It's not on the DfT's list and doesn't possess the mandatory signage.)
I'm not saying you're wrong but could you cite both of these? I was unable to find a list of CTAs and have not been to Reading station in a very long time (hence post #15)
I'm not saying you're wrong but could you cite both of these? I was unable to find a list of CTAs and have not been to Reading station in a very long time (hence post #15)
Maybe let's start a new thread to try to disentangle the situation at Reading. For a list of CTAs you've to search public responses to FOI requests. The (inadequately sited and incorrectly worded) PF signage is similar to that defined in Schedule 1 Part 1 as a Standard Notice rather than a Compulsory ticket area notice.
Maybe let's start a new thread to try to disentangle the situation at Reading. For a list of CTAs you've to search public responses to FOI requests. The (inadequately sited and incorrectly worded) PF signage is similar to that defined in Schedule 1 Part 1 as a Standard Notice rather than a Compulsory ticket area notice.
Go ahead and tag me if you create it, I think it's something others will be interested in - I don't think searching potentially decade old public responses to FOI requests is an adequate way to rule in/out CTAs (or almost anything dynamic in any field to be frank) though. Of course signage is a legit way as to whether they're enforceable but that still needs someone on the ground to check if no one knows for sure.
I'd also like to know one way or the other if a CTZ is a CTA. I suspect the wording makes no difference but if it does then again happy days for the OP in principle (even though I think most of us are agreed it would be stupid to try to actually exercise that principle and OP needs to grow up).
If only it were that simple!
"regulations"? This is TfL not GWR. Their Penalty Fares "scheme" isn't constructed through regulations.
"not a compulsory ticket area" - I think any appeal on those grounds would need to set out the legal arguments in support of that contention as the fact it was issued at all and there are some blue signs strongly indicates that TfL considers that it is.
Whilst veering off slightly, I have to say, I infrequently work at Reading station (generally just layovers between trains or special events) I wouldn't have a clue whether it is a compulsory ticket area (CTA) for TfL, as we've already established, it definitely isn't a CTA for the purpose of National Rail, and it does seem difficult to find a definitive answer online, I'd be most interested to find out the answer to this.
So my suggestion would be, if you decide to appeal this (and other contributors have set out some arguments for not doing so), to keep what you write in a first appeal extremely short and merely say something on the lines of:
I am writing to appeal Penalty Fare notice number (number) issued to me at Reading station on (date) for the reason of "entering a compulsory ticket zone". My appeal is on the grounds that this notice is invalid because there are no compulsory ticket areas in respect of Penalty Fares at Reading station. Moreover I did not use any TfL service that day.
(Assuming that it is true that you didn't use the Elizabeth line or any other TfL service at all that day - otherwise adjust it to make it true e.g. by narrowing the time.)
If the notice does not have your date of birth on it, I would sign off with your full name and date of birth, so there is no possibility that they might mistakenly treat you as over 18.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The reasoning is:
By stating you were not a TfL passenger that day you are making clear your journey was nothing to do with them, but might instead have been covered by a different operator's Penalty Fares scheme. This sentence is designed to engage the following sentence in their Appeals Policy:
A Penalty Fare Notice is issued when a passenger travelling on a TfL service fails to produce on demand a valid travel mandate when required to do so by an authorised person.
You weren't travelling on TfL therefore no PF Notice should have been issued to you by TfL.
Several contributors so far have expressed views about how compulsory ticket areas might work at Reading here and in the parallel thread. While we haven't yet worked out definitive answers, and additional relevant information may still emerge from somewhere (we haven't searched all the places it is necessary to look in yet), at the moment it seems that there isn't meant to be any Compulsory Ticket Area in respect of Penalty Fares at Reading station.
So my suggestion would be, if you decide to appeal this (and other contributors have set out some arguments for not doing so), to keep what you write in a first appeal extremely short and merely say something on the lines of:
(Assuming that it is true that you didn't use the Elizabeth line or any other TfL service at all that day - otherwise adjust it to make it true e.g. by narrowing the time.)
If the notice does not have your date of birth on it, I would sign off with your full name and date of birth, so there is no possibility that they might mistakenly treat you as over 18.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The reasoning is:
By stating you were not a TfL passenger that day you are making clear your journey was nothing to do with them, but might instead have been covered by a different operator's Penalty Fares scheme. This sentence is designed to engage the following sentence in their Appeals Policy:
You weren't travelling on TfL therefore no PF Notice should have been issued to you by TfL.
Several contributors so far have expressed views about how compulsory ticket areas might work at Reading here and in the parallel thread. While we haven't yet worked out definitive answers, and additional relevant information may still emerge from somewhere (we haven't searched all the places it is necessary to look in yet), at the moment it seems that there isn't meant to be any Compulsory Ticket Area in respect of Penalty Fares at Reading station.
After they receive my appeal, what type of investigation will they launch and how in depth will it be?
Do tfl staff have any rights in reading station when it comes to fines, what are their limitations when it comes to that stuff? How much power do they really have?
In this context, what specifically does "travelling on a tfl service mean" and more specifically does the definition assume travel starts after entering reading station, or boarding a tfl train??
Would also like to thank you (and really everyone else) for all the help and determination in researching my case, genuinely means so much to me especially since I feel like I don't really deserve it haha ♥️
After they receive my appeal, what type of investigation will they launch and how in depth will it be?
Do tfl staff have any rights in reading station when it comes to fines, what are their limitations when it comes to that stuff? How much power do they really have?
In this context, what specifically does "travelling on a tfl service mean" and more specifically does the definition assume travel starts after entering reading station, or boarding a tfl train??
Would also like to thank you (and really everyone else) for all the help and determination in researching my case, genuinely means so much to me especially since I feel like I don't really deserve it haha ♥️
While you are entitled to appeal, you need to be very careful here.
As a member of staff was travelling with you do you really want to draw attention to the case? Drawing attention to the case could result in the member of staff being investigated which could have all sorts of consequences, such as loss of their discounted travel facilities or even their job.
The solution is very simple. You and your friend come up with £25 each and pay the penalty fare and you both learn a lesson. One, if you bunk the trains there are consequences even if there is a technical line of appeal this time. And two, your friend put their job at risk for the sake of saving you a few quid. I really can't advise strongly enough you don't want to risk appealing this and it being looked into further.
To put it bluntly, you are a 16 year old child who does not understand consequences yet, let alone have the capacity to make a fully technical appeal against a penalty fare. I don't think you've received responsible advice here.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
- it may well be that there isn't a CTA but do you want your friend's sacking on your conscience?
