16 year old issued Penalty Fare Notice

[Malvernian]

Thank you for your considered input and sorry for the tardy reply - I have been struck down with Flu.
For clarity, I have attached the Final Appeal as submitted which I had not earlier due to time constraints.
I may be up for continuing the fight if you are willing to continue your support.
Of course this would also be on the proviso that my daughter is not dragged through the courts.
Which leads me onto the next question, should I pay the fine now or not?

 

[z444z]

Thank you for your considered input and sorry for the tardy reply - I have been struck down with Flu.
For clarity, I have attached the Final Appeal as submitted which I had not earlier due to time constraints.
I may be up for continuing the fight if you are willing to continue your support.
Of course this would also be on the proviso that my daughter is not dragged through the courts.
Which leads me onto the next question, should I pay the fine now or not?

If you wish to guarantee that this won’t go to court your only option would be to pay. You could then bring this up with Transport Focus to see if they will look into it and hopefully get it refunded, but once you have paid there’s no guarantee you’ll ever see that money again. It’s all about your personal appetite for risk.

From the forum’s perspective we would love to see someone challenge this kind of thing in court, but is that fair to your 16 year old daughter? Probably not.

 

[Malvernian]

Happy New Year to all of you.

Owing to the distraction of the Xmas season the fine did not get paid and also the regulator was not informed of the intent to take this further.
In part my motivation to take this further has been underlined by our difficulty to obtain a full refund of a ticket due to the train leaving 5 mins early (TRIP only refunded £2.82 out of a £6.81 ticket, telling us that we had to seek compensation from the operator West Midland Rail for the shortfall, WMR in turn fobbed us off and said that we had to get it from TRIP).

Should I take this to the Ombudsman or to the Transport Focus?

 

[Haywain]

our difficulty to obtain a full refund of a ticket due to the train leaving 5 mins early (TRIP only refunded £2.82 out of a £6.81 ticket, telling us that we had to seek compensation from the operator West Midland Rail for the shortfall, WMR in turn fobbed us off and said that we had to get it from TRIP).

This is a separate matter to the Penalty Fare Notice, isn't it? A ticket that has not been used due to disruption (which is how I would classify a train leaving 5 minutes early) is due from the retailer. It appears that TRIP (Trip.com?) have accepted this in issuing a refund, albeit not for the full amount. They are due to refund the balance, although it isn't clear what either amount is made up of as tickets always are rounded to the nearest 5p, and any booking fees imposed are likely to be deemed non-refundable by the retailer. I don't believe that TRIP are part of the Ombudsman scheme, or that they would pay much attention to the thoughts of Transport Focus, so I don't know where you can realistically go with this. Unfortunately, Trip.com appear to be a somewhat shonky retailer.

 

[Malvernian]

Apologies, I meant should I take the failure of the appeals body to follow the regulations correctly and uphold the appeal,to the Ombudsman or to the Transport Focus?
(the early departure/refund issue is a separate issue but very irksome)

 

[furlong]

The original issue is one for Transport Focus.

For the separate matter of the cancellation, could you tell us the date and time and location?
And confirm the ticket was then not used at all. Was the journey still made and how? What precisely was the ticket and single or return?

It is rare for a train to depart early, but where this happens and the passenger does not use the ticket it is a breach of contract that the retailer should handle the same way as a service cancellation where the remedy is a full refund (including any directly-associated fees). It's important to distinguish this from a request for a refund when the passenger chooses not to use the ticket and only a partial refund is available. (It's not unusual for the former to be handled incorrectly as the latter.) If the passenger uses the ticket on a later train, then no refund is available but compensation instead falls under the Delay Repay regime handled by the train company concerned, not the retailer.

 

[Malvernian]

Hello to all forum contributors.
Latest (and final) update.
My daughter (with my assistance) contacted the Transport Focus.
Their initial response was unacceptable and was questioned in my daughters reply.
After reconsideration the TF agreed that Appeal Panel had not applied the Regulations correctly and the PFN was cancelled.

Copy of Email string attached.

Whilst the above was in process a demand for payment of the PFN debt was issued by ITAL UK.
Please find attached copy.

Our grateful thanks are extended to all contributors for their kind and considerate help throughout, leading to a successful conclusion.

 

[z444z]

That initial response really is inadequate, well done for persevering.

For clarification, clauses 5(5A)(b) and 9(2A) refer to the authorisation given by the inspector to where the passenger can travel. Very occasionally this will be the next stop. However, on the majority of cases it's to the destination to which the passenger is intending on travelling.

That’s worrying, it shouldn’t be…

 

[AlterEgo]

Well done for your perseverance.

 

[MotCO]

You may want to contact ITAL to make sure that they are aware that the case has been closed and that they should no longer pursue you.

 

[ChilliSauce]

You may want to contact ITAL to make sure that they are aware that the case has been closed and that they should no longer pursue you.

As I read the debt recovery letter, no need to go back to ITAL as if the debt is not paid (which it won't be as there is in effect now no debt as the PF has been cancelled) ITAL will refer the matter back to WMT .
So would it be better if the Transport Focus letter now be sent to WMT in a complaint requiring confirmation that they now accept that the PF as it was should never of been issued and ask for an apology ?

 

[MotCO]

As I read the debt recovery letter, no need to go back to ITAL as if the debt is not paid (which it won't be as there is in effect now no debt as the PF has been cancelled) ITAL will refer the matter back to WMT .

Understand, but that assumes everything goes smoothly and correctly. For peace of mind, I would still get ITAL to confirm the case is closed.

 

[Dave W]

I'm sure learned colleagues will tell us this is par for the course, but the follow up letter from them is bordering on unreadable because of the dreadful grammar and tone within.

Great result though - excellent perseverance.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I'm sure learned colleagues will tell us this is par for the course, but the follow up letter from them is bordering on unreadable because of the dreadful grammar and tone within.

I thought the same. It's very, very poorly written, and the first letter isn't much better. I suspect the author is a non-native speaker of English, possibly from Africa, as the lack of personal pronouns and wrong articles suggest someone who learnt English as a foreign language.

It does make me wonder though: how many people assessing these things are actually native speakers of English and able to understand the nuances of the language used by the respondents?

 

[endofthelines]

It does make me wonder though: how many people assessing these things are actually native speakers of English and able to understand the nuances of the language used by the respondents?

As someone who works on the railways, the quality of written English is pretty abysmal across the board. In my experience, it doesn't particularly correlate with whether they're native English speakers or not (and, indeed, learning a foreign language is often a pretty good way to improve grammatical skills!).