Fined for losing travel card

[maia]

Hi, looking for some advice. I already know I’ve messed up here, but wanted to ask in case there’s anything I’ve missed. I bought a valid 16–25 Railcard ticket for my usual commute (Gatwick Airport to Zones 1–6), but during the journey I lost my wallet (likely dropped or stolen), which had the ticket in it.

There were no inspectors on the train. When I arrived at Blackfriars, I realised the ticket was missing and, instead of just tapping out with apple pay, I went up to staff to explain and ask what I should do. In my head, worst case I thought I’d just have to buy another ticket. Instead, I was issued a £65 penalty fare for not being able to produce a valid ticket.

I appealed with proof of purchase, but it was rejected. They said tickets have to be shown at the time and can’t be provided later. Which, fair enough, I now realise is how the rules work. I’ve submitted a second appeal mainly on the basis that I approached staff voluntarily and was trying to resolve things honestly, but I’m guessing that probably doesn’t carry much weight.


So I just wanted to ask, is there realistically any chance of the second appeal succeeding? Or is this just one of those expensive lessons where I should pay and move on? I know in I would've been better off just tapping out, which is a bit frustrating, but here we are.

Appreciate any advice.

 

[walkingsophie]

Could you send a photo of the penalty fare notice with the personal data redacted? People on this forum might be able to find a technical basis for the appeal.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I was issued a £65 penalty fare for not being able to produce a valid ticket.

@maia. Welcome to the forum. Is the amount you've been asked to pay actually £65.10? (Comprising £15.10 unpaid fare, plus the £50.00 penalty fare on top, which assumes you pay promptly). A technical reason for successfully appealing the PF might be if the unpaid fare demanded is incorrect. Problem with having proof of payment for an ostensibly 'lost' ticket is that the ticket in question may simply have been given to someone else to use.

 

[z444z]

We need to see the penalty fare notice to be able to advise properly.

 

[furlong]

When the original legislation went through, Parliament was told that a lost ticket would be a valid reason for a PF to be cancelled.

The problem is the current appeals panels are understandably reluctant to believe people who say this happened, so you'll need to both remind them what Parliament was told and provide some very convincing evidence of your honesty.

From the Second Reading:

Mr. McNair-Wilson...What is more important, the trained, authorised personnel will be given discretion. If a person says, "I have lost my ticket"—not a completely unknown predicament, in which some of us may have found ourselves—it will be possible for the official to say, "That is all right, you can go." There will also be a 21-day discretionary period. If a notice is issued to a passenger, he will be able to put his case in writing. The matter will then be examined by the appropriate authorities at head office. There will be no attempt to bulldoze or bully passengers. If a reasonable excuse is given, discretion can be exercised by those in authority.

 

[reb0118]

Have you reported this to the police and/or your insurers and obtained the appropriate reference numbers?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

When the original legislation went through, Parliament was told that a lost ticket would be a valid reason for a PF to be cancelled.

On the basis of the quote you give, that's not quite what Parliament were told. Here's part of your extract, with added italics for emphasis:,

Mr. McNair-Wilson...What is more important, the trained, authorised personnel will be given discretion. If a person says, "I have lost my ticket"—not a completely unknown predicament, in which some of us may have found ourselves—it will be possible for the official to say, "That is all right, you can go."

Neither 'possible' nor 'discretion' mean that something will happen: they mean that it might. So your statement can be no stronger than

When the original legislation went through, Parliament was told that a lost ticket could be a valid reason for a PF to be cancelled.

 

[AlterEgo]

It really doesn't matter what Parliament was told in 1989, when I was still learning to climb on furniture and jump with two feet. What matters is the law Parliament actually passed.

Please show us the penalty fare notice with your name removed so we can see if there is anything which is unlawful about it (a surprising number are not compliant!).

 

[furlong]

Re-read what I wrote: The word 'would', not 'could', is correct. I did not write that it would necessarily be cancelled, but that losing a ticket was available as a valid reason to justify its cancellation. In practice this means that appeals panels cannot dismiss such appeals out-of-hand (as one they would never accept in any circumstances) but must always give it fair consideration before making their decisions in the normal way. Civil servants take statements of this nature made to Parliament very seriously and it remains open to a passenger penalised in such circumstances to take the matter up through their M.P. if they think the system is not working in the way that was clearly intended.

 

[Haywain]

Re-read what I wrote: The word 'would', not 'could', is correct. I did not write that it would necessarily be cancelled, but that losing a ticket was available as a valid reason to justify its cancellation. In practice this means that appeals panels cannot dismiss such appeals out-of-hand (as one they would never accept in any circumstances) but must always give it fair consideration before making their decisions in the normal way. Civil servants take statements of this nature made to Parliament very seriously and it remains open to a passenger penalised in such circumstances to take the matter up through their M.P. if they think the system is not working in the way that was clearly intended.

This is just splitting hairs. It is a matter of discretion, and I do not believe that what was said to parliament in 1989 sets any precedent about how that discretion should be exercised or what the outcome should be. Therefore, this is of no real help to the OP.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Hopefully, we'll hear back from the OP in due course. They don't appear to have logged back onto the forum since initially posting yesterday evening.

 

[brainiac_ghost]

This is just splitting hairs. It is a matter of discretion, and I do not believe that what was said to parliament in 1989 sets any precedent about how that discretion should be exercised or what the outcome should be. Therefore, this is of no real help to the OP.

Well, when the courts interpret legislation, if needed, they will look at the parliamentary record (albeit that is generally done by the supreme court). In addition to the "compelling reasons" ground, this would mean that having lost a ticket could be considered as a compelling reason, and the panel should give such arguments at minimum a fair hearing.

 

[fandroid]

For the lost ticket scenario to have even the tiniest chance of succeeding as a compelling reason, I suspect that some backup evidence is essential. eg a record of reporting a theft to police or a lost property report to the train company.

When a loss has happened to me it's created a massive paper trail of replaced bank cards, and applications for other cards to be replaced (sometimes with a hefty fee to pay!)

 

[Sun Chariot]

For the lost ticket scenario to have even the tiniest chance of succeeding as a compelling reason, I suspect that some backup evidence is essential. eg a record of reporting a theft to police or a lost property report to the train company.

Exactly and ditto what was asked of the OP in posts 2 to 6. I think it worth us awaiting OPs response to those points and OPs screenshots of the issued Penalty Fare.
OP hasn't been back on here since their 30th March opening post and "ask".