16 year old issued Penalty Fare Notice

[Malvernian]

My 16-year-old daughter journeys from Great Malvern to Hereford to attend College 4 days per week. She has a 16/17 Railcard and purchases the Rail tickets via the TRIP App on her phone. She purchased her ticket immediately prior to boarding at Great Malvern but failed to notice that the App had defaulted the station of origin to Colwall, the next station on the journey and the one that she had used the day before, resulting in an underpayment of £1.55. This was not an attempt to avoid payment as she did buy a ticket but an oversight that she offered to correct but was not allowed to.
As my daughter is in full time education, she has no income and is dependent upon myself for all of her expenditure and thus would be unable to pay the fine herself.
The PFN is for £50/100 fine + £12 full fare to Hereford.
Additionally, I would question the extent of the Penalty Ticket issued as she had a valid ticket from Colwall to Hereford but not Great Malvern to Colwall. As I understand it the rules require any passenger not carrying a valid ticket to alight at the next station, i.e. Colwall, whereupon she would be able to immediately rejoin the train with the ticket she already held. The missing section from Great Malvern to Colwall carries a full fare of £3.50 and not £12.00 as printed on the PFN.

I have unsuccessfully appealed twice and any guidance would be really appreciated.

Regards.

 

[Gloster]

Please post the PFN in this thread with personal details and reference numbers obscured so that the experts, of which I am not one, can give their opinion. What date did she receive the PFN and when did you appeal as there are time limits on both?

 

[jfollows]

And please read https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/please-read-before-posting-in-disputes-prosecutions.77759/

 

[John R]

It would also help if you can post your appeals and the responses, again suitably anonymised.

 

[Malvernian]

PFN issued 6 Nov 2025,
1st appeal submitted 11 Nov 2025
!st Appeal reply 13 Nov 2025
2nd Appeal submitted 23 Nov 2025
2nd Appeal reply 23 Nov 2025

 

[furlong]

In cases like this you need to engage with the actual regulations that apply, rather than just hoping they'll interpret your appeal in the right way.

Read them here - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/366 (make sure it shows revised, then opening options, open whole instrument).

Look at some of the examples on the forum such as https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/stansted-airport-fines.253779/page-3#post-6421189

You have two limbs to your appeal. Firstly that it wasn't issued in accordance with the regulations because it wasn't issued to the next station. Secondly the other arguments that you make as 'compelling reasons'.

Look at 18(2)(b), 16(3)(a) and (d), 5(1), 9(1A), 9(2A), 5(5A)(b).

16(3)(a) should lead automatically to 18(4).

Don't mention 5(5A)(a) unless they raise it - it's been discussed several times on other threads and it seems clear the first 'they' must refer to the passenger and it would make no sense if the collector can arbitrarily pick this against the passenger's best interests.

In your case, very clearly, the passenger is already in possession of a ticket for the second part of the journey, so there are no circumstances where the train company should be attempting to double charge for this.

If you lose the final appeal, you can still raise the matter with Transport Focus to see if they're willing to investigate.

Finally, enforcement against under 18s largely consists of persuading parents to pay as the legal mechanisms are largely impractical.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Nov 2025 ==

Also don't lose on a technicality if they decide to be mean and delay their reply until the end of the time window (too late to try again) then refuse to accept it as valid because your daughter should be the one submitting this. Either write it for her to sign (preferable - demonstrates responsibility - can mention you helped write it if uncomfortable), or else include a signed note authorising you to do it, ideally saying she's read it and agrees.

 

[Malvernian]

Thank you for your earlier assistance. I have been writing the Final Appeal and have got this far - I am unsure about part 2 as to removing it or leaving it in with some reworking, and would welcome your advice in general:

"Thank you for your earlier responses regarding the Penalty Fare Notice issued to the Appellant during her journey from Malvern to Hereford on 6th November 2025. This response is being written with the assistance of her father, after seeking advice.

To recap, the Appellant purchased her ticket via her mobile phone immediately prior to boarding the Hereford train at Great Malvern. She was unaware that the system had defaulted the Boarding Station to Colwall, the next station en-route and the shortest leg of the journey, resulting in an underpayment of approximately £1.55. This was not an attempt to avoid payment, as she had a valid ticket for the greater part of the journey (Colwall to Ledbury to Hereford) and did offer corrective repayment to the Inspector.

The appeal is submitted in accordance with and on the grounds specified below:

• The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 No. 366 (Revised)
• Section 18.(2) An appeal under this regulation must be made—

(a)in accordance with the Appeal Procedure; and

(b)on one or more of the grounds specified in regulation 16(3).

Section 18.(4) ‘If the relevant Final Appeal Panel, after considering an appeal under this regulation, concludes that any ground specified in regulation 16(3) applies, it must, subject to paragraph (7), allow the appeal.’

The Appellant respectfully requests that this appeal is upheld on the grounds below:

1. Section 16.3 (a), ‘The penalty fare was not charged in accordance with the requirements of these Regulations’.

Summary detail:

• The Appellant had a valid ticket from Colwall to Hereford but not Great Malvern to Colwall.
• The missing section from Great Malvern to Colwall carries a full single fare of £3.50.
• The full single fare from Great Malvern to Hereford is £12.00 as printed on the PFN.

The Appellant contests that the PFN was not issued in accordance with the afore said regulations. The grounds for this is that the Appellant was already in possession of a valid ticket for the greater part of the journey, from Colwall to Hereford.

However, the PFN states the destination as ‘Hereford’ with ‘Full Single Fare Applicable: £12’. The Appellant contests that the Full Single Fare Applicable is that from Great Malvern to Colwall not from Great Malvern to Hereford, making the Full Single Fare Applicable £3.50 not £12 as stated in the PFN.

Charging for the whole journey constitutes a double charge for the section from Colwall to Hereford as the Appellant already had a valid ticket for that part of the journey. This constitutes a breach of Section 9-2(a) as Colwall is also the next scheduled station

Penalty fares
5.—(1) Subject to regulations 6, 7 and 10, if a person fails to produce a platform ticket or a valid travel ticket in accordance with regulation 4, a collector may charge that person a penalty fare.

Amount of penalty fare
9.—(1A) In respect of England, where a penalty fare is charged under regulation 5(1) to a person travelling by, present on, or leaving a train, the amount of the penalty fare is—
(a)£100 plus the price of the full single fare applicable, or
9 - (2) In paragraph (1), “the full single fare applicable” is the full single fare for the journey in question from the boarding station to—
(a)the next station at which the train is due to make a scheduled call;


2. The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 states under Section 16.2 (d) ‘There are compelling reasons why, in the particular circumstances of the case, the appellant should not be liable to pay the penalty fare.

As background, the Appellant is:

• 16 years of age
• in full time education
• with no income
• of dependent status
• unable to pay the fine herself
• of the belief that the PFN has not been issued in accordance with the regulations as detailed above.

Due to the Appellant’s situation, as detailed above, any costs or charges will fall to another. The Appellant considers that her circumstances are compelling reasons for her not being liable to pay the Penalty Fare

I submit that for the above reasons, 1. the PFN was not issued in accordance with the regulations and 2. the Appellant's compelling reasons, that Section 18.4 applies and this appeal granted.

Yours sincerely,"

 

[AlterEgo]

The fact a valid ticket was held for part of the journey is not relevant. The PF was issued in accordance with the Regulations as per Section 9, which I note you have quoted (my bold):

(2) In paragraph (1), “the full single fare applicable” is the full single fare for the journey in question from the boarding station

They cannot issue a Penalty Fare from any other station; it would be unlawful. Your appeal outlines precisely why the fare element was charged from the boarding station.

Your ground for appeal is as @furlong states, that the Penalty Fare was not issued to the next station, but rather for the whole journey being made.

 

[methecooldude]

I have a feeling that none of what is written in the compelling reasons will hold any water am afraid.

 

[John R]

I have a feeling that none of what is written in the compelling reasons will hold any water am afraid.

Agree, and best not to take the focus away from the key point of the appeal, (which is that it was not issued to the correct station) by including other points.

 

[Malvernian]

Thanks, I have removed the Compelling Reasons section, although I included some of the details in the introduction as background information. I do feel more comfortable with the current form and would like to submit ASAP as time is up on sunday. To this end, I welcome your comments/observations and thank you for your assistance so far.

"Dear Final Appeals Team,
Re: Final Appeal – Penalty Fare Issued on 6th November 2025

Thank you for your earlier responses regarding the Penalty Fare Notice issued to Miss XXXXXX (the Appellant) during her journey from Malvern to Hereford on 6th November 2025.
As background, the Appellant is 16 years of age, in full time education, of dependent status and with no income. This response is being written with the assistance of her father, Mr XXXX, after seeking advice.

To recap, the Appellant purchased her ticket via her mobile phone immediately prior to boarding the Hereford train at Great Malvern. She was unaware that the system had defaulted the Boarding Station to Colwall, the next station en-route and the shortest leg of the journey, resulting in an underpayment of approximately £1.55. This was not an attempt to avoid payment, as her ticket was valid for the greater part of the journey (Colwall to Ledbury to Hereford) and she did offer corrective repayment to the Inspector.

The appeal is submitted in accordance with and on the grounds specified below:

• The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 No. 366 (Revised)
• Section 18.(2) An appeal under this regulation must be made—

(a)in accordance with the Appeal Procedure; and
(b)on one or more of the grounds specified in regulation 16(3).

Section 18.(4) ‘If the relevant Final Appeal Panel, after considering an appeal under this regulation, concludes that any ground specified in regulation 16(3) applies, it must, subject to paragraph (7), allow the appeal.’

The Appellant respectfully requests that this appeal is upheld on the grounds below:
Section 16.3 (a), ‘The penalty fare was not charged in accordance with the requirements of these Regulations’.

Summary detail:

• The Appellant had a valid ticket from Colwall to Hereford but not Great Malvern to Colwall.
• The section from Great Malvern to Colwall carries a full single fare of £3.50.
• The full single fare from Great Malvern to Hereford is £12.00 as printed on the PFN.

The Appellant contests that the PFN was not issued in accordance with the afore said regulations. The grounds for this is that that the Penalty Fare was not issued to the next scheduled station (Section 9-2(a)), but rather for the whole journey being made.

The PFN states the destination as ‘Hereford’ with ‘Full Single Fare Applicable: £12’. The Appellant contests that the Full Single Fare Applicable is that from Great Malvern to Colwall not from Great Malvern to Hereford, making the Full Single Fare Applicable £3.50 not £12 as stated in the PFN. This constitutes a breach of Section 9-2(a) as Colwall is the next scheduled station not Hereford.

Charging for the whole journey constitutes a double charge for the section from Colwall to Hereford as the Appellant already had a valid ticket for that part of the journey.

The Appellant submits that as the PFN was not issued in accordance with the regulations, i.e. Section 9-2(a), therefore Section 16.3 applies and subsequently this appeal be granted.
Yours sincerely,

Miss xxxxx (Appellant)


Penalty fares
5.—(1) Subject to regulations 6, 7 and 10, if a person fails to produce a platform ticket or a valid travel ticket in accordance with regulation 4, a collector may charge that person a penalty fare.
Amount of penalty fare
9.—(1A) In respect of England, where a penalty fare is charged under regulation 5(1) to a person travelling by, present on, or leaving a train, the amount of the penalty fare is—
(a)£100 plus the price of the full single fare applicable, or …….
9 - (2) In paragraph (1), “the full single fare applicable” is the full single fare for the journey in question from the boarding station to—
(a)the next station at which the train is due to make a scheduled call; "

 

[pedr]

I think the word is “contend” not “contest” in this context, and “aforesaid” is one word, if you want to use slightly elevated formal language.

“Argue” or “assert” would be plainer English, and I’m not sure “aforesaid” adds anything though.

 

[furlong]

Please re-read my original list of references. 9(2) is irrelevant. It's 9(2A) which leads to 5(5A)(b). They don't make this easy!

Look at 18(2)(b), 16(3)(a) and (d), 5(1), 9(1A), 9(2A), 5(5A)(b).

The compelling reason, should you include it, is not about the individual - those reasons will count for little as the first points describe a situation fully envisaged when the regulations were written and the last just repeats the argument already made - but rather that no system can have been intended to require someone to pay twice for travel she had not yet begun when the option existed not to begin that travel - what if she had left the train at the next station? (This is a separate point from the first argument - don't remove mention of it from there.)

In your case, very clearly, the passenger is already in possession of a ticket for the second part of the journey, so there are no circumstances where the train company should be attempting to double charge for this.

 

[30907]

The reply in #11 is far too complicated.

As Alter Ego has said, the key point is that the PF as it should have been issued to Colwall, the train's next stop per 9(2)(a)
It was therefore issued incorrectly according to the regulations, which is a valid ground for appeal per 16(3)(a) which the panel should accept.

I suggest including any quotations from the regulations "below the line" so that they do not detract from the key points but are still there for reference. Only quote the directly relevant ones.

 

[furlong]

As Alter Ego has said, the key point is that the PF as it should have been issued to Colwall, the train's next stop per 9(2)(a)

I repeat: it is 9(2A) NOT 9(2)(a) and this depends on 5(5A)(b).

 

[Malvernian]

Thank you all for your help, I would have been lost without it. The latest iteration is below. I would like to submit on Thursday if possible. Please let me know your comments.

"Dear Final Appeals Team,
Re: Final Appeal – Penalty Fare Issued on 6th November 2025
Thank you for your earlier responses regarding the Penalty Fare Notice issued to Miss XXXXX (the Appellant) during her journey from Malvern to Hereford on 6th November 2025.

As background, the Appellant is 16 years of age, in full time education, of dependent status and with no income. This response is being written with the assistance of her father, Mr XXXXX, after seeking advice.

To recap, the Appellant purchased her ticket via her mobile phone immediately prior to boarding the Hereford train at Great Malvern. She was unaware that the system had defaulted the Boarding Station to Colwall, the next station en-route and the shortest leg of the journey, resulting in an underpayment of approximately £1.55. This was not an attempt to avoid payment, as her ticket was valid for the greater part of the journey (Colwall to Ledbury to Hereford) and she did offer corrective repayment to the Inspector.

The appeal is submitted in accordance with the regulations specified below:

• The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 No. 366 (Revised)
• Section 18.(2) An appeal under this regulation must be made—

(a)in accordance with the Appeal Procedure; and
(b)on one or more of the grounds specified in regulation 16(3).

Section 18.(4) ‘If the relevant Final Appeal Panel, after considering an appeal under this regulation, concludes that any ground specified in regulation 16(3) applies, it must, subject to paragraph (7), allow the appeal.’

The Appellant respectfully requests that this appeal is considered on the grounds below:

1. The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 Section 16.(3)(a),
Summary detail:

• The Appellant had a valid ticket from Colwall to Hereford but not Great Malvern to Colwall.
• The section from Great Malvern to Colwall carries a full single fare of £3.50.
• The full single fare from Great Malvern to Hereford is £12.00 as printed on the PFN.

The Appellant argues that the PFN was not issued in accordance with the regulations. The grounds for this is that that the Penalty Fare was not issued to the next scheduled station (Section 9-(2A)), but rather for the whole journey being made.

The PFN states the destination as ‘Hereford’ with ‘Full Single Fare Applicable: £12’. The Appellant argues that the Full Single Fare Applicable is that from Great Malvern to Colwall not from Great Malvern to Hereford, making the Full Single Fare Applicable £3.50 not £12 as stated in the PFN. This constitutes a breach of Section 9-(2A) as Colwall is the next scheduled station not Hereford.

Charging for the whole journey constitutes a double charge for the section from Colwall to Hereford as the Appellant already had a valid ticket for that part of the journey.

2. The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 under Section 16.(3) (d)
The compelling reason is that no system can have been intended to require someone to pay twice for travel that had not yet begun where the option exists not to begin that travel - what if the passenger had left the train at the next station?

In this case, very clearly, the Appellant is already in possession of a ticket for the second part of the journey, so there are no circumstances where the train company should be attempting to double charge for this.

In conclusion, the Appellant argues that as the PFN was not issued in accordance with the regulations, i.e. Section 9-(2A), therefore Section 16.3 applies and consequently this appeal should be granted.

Yours sincerely,

Miss XXXXXXX (Appellant)


Penalty fares
5.—(1) Subject to regulations 6, 7 and 10, if a person fails to produce a platform ticket or a valid travel ticket in accordance with regulation 4, a collector may charge that person a penalty fare.

5.-(5A) In respect of England, the penalty fare charged under paragraph (1) to a person travelling by or present on a train authorises a person to travel to—
(a)a station in England at which the train is due to make a scheduled call that they may specify, if the collector considers that this is reasonable in all the circumstances; or
(b)otherwise, the next station at which the train is due to make a scheduled call.]

Amount of penalty fare
9.—(1A) In respect of England, where a penalty fare is charged under regulation 5(1) to a person travelling by, present on, or leaving a train, the amount of the penalty fare is—
(a)£100 plus the price of the full single fare applicable, or …….

9 - (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 under regulation 5(5A).]

16.(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."

 

[furlong]

"This was not an attempt to avoid payment, as her ticket was valid for the greater part of the journey (Colwall to Ledbury to Hereford) and she did offer corrective repayment to the Inspector."

Don't write this. It might not have been deliberate, but to the railway it WAS indisputably an attempt to avoid payment.

 

[AlterEgo]

Apologies if I've missed something, but where was your daughter exactly when she was Penalty Fared? it must have been at Great Malvern or just after, right?

I would mention this in the appeal for absolute clarity that the next stop wasn't Hereford. Sometimes you need to hold their hands a bit to get them to see the logic.

 

[furlong]

The logical flow is still a bit jumbled up but I would add at the end that you accept that the fare for the first segment (be specific) still needs to be paid.
(In other words, if they accept the appeal, you're still willing to pay them that fare.)

 

[Malvernian]

My thanks go out to everyone who have assisted.

Alterego, I have inserted in the intro "The underpayment came to light during a ticket inspection between Great Malvern and Colwall."

Furlong, I have deleted the "This was not an attempt to avoid payment, as her ticket was valid for the greater part of the journey (Colwall to Ledbury to Hereford) and she did offer corrective repayment to the Inspector."

Also I have inserted at the end "Finally, the Appellant accepts to settle the outstanding fare for the first segment of the journey from Great Malvern to Colwall (£3.50) on conclusion of the appeal."

 

[30907]

I notice you have reinstated the "Compelling Reasons" section. While the PF has been issued incorrectly, and therefore 16(3)(a) applies, I don't see that the double payment involved constitutes a separate Compelling Reason under 16(3)(d).

As you are quoting the Regulations extensively, I suggest you highlight in bold the key issue in your appeal which are I think
5(5A)(b)
9(2A)

 

[Malvernian]

30907 - I can see your point and have removed the Compelling Reason.
I would like to submit tomorrow as time is getting short. Is this appeal suitably acceptable or are there any areas that need addressing, more detail, etc. Thank you all for your assistance.


"Thank you for your earlier responses regarding the Penalty Fare Notice issued to Miss XXXXXX (the Appellant) during her journey from Malvern to Hereford on 6th November 2025.

As background, the Appellant is 16 years of age, in full time education, of dependent status and with no income. This response is being written with the assistance of her father, Mr XXXXX, after seeking advice.

To recap, the Appellant purchased her ticket via her mobile phone immediately prior to boarding the Hereford train at Great Malvern. She was unaware that the system had defaulted the Boarding Station to Colwall, the next station en-route and the shortest leg of the journey, resulting in an underpayment of approximately £1.55. The underpayment came to light during a ticket inspection between Great Malvern and Colwall.

The appeal is submitted in accordance with the regulations specified in:

• The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 No. 366 (Revised)
• Section 18.(2) An appeal under this regulation must be made—

(a)in accordance with the Appeal Procedure; and
(b)on one or more of the grounds specified in regulation 16(3).

Section 18.(4) ‘If the relevant Final Appeal Panel, after considering an appeal under this regulation, concludes that any ground specified in regulation 16(3) applies, it must, subject to paragraph (7), allow the appeal.’

The Appellant respectfully requests that this appeal is considered on the grounds below:

The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 Section 16.(3)(a),
The Appellant argues that the PFN was not issued in accordance with the regulations. The grounds for this is that that the Penalty Fare was not issued to the next scheduled station but rather for the whole journey being made.

Summary detail:

• The Appellant had a valid ticket from Colwall to Hereford but not Great Malvern to Colwall.
• The section from Great Malvern to Colwall carries a full single fare of £3.50.
• The PFN states the Destination as ‘Hereford’.
• The PFN states the Full Single Fare Applicable as £12, which is the full single fare from Great Malvern to Hereford.
• In accordance with Section 5(5A)(b), the next station at which the train was due to make a scheduled call was Colwall.
• In accordance with Section 9(2A), the Full Single Fare Applicable from Great Malvern to Colwall is £3.50.

As can be seen above, regulations 5(5A)(b) & 9-(2A) determine that the PFN should have been from Great Malvern to Colwall and carried a penalty fare of £3.50 not From Great Malvern to Hereford with a penalty fare of £12 as stated in the PFN issued to the Appellant. This constitutes a breach of regulations.

Charging for the whole journey constitutes a double charge for the section from Colwall to Hereford as the Appellant already had a valid ticket for that part of the journey.

In conclusion, the Appellant argues that as the PFN was not issued in accordance with the regulations, i.e. Sections 5(5A)(b) & 9(2A), that Section 16.3 applies and consequently this appeal should be granted.

On conclusion of the appeal, the Appellant accepts to settle the outstanding fare for the first segment of the journey from Great Malvern to Colwall, i.e. £3.50.

Yours sincerely,


Miss xxxxxx (Appellant)


Extracts from The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 No. 366 (Revised)
Penalty fares
5.—(1) Subject to regulations 6, 7 and 10, if a person fails to produce a platform ticket or a valid travel ticket in accordance with regulation 4, a collector may charge that person a penalty fare.

5.-(5A) In respect of England, the penalty fare charged under paragraph (1) to a person travelling by or present on a train authorises a person to travel to—
(b)otherwise, the next station at which the train is due to make a scheduled call.]

Amount of penalty fare
9.—(1A) In respect of England, where a penalty fare is charged under regulation 5(1) to a person travelling by, present on, or leaving a train, the amount of the penalty fare is—

(a)£100 plus the price of the full single fare applicable, or …….

9 - (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 under regulation 5(5A).]

16.(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’.

 

[Malvernian]

I have now received the response of the Final appeal.
Unfortunately it was rejected, I have reproduced it below.
I thank you all for your kind assistance but I think this is the end of the road, unless you have any further advice.
Merry Xmas.


"We have received your final appeal against issue of the above Penalty Fare. Your case has been fully considered by an independent panel consisting of three members approved by Transport Focus and London TravelWatch, bodies that represent the interests of the travelling public.

Your appeal has been rejected. The appeals panel have carefully considered your submissions and we thank you for the helpful information provided. We note that is accepted that you did not have a valid ticket for the entirety of your journey but indicated that was an unintentional mistake as a result of your ticket purchasing app defaulting to a previously used departure station. The rules define default by reference to the act of breach regardless as to intention . Where there is a breach it is important that we apply the rules consistently to ensure equality and fairness to all rail users. The level of the Penalty charge is calculated by reference to a staturily enacted formula and we cannot override that formula with one of our own. We note what you write about the level of charge but the rules require that the fare charged in addition to the Penalty is the full standard fare for the entirety of the journey with no account to be taken of any previous ticket purchase amount covering part of the journey undertaken.

The decision made by the Independent Appeals Panel is final and West Midlands is bound by this decision. There are no further options to appeal this case.

The official watchdog bodies for transport users are London Travelwatch (for journeys within the London area) and Transport Focus (for all other journeys). Although unable to overrule the decision made by AS or the Independent Appeals Panel, they can consider whether due process has been followed. AS are unable to place a case on hold, whilst pending an investigation from a third party.

Please visit www.transportfocus.org.uk and www.londontravelwatch.org.uk for further information.

Payment of £62.00 must be received within 14 days of the date of this letter. Full payment options and information including, what will happen if you do not pay, are detailed with this response."

 

[furlong]

So here they interpret their role as something different from what was anticipated in Parliament, as highlighted by the recent ORR review.

The level of the Penalty charge is calculated by reference to a staturily enacted formula and we cannot override that formula with one of our own.

Indeed, but that defined formula was not followed in this case!

the fare charged in addition to the Penalty is the full standard fare for the entirety of the journey

The entirety of the journey, yes, but ONLY up to the present location where the PF is being issued i.e. the next station at which the train stops. You can't impose a penalty for something that hasn't happened yet (travelling from the next station to the final destination) and which can be prevented (valid tickets can be shown or purchased or they could just get off the train).

The next step is to take this up with Transport Focus, as an appeals body failing to adhere to the regulations.

Fortunately your daughter is only 16, which means that the options for the train company to pursue this further if she doesn't pay are, for now at least, limited.
(And if it did reach court in some manner, you might anticipate that court taking a dim view of a train company insisting it's entitled to be paid twice over in advance of a service being provided.)

 

[z444z]

I have now received the response of the Final appeal.
Unfortunately it was rejected, I have reproduced it below.
I thank you all for your kind assistance but I think this is the end of the road, unless you have any further advice.
Merry Xmas.

They haven’t acknowledged your actual argument which is disappointing but not surprising. With hindsight I wonder if the appeal should have been shorter and more to the point - the background information provided wasn’t really relevant to the grounds of the appeal.

You could simply not pay it and see what happens. It’s very possible that nothing would happen because she is under 18, but even if it did go to court as a civil debt you can clearly demonstrate that the penalty fare was not issued in accordance with the legislation.

It’s also possible they would try a criminal prosecution - previously it was clear that prosecution was barred where the first stage of the penalty fare appeals process had been concluded, but a Chief Magistrate ruling allowing such a prosecution earlier this year has made it less clear and train companies may try their luck prosecuting in this scenario, particularly as they would struggle to recover a civil debt from a 16 year old.

 

[gray1404]

This definitely needs reporting to Transport Focus as the appeals body has not followed the regulations correctly in the failure to uphold the appeal.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Payment of £62.00 must be received within 14 days of the date of this letter.

The next step is to take this up with Transport Focus, as an appeals body failing to adhere to the regulations.

You could simply not pay it and see what happens.

This definitely needs reporting to Transport Focus as the appeals body has not followed the regulations correctly in the failure to uphold the appeal.

As the above shows, there's quite a lot of enthusiasm here for someone to test the system and find out what happens if the argument is taken further.

But we don't have any skin in this game - and as in my first quote you/your daughter would be able to finish things up for £62. That's not unattractive in that it would bring an end to the hassle of pursuing things like this.

While we would be very interested indeed in what happened were you to take things further, you (and your daughter) will be entirely within your rights to pay up and move on. Ultimately it's your choice, and you must do what is right for you in the circumstances.

 

[MotCO]

Presumably you could still pay the £62 now, but continue the case with Transport Focus. If they are successful, then presumably the TOC would refund the £62. Paying it now stops it escalating to £112.

 

[jumble]

They haven’t acknowledged your actual argument which is disappointing but not surprising. With hindsight I wonder if the appeal should have been shorter and more to the point - the background information provided wasn’t really relevant to the grounds of the appeal.

You could simply not pay it and see what happens. It’s very possible that nothing would happen because she is under 18, but even if it did go to court as a civil debt you can clearly demonstrate that the penalty fare was not issued in accordance with the legislation.

It’s also possible they would try a criminal prosecution - previously it was clear that prosecution was barred where the first stage of the penalty fare appeals process had been concluded, but a Chief Magistrate ruling allowing such a prosecution earlier this year has made it less clear and train companies may try their luck prosecuting in this scenario, particularly as they would struggle to recover a civil debt from a 16 year old.

I very much doubt that any TOC is going to prosecute someone 16 years old for not paying a penalty of under £100

 

[z444z]

I very much doubt that any TOC is going to prosecute someone 16 years old for not paying a penalty of under £100

Regardless it is in the OP’s interests to mention the possibility so it can be considered. Also just to clarify they’d be prosecuting the original incident, not the non-payment of the penalty fare.