Basic information on a penalty fare notice

[confusedDad]

My child was issued a penalty fare notice for travelling on a child ticket when she is 16. This is with Merseyrail. She simply asked for a return ticket at the sales desk and they provided a child’s ticket.

I’m considering disputing this (unlikely to win having read threads on this forum) but two things I am trying to understand more:-

1.) The reason is “07 - Other”. I’ve asked Merseyrail to explain what this means and what the other reason codes are and they are refusing to provide that information at this point

2.) I’ve also asked what the “Adult/Child: Child” field means and again, they are refusing to answer this.

Does anybody know what the reason codes are and what a “child” refers to in point 2? Is this that my daughter was travelling on a child ticket or that they are issuing the ticket to a child?

Thanks

 

[methecooldude]

Without seeing the notice issued, I would assume in relation to 2 that its the type of ticket held, in this case, a child ticket.

In order for the experts here to help, could you upload a copy of the notice with personal information redacted, and if you still have the ticket, a photo of that as well

 

[AlterEgo]

Yep, just show us the notice and we can look at the entire thing and scrutinise it - there may be multiple angles of appeal.

 

[confusedDad]

Here’s the ticket and the PFN.

 

[AlterEgo]

The penalty fare is unlawful as it does not give the grounds on which it was issued, which makes it unenforceable. You should appeal on these grounds and it will succeed on these grounds alone. You may need to take it all the way through to a third appeal though, because the first two stages are designed to waste everyone's time out of malice and contempt.

FYI the Adult/Child portion relates to the age of the traveller, not the ticket held; it is a superfluous field.

(2) Where a collector charges a penalty fare to a person under paragraph (1), the collector must provide that person with the following information in writing at the time the penalty fare is charged—

(b)an explanation of why the person is being charged a penalty fare;

The law is here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/366/regulation/5

 

[confusedDad]

The penalty fare is unlawful as it does not give the grounds on which it was issued, which makes it unenforceable. You should appeal on these grounds and it will succeed on these grounds alone. You may need to take it all the way through to a third appeal though, because the first two stages are designed to waste everyone's time out of malice and contempt.

FYI the Adult/Child portion relates to the age of the traveller, not the ticket held; it is a superfluous field.



The law is here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/366/regulation/5

Thanks you!

 

[SuspectUsual]

The penalty fare is unlawful as it does not give the grounds on which it was issued, which makes it unenforceable. You should appeal on these grounds and it will succeed on these grounds alone. You may need to take it all the way through to a third appeal though, because the first two stages are designed to waste everyone's time out of malice and contempt.

FYI the Adult/Child portion relates to the age of the traveller, not the ticket held; it is a superfluous field.



The law is here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/366/regulation/5

I think we need a note of caution here. @AlterEgo is right in saying the penalty fare wasn't correctly issued, but I don't think we can say an appeal will succeed, but we can say one should succeed. This is the railway, after all. Wrong decisions are made on PF appeals every single day

 

[blimmo]

The penalty fare is unlawful as it does not give the grounds on which it was issued, which makes it unenforceable. You should appeal on these grounds and it will succeed on these grounds alone. You may need to take it all the way through to a third appeal though, because the first two stages are designed to waste everyone's time out of malice and contempt.

FYI the Adult/Child portion relates to the age of the traveller, not the ticket held; it is a superfluous field.



The law is here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/366/regulation/5

In the fixed section of the PF notice it says "A Penalty Fare Notice is being issued because when asked by an authorised person you were unable to show a valid ticket for your entire journey." Could they argue that that would satisfy the part of the law you quoted?

 

[AlterEgo]

In the fixed section of the PF notice it says "A Penalty Fare Notice is being issued because when asked by an authorised person you were unable to show a valid ticket for your entire journey." Could they argue that that would satisfy the part of the law you quoted?

No, it has to explain why, that is why the grounds info is there. That is why Reason and Grounds are on the Notice, they need to be filled in. You can't just say "other" and not freehand the Grounds.

If you look at the document as a whole it provides absolutely no reason at all as to why the PF was issued.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

No, it has to explain why, that is why the grounds info is there. That is why Reason and Grounds are on the Notice, they need to be filled in. You can't just say "other" and not freehand the Grounds.

If you look at the document as a whole it provides absolutely no reason at all as to why the PF was issued.

Respectfully, I think @blimmo might have a point. It's hard to see how the document as a whole could say less than the sum of the individual parts of the document, and the text at the top does give a reason ('A Penalty Fare Notice is being issued because...') for the issue of the notice. I haven't read through the law, but unless there's an explicit definition in the legislation (or caselaw) to say otherwise, I would expect 'grounds' and 'A notice is being issued because' to be taken as synonymous - so if we know why the notice has been issued then grounds have been given.

As always, I am not a lawyer...

 

[AlterEgo]

Respectfully, I think @blimmo might have a point. It's hard to see how the document as a whole could say less than the sum of the individual parts of the document, and the text at the top does give a reason ('A Penalty Fare Notice is being issued because...') for the issue of the notice. I haven't read through the law, but unless there's an explicit definition in the legislation (or caselaw) to say otherwise, I would expect 'grounds' and 'A notice is being issued because' to be taken as synonymous - so if we know why the notice has been issued then grounds have been given.

As always, I am not a lawyer...

That is daft. That is like saying the police can arrest you and only say when doing so "well you've done something we can arrest you for innit" when in law they have to give the reason why they are arresting you.

Let's do this another way:

You are the appeals assessor.

What was the penalty fare issued for, and what must the passenger provide?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Respectfully, I think @blimmo might have a point. It's hard to see how the document as a whole could say less than the sum of the individual parts of the document, and the text at the top does give a reason ('A Penalty Fare Notice is being issued because...') for the issue of the notice.

I understand their point, but the purpose of the reason and grounds fields are to explain why the issuer of the penalty did not consider the passenger to have a valid ticket.

We assume it was issued because the passenger was holding a child ticket when they were aged 16, but that is just our assumption- and note that, for some tickets on Merseyrail, a person aged 16 or 17 is also entitled to purchase a child ticket. It may have been issued for another reason. We don't know- the RPI couldn't be bothered to state on the form why they issued it.

And, on a practical level, how can an appeals adjudicator decide if the Penalty Fare was issued fairly if the document doesn't say why it was issued?

 

[AlterEgo]

I understand their point, but the purpose of the reason and grounds fields are to explain why the issuer of the penalty did not consider the passenger to have a valid ticket.

We assume it was issued because the passenger was holding a child ticket when they were aged 16, but that is just our assumption

It is the one reason the PF cannot possibly be for, actually, as the passenger has been made out to be a child on the notice, lol.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

What was the penalty fare issued for, and what must the passenger provide?

And, on a practical level, how can an appeals adjudicator decide if the Penalty Fare was issued fairly if the document doesn't say why it was issued?

The PFN <edit> states that it </edit> was issued for not having (or if you prefer, 'on the grounds that the customer did not have') a valid ticket. We're moving on to hypotheticals here as it seems to be accepted by the OP that their daughter didn't have a valid ticket, but if the passenger could produce a valid ticket then that would disprove the railway's assertion.

Going right back to the beginning of the thread, OP has kindly shown us the ticket. Can anyone confirm that the details demonstrate that it was issued at the counter at Liverpool Central, rather than at one of the ticket machines at the same station? Or is it the return portion of a Hightown - Liverpool ticket, in which case it must have been issued over the counter as I'm pretty sure that Hightown doesn't have a machine.

 

[AlterEgo]

The PFN <edit> states that it </edit> was issued for not having (or if you prefer, 'on the grounds that the customer did not have') a valid ticket. We're moving on to hypotheticals here

No, it's not hypothetical. It is fundamental. The notice has to say why the penalty fare is due, and that is to provide an avenue of appeal. You can't hand them out without the grounds filled in, else anyone could appeal any penalty fare by just submitting a picture of their ticket, or in fact any valid ticket at all.

if the passenger could produce a valid ticket then that would disprove the railway's assertion.

They can provide a valid ticket, so that's great - super. The picture of it is upthread. Just submit the ticket, job done.

Do you see now why the grounds has to be filled in? That is why the field exists on every penalty fare notice.

 

[Tetchytyke]

We're moving on to hypotheticals here as it seems to be accepted by the OP that their daughter didn't have a valid ticket, but if the passenger could produce a valid ticket then that would disprove the railway's assertion.

It's not really hypothetical though, they need to explain why they believe the passenger did not have a valid ticket. We are assuming- and, in this case, it is probably a fair assumption- that it was issued because the OP's daughter is 16 but had a ticket which was only valid for people aged under 16. But we don't know this because the issuer hasn't said. How can you prove you had a valid ticket if you haven't been told on the form why it isn't valid? And how can the adjudicator prove you didn't have a valid ticket if they haven't been told on the form why it isn't valid?

As @AlterEgo also points out, the only field on the form which has actually been filled out is the section that says the passenger is a child. A Penalty Fare issued to a child for holding a child ticket? Are we sure?

To answer the other query, the ticket appears to be the return portion of a day return. So it will have been sold at a counter.

ETA: to answer the OP's question, they need to appeal on the basis that the form hasn't been filled out correctly- the reason for the issuance is blank. There are three stages to the appeals process, the first two are internal, it is only the third stage which is external. Chances are it will take to the third attempt for someone to understand the point. After each rejection you have 21 14 days to submit an appeal to the next stage. There is no disadvantage to appealing to the third stage, as even if you lose all three stages you will still benefit from the reduced penalty of £55.75.

 

[Gloster]

It's not really hypothetical though, they need to explain why they believe the passenger did not have a valid ticket. We are assuming- and, in this case, it is probably a fair assumption- that it was issued because the OP's daughter is 16 but had a ticket which was only valid for people aged under 16. But we don't know this because the issuer hasn't said. How can you prove you had a valid ticket if you haven't been told on the form why it isn't valid? And how can the adjudicator prove you didn't have a valid ticket if they haven't been told on the form why it isn't valid?

As @AlterEgo also points out, the only field on the form which has actually been filled out is the section that says the passenger is a child. A Penalty Fare issued to a child for holding a child ticket? Are we sure?

To answer the other query, the ticket appears to be the return portion of a day return. So it will have been sold at a counter.

ETA: to answer the OP's question, they need to appeal on the basis that the form hasn't been filled out correctly- the reason for the issuance is blank. There are three stages to the appeals process, the first two are internal, it is only the third stage which is external. Chances are it will take to the third attempt for someone to understand the point. After each rejection you have 21 days to submit an appeal to the next stage. There is no disadvantage to appealing to the third stage, as even if you lose all three stages you will still benefit from the reduced penalty of £55.75.

I may be wrong, but I think you have 21 days in total. The clock stops each time you appeal, but restarts once you get your reply.

I believer this is correct: other will confirm or shout ne down.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I may be wrong, but I think you have 21 days in total. The clock stops each time you appeal, but restarts once you get your reply.

I've just double checked and we're both wrong

For stage one it is 21 days from when the Penalty Fare was issued.

For stages two and three it is 14 days from when the notice of rejection was issued.

The 21 days is for payment. You have 21 days to pay to get the reduced price, but the clock stops during any period where there is an appeal being considered.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I've just double checked and we're both wrong

For stage one it is 21 days from when the Penalty Fare was issued.

For stages two and three it is 14 days from when the notice of rejection was issued.

The 21 days is for payment. You have 21 days to pay to get the reduced price, but the clock stops during any period where there is an appeal being considered.

So that implies that the PF system sees the first appeal as material and the most important one, ie you can make it on the 21st day and still get the 50% discount if it’s rejected.

Whereas in practice we all know the third appeal is the realistic best chance of success….

 

[Elecman]

Going right back to the beginning of the thread, OP has kindly shown us the ticket. Can anyone confirm that the details demonstrate that it was issued at the counter at Liverpool Central, rather than at one of the ticket machines at the same station? Or is it the return portion of a Hightown - Liverpool ticket, in which case it must have been issued over the counter as I'm pretty sure that Hightown doesn't have a machine.

In the OPs initial post she states She simply asked for a return ticket at the sales desk and they provided a child’s ticket. So definitely not from a self serve Ticket Machine.

 

[Swedenorer]

I’m considering disputing this (unlikely to win having read threads on this forum) but two things I am trying to understand more:-

1.) The reason is “07 - Other”. I’ve asked Merseyrail to explain what this means and what the other reason codes are and they are refusing to provide that information at this point

2.) I’ve also asked what the “Adult/Child: Child” field means and again, they are refusing to answer this.

Keep asking them - 07 Other is simply balderdash especially when you don't even know what 01-06 are. Other can never be a ground without that information or at all. Any semsible company would have had these grounds printed on the back of the roll or not try to use a bit of ticket issuing equipemnt for purposes for which it is plainly unsuited.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

In the OPs initial post she states She simply asked for a return ticket at the sales desk and they provided a child’s ticket. So definitely not from a self serve Ticket Machine.

I hate to say this - but messages can get scrambled in transmission. What the OP understood to have happened may not be what had actually happened to their daughter. And (I even further hate to mention this) but accounts given by people to their parents may not necessarily be 100% true. So it's good to be able to validate statements from independent sources

Of course, in this case, someone (I forget who, but many thanks to them) has confirmed that this is the return portion of a Hightown - Central ticket, and since Hightown has a staffed office and no ticket machine, the ticket will have been obtained over the ticket office counter. So the truth of the statement that it was sold by a ticket clerk is unarguable.

 

[Egg Centric]

Keep asking them - 07 Other is simply balderdash especially when you don't even know what 01-06 are. Other can never be a ground without that information or at all. Any semsible company would have had these grounds printed on the back of the roll or not try to use a bit of ticket issuing equipemnt for purposes for which it is plainly unsuited.

Disagree - @confusedDad unless this is your idea of fun don't waste time talking to them. Just do the appeals - and this one is so silly it may even get cancelled before the third round, but take @AlterEgo's words in post 5 to heart and expect and don't worry about rejections at stages 1 and 2. If you get to stage 3 though, please do come back and get the wording of the appeal checked by us (and if 1/2 work out it would still be handy if you update us).

(Even if it doesn't there's then the matter of it turning into a civil debt against a 16 year old, but this is somewhat contentious atm so let's hope it doesn't come to that)

 

[confusedDad]

Thanks all. Some really interesting thoughts and advice on here. Appeal submitted so let’s see how it goes

 

[janb]

Of course, in this case, someone (I forget who, but many thanks to them) has confirmed that this is the return portion of a Hightown - Central ticket, and since Hightown has a staffed office and no ticket machine, the ticket will have been obtained over the ticket office counter. So the truth of the statement that it was sold by a ticket clerk is unarguable.

I've hesitated to mention because its irrelevant to the penalty fare and this section of the forum loves to focus on irrelevant things that are not helpful to the OP. But to help you read any future tickets, we can see it's a return portion due to the return written in the top right corner. We can also see it was issued on machine 2444 at NLC 2242 (Liverpool Central) at 1742. So the working theory would be that the passenger caught the 1711 from Hightown arriving 1738, and then bought the ticket at the counter at Liverpool Central. As I say all irrelevant to the matter at hand.

 

[Swedenorer]

Disagree - @confusedDad unless this is your idea of fun don't waste time talking to them.

Regretfully it is my idea of fun!

 

[Egg Centric]

Regretfully it is my idea of fun!

Oh well in that case go nuts - I'm currently steeling up for a fight about an issue caused by a 37 yen (approx 20p) discrepancy in one of my ISAs! So I fully understand. There aren't many of us about though so my advice was tailored towards normal people

 

[confusedDad]

OK so my daughter originally appealed this with the below:-

"This appeal is made on the basis that the Penalty Fare Notice does not comply with Regulation 5(2)(b) of the Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018.

1. Failure to provide required explanation

Regulation 5(2)(b) requires that a Penalty Fare Notice must include:

“an explanation of why the person is being charged a penalty fare.”

The Penalty Fare Notice issued to me records only:

* Reason: “07 – Other”
* Grounds information: blank

No explanation is provided on the notice nor in writing as to why the penalty fare has been issued. As a result, the notice does not appear to satisfy the requirement to explain the reason for the penalty fare"

Nonetheless, the appeal process have now replied saying as she is under 18, she should have a parent appeal on her behalf.

Is the above sufficient? Should I expand further

 

[Nottingham59]

Hmm.

In their FAQs, Penaltyservices.co.uk say that they advise that an under-18 should let a parent or guardian appeal on their behalf

FAQ - Penalty Services

www.penaltyservices.co.uk

I am under 18 can I make an appeal against a Penalty Fare

Whilst Penalty Fare Regulations say that the person who received the penalty fare notice is entitled to appeal by sending a written statement explaining why they should not have to pay the Penalty Fare Notice, if you are under the age of 18 years, rather than submitting an appeal yourself, we would advise that you need to share the fact that you have been issued with a Penalty Fare Notice with a parent or guardian and let them appeal on your behalf.

 

[Watershed]

So they explicitly admit that there is no statutory basis for forcing a parent to get involved. Presumably they are just using that as an excuse to harvest the parent's details in a misguided belief they can pursue them if the child doesn't pay.