Unpaid Fares Notice

[RJ]

Update: The issue described in this old thread was resolved in favour of the customer. See: Absolutely shocked / The saga continues

Got issued with a UFN on EMT. The ticket office where I started my journey was shut. Priv discounts are not available from TVMs and the gateline assistant at my station of origin permitted me to go through the barriers and advised me to buy a ticket on the train.

Thus, NRCoC Condition 3 and the Railway Byelaw 18(3) part iii absolve me of any requirement to buy a fully priced ticket.

The TM (under instructions from superiors) was not willing to sell anything other than a SOR from my origin to London. I wanted a rover and split tickets. There was a stalemate as I was not willing to pay for an SOR that was 28.9% more expensive and more restrictive than the combination tickets I wanted to buy. So I volunteered my details and asked for a PFN or a TIR/MG11 to be done. I was issued with a UFN.

I've made three one-way trips on that line in as many months and each time, had problems using Condition 19(c) compliant splits. After the first two times, I took it up with higher management which went well. Now I have to deal with this nonsense. I got the impression the TM was coming down on me like a ton of bricks because I was staff working for a different TOC asking for split tickets. Apparently, I should have known better than to turn up at a "small station in the middle of nowhere expecting the ticket office to be open at 7pm" and commenced my journey at a time the ticket office was open in order to get my discounted rover, let alone the other splits.

I'm tired of this idiocy, after all I was just a customer who couldn't buy what I needed to buy due to lack of facilities, so I shouldn't have to suffer financial penalty - although the TM and her control seemed to disagree. Control supposedly told her to sell me the SOR (no splits) with Priv discount, but not to sell the rover with a Priv discount . So I'm going to take it up with people who have the power to get it sorted out properly!

 

[sonic2009]

Which station did you get on at?

Did the Gateline Staff not have a ticket machine?

3. Where the full range of tickets is not available

If you cannot buy an appropriate ticket for the journey you want to make because the
range of tickets that is available at the station from which you intend to start your journey
is restricted, you must buy a ticket or Permit to Travel before you travel that entitles you to
make at least part of the journey. Then you must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, buy
an appropriate ticket to complete your journey. In these circumstances, you only need to pay
the fare that you would have paid if you had bought a ticket immediately before your journey.
The price you will have to pay will be reduced by the amount paid for the ticket or Permit to
Travel.

Was their a Permit to Travel Machine? If not then surely as Priv Tickets are not available on the TVM Machine, the only place to buy your ticket would of been either on-board or from Gateline Staff?

 

[RJ]

It was a Penalty Fare station, no PTT machine and the gateline assistant didn't have a ticket machine. He did open the barriers and advised me to buy on board, which is why under Byelaw 18(3) part iii, they cannot legitimately enforce the SOS only policy they have on board.

I'm going to make a serious complaint about the way that things are being done, because it just isn't on. The rules exist for a reason, believe it or not to protect the customer as well as revenue. In this situation, I was covered by the rules so I won't take this lying down. Just like the Liverpool Street incident, I'm not seeking a cancellation on the basis of ignorance, sympathy or morality - the TOC breached the contract whereas I wasn't in contravention of any of it. Even when I get the UFN cancelled, I'm going to use the means available to me to take things much further. A company cannot disregard the contract and treat its customers like that. This is the second time that both the TM and the colleagues they sought advice from were wrong. They've started something now and I won't be happy until a satisfactory conclusion is reached.

 

[Urban Gateline]

Oh dear, I certainly would have expected that EMT TM to sell the full range of tickets onboard to you as you quite rightly pointed out that PRIV discounted tickets cannot be purchased from the TVM's, and it would be ludicrous to expect you to travel only when the ticket office is open!
As per what Sonic said, I wonder if it would have held you in better stead to buy a cheap ticket from the TVM and then get it excessed onboard to the one you actually wanted, as there was no Permit to travel machine.

I'm glad I won't have to come accross this situation, being SWT we get free travel on EMT.

 

[Urban Gateline]

That TM won't look so good if the UFN gets quashed, as it will most likely as sufficient ticket purchasing facilities were not available for your situation.
One explanation for the TM's behaviour could be that she couldn't be bothered to find all those splits and rover on her avantix and apply PRIV discount and sell them all, too much hard work I reckon

 

[RJ]

That TM won't look so good if the UFN gets quashed, as it will most likely as sufficient ticket purchasing facilities were not available for your situation.
One explanation for the TM's behaviour could be that she couldn't be bothered to find all those splits and rover on her avantix and apply PRIV discount and sell them all, too much hard work I reckon

She found all of them and quoted the amount I was expecting to pay - but she said she wasn't prepared to get into trouble by selling them. Her control told her only to offer a discounted SOR from my orgin to where I was travelling on that particular journey.

 

[RJ]

On balance, I will pay the UFN then appeal it. Not because I intend on having an easy life, but because they cannot attempt to proscute under Byelaw 18(2) as it's given that I was not in breach of that Byelaw. Which leaves the RoR 1889 Section 5(3) as the remaining ticketless traveller legislation under which to prosecute and I really don't want to go down that road. I would never, ever recommend that anyone lets it get to that stage unless their defence is cast iron. Plus, I have coursework and exams-a-plenty looming and I don't need the stress of this dithering in my mind.

This is what I did with the Liverpool Street incident (which happened a couple of days before I accepted my first railway job) and I got my money back and the PFN cancelled, albeit that took almighty effort and required backing from TfL and all sorts. I know what I'm in for this time and I've already enlisted support from certain quarters if the first appeal is rejected, like with the previous incident .

 

[RJ]

Once again, I paid in full and a refund/cancellation appears to be forthcoming. This is the second time I've had to waste time appealing these notices issued by overzealous, irritatingly stubborn revenue staff who clearly don't know their job as much as they believe they do (otherwise it would not be necesssary to cancel the notice.) Sometimes, considering what the customer has to say saves time, money and resources all around. That inspector has duped their TOC out of the fare I was entitled to pay on the day as well as administrative charges for the appeal and overhead costs.

Just goes to show that any advice about appealing without paying anything on the basis that it's harder to get your money back is null and void. I always recommend paying up first, that way there is zero risk to yourself.

 

[RJ]

I'd rather not go through all the details. I just think that paying up is the best course of action for anyone who doesn't like the idea of going to court and ending up being prosecuted.

I cringe when I see people suggesting cases involving PFN/UFNs should be allowed to progress to court for fun, just to see the TOC humiliated by a potential loss. In the event that the accused has missed some clause somewhere and end up with a criminal record and/or paying costs all around, it's not the person doling out such advice that would have to bear the consequences.

It's a long story. At the end of the day, I've had some experience with revenue protection. I take no risks when it comes to travelling. If someone wants to try and "do" me when I know they have no grounds to, I initially explain verbally why I'm not in the wrong then if they don't listen, I carry a copy of the passenger/TOC contract to back up what I'm saying.

Some staff refuse to acknowledge what's written in black and white and will persist with the situation. Hence me accepting a PFN/UFN, paying it in full ASAP then getting a full refund/cancellation afterwards. Will an RPI who knows their job like the back of their hand issue notices that have a 100% chance of a successful appeal?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I would like to comment by way of conditional agreement with RJ's general point that settlement and negotiation is preferable to litigation. I have seen far too many people pursue a minor matter through the Courts and escalating the dispute at each and every failure, until they simply cannot afford to continue and cannot afford to loose - usually with decreasing prospects of success at every Appeal.

I say 'conditional', because there are circumstances in which action in Court might be appropriate, the first and most obvious being where the defendant has simply kept their head down for so long that the first we hear is a few days before they are Summonsed to appear in Court, suddenly having 'woken up' to their situation. Their alternative of hiding from a Summons at that late stage would be a mistake.

Other circumstances might be to simply escalate the attention of the Claimant to the severity of the situation, in the expectation that a speedy resolution will be more forthcoming as soon as the impending action is understood (just a simple 'threat' of Court action is usually effective).
Another circumstance is where the matter involved evidence which the other party would not wish to have publicised. Nothing works better in achieving a private settlement than the suggestion that someone's 'dirty linen' will be openly discussed (and yes, the Rail industry has its very own 'dirty linen').

But in conclusion, I will agree that negotiation and resolution are nearly always more effective than confrontation; though that is not to say that when we're confronted or challenged, and we try to be agreeable and concilliatry, we shouldn't still gather all the evidence we can (such as place, time, witnesses etc.) in case we'll need them later.

 

[Greenback]

I agree that settlement and negotiation is preferable to litigation, but I am somewhat confused by the fact that RJ is advocating paying a UPFN or PF in full, eben though he is totally correct and travelling on a valid ticket.

Is there any need to pay anything in full at the time? If you have no means of payment, and a UPFN is issued, you still have to get it cancelled regardless of whether you are due a refudn or not. So I can;t really see any advantage to coughing up whatever sum has been demanded, which may be quite a hefty amount. Or have I missed the point completely?

 

[RJ]

I agree that settlement and negotiation is preferable to litigation, but I am somewhat confused by the fact that RJ is advocating paying a UPFN or PF in full, eben though he is totally correct and travelling on a valid ticket.

Is there any need to pay anything in full at the time? If you have no means of payment, and a UPFN is issued, you still have to get it cancelled regardless of whether you are due a refudn or not. So I can;t really see any advantage to coughing up whatever sum has been demanded, which may be quite a hefty amount. Or have I missed the point completely?

I never said that I was travelling on a valid ticket.

I advocate paying notices in full, because you will get your money back and the notice struck off if you appeal successfully. If it fails, at worst you've paid and that's the end of it.

If you don't pay the notice, you might win the appeal. However, you run the risk of failing the appeal, having to pay admin charges on top of the original amount, failing more appeals then being taken to court and ending up with a criminal record plus a fine and having to pay for the fare anyway.

The consequences are much more serious if the case shifts changes from a civil debt to a criminal offence. If one doesn't pay the notice, they'd better be 100% certain that they haven't missed a single bit of legislation that could cause their defence to collapse. I'd suggest that such people wouldn't even ask on here for advice, which is why I suggest that anyone who does pays up first.

 

[Greenback]

Fair enough. I can see there is a subtle difference at play here!

 

[34D]

The consequences are much more serious if the case shifts changes from a civil debt to a criminal offence. If one doesn't pay the notice, they'd better be 100% certain that they haven't missed a single bit of legislation that could cause their defence to collapse. I'd suggest that such people wouldn't even ask on here for advice, which is why I suggest that anyone who does pays up first.

Yes - it is somewhat archaic that every other service business just has "balance of probability" civil legislation, whereas penalty fares have "beyond reasonable doubt" magistrate/crown legislation & courts.

 

[yorkie]

I can be reasonably sure that if I was on a valid ticket or entitled to a valid ticket on East Coast, that the guard refused to accpet/issue, then if an Unpaid Fare Notice was issued, it would be quashed by East Coast. I say this not through personal experience myself, but through experiences of people I have met/spoken to/assisted getting such notices quashed by the company.

An example is the notice issued by a well-known guard based at Newcastle who has been known to act in a manner that some people describe as "desperate", who failed to read his Pricing & Ticketing Update in which it was made very clear that valid combinations of tickets were valid for one journey and that customers on delayed trains were not to be charged. He failed to adhere to company policy and issued an unpaid fare notice, and this notice was appealed and the appeal was rejected by the awful, knowledgeable company that EC use for debt collection, but a few emails to the right people saw EC immediately cancel the notice.

I am aware of someone who was in dispute with Northern, and Passenger Focus was on his side, it reached deadlock, and the basic end result was that Northern appeared to accept they were wrong to charge the customer but refused to issue a refund, and had an unpaid fare notice been issued they would not have pursued it.

However I am quite prepared to accept that EMT do not act in the same way that EC do, and that it may well be advisable to pay an EMT UPFN. I would certainly advise people on EC to accept a UPFN and appeal it (but ensuring that both the debt collection company and EC get a copy of the appeal) as well as seeking advice from experts here, but I accept that this advice that is specific to EC may not work on TOCs that treat customers in a disgraceful way, like EMT.

However what this does highlight is that the rules are far too biased in favour of the TOCs, and we really should campaign to get the NRCoC changed to be more in favour of the customer.

 

[John @ home]

Just goes to show that any advice about appealing without paying anything on the basis that it's harder to get your money back is null and void.

No, it doesn't.

RJ has refused to give details of the incident, so it is not possible to say whether or not paying the Penalty Fare was wise in this particular incident.

I can see no evidence which justifies generalising from this (unknown) incident to all events involving Penalty Fares. I will continue to seek full information and to give full consideration to the facts of each individual case before advising on Penalty Fare issues.

 

[bnm]

If I was as sure as I could be that I was travelling on a valid ticket, then there is no way I would consider paying an additional fare on the spot when challenged with a difference of opinion by rail staff.

That may well see me threatened with ejection at the next stop, but IMHO that is infinitely more preferable than handing over some of my hard earned to a member of railway staff who has got their facts wrong.

 

[Urban Gateline]

If I was as sure as I could be that I was travelling on a valid ticket, then there is no way I would consider paying an additional fare on the spot when challenged with a difference of opinion by rail staff.

That may well see me threatened with ejection at the next stop, but IMHO that is infinitely more preferable than handing over some of my hard earned to a member of railway staff who has got their facts wrong.

However, if it's the last train of the day, would that change your prefered actions?

 

[bnm]

However, if it's the last train of the day, would that change your prefered actions?

If that were the case, and I was as sure as I could be about my ticket validity, then I'd sit tight and see what transpired.

That may seem to be an arsey response, but I always make a point of checking and double checking my ticket validities when I'm travelling on tickets that may be open to interpretation of various rules such as permitted routes or NRCoC para. 19. I've yet to be in a situation where I'm travelling on the last service of the day and am facing a challenge as to the validity of my ticket.

Ultimately if I'm faced with the fait accompli of having to disembark from the last service of the day then I will robustly defend my position and if sitting tight doesn't work then I will of course comply (under duress) with a request to get off. In this hypothetical situation I will not hesitate to mention the duty of care the rail industry has toward me as a disabled person. That said it should be no different if I weren't able to play that card. A card I'll only ever play as a last resort.

All very hypothetical and most unlikely to happen. But if it does then I'll be shouting from the rooftops.....

 

[bb21]

However, if it's the last train of the day, would that change your prefered actions?

More than that though I would imagine. The sum of money involved, for example, can also play a large part. I'm confident that in reality many of us would treat the dispute of a £5 fare and a £100 fare differently, in many cases.

 

[RJ]

No, it doesn't.

RJ has refused to give details of the incident, so it is not possible to say whether or not paying the Penalty Fare was wise in this particular incident.

I can see no evidence which justifies generalising from this (unknown) incident to all events involving Penalty Fares. I will continue to seek full information and to give full consideration to the facts of each individual case before advising on Penalty Fare issues.

I didn't get a Penalty Fare - I was issued with an Unpaid Fares notice.

I was travelling without a valid ticket in this case.

I do not have a great deal of confidence in IRCAS or the IAS. I have my reasons for this but from my experience as a customer, I don't find them coordinated, consistent or able to keep track of what has and hasn't been paid. I have a far greater trust in my own ability to pen a letter and retain evidence that allows me to win an appeal and get my money back, than I do on relying on them to get it right first time around.

This is the second time I've paid up and received a refund on appeal. So clearly, it's not at all difficult to get one's money back as it's being made out and my point still stands.

 

[RJ]

I can be reasonably sure that if I was on a valid ticket or entitled to a valid ticket on East Coast, that the guard refused to accpet/issue, then if an Unpaid Fare Notice was issued, it would be quashed by East Coast. I say this not through personal experience myself, but through experiences of people I have met/spoken to/assisted getting such notices quashed by the company.

An example is the notice issued by a well-known guard based at Newcastle who has been known to act in a manner that some people describe as "desperate", who failed to read his Pricing & Ticketing Update in which it was made very clear that valid combinations of tickets were valid for one journey and that customers on delayed trains were not to be charged. He failed to adhere to company policy and issued an unpaid fare notice, and this notice was appealed and the appeal was rejected by the awful, knowledgeable company that EC use for debt collection, but a few emails to the right people saw EC immediately cancel the notice.

I am aware of someone who was in dispute with Northern, and Passenger Focus was on his side, it reached deadlock, and the basic end result was that Northern appeared to accept they were wrong to charge the customer but refused to issue a refund, and had an unpaid fare notice been issued they would not have pursued it.

However I am quite prepared to accept that EMT do not act in the same way that EC do, and that it may well be advisable to pay an EMT UPFN. I would certainly advise people on EC to accept a UPFN and appeal it (but ensuring that both the debt collection company and EC get a copy of the appeal) as well as seeking advice from experts here, but I accept that this advice that is specific to EC may not work on TOCs that treat customers in a disgraceful way, like EMT.

However what this does highlight is that the rules are far too biased in favour of the TOCs, and we really should campaign to get the NRCoC changed to be more in favour of the customer.

To be fair, various people I have spoken to feel that the guard in question was unduly harsh, including the TOC in question who pledged to assist should the appeal have failed.

 

[Deerfold]

This is the second time I've paid up and received a refund on appeal. So clearly, it's not at all difficult to get one's money back as it's being made out and my point still stands.

Given the various TOCs and suchlike around I'd hesitate to extrapolate from 2 cases.

I'd say "Clearly you have had no difficulty getting your money back in these cases". There is little else that follows logically from that (and most people are in the dark about the circumstances of this case)".

 

[WelshBluebird]

Personally I find the idea that someone who has done nothing wrong should have to pay the UPFN and then appeal it in the hope of getting it back utterly disgusting. If that is actually the better choice instead of having to drag it through court, then I would say that means the system is incredibly broken. UPFN's are there for people who do not have a valid ticket (and who had a chance to buy one prior). Simple as. If you have a valid ticket, then you should not be issued one (let alone then have to pay it).

 

[Stigy]

Deleted post

No. Where did you get that idea from? There are numerous situations where one travelling without a valid ticket is not commiting an offence.

He has a point. If you are committing no offence then you'll be sold a ticket (or should be at least....), end of story. However, if you've received 2 prior PFs and the odd UFN, you're demonstrating that you are aware that travelling on the railway without a ticket isn't permitted unless there's a valid reason for it such as no ticket issuing facilities available etc. With that said, a brave TOC might go for a 5(3)a conviction as opposed for the lesser Byelaw one. Staff are also able to write in their statements that they were lead to believe, on verifying details, that Mr X had received previous warnings about travelling on the railway without a valid rail ticket, or words to that effect. they obviously can't be specific about incidents though.

 

[MikeWh]

However, if you've received 2 prior PFs and the odd UFN, you're demonstrating that you are aware that travelling on the railway without a ticket isn't permitted unless there's a valid reason for it such as no ticket issuing facilities available etc. With that said, a brave TOC might go for a 5(3)a conviction as opposed for the lesser Byelaw one. Staff are also able to write in their statements that they were lead to believe, on verifying details, that Mr X had received previous warnings about travelling on the railway without a valid rail ticket, or words to that effect. they obviously can't be specific about incidents though.

Whilst I don't know about the recent incident, I am fully conversant with all the details surrounding RJ's PF from NXEA after issues with Oyster validators. If that experience were to be used as a previous warning then there is something seriously wrong with the system. He had done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG on that occasion and this was confirmed in writing by TfL. There should be no record against his name for that PF.

Indeed, wherever a TOC agrees in retrospect that a PF or UPFN was incorrectly issued there should be no comeback on the recipient in the future.

 

[WelshBluebird]

or should be at least....)

But surely that is part of the point?
What should happen, doesn't always happen.
People have been issued with UPFN despite either having a valid ticket, or having a valid reason why they had not bought a ticket.

 

[tony_mac]

He has a point. If you are committing no offence then you'll be sold a ticket (or should be at least....), end of story.

It is the 'should be' that is important.

He isn't the only one here that has been penalty-fared, or even detained, because some staff don't know the rules but believe they do.

 

[RJ]

He has a point. If you are committing no offence then you'll be sold a ticket (or should be at least....), end of story. However, if you've received 2 prior PFs and the odd UFN, you're demonstrating that you are aware that travelling on the railway without a ticket isn't permitted unless there's a valid reason for it such as no ticket issuing facilities available etc. With that said, a brave TOC might go for a 5(3)a conviction as opposed for the lesser Byelaw one. Staff are also able to write in their statements that they were lead to believe, on verifying details, that Mr X had received previous warnings about travelling on the railway without a valid rail ticket, or words to that effect. they obviously can't be specific about incidents though.

They'd have to be very brave. It's not always the case that guards are willing to sell the full range of tickets on board, even if the ticket office was shut at the point of origin. Sorry but RPI's actions aren't always absolutely defensible and I say that having seen both sides of the coin.

 

[Stigy]

Whilst I don't know about the recent incident, I am fully conversant with all the details surrounding RJ's PF from NXEA after issues with Oyster validators. If that experience were to be used as a previous warning then there is something seriously wrong with the system. He had done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG on that occasion and this was confirmed in writing by TfL. There should be no record against his name for that PF.

Indeed, wherever a TOC agrees in retrospect that a PF or UPFN was incorrectly issued there should be no comeback on the recipient in the future.

In which case the PFN or UFN will have been logged on the system with IRCAS or similar as having been cancelled etc. That being the case it won't be seen as a previous warning, as the traveller was cleared of any wrong-doing if you will.

Edit: Thread closed, but further information and discussion is available here: Absolutely shocked / The saga continues