Search results

Clearly, if there's no PF signage at all at Hinckley then the PF should never have been issued, and that should be conclusive so far as any appeal is concerned, provided the appeal body accepts that Hinckley was indeed the boarding station. The information put online by EMR is somewhat...

I recommend you to make a second stage appeal following rejection of your initial appeal. The second stage appeal can be on the same grounds as those of the first. Any challenge to an appellant's assertion as to the station at which boarding took place is one in respect of which it is up to the...

Regardless of whether the second stage appeal is being treated by the appeals body as a fresh appeal, it has apparently allowed 37 days to elapse without deciding the appeal. That appears to be a clear breach of Paragraph 6 in Schedule 2's requirement that such decision be made within 21 days of...

"That’s really helpful, thank you. Would I just quote the regulations directly in the appeal? With the reason being that our penalty notice states the boarding station was Nuneaton however the actual boarding station was Hinckley and this has been recorded incorrectly" Yes. The...

I agree, subject to no boarding of the train at Nuneaton being involved. Details of the journey made and the train service(s) used are important here. National Rail Enquiries shows a single fare of £9.70 for a Hinckley to New Street journey on Saturday 28th December by means of the 1536 direct...

Adding to what I previously posted, the fare element of £5.50 appearing on the PFN may well be the applicable single fare for the journey entered on that notice - presumably a journey to New Street from the OP's daughter's home station, rather than the return journey from International on which...

The amount of the penalty fare charged appears to me to be incorrect. Regulation 9 of the Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 as amended (full text here) sets out the way in which a penalty fare is to be calculated. In England the correct amount to be charged is £100 plus the price of...

Confirms my thesis that any idjit can design/write software, but it takes genuine talent to design/write good software. A problem not confined to software. I've lost count of the occasions when I've muttered to myself “If only I could get my hands round the neck of the fickwut who designed...

Regulation 11 rather than 13, I think, although Regulation 13 has some relevance because it is the provision that obliges the passenger to give name and address where a collector proposes to charge a penalty fare. However, the substance of @KirkstallOne's point remains: a Section 5(1) RoRA...

It's also worth quoting from Northern's 19 April 2024 letter to @KirkstallOne following withdrawal of the charge he faced: “Travelling on a train without a valid ticket, including on Northern's services, is an offence under both Section 5(1) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 and under the...

The Chief Magistrate certainly appeared to believe that the convictions in most of the SJP cases would have been correct were it not for the error of commencing them by means of that procedure, but I have strong doubts as to whether that was the case in the light of what follows. The paperwork...

Well, that rather neatly encapsulates the concerns I have about what has taken place. Recourse to what is apparently a non-existent power in order to correct a legal wrong seems unwise.

I think I follow the argument you are making, but, although the issue could be of nothing more than academic interest, it's one which does not seem to me straightforward. In the first place, the 28,000+ cases forming the subject of yesterday's declaration differ from the six test cases forming...

Still no explanation made available of the procedural basis on which these 28,000+ cases were revived, presuming all to have been subject to final disposal at some earlier date. The Evening Standard also has an article on the forthcoming consultation upon reform of the Single Justice Procedure...

Very glad to hear that @MTDar82 is no longer exposed to the risk of conviction for a criminal offence, an outcome which would have been wholly inappropriate. For me, the disparity that emerged between the written charge served on the OP and the court's record of that charge was the most...

If the official who issued the penalty fare advised the OP to send proof of possessing a railcard to Penalty Services Ltd, which acts as SWR's appeals handler, then that was incorrect advice, given the terms of the relevant paragraphs in National Rail Conditions of Travel Part 8: “8.6...

It appears, then, that you have paid more than your due fare. In your first post you quoted the case details as saying that the alleged offence took place on Thursday 7th September 2023, placing it within Citizens Advice's 2018-2023 timeline. Not that this matters because the train operator...

On what basis has Citizens Advice said that yours is not one of the cases covered by the August 2024 case? You have indicated that the Single Justice Procedure was used to begin proceedings against you, and that the charge is one brought under Section 5(3)(a) Regulation of Railways Act 1889...

An Administration Officer named 'Vicki' in Peterborough Magistrates Court incorrectly led the OP to believe that the Court was “unable to process” the statutory declaration she might otherwise have made. It is fortunate that this proved not to be fatal to the OP's application for the case to be...

Though following this thread I haven't commented since the case was reset as it appeared that @tspaul26 had provided in post #37 the essential guidance needed by the OP. I deprecate the way in which the OP has subsequently been taken to task for her attitude to the case, as I can understand her...