How likely is my appeal (misinformed by LNER staff)

[kneal1]

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Mar 2026 ==

Do not do this. That is an abuse of the chargeback process. It's not what it's for and you will risk a lot of trouble.

It would really help for you to upload the Unpaid Fare Notice, this is really key to figuring out what it is for and how enforceable it is.

Photo uploaded.

 

[Haywain]

I'll also try and refund the UPN on my credit card.

Further to what @AlterEgo has said, this would likely, in the eyes of LNER, be the same as not paying at all which as previously stated could lead to prosecution.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The fare appears to be a Railcard discounted Super Off Peak Single at £49.95 - that at least adds up!

 

[WesternLancer]

The fare appears to be a Railcard discounted Super Off Peak Single at £49.95 - that at least adds up!

So same fare that would have been requested if OP had gone to ticket office immediately prior to boarding the LNER train - the least worst sum that could have been charged I would think.

Really it should be the compensation from Grand Central for their delayed / cancelled service that should be being pursued. My personal view is LNER should be paid this - although the reported actions of staff at the station before the OP boarded telling them to board this train may render that different - tho I bet no one will admit to doing that now and none of the passengers concerned will have any proof it happened either.

 

[Haywain]

although the reported actions of staff at the station before the OP boarded telling them to board this train may render that different - tho I bet no one will admit to doing that now and none of the passengers concerned will have any proof it happened either.

Well, it probably rests on what information went out to LNER staff and when, alngside the possibility of other similar reports being made. But that's not something we can judge.

 

[357]

Clearly there has to be a financial footing. State operators are not charities, they are supported by the tax payer.

I agree, ticket acceptance is not free and there is financial payments involved.

I think the bigger issue than you saying "GC should be made to pay" etc, is that this situation happened in the first place.

The previous night there were huge delays and I have friends who were heading south and encountered massive delays of 4+ hours.

During the recovery of that sort of situation - some common sense should be used. The person who started this thread was still going to be arriving later than planned even if they did get on the 09:33 instead of the 10:33.

 

[Haywain]

This is not "bashing Open Operators at all" Clearly there has to be a financial footing. State operators are not charities, they are supported by the tax payer.

And I doubt if the customer who has paid for a ticket is really too bothered if it is the operator directly themselves who has failed to provide the service or the operator has failed to provide the service because of issue with the infrastructure ... I would remind the contract for provision of service is between the Customer and the train operator concerned.

The customer cannot reach out to the infrastructure provider for compensation / delay repay

If the failure to provide service is as a result of infrastructure failure then the train operator is compensated, I believe through schedule 8 payments. Which are then in effect used to refund the customer.

So it would appear in this case Network Rail has taken the financial hit.

Great, but none of this is helpful to the OP.

 

[Starmill]

If this is the case (including the OP) always make a formal complaint as there is a staff disciplinary issue there - if staff aren't authorised to give out ticket validity information then they should not be doing so under any circumstances. £50 UFNs are at the low end of the problems this can cause when someone who isn't supposed to do this does, and because they're in TOC uniform the passenger quite reasonably takes it as read.

More likely the train manager doesn't know what they're on about I think. It's pretty clear in this instance the station staff were right and the train manager was mistaken.

 

[Haywain]

More likely the train manager doesn't know what they're on about I think. It's pretty clear in this instance the station staff were right and the train manager was mistaken.

Travel had been authorised on the 10.33 departure, not the 09.33, so the TM was correct. Having said that, no member of station staff is going to be disciplined for giving incorrect information - that would be a training issue, not one of behaviour.

 

[Sealink]

. He advised that he made 3x announcements informing everyone on board that the tickets where not valid, these were made at 15/10/5 min intervals before departure, we must of either missed the announcement or boarding as it was made, we were also in a state of panic as we had just made the train before it left. The lady Infront also had the exact same story as us. When issuing the fine he also advised that he had fined 5x other passengers so far, with the same original tickets as us. He also advised, when he made the announcement 20+ people got of the train. This indicates a pattern, if 25+ people all board the same train, this shows that multiple people likely spoke to LNER staff members (as we did) & advised that our ticket was valid for travel.

I think there is an argument to be made that the announcement could be the standard LNER one that tickets showing "Valid Hull Trains / Lumo / Grand Central only" are not valid, rather than specifically dealing with an actual cancellation.

Of course, I don't know what the announcement said.

 

[Starmill]

not the 09.33, so the TM was correct.

How do you know that? Indeed it's actually a breach of the PIDD to artificially discriminate which alternative services may be used based on ticket type, and in line with that usually it wouldn't just be for one service even if there were a tweet about a particular suggestion.

If the train were cancelled because of something that didn't affect every operator, such as a shortage of staff, then it would be the usual for only a specific service, often quite an inconvenient one at that, to be provided as an alternative. In this case the payment would be linked to which service it were, no doubt.

I think that a suggestion that several different members of staff at the station all hallucinated this piece of information about general ticket acceptance seems extremely unlikely. About as likely as the arrangement that station staff aren't trained to deal with ticket issues.

 

[Haywain]

How do you know that?

From Grand Central's post on X that I linked to earlier.

 

[Ben Rhydding]

If the OP was given permission to board by an authorised person, then he had permission to board. The fact that a different authorised person says that the original authorised person had no authority is irrelevant.

Can the OP prove he was given the permission - No. Can LNER prove he wasn`t - No. On the balance of probability, he very likely was. In any case, the stance of the train manager was not that permission hadn`t been given. It was that the permission was invalid - in his opinion.

If this matter is escalated, it will most likely get resolved. The OP will get cancellation or refund of the UFN. He will also get delay repay from Grand Central. He must not claim refund of the Grand Central ticket. This was used north of York and, once the UFN is cancelled, it was also used south of York.

Talk of this case resulting in prosecution of the OP is ridiculous.

 

[Starmill]

From Grand Central's post on X that I linked to earlier.

I do not think that is what that says.

 

[Ben Rhydding]

From Grand Central's post on X that I linked to earlier.

Does a post on X carry the same authority as a notice in the London Gazette? Is it binding on everybody whether or not they have seen it? Is the post on X the only communication which Grand Central made in relation to this cancellation. Apart, of course, from the verbal advice given by their representatives on the station that it was ok to board the 9.33.

 

[357]

Does a post on X carry the same authority as a notice in the London Gazette? Is it binding on everybody whether or not they have seen it? Is the post on X the only communication which Grand Central made in relation to this cancellation. Apart, of course, from the verbal advice given by their representatives on the station that it was ok to board the 9.33.

The screenshot on the X post is from an industry wide system, and the same message would have been sent to LNER staff at Kings Cross and likely been available to the Train Manager onboard (assuming LNER traincrew have access to Tyrellcheck)

 

[Segedunum]

The screenshot on the X post is from an industry wide system, and the same message would have been sent to LNER staff at Kings Cross and likely been available to the Train Manager onboard (assuming LNER traincrew have access to Tyrellcheck)

It's now Arrakis rather than Tyrell - but all work phones have it on.

 

[357]

It's now Arrakis rather than Tyrell - but all work phones have it on.

I still know some people who call it Whiteboard

The last three TOCs I've worked for didn't have the web interface or apps but did everything by email. I believe it all goes back to the same system in control as the messages look identical.

 

[Ben Rhydding]

The screenshot on the X post is from an industry wide system, and the same message would have been sent to LNER staff at Kings Cross and likely been available to the Train Manager onboard (assuming LNER traincrew have access to Tyrellcheck)

But is it binding on people who haven`t seen it or don`t have access to it? And in the present case, does it over-ride advice given to passengers by railway staff? Does it over-ride protections afforded to passengers by statute (PRO) or by contract (PIDD).

 

[357]

But is it binding on people who haven`t seen it or don`t have access to it? And in the present case, does it over-ride advice given to passengers by railway staff? Does it over-ride protections afforded to passengers by statute (PRO) or by contract (PIDD).

I think you've missed the point of my post.

Of course we shouldn't expect passengers to have access to staff systems.

My point is that LNER staff at Kings Cross have access to this system and this information - so there really is no excuse for giving out the wrong information.

Ignoring PRO and PIDD, the station staff should have been giving out the information that had been sent to them.

If a passenger started quoting PRO and PIDD to random members of staff then all they will get is a blank look.

 

[rmHawk765]

Just to throw it out there - I do not see any way in which a post on X (a platform which is completely irrelevant to many passengers) is somehow justification for voiding what two actual members of staff told OP right there and then. It doesn't even matter whether the valid services were advertised elsewhere, the information was conflicting and it shouldn't be a question whether the UFN being issued was a reasonable action, particularly as it was LNER's own staff that told OP travel on the 0933 was valid. OP should not have to scour around and get evidence that the TOC's own blooming staff authorised travel.

 

[yorkie]

Can I ask that discussion regarding who should "take the financial hit" be posted elsewhere, and not in this dispute resolution thread, please.

As far as the customer is concerned, it's not relevant; yes, NR will be making payments behind the scenes, but we need to stick to the facts of this particular case, rather than get into what people believe should happen, if that differs from the legal & contractual position.

Travel had been authorised on the 10.33 departure, not the 09.33, so the TM was correct. Having said that, no member of station staff is going to be disciplined for giving incorrect information - that would be a training issue, not one of behaviour.

Notwithstanding what @Starmill says above regarding the PIDD, the TM is absolutely not correct to charge anything, when the passenger is following the instructions of staff.

Sadly, a small but very noticeable proportion of LNER staff behave in an appalling manner, and the company really needs to introduce better training and increased safeguards to protect against such behaviour by the minority of staff who give not only LNER, but the wider rail industry, a bad name.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Mar 2026 ==

---

Just to throw it out there - I do not see any way in which a post on X (a platform which is completely irrelevant to many passengers) is somehow justification for voiding what two actual members of staff told OP right there and then. It doesn't even matter whether the valid services were advertised elsewhere, the information was conflicting and it shouldn't be a question whether the UFN being issued was a reasonable action, particularly as it was LNER's own staff that told OP travel on the 0933 was valid. OP should not have to scour around and get evidence that the TOC's own blooming staff authorised travel.

Correct; if the passenger is told by LNER staff that they can board the 0933, then that is binding.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I think this is really good advice, but I would also make very clear in the LNER letter that both of the members of staff who gave authority to travel saw your actual ticket and gave advice having seen it. (We've had cases in the past where it transpired the "authority to travel" was actually a conversation of "does this train go to xxxx?" "Yeah" which is hardly the same thing)

 

[kneal1]

Can the OP prove he was given the permission - No. Can LNER prove he wasn`t - No. On the balance of probability, he very likely was. In any case, the stance of the train manager was not that permission hadn`t been given. It was that the permission was invalid - in his opinion.

The TM even advised that 20+ people left the train when he made the "announcement" as well as fining 5+ people on the train + the women in front of me, this too me indicates a clear pattern (there is evidence of this as it will be on his body cam footage him saying it") too me this is enough evidence to get my UFN thrown out?

What's everyone elses thoughts?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Mar 2026 ==

Correct; if the passenger is told by LNER staff that they can board the 0933, then that is binding.

But I have no evidence of this, only evidence I could get is CCTV footage, tho that will not have audio I suspect.

 

[Snow1964]

Travel had been authorised on the 10.33 departure, not the 09.33, so the TM was correct. Having said that, no member of station staff is going to be disciplined for giving incorrect information - that would be a training issue, not one of behaviour.

This might simply be a case of garbled or incomplete message, due to the network problems, travel is authorised on a train at xx:33, (might even have used words like use 33 minutes past) there was train at 09:33 and passengers directed to it.

But the message should have been 10:33 only.

Clearly if anyone was directed to 09:33 (for cancelled 10:00) then they were half an hour or more early, and perhaps message passed on prior to 09:30 didn't specifically say, make passengers wait over an hour.

Does the departure board at Kings Cross even show the 10:33 before 09:33 has left. It is very difficult to direct people to a train not shown.