Hello all. I appreciate everyone who has replied to this thread in efforts to help me figure this out. Due to the deadline of the 6th of July for the PFN to be paid before the amount to be paid increases, I have emailed Northern Debt Recovery and Prosecutions Unit, which I will attach. They have also stated that any time that passes that effects the amount I owe while I wait for their reply will be taken into consideration, so for the time being I am waiting to hear back from them, and hopefully we can reach a conclusion that suits me. Again thanks to everyone so far, especially those who made me aware of the legislature around issuing the PFN as this will likely really help my case.
The email I sent is below;
I am writing to request a managerial review of my Penalty Fare, following the conclusion of the independent appeals process.
I appreciate that my formal appeals have been unsuccessful, and I am not seeking to submit a further appeal. However, since the appeal concluded, I have reviewed the relevant legislation and guidance in greater detail and have identified matters that I believe warrant further consideration.
The first concerns the application of the Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018, as amended by the Railways (Penalty Fares) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
Regulation 5(5A) provides that where a Penalty Fare is issued on board a train, the passenger is authorised to travel either to a station specified by the passenger, where the collector considers that reasonable, or otherwise to "the next station at which the train is due to make a scheduled call."
In my case, I was approached and issued with the Penalty Fare before the train reached Leyland, which was the next scheduled stop. I was not asked whether I wished to specify a later destination, yet the Penalty Fare was issued to Preston, resulting in a higher fare being charged.
I would therefore be grateful if you could explain how the calculation of the Penalty Fare was considered to be consistent with Regulation 5(5A). If the notice was not calculated in accordance with the Regulations, I respectfully request that this be acknowledged and the amount reviewed accordingly.
In addition, I have since read the Office of Rail and Road's independent review of the Penalty Fare system. Paragraphs 3.80 and 3.81 recognise that passengers purchasing tickets online may reasonably expect to receive a digital ticket, when in some cases the ticket instead requires collection from a ticket vending machine. The report identifies this as a source of genuine passenger confusion that can lead to passengers inadvertently travelling without a valid ticket.
My circumstances closely reflect the concerns identified within that review. While I appreciate that the report does not alter the legal requirements surrounding ticket validity, I believe it is highly relevant when considering whether the outcome of this case is proportionate and whether discretion should be exercised.
I also wish to be open about my personal circumstances. I am currently experiencing financial difficulty, and the outstanding balance represents a significant financial burden. I am not seeking to avoid responsibility for this matter, nor am I attempting to re-litigate the outcome of my appeal. Rather, I am asking Northern to consider whether, in light of the procedural concerns identified above, the findings of the Office of Rail and Road, and my financial circumstances, it would be appropriate to reduce the amount payable as an exercise of discretion.
If Northern's position is that the Penalty Fare was correctly issued and calculated, I would be grateful if you could explain the legal basis upon which the notice was issued to Preston rather than the next scheduled station, together with the reasoning for that decision.
I hope this matter can be resolved directly with Northern without the need for any further escalation, and I would be grateful for your careful consideration of this request.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your response.
