Penalty fare for travel outside London Transport zones on Oyster Card

[CmWS]

Hi,

I recently received a penalty fare notice for attempting to travel from Tottenham Hale to London Stansted Airport on the Stansted Express using my oyster card. I did not realise I could not use my oyster card for this journey, especially given that the name of the airport includes London. When I tapped on the gates opened like normal, which gave me more reason to assume that I was not committing an offence, and when I got to Stansted my card would not open the gate and I was called over by a guard who issued me with a penalty fare.

He told me he was issuing it just because it was standard practice, and that he thought I should have no problem appealing and paying the original fare (£22) instead of the penalty (£72). I appealed, and just today received an email back saying that my appeal was unsuccessful and that they expect me to pay £72 within 14 days or submit another appeal. If I do not pay in 14 days, the amount rises to £122. They claim that it is my responsibility to check, and that there are signs everywhere telling me that oyster card is not valid beyond wherever (i.e. not to Stansted). Bear in mind this also happened around 5-6 in the morning, so I was tired and not thinking properly.

Why is there no leeway on this? This seems completely unfair as it was an honest mistake, and the inspector was reassuring me that he didn't think my appeal would have any problem. I'm now left having to pay £72 for what should have been a £22 journey (or £14 including my rail card) because of it. I intend to submit another appeal, but I don't know why my appeal was rejected, and what I have to show for it to be accepted. I am a student and really cannot afford to fork out £72 on what was already an overpriced journey. I would really appreciate some advice for re-submitting an appeal, I'm at a loss on what to do and it really feels unfair.

 

[WesternLancer]

Hi,

I recently received a penalty fare notice for attempting to travel from Tottenham Hale to London Stansted Airport on the Stansted Express using my oyster card. I did not realise I could not use my oyster card for this journey, especially given that the name of the airport includes London. When I tapped on the gates opened like normal, which gave me more reason to assume that I was not committing an offence, and when I got to Stansted my card would not open the gate and I was called over by a guard who issued me with a penalty fare.

Welcome - this is unfortunate - it may be that Penalty Fare (PF) experts on here can help you with a better stage 2 appeal - to do so ideally they will want to see as many of the following as you can upload and share - in each case make sure all of you personal details / name address and the Ref number are obscured before you upload them
- a copy of the original Penalty Fare notice you were given
- a copy of your appeal wording if you kept a copy
- a copy of the reply to the appeal that you have been sent

He told me he was issuing it just because it was standard practice, and that he thought I should have no problem appealing and paying the original fare (£22) instead of the penalty (£72).

We often hear of staff saying this - it may be to help de-escalate situations where they think passengers might kick off when being given a PF - or it may be that staff genuinely believe this - but I suspect it's rarely the case that Appeals are easily accepted in the way that might have been put to you.

I appealed, and just today received an email back saying that my appeal was unsuccessful and that they expect me to pay £72 within 14 days or submit another appeal. If I do not pay in 14 days, the amount rises to £122.

If you pay it and an Appeal is subsequently successful, then you would be refunded. The clock on the prompt payment discount is stopped at each stage of the appeal process if you submit a next stage Appeal. Obviously do not miss that deadline and lose £50 by doing so.

They claim that it is my responsibility to check, and that there are signs everywhere telling me that oyster card is not valid beyond wherever (i.e. not to Stansted). Bear in mind this also happened around 5-6 in the morning, so I was tired and not thinking properly.

Why is there no leeway on this? This seems completely unfair as it was an honest mistake, and the inspector was reassuring me that he didn't think my appeal would have any problem.

AIUI for an appeal to be successful it needs to show that the PF was not correctly issued (ie not issued correctly in line with the regulations that define the PF system) - an appeal based on the argument that it weas not fair to be penalised etc is not going to be successful

PFs are not designed for suspected fare evasion (people should be reported for investigation for that) but for mistakes involving travel without a valid ticket - much like this scenario you describe.

However, PFs are sometimes issued with errors on them which if set out in a clear well worded Appeal are more likely to succeed. People here will hopefully be able to check if there are good grounds to submit further appeals - there is nothing to lose by appealing at each stage apart from the time involved in doing so.

I'm now left having to pay £72 for what should have been a £22 journey (or £14 including my rail card) because of it. I intend to submit another appeal, but I don't know why my appeal was rejected, and what I have to show for it to be accepted. I am a student and really cannot afford to fork out £72 on what was already an overpriced journey. I would really appreciate some advice for re-submitting an appeal, I'm at a loss on what to do and it really feels unfair.

 

[Trainman40083]

It won't be long before someone posts a picture of what you see at Tottenham Hale station, in terms of signage.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

It won't be long before someone posts a picture of what you see at Tottenham Hale station, in terms of signage.

Something like this?

Signage at Tottenham Hale showing ticket barriers and a big sign stating "No Oyster or Contactless Payments to Stansted Airport".

Source: https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2025/11/some-more-transport-news.html?m=1

BTW, should the unpaid fare for a single journey from Tottenham Hale to Stansted Airport be £22.00 or £19.00 (this might depend on the time of the day that the journey in question was made).

 

[kijeta]

We often hear of staff saying this - it may be to help de-escalate situations where they think passengers might kick off when being given a PF - or it may be that staff genuinely believe this

I feel like staff should not be allowed to get away with lying like this?

 

[WesternLancer]

I feel like staff should not be allowed to get away with lying like this?

Well - without being there it's not possible to know what precisely was said, and I've never had a PF anywhere else so can't even give an idea about what is typically said.
I can see why that sort of thing is said, but I agree it doesn't actually help if it gives a passenger a false idea of what might happen.

I guess staff could use a form of words like 'You can appeal this Penalty Fare and and appeal can be successful' - but what can happen in conversation will inevitably have a chance of departing from the ideal phrases you might get advised to use in training.

 

[AlterEgo]

I feel like staff should not be allowed to get away with lying like this?

I mean I agree, mostly - but in this case it makes no difference to the outcome other than encouraging the passenger to actually appeal.

 

[Watershed]

Something like this?
View attachment 211811
Signage at Tottenham Hale showing ticket barriers and a big sign stating "No Oyster or Contactless Payments to Stansted Airport".

Source: https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2025/11/some-more-transport-news.html?m=1

BTW, should the unpaid fare for a single journey from Tottenham Hale to Stansted Airport be £22.00 or £19.00 (this might depend on the time of the day that the journey in question was made).

Obviously this is an old image since contactless is now accepted and from memory, the signs reflect that.

I mean I agree, mostly - but in this case it makes no difference to the outcome other than encouraging the passenger to actually appeal.

In my experience from overhearing a number of PFs being issued, and the sheer number of people we get reporting similar experiences here, it's commonplace for inspectors to say things along the lines of "I just need to take your details to issue your new ticket, you can appeal it and they will accept it".

Obviously they have no idea how the appeals process works or whether or not an appeal would be accepted, so these are false assurances that really shouldn't be given.

They're also effectively gathering the person's details under false pretences: if they were honest about what they were up to, people would be much less cooperative in all likelihood. I don't think that making an RPI's life easier is remotely close to being a justification for that.

Anyway, all of this is immaterial to an appeal. It doesn't matter how the inspector came to get your details, once the PF is issued it has to be appealed on its own merits rather than based on the fairness (or otherwise) of the situation.

I think the best chance of appeal here is based on the signage at Tottenham Hale being non-compliant with the Regulations. A sign containing the prescribed warnings and text must be "prominent" at every station entrance but from personal experience this is not the case. There are small signs on the barriers and large ones on the walls which warn, in general terms, about the risk of a PF for travelling without a valid ticket - but none of these meet the requirements of the Regulations.

We know that the appeals bodies don't particularly seem to have much time for what they perceive as "technicalities" like this - but it is worth a try as we have seen Tottenham Hale to Stansted PFs being overturned on those grounds before. See https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/stansted-airport-fines.253779/page-3#post-6421189

 

[dosxuk]

When I tapped on the gates opened like normal, which gave me more reason to assume that I was not committing an offence

It should be fairly obvious that the gates don't know where you intend to travel to. As long as there are any valid routes from your origin station where Oyster is accepted (and at Tottenham Hale there are loads), then the gates will accept your Oyster card and allow you through.

 

[eoff]

Are there announcements on the trains saying you are about to reach an Oyster boundary?
Trains from Helsinki to the airport have an announcement at a zone boundary and you can alight and buy the next ticket if needed.

 

[furlong]

he thought I should have no problem appealing and paying the original fare (£22) instead of the penalty (£72).

Did you mention this in your appeal? If so, how did their letter address this crucial point?

(Of course, if the inspector truly believed this, he would not have imposed the penalty, so it is difficult to believe he actually said this. He obviously cannot attempt to tie the hands of the Appeals body which what he allegedly said does - but nor has he any need to because he himself possesses absolute discretion not to impose the penalty. He's surely in a better position to make the judgement, asking you any further questions he feels necessary, than a remote Appeals body could ever be.)

 

[John R]

You need to show us the Penalty Fare ticket for experts here to see if there is a technical breach of the rules that might get you off.

But failing that, you made a mistake, and that’s what Penalty Fares are designed to remedy, with no suggestion of an attempt to evade paying the correct fare.

As for not being able to afford it, I guess if you can afford to travel somewhere by air, you are unlikely to be so impoverished that £72 is beyond you to find under the circumstances. (Not that inability to afford the fine would in itself be a compelling reason to rescind the penalty.)

 

[Watershed]

Are there announcements on the trains saying you are about to reach an Oyster boundary?
Trains from Helsinki to the airport have an announcement at a zone boundary and you can alight and buy the next ticket if needed.

Stansted Express trains generally don't stop again within the Oyster area of validity after leaving Tottenham Hale.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

BTW, should the unpaid fare for a single journey from Tottenham Hale to Stansted Airport be £22.00 or £19.00 (this might depend on the time of the day that the journey in question was made)?

 

[WesternLancer]

BTW, should the unpaid fare for a single journey from Tottenham Hale to Stansted Airport be £22.00 or £19.00 (this might depend on the time of the day that the journey in question was made)?

One reason why it would help if the op uploaded their paperwork for checking

 

[FOH]

Given money is tight I'm guessing their is an incomplete journey charge on their Oyster. I'm not an expert on this sub-forum but I assume they can request that journey gets cancelled and funds reinstated on their Oyster.

 

[Haywain]

BTW, should the unpaid fare for a single journey from Tottenham Hale to Stansted Airport be £22.00 or £19.00 (this might depend on the time of the day that the journey in question was made)?

The OP states that it happened "around 5-6 in the morning", so £22 will be the appropriate fare for a paper ticket.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

The OP states that it happened "around 5-6 in the morning", so £22 will be the appropriate fare for a paper ticket.

Thanks for clarifying. Although it would have been £19, at that time of the day, had payment been successfully made using a contactless payment card or contactless device, wouldn't it?

 

[Haywain]

Thanks for clarifying. Although it would have been £19, at that time of the day, had payment been successfully made using a contactless payment card or contactless device, wouldn't it?

Yes, but they can't claim the fare is wrong because of that

 

[Watershed]

The OP states that it happened "around 5-6 in the morning", so £22 will be the appropriate fare for a paper ticket.

If it happened on a Saturday then £19 would be correct.

 

[Haywain]

If it happened on a Saturday then £19 would be correct.

Good point!

 

[CmWS]

Hi, thank you for all of your responses and apologies for the delay in returning to this! I've looked over all of your responses as well as other posts where people have encountered the same/similar issue. I intend to submit a second appeal on the basis that the notices at Tottenham Hale are not compliant with the Regulations, as I visited the station again this morning and do not believe that to be the case. I have attached here my original penalty fare ticket, along with photos I took of the notices at the station this morning. Below, I present a draft of my appeal that I would like to submit. I have taken a lot from another (successful) appeal faced by a user who encountered almost identical circumstances to me, so it may be too similar but please advise me as best you can.

I'm also having trouble submitting a second appeal even though it is explicitly stated on my appeal rejection letter that I am welcome to submit a second appeal. When I try to submit a new appeal, it tells me there is currently one in progress and I should log on to check it's progress. When I log on, it tells me the outcome has been sent to me. I can't submit a second one. If anyone knows what the issue is please could they let me know.

######################################################################################

######################################################################################

This appeal is in relation to Penalty Fare Notice [REDACTED]. This is my second appeal, and is based on the following regulations:

• Regulation 16(3)(a): “the penalty fare was not charged in accordance with the requirements of these Regulations;” based on the failure of Greater Anglia to meet the notice requirements specified in Regulation 8.
• Regulation 16(3)(d): “there are compelling reasons why, in the particular circumstances of the case, the appellant should not be liable to pay the penalty fare.”.

Relevant sections of the Regulations

Regulation 6(2)(b) states that a passenger must not be charged a Penalty Fare if “at the time when, and at the station where, the passenger boarded the train… the requirements for the display of notices specified in regulation 8 were not satisfied;”

The relevant sections of Regulation 8 are as follows:

"8.—(1) The requirements for the display of notices are as follows.
(4) Standard notices and compulsory ticket area notices must also be displayed at sufficient locations around the station so that at least one notice is readily visible to passengers prior to boarding a train at the station, including passengers changing from one train to another train"

The relevant sections of paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 are as follows:

“1.—(1) A standard notice must contain—
(c)the wording “Please buy your ticket before you travel otherwise you may be charged a Penalty Fare”,


Notices at Tottenham Hale Station

The notices at Tottenham Hale do not meet the requirements of the Penalty Fare Regulations. I have attached three photographs of the notices at Tottenham Hale taken when I attended the station at 09:54am on 22nd September. Assuming that the notices were in this form on 10th September (Regulation 16(4): “it is for the operator on whose behalf the penalty fare was charged to provide evidence that reasonably demonstrates that any fact described by the appellant in relation to any of those matters is not true.”), these photographs demonstrate that the notices at Tottenham Hale do not meet the requirements of the Penalty Fare Regulations for the following reasons:

• The relevant notice (on the right of the first photograph) is obscured by another sign and therefore is not ‘readily visible’ to passengers transferring from the London Underground, as required by Regulation 8(4). The notice on the left is not facing passengers transferring from the London Underground, therefore is not relevant.
• The notice does not use the form of wording required by sub-paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1.

The required form of wording is “Please buy your ticket before you travel otherwise you may be charged a Penalty Fare”. The notice states “Oyster cards are not valid to Stansted Airport”.

This wording has been included in quotation marks in the Regulations and therefore it is clear that this precise wording is required for the notice to be legally compliant; no discretion is granted to the operators to amend or paraphrase this wording. In contrast, other sub-paragraphs of this provision do permit operators discretion over the wording of notices e.g. paragraph 1(1)(e) states ‘wording which indicates’. However, paragraph 1(1)(c) very clearly and intentionally does not permit operators any flexibility. Failure to use the prescribed wording therefore renders the notice non-compliant with the Regulations.

Furthermore, the notice at Tottenham Hale displays the phrase “TAP, TAP & AWAY” in large bold red letters which could apply to both contactless and Oyster card users. This is misleading to Oyster card users given that Oyster card tapping is not valid on this route, however in the third photograph attached you can clearly see a notice for Oyster card payment on the barrier. In addition, the wording “Oyster cards are not valid to Stansted Airport” on the notice is in extremely small print by comparison (possibly deliberately) and not accessible to people with sight problems, myself included.



Compelling reasons that remove liability to pay the penalty fare

Furthermore, there are compelling reasons that I should not be liable to pay the penalty fare. I accept that I made an honest error, however the confusing ticketing requirements on my route contributed to this mistake. In addition, it is clear that my experience is not isolated and is indicative of wider issues and practices by Greater Anglia on this route.

My failure to purchase a valid ticket was a genuine error; I did not intentionally avoid paying my fare. This is evidenced by the fact that I used my Oyster card to touch in at Tottenham Hale (demonstrating my intention to pay) and by being engaging and compliant with the ticket officer immediately upon becoming aware of the issue.

I believe that this route is a particularly confusing ticketing system and that Greater Anglia are profiting from a lack of understanding among rail users. There has been publicity regarding the number of penalty fares issued on this route before, and many posts available online from passengers who believe they have behaved honestly and diligently but have been succumbed to the same mistake. Many of these passengers are from overseas, where the language barrier as well as unfamiliarity with local geography and the railway ticketing system makes them particularly susceptible.

The following factors contributed to my own confusion: (i) I was able to use my Oyster card to travel to London Gatwick airport without issue on 28th August (and it is also valid for travel to London Heathrow and London City airports), (ii) I was able to ‘tap in’ with my Oyster card at Tottenham Hale without issue, and (iii) the airport is named London Stansted so I had believed it to be part of the London Oyster PAYG area.

Finally, I would like the Appeal Panel to consider the comments made by the Minister of State for Transport at the time the Regulations were enacted: "Rail users should make every effort to get the right ticket for their journey, but if you make an honest mistake you should feel confident that the appeals system will recognise this and treat you fairly.”. I do not believe it would be fair for me to have to pay a penalty fare, given my honest behaviour, the circumstances of my mistake and the known issues on this route.



Conclusion

Regulation 17(4) provides that “If the relevant 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 evidence I have submitted with this appeal demonstrates that the penalty fare I received on 10th September was not charged in accordance with the Regulations, due to Greater Anglia’s failure to comply with Regulation 8(4) and paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1.

The Regulations are extremely clear on this point. Notices must use the exact form of wording set out in the relevant provision of the Regulations. Failure to do so means that the notices do not comply with the Regulations. If the notices do not comply with the Regulations, a penalty fare must not be charged.

Therefore, the Appeals Body is required under Regulation 17(4) to allow my appeal and to disallow my appeal would be an error of law.

If the Appeals Body were minded to disallow my appeal (which I hope will not be the case), I would encourage it to take legal advice in relation to the interpretation of these provisions in order to inform its decision and would request that details of its legal analysis is included in the decision.

 

[AlterEgo]

Have you got a picture of the notices? It would be interesting for us to see them, as I think we on the forum has thought they had really sorted out this station.

Are you sure what you have taken a picture of is a Penalty Fare notice?

 

[MikeWh]

Been via Tottenham Hale just now. Here is the penalty fare notice and another about no Oyster to Stanstead with several languages.

 

[Watershed]

Been via Tottenham Hale just now. Here is the penalty fare notice and another about no Oyster to Stanstead with several languages.

So the Penalty Fare warning sign's wording is non-compliant, just as in this successful appeal relating to essentially the same situation.

Looking at the picture the OP took of the gateline, it seems that the sign is inside the gateline and in a very inconspicuous location against the left hand wall, meaning it is highly doubtful that this would count as "readily visible". The very fact that it can't really be seen until you are inside the gateline belies the fact that it isn't providing adequate warning.

 

[CmWS]

Have you got a picture of the notices? It would be interesting for us to see them, as I think we on the forum has thought they had really sorted out this station.

Are you sure what you have taken a picture of is a Penalty Fare notice?

Apologies if you couldn't see my photos, here are the ones I took. Note that I did not find the notice specifically about oyster or penalty fares that another user posted here, which I think adds to the point that they are absolutely not visible, given I did not find them even on my second visit!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Sep 2026 ==

Been via Tottenham Hale just now. Here is the penalty fare notice and another about no Oyster to Stanstead with several languages.

Great thank you for these! I can see where the penalty fares notice is displayed in my image, however I'm still unsure where the oyster card notice is?

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Great thank you for these! I can see where the penalty fares notice is displayed in my image, however I'm still unsure where the oyster card notice is?

It's on the middle photograph as part of the Tap, Tap and Away poster.

 

[CmWS]

It's on the middle photograph as part of the Tap, Tap and Away poster.

Sorry I meant the big red "Oyster card is not valid to stansted airport" notice that another user posted here!

 

[MarlowDonkey]

I did not realise I could not use my oyster card for this journey, especially given that the name of the airport includes London.

Hasn't Oyster been around long enough that London residents at least should be aware that unless it's a detailed exception, it doesn't extend beyond the boundaries of Greater London?

 

[WesternLancer]

Hasn't Oyster been around long enough that London residents at least should be aware that unless it's a detailed exception, it doesn't extend beyond the boundaries of Greater London?

I think you can use oyster to Gatwick airport in West Sussex which is well outside Greater London so I can imagine it’s not that unreasonable to assume it might be similar to Stansted- ie another detailed exception would apply to that airport too.

Presumably some reason why oyster has been enabled for Gatwick but not for Stansted, but contactless has been enabled.

It’s certainly confusing to the uninitiated…