Daughter issued with penalty fare by SouthEastern

[sladeeee]

It wasn’t the correct ticket.
It was an incorrect ticket that was a short fare (a ticket that did not reflect the distance and costs of the journey taken by your daughter - part of the fare was still owed).

You are twisting my words, I clearly said she *made great efforts* to buy the right ticket. I have never once said she *had* the correct ticket, I have stated she tried her best to get it and saw nothing anywhere (or from experience) to suggest what she was doing was wrong.

Again, my screenshot from the Trainline app clearly shows that this statement is false. The app clearly stated that fulfilment was by collection, not e-ticket, on a screen you see before tapping the button to make payment.

Again I think you are deliberately twisting my words now - I'm saying as the previous time she used the trainline it issued an eTicket, how was she to know it wouldn't do it this time? By the time she found out she was on the train. Or to rephrase, if thetrainline HAD issued an eTicket, she would have been fine and would indeed have had the correct ticket. That's why she thought what she was doing was fine. Comments like "false statements won't get you anywhere" are unnecessary just because you've misinterpreted something I explained in detail.

"Short faring" is considered worse by the railway than not paying at all, as they (and the Courts) see it as carrying intent.

It was the fullest fare she could pay for in the situation she ended up in - if that's how they interpret such a situation then that's barmy, you're telling me that once she realised she couldn't pay for Gillingham to Victoria she should have bought nothing at all instead and that would have been "better"?! How is that intent, she has bought the fullest ticket available to her by the only means she had available to her (at that time, rightly or wrongly). (I think this must be a personal opinion as that does not sound like it has any basis in law?)

I appreciate that in rural Devon it might still be the case that you can pay on board, but it isn't the case in the vast majority of the country - the norm is that you can't, not that you can.

Rural Devon? No, I commuted in and out of London Waterloo for 20 years on SW Trains. My daughter commuted to and from school in Surrey for 1 year - my daughter's stations did not have barriers and people *regularly* just bought tickets from guards/conductors, and I regularly saw the same to and from Waterloo even though all of the stations had ticket machines, people won't queue for a ticket and miss their train. Even if it was just in "rural Devon" how is a customer supposed to know the rules on one set of trains is different to another set of trains?


Please can anyone clarify how they can prosecute for this now, I thought penalty fares were purely a civil matter?

 

[gray1404]

This penalty fare should be paid and that be the end of the matter. We are dealing with a defensive parent which doesn't help. The penalty fare should be paid and that is the end of it, otherwise this thread will just keep going around in circles.

The daughter committed a criminal offence when they boarded without a ticket and short fared. A penalty fare is a good outcome.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Again I think you are deliberately twisting my words now - I'm saying as the previous time she used the trainline it issued an eTicket, how was she to know it wouldn't do it this time? By the time she found out she was on the train. Or to rephrase, if thetrainline HAD issued an eTicket, she would have been fine and would indeed have had the correct ticket. That's why she thought what she was doing was fine. Comments like "false statements won't get you anywhere" are unnecessary just because you've misinterpreted something I explained in detail.

Because, as I and others have already stated, it explicitly states, before you pay, what it will issue.

I have again attached the screenshot I took from the Trainline app again showing this.

It was the fullest fare she could pay for in the situation she ended up in - if that's how they interpret such a situation then that's barmy, you're telling me that once she realised she couldn't pay for Gillingham to Victoria she should have bought nothing at all instead and that would have been "better"?! How is that intent, she has bought the fullest ticket available to her by the only means she had available to her (at that time, rightly or wrongly). (I think this must be a personal opinion as that does not sound like it has any basis in law?)

If I unwittingly found myself on a train without a ticket and there wasn't a guard on board I'd leave the train at the first opportunity and try to regularise the situation rather than continuing as if it would be OK.

Please can anyone clarify how they can prosecute for this now, I thought penalty fares were purely a civil matter?

It is possible, though unusual, for a PF to be withdrawn (or even refunded) and prosecution started instead. If you pay the PF this basically won't happen. If you challenge it, then there is a nonzero chance that it might.

You really would be best advised to pay it. And the lesson for her is "to assume makes an ass of you and me", as it were, together with "if it's important you get somewhere on time, ensure you leave on time". Hard lessons perhaps, but not anywhere near as hard as they could have been. (Read through this subforum to see what has happened to others in similar situations).

 

[skyhigh]

It was the fullest fare she could pay for in the situation she ended up in

No it wasn't. You can select a later train, and as long as you purchase the correct ticket (I.e. off-peak, anytime etc not advance) you can buy an appropriate ticket.

You are twisting my words, I clearly said she *made great efforts* to buy the right ticket. I have never once said she *had* the correct ticket, I have stated she tried her best to get it and saw nothing anywhere (or from experience) to suggest what she was doing was wrong.

You said:

She paid for 2 tickets at the correct price

It obviously wasn't the correct price if they weren't the correct tickets? Surely buying a cheaper ticket from a closer station is obviously wrong?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Aug 2021 ==

The daughter committed a criminal offence when they boarded without a ticket and short fared. A penalty fare is a good outcome.

100% this. Just pay the penalty fare and move on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No it wasn't. You can select a later train, and as long as you purchase the correct ticket (I.e. off-peak, anytime etc not advance) you can buy an appropriate ticket.

Though to be fair the layman wouldn't know that the tickets sold on the app weren't for a specific train.

 

[Dai Corner]

Out of interest, what happened to the friend from Kent, and is she used to travelling on Southeastern from Gillingham?

 

[Bletchleyite]

100% this. Just pay the penalty fare and move on.

Yes, this will ensure the best outcome. Challenging it could result in a worse outcome (prosecution), though it is relatively unlikely. However a PF appeal will certainly fail as from what has been said it was correctly issued as no valid ticket was held.

Complaining to Trainline about the wording on their app, or to the TOC for the attitude of their inspectors*, may be worthwhile. But if you do, don't bring into it the unfairness of the PF because it was correctly issued. Just stick to the actual issues.

* They'll both PF you all the same, but I certainly find that inspectors on the north/west side of London are, as a whole, more polite and professional than those south/east of London. This may of course be related to how their "customers" talk to them - the suburban south London services are probably best described as "a bit rough" some of the time despite some of the areas they serve really being quite nice, whereas the south WCML and Chiltern are rather genteel in comparison, and even heavily drunk Oxford students at Paddington aren't likely to pull a knife on you.

 

[AlterEgo]

It was the fullest fare she could pay for in the situation she ended up in - if that's how they interpret such a situation then that's barmy, you're telling me that once she realised she couldn't pay for Gillingham to Victoria she should have bought nothing at all instead and that would have been "better"?! How is that intent, she has bought the fullest ticket available to her by the only means she had available to her (at that time, rightly or wrongly). (I think this must be a personal opinion as that does not sound like it has any basis in law?)

It does have basis in law. The passenger is required to have the correct ticket for the journey they are making. The correct course of action to stay on the right side of the law is to alight at Rochester, and collect the ticket, and also to purchase the missing fare from Gillingham to Rochester.

Rural Devon? No, I commuted in and out of London Waterloo for 20 years on SW Trains. My daughter commuted to and from school in Surrey for 1 year - my daughter's stations did not have barriers and people *regularly* just bought tickets from guards/conductors, and I regularly saw the same to and from Waterloo even though all of the stations had ticket machines, people won't queue for a ticket and miss their train. Even if it was just in "rural Devon" how is a customer supposed to know the rules on one set of trains is different to another set of trains?

The rules are the same, but you cannot pass an opportunity to pay (unless there are very specific exceptions) and be on the right side of the law. I commuted West Byfleet to London for a year or so. West Byfleet does not have barriers but does have ticket purchasing facilities. If you just hop on board and don't buy a ticket beforehand, a guard will probably just sell you the ticket, because they are not Authorised Collectors (people who issue Penalty Fares are required to have this certification). a Revenue Protection Inspector will be an Authorised Collector - you don't see them all that often, in fact I think I saw them twice in a year, but they can issue PFs and may report for prosecution.

Please can anyone clarify how they can prosecute for this now, I thought penalty fares were purely a civil matter?

If you refuse to pay the Penalty Fare, they may bring a prosecution for failing to show a valid ticket on demand. This is a strict liability matter, which requires no intent - much like a speeding offence - and your daughter would be guilty of the offence and the matter would be closed in about two minutes in a magistrates' court.

I think it is fortunate they don't appear to have suspected your daughter of intent to avoid the fare due, which is more serious, given she openly admitted to having short-fared (which may well be due to her naivety but that wouldn't amount to a defence of the charge if it was laid).

The rules are actually very simple - you must have, and be able to show, a valid ticket before you board a train, unless there were no ticket purchasing facilities available at the station you started your journey from. I appreciate that personal experience is that the rules are often not enforced, but even so, I cannot complain about being caught doing 40mph in a 30 zone last year was unfair because I've done lots of speeding over the limit, even past cameras that looked like they were working, and never been caught.

This is one to chalk up to experience I'm afraid.

 

[furlong]

None of us was present - we don't know what was actually said., but just think about this for a moment. The Penalty Fare was issued from Rochester, based on the cost of a ticket from Rochester not Gillingham If the inspectors were told that the journey actually began at Gillingham, why wasn't a ticket issued from Gillingham instead as the rules require? Why do the written grounds state that the ticket wasn't collected from Rochester (abbreviated to rtr) prior to travel if it was known that the journey began at Gillingham? Wouldn't the written grounds have mentioned that no ticket was held from Gillingham?

An appeal could go along the lines that the penalty fare was incorrectly issued because your daughter began her journey at Gillingham not Rochester and yet the inspectors incomprehensibly broke the rules and issued it from Rochester. (The company might withdraw the Penalty Fare before the appeal is heard and prosecute instead.)

 

[Snow1964]

Although sadly in this case the penalty fare needs to be paid, it does show up multiple less than ideal situations

1) If being able to buy on the train on your the line nearest your home is the norm, having different rules elsewhere is confusing for young person first time away from home.
2) If you ask for the location of ticket printing machines being sent to a revenue inspector instead without them explaining why seems wrong
3) If you give your correct home address (which was apparently in Devon) then it is wrong / unprofessional / cretinous for an inspector to threaten you by saying you cannot live there. This sort of behaviour encourages people to give false info.
4) The ticketing site should not take money if it is impossible to meet the 15 minute minimum to print the tickets, no one should be expected to plough through dozens of pages to discover we took the money but your ticket isn’t valid.

I actually think the ticket inspector who treated a person trying to right thing (but getting it wrong) should be made to travel to Devon to personally apologise for his behaviour denying that people can live in Devon, (so he learns there is a place called Devon, and people live there), and that South Eastern customer management should insist he does something to properly demonstrate they are sorry for his behaviour to a scared child from the country who attempted to buy a ticket, but got it wrong due to complexity.

I actually hope a manager at SE reads this, and intercepts any proposed penalty fare letter with Devon address covering this, and replaces it with an apology for unprofessional behaviour letter.

 

[gray1404]

If an appeal was made against the PF on the basis it was issued from the incorrect station, would the TOC not then become statue bared from issuing legal proceedings once the outcome of the appeal had been decided, regardless of the outcome of the appeal.

 

[XAM2175]

It was the fullest fare she could pay for in the situation she ended up in - if that's how they interpret such a situation then that's barmy, you're telling me that once she realised she couldn't pay for Gillingham to Victoria she should have bought nothing at all instead and that would have been "better"?! How is that intent, she has bought the fullest ticket available to her by the only means she had available to her (at that time, rightly or wrongly). (I think this must be a personal opinion as that does not sound like it has any basis in law?)

Because many people deliberately purchase tickets from lower-fare origins in order to evade the full price of the ticket they should actually hold. While they don't save as much money doing this as they would if they bought no ticket at all, it means that they have an apparently-valid ticket that they can show to inspectors and use to pass through the barriers.

For this reason short-faring is viewed as a potential attempt to defraud the railway operator because the passenger has acted in a way that reduces their risk of being detected and apprehended.

It's very unfortunate that your daughter's attempt to remedy the situation has placed her in this position, which was obviously unintended, but I think it needs to be repeated that the issuing of a Penalty Fare indicates that the inspectors believed that your daughter's mistake was genuine and without criminal intent. Had they not, it would have been possible for them to report your daughter for criminal prosecution.

None of this is ideal, and if it were up to me (and a number of other posters here) a number of things would be done differently, but it is the current reality of the situation.

 

[skyhigh]

If an appeal was made against the PF on the basis it was issued from the incorrect station, would the TOC not then become statue bared from issuing legal proceedings once the outcome of the appeal had been decided, regardless of the outcome of the appeal.

I suspect the TOC would notice the discrepancies between origin stations when the appeal was made (as they'd have to declare which station they actually travelled from to appeal in that way), then withdraw the PF before any outcome was decided and prosecute instead.

Pay the penalty fare and make a complaint to customer services regarding the behaviour of the inspectors if you wish. Appealing the penalty fare in that way has a very real chance of going down the prosecution route instead.

 

[gray1404]

So a TOC has the opportunity to review an appeal before it's decided on?

 

[furlong]

There are still various grey areas, including the possibility that a PF issued incorrectly might be held to be invalid irrespective of any appeal (and thus not block prosecution). The normal underlying legal justification for withdrawal before an appeal would be the appearance of new evidence withheld from or unavailable to the company at the time the original Penalty Fare was issued, which, had it been known, would have led to that specific Penalty Fare not to have been issued - although a different one might have been.

 

[island]

When the passenger chose to join a train without a ticket in hand at a station with ticketing facilities, she committed a criminal offence. Buying a ticket for part of the journey but not the full journey can be construed as a further offence.

The railway has in this instance offered to resolve these offences without criminal liability by way of a Penalty Fare, which is the standard way of dealing with passengers who make a mistake with their ticket (or lack thereof).

As the Penalty Fare was correctly issued, I urge you to ensure it is paid before the deadline to avoid incurring additional admin and collection fees and potentially, though in this case unlikely, prosecution. Whilst a Penalty Fare is a civil matter, it can become a criminal matter if left unpaid, and fare evasion carries a criminal record, which can have an impact on one’s life for many years.

All of the arguments about how things work differently and different types of ticket fulfilment are available on different train companies/halfway across the country/etc. are, with respect, irrelevant, as are allegations that another passenger with different circumstances was treated differently.

All of the allegations about how the passenger was spoken to are, with respect, allegations. There are three sides to every story: her side, their side, and what actually happened. Payment of the Penalty Fare remains due and outstanding independently of any complaint about the ticket inspectors’ alleged conduct. The latter can be addressed by way of a complaint to customer services – but before raising such a complaint, I would urge the passenger to reflect on whether the inspectors were in fact rude, or whether, after thinking it over, it was more that she was shocked or ashamed when told that she’d broken the law and they were dealing with her firmly but fairly.

If the ticket she incorrectly purchased for part of the journey has not been used at all, it can be refunded by contacting the original point of sale. An admin fee may apply.

Next time, pay before boarding (where the facilities to do so exist).

 

[221129]

it's fine to board a train without paying

No. It's not. You'll likely have a similar experience on SWR if you do it on there often enough.

 

[furlong]

And of course if you take this further by way of complaining, don't forget that the fare between Gillingham and Rochester has still not been paid and the inspectors might have a different recollection of the reason why their paperwork consistently treated the journey as being from Rochester not Gillingham.

 

[py_megapixel]

My daughter actually has autism (diagnosed) so firstly travelling to a new place like London "alone" was a big thing, secondly she is incapable of lying... to the point where it gets her in hot water because she just tells the truth about everything. The idea of missing the train, plus the consequence of missing the arranged meeting, would have been awful for her - she hates change and anything not going to plan - which is why she would have run to get on the train knowing that you can buy the ticket on the train.

The correct thing to do - according to the railway at least - was to use the ticket vending machine, or the ticket office if open, to buy before boarding. If buying the ticket results in missing the planned train then so be it - they will have to get the next one.

I understand that for an autistic person, missing a train where they have a planned commitment at the other end - even if it is of a relatively informal nature - is likely to be a major source of stress. However, with that in mind I would have expected your daughter to have left plenty of time to arrive at the station and find where the train is leaving from, which would have avoided the need to rush for the train and she would have had more chance of seeing the penalty fare warning signs which should be prominently displayed, by law. (If they are not displayed then that is a different matter).

Your daughter may have had the best intentions, but at the end of the day what it boils down to is a mistake on her part. Based on what you have said (and assuming that it is truthful) I don't for a moment believe she was trying to avoid the fare - instead it was an unfortunate consequence of naïvety, possibly exacerbated arriving at the station later than would have been ideal - but the railway sees it no differently.

At this point, there are two parallel, but unrelated, issues here - the issuance of the penalty fare, which was entirely valid; and the attitude of the revenue inspectors, which was not. I am inclined to agree with many members who have stated that the best course of action is to pay the penalty fare and view that as a lesson learned, then submit a complaint about the revenue inspectors separately.

 

[RPI]

I'm not sure about Southeastern, but most TOC's inspectors wear bodyworn video cameras and any footage can be requested so this would have the potential to corroborate your daughters/the inspectors version of events.

I can't really add to what others have posted, a penalty fare is the more lenient option that was available to the inspector as the correct fare was not paid, a byelaw 18 prosecution would 99% succed if the Penalty Fare was cancelled.

 

[WesternLancer]

Lots of good advice on this thread, and explanations of how the rules apply, even when they are not very 'helpful' to an essentially honest person.

Even if I have sympathy with the situation the OP's daughter is in, I would suggest the OP now follows the advice given, and takes up the wider issue with SE Trains customer services, Passenger Focus and the Rail Ombudsman. The OP could have drafted the letters to those organisation in the time it has taken to engage with this thread I suspect.

Failing that there is also the opportunity to consult a solicitor on any courses of action.

 

[grumblingalong]

I don't think you should make excuses for them, they should be professional and deal with people politely and fairly irrespective of how hard or stressful their day had been. You don't treat everyone badly just because others are a problem, from customer services to the emergency services people have to deal with rude people but you don't treat everyone badly because of it. She explained everything politely and honestly and had clearly made great efforts to buy (and pay for) the right ticket and to print it before leaving the platform.



I haven't demonised anyone, just reported the events and others have stated the inspectors have not acted well. FWIW I think the demonising was around the other way and the inspectors have behaved badly towards 2 polite and honest girls - whilst letting a man through who simply claims he's "dropped his ticket", I guess he wasn't such a soft target!!

I wasn't making excuses, merely trying to explain how these things come about, it's not great no, but it happens.

You seem very determined to find someone to blame for this, as others have said, there's lots that could be improved, but I don't think you're going to find a better solution than just paying the penalty fare and chalking it up to experience.

For future reference, just in case you happen to visit again, we don't normally aim to attack in this section of the forum, it's advice, whether it's the advice you want or not is up to you to decide but getting into arguments with those of us in the know trying to offer our best doesn't endear you.

 

[scrapy]

Failing that there is also the opportunity to consult a solicitor on any courses of action.

You should do this with care as few solicitors have experience in dealing with railway ticketing matters.

 

[yorkie]

You should do this with care as few solicitors have experience in dealing with railway ticketing matters.

A forum member recommended Penman Sedgwick

Fare Evasion - Penman Sedgwick

penmansedgwick.com

Their case was:

First Capital Connect .v. S​

Watford Magistrates Court​

The Defendant was charged with having entered a train for the purpose of traveling, and not having a ticket entitling such travel. The defence was that the client had in fact paid for a return ticket to London from Brookmans Park, but was obliged on the return journey due to a physical injury and severe pain to alight at a previous station, namely Hatfield. Accordingly the Revenue Protection Officer dealt with the matter, and a prosecution followed.

Submissions were made which resulted in the withdrawal of the Prosecution Summons, and an application for defence costs, which was granted.

This case left the train company out of pocket by a few grand.

Disclaimer: I have no connection with or personal experience with this company and cannot guarantee a good outcome in any other case.

 

[sladeeee]

Thanks for all the replies and explanations - I have found most of them informational and helpful (although one or two seem more interested in point-scoring and rather on a soap box about the regulations rather than trying to put that knowledge to helpful use which is a shame. In 20 years of commuting on SWT I have seen hundreds if not thousands of tickets bought on trains, so it's quite the norm on those services IMO). I think py_megapixel probably made the best summary of the situation.

I take the point that the penalty fare is different from a prosecution and therefore we will pay it as it stands.

However, I do feel the rules and their implementation are fundamentally wrong - the rules state they are intended to prevent fare evasion, which to my understanding should mean not penalising genuine mistakes to the same extent as deliberate actions. I suppose the argument there is that PFs are the "mistakes" compared to prosecution being for "deliberate" but how does a normal person know about penalty fares in one area of the train network when they don't exist in their own one? Why should you pay 4x the ticket price for a genuine mistake? Those rules should also be applied consistently in all areas which means not allowing people to buy tickets on trains anywhere, and not letting people through barriers who have "dropped their ticket" (come on, really?). My daughter says the only warning sign she saw at Gillingham said about not trespassing on the tracks - personally I think if the barriers are left open there should be no legal obligation to notice and read a sign that is most likely obscured when the station is busy.

I do feel thetrainline.com interface is completely unacceptable, no "average person" is going to understand getting an eTicket for one trip, then having to print a ticket for another, and the failure to mention printing the ticket before travel is again a fundamental issue. This is the 21st century, "Buy Ticket" and a debited account is buying a ticket and should not be dependent upon 3 x 32 pages of terms and conditions that nobody reads.

Finally, I don't think the inspectors behaved appropriately in the circumstances so I will be complaining to SouthEastern about that. I'll see if they want to come visit Devon too, they can even buy their ticket on the train on the way down if they want

 

[RPI]

Thanks for all the replies and explanations - I have found most of them informational and helpful (although one or two seem more interested in point-scoring and rather on a soap box about the regulations rather than trying to put that knowledge to helpful use which is a shame. In 20 years of commuting on SWT I have seen hundreds if not thousands of tickets bought on trains, so it's quite the norm on those services IMO). I think py_megapixel probably made the best summary of the situation.

I take the point that the penalty fare is different from a prosecution and therefore we will pay it as it stands.

However, I do feel the rules and their implementation are fundamentally wrong - the rules state they are intended to prevent fare evasion, which to my understanding should mean not penalising genuine mistakes to the same extent as deliberate actions. I suppose the argument there is that PFs are the "mistakes" compared to prosecution being for "deliberate" but how does a normal person know about penalty fares in one area of the train network when they don't exist in their own one? Why should you pay 4x the ticket price for a genuine mistake? Those rules should also be applied consistently in all areas which means not allowing people to buy tickets on trains anywhere, and not letting people through barriers who have "dropped their ticket" (come on, really?). My daughter says the only warning sign she saw at Gillingham said about not trespassing on the tracks - personally I think if the barriers are left open there should be no legal obligation to notice and read a sign that is most likely obscured when the station is busy.

I do feel thetrainline.com interface is completely unacceptable, no "average person" is going to understand getting an eTicket for one trip, then having to print a ticket for another, and the failure to mention printing the ticket before travel is again a fundamental issue. This is the 21st century, "Buy Ticket" and a debited account is buying a ticket and should not be dependent upon 3 x 32 pages of terms and conditions that nobody reads.

Finally, I don't think the inspectors behaved appropriately in the circumstances so I will be complaining to SouthEastern about that. I'll see if they want to come visit Devon too, they can even buy their ticket on the train on the way down if they want

I'm an inspector on the railway in Devon, have been for 18 years and can assure you the Penalty Fare rules are the same here too! (Though I'd like to think I act far more professionally than the SE ones are alleged to have been)

 

[yorkie]

.... one or two seem more interested in point-scoring and rather on a soap box about the regulations rather than trying to put that knowledge to helpful use which is a shame. ..

Sorry to hear that.

If anyone sees any post which is unhelpful and simply consists of point scoring rather than providing any meaningful advice/information, feel free to report it to us, using the report link underneath the post concerned.

... the rules state they are intended to prevent fare evasion, which to my understanding should mean not penalising genuine mistakes...

Train companies typically state that Penalty Fares are higher than normal fares and are not in any way an accusation of fare dodging which is likely to result in prosecution; check out this post: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...eform-consultation.215055/page-2#post-5042979

But there is a lack of consistency on this.

... I suppose the argument there is that PFs are the "mistakes" compared to prosecution being for "deliberate" but how does a normal person know about penalty fares in one area of the train network when they don't exist in their own one? Why should you pay 4x the ticket price for a genuine mistake?

These are interesting moral arguments but it's not going to help your case unfortunately.

Those rules should also be applied consistently in all areas which means not allowing people to buy tickets on trains anywhere...

Feel free to propose this in the section titled Speculative Ideas, where I will be happy to provide examples of where such an approach could be problematical.

and not letting people through barriers who have "dropped their ticket" (come on, really?). My daughter says the only warning sign she saw at Gillingham said about not trespassing on the tracks - personally I think if the barriers are left open there should be no legal obligation to notice and read a sign that is most likely obscured when the station is busy.

If the signage is inadequate a Penalty Fare could be deemed invalid for that reason, but I am not familiar enough with the station to comment on this.

I do feel thetrainline.com interface is completely unacceptable, no "average person" is going to understand getting an eTicket for one trip, then having to print a ticket for another, and the failure to mention printing the ticket before travel is again a fundamental issue. This is the 21st century, "Buy Ticket" and a debited account is buying a ticket and should not be dependent upon 3 x 32 pages of terms and conditions that nobody reads.

There are two issues here; firstly whether or not the message regarding fulfilment method is clear when purchasing. The second is that there is an argument to say e-tickets should be available for all journeys but that's already under debate in existing threads.

Finally, I don't think the inspectors behaved appropriately in the circumstances so I will be complaining to SouthEastern about that. I'll see if they want to come visit Devon too, they can even buy their ticket on the train on the way down if they want

I would definitely make a complaint regarding behaviour as a separate process to any appeal.

Sadly the behaviour of some inspectors is inappropriate however such behaviour doesn't necessarily render the PF invalid.

Sorry if this post sounds a bit negative; for the record I believe e-tickets should be available for all journeys, messaging should be clearer, inspectors should be consistently well behaved and act appropriately at all times, and I am very concerned about Penalty Fares and the powers that train companies have in this area, let alone prosecution. I would welcome a complete overhaul of passenger rights, train company policies and the legislation. But none of this is going to change the case unfortunately and if your focus is to get advice regarding this specific case, it's all a bit of a distraction from the matter at hand.

 

[duncombec]

If the signage is inadequate a Penalty Fare could be deemed invalid for that reason, but I am not familiar enough with the station to comment on this.

SouthEastern do somewhat assume that having had penalty fares for so long, everybody knows they are required - even thought they regularly leave the ticket gate open (for whatever reasons, including just scheduled breaks of the gateline person).

It's quite some time since I used the main entrance at Gillingham (there is a side entrance on the coastbound platform, which doesn't preclude you entering and going over the footbridge to the London-bound platform, but I'd expect that to simply be closed if there was no one to man the gateline.

At a nearby station (my local), if there is a poster in the booking hall I don't recall seeing it - it could only be to the side of the ticket machines, well hidden from view if you were rushing (the gateline is in front of the entrance, the ticket machines and ticket office are off to the right, in that order). There is one on the platform, but side-on, again hidden amongst engineering work and other advertising/safety posters, behind seats, between vending machines in one case. If you weren't actively looking for it, in the opposite direction to where you should be paying attention, I think you'd overlook it.
If you don't notice the signs, are used to being able to buy a ticket on the train (even where some stations may be gated), and were rushing, you could plausibly be forgiven for thinking it was OK.

In the main, though, that's merely good customer service ideals and doesn't change the result of the situation here. Although an innocent mistake, I think the moral of the story is "unless you know you can buy it on board, miss the meeting and buy a ticket". (I presume the friend also doesn't travel by train that often, or at least not to London?)

 

[WesternLancer]

In 20 years of commuting on SWT I have seen hundreds if not thousands of tickets bought on trains, so it's quite the norm on those services IMO). I think py_megapixel probably made the best summary of the situation.

As an aside (and I don't use SWR routes enough to fully know) I wonder if their policy / approach has altered since the change of franchise holder from SWT to SWR in 2017.

It seems to me that the Dept for Transport (and they basically control what the franchise operators do, and even more so since covid) have been moving in recent years to require franchise operators to take a much firmer line on Penalty Fares, erring against people's ability to buy tickets on board, etc etc (I certainly feel this is the case with Northern who I am more familiar with using than SWR). I think this is at least in part because of recommendations in Government sponsored reviews on railway industry costs which seek to support or move in the direction of the removal of on train staff other than drivers (well certainly guards). To me this might help explain the stance SE Trains took when your daughter might have been more familiar with a different style of approach used by SWT in the days they ran the routes you and your daughter have used.

To my mind this direction of travel from the DfT has helped move the railways towards a more punitive regime on travel with incorrect / invalid tickets etc, even where passengers have made honest mistakes.

 

[jumble]

Because many people deliberately purchase tickets from lower-fare origins in order to evade the full price of the ticket they should actually hold. While they don't save as much money doing this as they would if they bought no ticket at all, it means that they have an apparently-valid ticket that they can show to inspectors and use to pass through the barriers.

For this reason short-faring is viewed as a potential attempt to defraud the railway operator because the passenger has acted in a way that reduces their risk of being detected and apprehended.

It's very unfortunate that your daughter's attempt to remedy the situation has placed her in this position, which was obviously unintended, but I think it needs to be repeated that the issuing of a Penalty Fare indicates that the inspectors believed that your daughter's mistake was genuine and without criminal intent. Had they not, it would have been possible for them to report your daughter for criminal prosecution.

None of this is ideal, and if it were up to me (and a number of other posters here) a number of things would be done differently, but it is the current reality of the situation.

My only observation is that with the young lady in question being under 18 my understanding is that there would be very little chance of her actually being prosecuted