Does Reading Station have a Compulsory Ticket Area?

[furlong]

In this thread, TfL imposed a Penalty Fare on someone for being present in a compulsory ticket zone at Reading station. This may have opened a can of worms.

Here's a quick outline of the issue. We can drill down into the details in later posts. (In the mean time, refer to the original thread.)

There are two types of Penalty Fares. The first ones are available to national rail operators and managed through a set of regulations. These are the ones usually seen in this forum. The second are available to TfL and are enabled through the Greater London Authority Act 1999.

Under the first type, up to now I believed it was widely accepted that Reading does not have a CTA.

But TfL uses a different definition, tied to applicable byelaws. Some tiny notices are present on the ticket barriers. These notices may have inadvertently created a CTA even under the NR PF regulations, albeit one where PFs cannot be enforced.

This matters because if there is a CTA at Reading, on the face of it this precludes the train operators such as GWR from prosecuting passengers under byelaw 18(1).

Similar questions may arise regarding other stations such as Stratford (with GA).

I hope we can use this thread to work through all the nuances and reach some sort of consensus or at least clarify any ambiguities that need to be resolved.

Basically, I have concerns that there might be another class of invalid railway prosecutions and invalid Penalty Fares here, due to unanticipated interactions between the systems.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Sep 2025 ==

A new argument first:

Under The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 (as amended),

Interpretation
3.—(1) In these Regulations—
...
“compulsory ticket area” means any area at a station which a person must not enter or be present in without being able to produce—
(a)a valid travel ticket authorising travel on a train arriving at or departing from that area; or
(b)a platform ticket authorising their entry to or presence in that area;

This is the complete definition. If it is met, then there is a CTA irrespective of whether or not the requirements for the display of notices are met. If the yellow CTA notices mandated by the regulations are not present, it just means Penalty Fares for being present in the CTA can't be imposed under the regulations. But it remains a CTA and if it is a CTA, byelaw 18(1) is unavailable.

There are tiny blue TfL notices on the ticket gates that TfL traditionally uses to mark out its compulsory ticket areas. These have no qualifications and basically say you may be subject to a Penalty Fare or Prosecution if you pass that point without a valid ticket. On the face of it, I think that has to be capable of meeting the CTA definition.

This line of reasoning would conclude Reading Station does currently possess a CTA but NR PFs cannot be imposed (missing signage) and byelaw 18(1) is not applicable.

Would saying they choose not to enforce the "must" at Reading (even though the reality is that they do enforce it) offer any way out?
Is this argument capable of generalisation to any barriered station including ones without blue TfL notices on the gates?

 

[island]

This is the complete definition. If it is met, then there is a CTA irrespective of whether or not the requirements for the display of notices are met. If the yellow CTA notices mandated by the regulations are not present, it just means Penalty Fares for being present in the CTA can't be imposed under the regulations. But it remains a CTA and if it is a CTA, byelaw 18(1) is unavailable.

There are tiny blue TfL notices on the ticket gates that TfL traditionally uses to mark out its compulsory ticket areas. These have no qualifications and basically say you may be subject to a Penalty Fare or Prosecution if you pass that point without a valid ticket. On the face of it, I think that has to be capable of meeting the CTA definition.

This line of reasoning would conclude Reading Station does currently possess a CTA but NR PFs cannot be imposed (missing signage) and byelaw 18(1) is not applicable.

The definition of a CTA from one statutory instrument (the Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations) does not apply to other statutory instruments (such as the National Rail Bye-laws). The National Rail Bye-laws have their own definition of a CTA which is:

"'Compulsory ticket area' means any area designated as such under a penalty fares scheme and identified by a notice to this effect. Persons who enter a compulsory ticket area without being in possession of a valid ticket may be liable to pay a penalty fare."

and the TfL Bye-laws have yet another definition:

"compulsory ticket area" means any part of the railway identified by a notice stating that no person may enter there without being in possession of a valid ticket

But wait! The TfL Bye-laws have also got this curious definition:

"railway" means:

(a) the railways and railway premises of Transport for London and any of its subsidiaries including any train, other vehicle, station, depot, track and any associated equipment; and
(b) any train, or other vehicle and any associated equipment which is for the time being used by a person or body for the purposes of providing railway services under an agreement with Transport for London or any of its subsidiaries

It seems to me that a CTA within the TfL Bye-laws cannot comprise any part of Reading station, because the station is not "a railway premises of Transport for London", therefore none of Reading station can be a part of the "railway"!

I am sure it raises all sorts of further complications, inconsistencies, and loopholes.

 

[AlterEgo]

I can smell a FOI request coming on. I wonder how often this has occurred.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

railway premises of Transport for London

On the face of it, the meaning of this is quite clear - but is there a further definition or case law that might extend this to cover premises used, but not owned, by TfL?

My logic is that TfL trains running into National Rail stations is hardly new: think of Richmond and Wimbledon: historically there was Watford Junction, and wasn't much of the Wimbledon branch of the District Line technically BR but served by LT (as it then was)? So the point may have come up before, and may have been resolved in a way that isn't clear on the face of the legislation.

 

[John Webb]

Does it make any difference if Network Rail operate Reading Station or if it's operated by by one of the TOCs that pass through it?
In either case has TfL asked permission of the station operator to display such signs?
Final thought: If the station platforms are all accessed through barriers, you will need a ticket of some sort anyway?

 

[island]

On the face of it, the meaning of this is quite clear - but is there a further definition or case law that might extend this to cover premises used, but not owned, by TfL?

My logic is that TfL trains running into National Rail stations is hardly new: think of Richmond and Wimbledon: historically there was Watford Junction, and wasn't much of the Wimbledon branch of the District Line technically BR but served by LT (as it then was)? So the point may have come up before, and may have been resolved in a way that isn't clear on the face of the legislation.

I will try and search when I have time, but I doubt there is any binding case law, recalling that the matter would have had to have reached and been decided at High Court level to set a binding precedent.

 

[Watershed]

I think we have to distinguish between the four statutory regimes that exist at a station like Reading.

You have the 'usual' Railway Byelaws 2005 that we are familiar with on the D&P section. This is generally understood to apply to National Rail operators, apart from TfL and Merseyrail services which have their own Byelaws.

You have the Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 (as amended), whose scope isn't legally limited to National Rail operators, so TfL could in theory use them. But in practice they are only used by non-TfL National Rail operators and T&W Metro; the operator's logo or name needs to be on the warning signage for them to be able to issue PFs under these Regulations.

There are the TfL Railway Byelaws too, though their geographic scope is unclear as respects stations (mainly) served by other operators, like Reading.

Finally you have Schedule 17 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which gives TfL the power to impose Penalty Fares.

The definitions in each of these laws may differ, and it's only the definitions in the latter two that actually matter in the linked case. Paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 17 defines a compulsory ticket area as:

that part of a station which, under the byelaws of the person providing a train service to which this Schedule applies, passengers are not permitted to enter without a fare ticket, general travel authority or platform ticket;

So we have to refer back to the TfL Railway Byelaws. These define a compulsory ticket area as:

any part of the railway identified by a notice stating that no person may enter there without being in possession of a valid ticket;

The first question, therefore, is whether there's such a notice at Reading. I'm not sure that a conventional 'National Rail' Penalty Fare warning sign is sufficient to establish this. In the absence of a notice, there would be no grounds for issuing a Penalty Fare at all. I'd want to see a picture of the signage to be sure of what the legal position is here.

If the signage requirement is met, the next question is whether Reading counts as a "railway" under the TfL Railway Byelaws. "Railway" is defined as meaning:

(a) the railways and railway premises of Transport for London and any of its subsidiaries including any train, other vehicle, station, depot, track and any associated equipment; and
(b) any train, or other vehicle and any associated equipment which is for the time being used by a person or body for the purposes of providing railway services under an agreement with Transport for London or any of its subsidiaries;

This is where I think we all agree there is a degree of ambiguity. What does "railways... of Transport for London" actually mean? Does it purely mean ones owned by TfL? Or does it also apply to stations they use?

I wouldn't like to say for definite how any legal ruling on this point would go. That said, my inclination is that @Fawkes Cat 's interpretation would probably have a good chance of prevailing, on the basis that the drafters of the Byelaws would not have intended to exclude stations like Wimbledon or Willesden Junction, which are used by TfL but not owned by them.

That being said, there is a counterargument based on the difference in wording between paragraphs (a) and (b). Paragraph (a) refers to "premises of TfL or any of its subsidiaries". Paragraph (b) refers to "any train ... for the time being used by a person or body for the purposes of providing railway services under an agreement with Transport for London".

Bearing in mind that TfL doesn't own the Elizabeth line trains (anymore), and that they are operated by GTS Rail Operations under contract to TfL, it could be argued that paragraph (b)'s definition matches the Reading situation much more clearly.

Therefore it could be argued that the distinction in wording makes it clear the drafters did not intend to apply the Byelaws to stations outside of TfL's ownership. Perhaps that was to avoid the potential for double jeopardy - someone could otherwise be liable for an offence under both the TfL Byelaws and the 'regular' Railway Byelaws.

Anyway, one to ponder. As to @furlong 's suggestion that this could create a new class of legally questionable convictions, at this point it would not surprise me! That being said I don't think I am qualified to give any sort of definitive answer on that point.

 

[fandroid]

There are plenty of other stations used by TfL trains that are probably owned by others. I started to list them but gave up in confusion when faced with many of the Overground Lines and the Elizabeth Line. There is potentially a rather large problem here.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Sep 2025 ==

How would this work though.

I've done the same at my station, dropped family members at the station, and the friendly person on the gate says, go through to wave them off.

What happens if I then stopped by someone else? How do I prove that I've not just got off a train, merely been on the platform?

A handy feature of SWR's Tap2Go Smartcard is that you can enter the gates of a station that's on the SWR network, and if you leave within 15 mins, you don't get charged.

As GWR's Thames Valley PAYG area (including Reading) neighbours the SWR one, it's possible that the same rule applies with their Smartcard.

 

[furlong]

The first question, therefore, is whether there's such a notice at Reading. I'm not sure that a conventional 'National Rail' Penalty Fare warning sign is sufficient to establish this. In the absence of a notice, there would be no grounds for issuing a Penalty Fare at all. I'd want to see a picture of the signage to be sure of what the legal position is here.

At this gateline, there are blue stickers above each of the barcode scanners stating:

Penalty fare or prosecution
if you pass this point and fail to show on demand a ticket, validated smartcard or other travel authority valid for the whole of your journey

Some gates also have similar stickers below the LCD display - more of them in the exit direction than the entry direction! In other words for someone leaving the station, the requirement to be in possession of a ticket extends beyond the point at which the barrier swallows it!

 

[Bread & cheese]

In case it is relevant, here is a penalty fare poster seen today at Reading.
At the bottom of the poster it says: National Rail, GWR, South Western Railway, Chiltern railways.
Above this there is a note saying that Penalty Fares do not apply to customers using CrossCountry or Transport for Wales services.
The poster dates from January 2023 and does not mention Elizabeth Line services.

 

[furlong]

Well spotted about the CrossCountry sentence - the OP on the original thread can cite this as an additional argument.

Note that the TfL Penalty Fares scheme does not refer to those yellow posters - but of course anything on them about PFs may be deemed as applying to their scheme whether they like it or not, just as I'm arguing the blue notices may be deemed to apply to the NR PF scheme.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Sep 2025 ==

Another piece of information. TfL PFs rely upon the Greater London Authority Act 1999. Its scope extends beyond the boundary of Greater London in respect of transport.

An Act to establish and make provision about the Greater London Authority, the Mayor of London and the London Assembly; to make provision in relation to London borough councils and the Common Council of the City of London with respect to matters consequential on the establishment of the Greater London Authority; to make provision with respect to the functions of other local authorities and statutory bodies exercising functions in Greater London; to make provision about transport and road traffic in and around Greater London; to make provision about policing in Greater London and to make an adjustment of the metropolitan police district; and for connected purposes.

 

[CyrusWuff]

In case it is relevant, here is a penalty fare poster seen today at Reading.
At the bottom of the poster it says: National Rail, GWR, South Western Railway, Chiltern railways.

Not sure where that poster is intended to be displayed, given there isn't a station served by all three of the mentioned TOCs!

I know Chiltern used to divert into Paddington during Engineering Works, but that was before the New North Main Line connection was severed at Old Oak Common for HS2 work.

Unless someone knows better and they diverted via Reading and Oxford at one point. But that would have been before the 2018 PF Regs.

 

[RPI]

Not sure where that poster is intended to be displayed, given there isn't a station served by all three of the mentioned TOCs!

I know Chiltern used to divert into Paddington during Engineering Works, but that was before the New North Main Line connection was severed at Old Oak Common for HS2 work.

Unless someone knows better and they diverted via Reading and Oxford at one point. But that would have been before the 2018 PF Regs.

It's just a generic poster used by all three TOC's, it simplifies it, this allows all three of these TOC's to issue on behalf of the other named TOC's as well

 

[furlong]

The reference to Transport for Wales is of course incorrect, though also not relevant at Reading station.

 

[island]

Another piece of information. TfL PFs rely upon the Greater London Authority Act 1999. Its scope extends beyond the boundary of Greater London in respect of transport.

I don't think anything turns on that. The long title of an act is in law considered descriptive rather than limiting the law's application. Same with section headings.

Even if it did, Berkshire can be said to be "around Greater London".

 

[MotCO]

One question posed in the other thread was where is there a list of stations showing those where Penalty Fares apply. This leads on to how is it decided / determined that a station is in a Compulsory Ticket Area? Does the DfT just decide on a whim? How are new CTAs created?

 

[Lockwood]

How "around" is "around"?

And reading that definitions, the narrow gauge ride at the Museum Depot would be subject to TFL bylaws?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

How "around" is "around"?

And reading that definitions, the narrow gauge ride at the Museum Depot would be subject to TFL bylaws?

Sorry, you have lost me. Which post are you referring back to, please?

 

[Lockwood]

Sorry, let me try again - I was posting in a hurry.

"to make provision about transport and road traffic in and around Greater London" how far does "around" extend? Is it effectively "Everywhere the light touches is our kingdom" and anywhere that a TFL service goes to? A commenter said they would consider Berkshire to be "around London", but there has to be some point where "around" ends? Although, given how far the London tourist merchandise goes...


As a separate thought, there was a quote of something that was defining what "the railway" is in terms of TfL bylaws, and that made me consider the question of whether the depot kiddy train was technically a railway operated by TFL and therefore would get swallowed up in that definition. It would be absurd for the full weight of the bylaws to be applied to a leisure ride, but as a technical question?

 

[Nottingham59]

In this thread, TfL imposed a Penalty Fare on someone for being present in a compulsory ticket zone at Reading station. This may have opened a can of worms.

It seems to me that a likely sequence of events in the other thread is that a bunch of TfL RPIs had been checking tickets on an EL service to Reading, and on their way to the mess room at Reading station they saw a kid tailgate through the barriers and PF'd them on the spot, using the forms and procedures that applied on a TFL-operated EL train, but did not apply to the platforms at Reading station.

To me, that is by far the simplest explanation for the events described in the other thread. I doubt very much if the TfL organisation would ever try to claim that Reading Station is a Compulsory Ticket Zone under TfL bylaws.

 

[Haywain]

how far does "around" extend?

As far as TfL services extend?

 

[Nottingham59]

But TfL uses a different definition, tied to applicable byelaws. Some tiny notices are present on the ticket barriers. These notices may have inadvertently created a CTA even under the NR PF regulations, albeit one where PFs cannot be enforced.

What do these notices say? Is anyone able to post a photo, please?

 

[furlong]

As far as TfL services extend?

Exactly. My point was the same as island's, that the drafters of the legislation clearly envisaged potential applicability outside Greater London in respect of transport.

 

[Haywain]

Exactly. My point was the same as island's, that the drafters of the legislation clearly envisaged potential applicability outside Greater London in respect of transport.

No potential about it, as TfL services have extended beyond Greater London for many years.

 

[furlong]

No potential about it, as TfL services have extended beyond Greater London for many years.

(TfL was created by this Act.)

 

[Haywain]

(TfL was created by this Act.)

OK, the services if you prefer, although I don't think the pedantry is justified.

 

[MikeWh]

(TfL was created by this Act.)

Which completely misses the point. The services which TfL were being given responsibility for by the act included Met line services to Amersham which is well beyond the Greater London boundary. Likewise Epping on the Central line.

 

[furlong]

Maybe someone reading this who's good at using FOI might like to try to find out how many PFs have been issued for being in CTAs at Reading (and separately at some other stations) and report back the answers. (Note that Maidenhead and Ealing Broadway are on the old list of NR CTAs.)

TfL's CTA signage is indeed displayed on one of the main Elizabeth line platforms at Reading. (Inadequately, facing the train rather than boarding passengers!)

 

[MaidaVale]

It seems to me that a likely sequence of events in the other thread is that a bunch of TfL RPIs had been checking tickets on an EL service to Reading, and on their way to the mess room at Reading station they saw a kid tailgate through the barriers and PF'd them on the spot

Whilst this is a possibility, I have seen EL RPIs operating around the gateline area at Reading on numerous occasions (although 95% of the time, it's alongside GWR RPIs). This happens every year on festival weekend where EL RPIs are present and check the tickets of everyone passing through the queueing system, again alongside GWR staff.