Fine for invalid ticket because route was booked backwards.

[Western Gaffer]

The penalty fare notice she received in the post states 'Electronic Ticket - Not Valid' (also attached).

All three appeals were rejected by Penalty Services but, to be totally honest, the final 'appeal' was more of a demand for them to prove the ticket was invalid, rather than an actual appeal. the previous two appeals made asked for clarification as to where on the ticket it stated a restriction on time/route of travel.

Was there any statement or suggestion (verbally at the time or subsequently in any correspondence) that the alleged lack of validity was related to "restriction on time/route of travel", or any other specific reason, beyond simply being categorised as invalid, which is hardly helpful?

 

[LiamTaylor]

It is still not clear exactly which portion she presented, or what exactly has happened, in my mind. I suspect she simply presented the incorrect portion and didn't present the "correct direction" one.

She presented the DEA-LON when she was travelling in that direction. It wasn’t a case of her simply showing the wrong version of the ticket. Where the fine has been issued is because this ticket says ‘return’ and she wasn’t on the return journey (too early for that to have happened).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Oct 2025 ==

Was there any statement or suggestion (verbally at the time or subsequently in any correspondence) that the alleged lack of validity was related to "restriction on time/route of travel", or any other specific reason, beyond simply being categorised as invalid, which is hardly helpful?

Not to my knowledge. The fine, which I attached earlier, just says ‘invalid e-ticket’.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Oct 2025 ==

agreed, and @LiamTaylor - do be mindful of the prompt payment discount now the Appeals process itself has completed. Do not miss the deadline for that (as I suspect any involvement of Transport Focus / Customer Services will not stop the Penalty Fare sum increasing if not paid within the timeframe for the reduced sum (£50 reduction) so I would think better to avoid paying more than you need. Presumably if further involvement from Transport Focus was successful sums would be refunded.

Unless others think differently of course.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Oct 2025 ==


Personally I'd be strongly tempted to follow up any call in writing myself. People here will check your wording if you draft what you want to send them.

I have also written to them and supplied all the info I can. They are now looking into it.

 

[Dave_D]

Not an expert but does 11.3 apply here?

If it does it would seem fairly unambiguous

 

[LiamTaylor]

What is 11.3?

 

[WesternLancer]

I have also written to them and supplied all the info I can. They are now looking into it.

Thanks for clarifying. Good work

and good luck with all this.

 

[sot]

Not an expert but does 11.3 apply here?

If it does it would seem fairly unambiguous

The outbound journey can be cut up with BOJ or started short or ended short or just abandoned.

11.3 is saying you can't use the out after the return has been used - by used that is a journey has commenced from some place that is valid on the return. In other words you couldn't do some partial trip on the outbound, use some partial trip on the return, then go back to the outbound again.

I have just thought however, again it would be the staff member in the wrong, but some return tickets that seem to be two separate tickets on the app/wallet have the same UTN, maybe the staff just saw the outbound section of the ticket with the UTN. Perhaps having blinders on due to the potential for misuse of this particular tickets pricing?

 

[AlterEgo]

Not an expert but does 11.3 apply here?

If it does it would seem fairly unambiguous

This doesn't mandate using the outbound.

 

[Western Gaffer]

Was there any statement or suggestion (verbally at the time or subsequently in any correspondence) that the alleged lack of validity was related to "restriction on time/route of travel", or any other specific reason, beyond simply being categorised as invalid, which is hardly helpful?

Not to my knowledge. The fine, which I attached earlier, just says ‘invalid e-ticket’.

So is the bolded wording speculation or was this actually said?

She presented the DEA-LON when she was travelling in that direction. It wasn’t a case of her simply showing the wrong version of the ticket. Where the fine has been issued is because this ticket says ‘return’ and she wasn’t on the return journey (too early for that to have happened).

 

[Dave_D]

It does say ‘you must use the outbound portion of your ticket before you use the return portion’

 

[Hadders]

It does say ‘you must use the outbound portion of your ticket before you use the return portion’

There is no requirement to use the outbound portion of a return ticket, but you cannot use it once you’ve started using the return portion.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Oct 2025 ==

Something the OP hasn’t told us is whether the online booking history shows several mistakes of this nature. If it does, I would would be less inclined to pursue further.

 

[35B]

It does say ‘you must use the outbound portion of your ticket before you use the return portion’

In a context that is very clearly about the correct sequence of use. As others have said, it does not say "you cannot use the return portion until you have used the outbound portion".

 

[pedr]

It does say ‘you must use the outbound portion of your ticket before you use the return portion’

This is badly worded because it is capable of two meanings. It could mean you must not use the return portion before you use outward, or it could mean you must not use the outward after you have used the return.

The general view here is that it means the second of those, and is a first mention of the rule stated in the next sentence. If it meant the first meaning you wouldn’t need the next sentence, or the next sentence should also say that the return isn’t valid until the outward has been used, rather than repeating half of the rule and being silent on the other half. It’s better to interpret the whole condition as imposing the rule that’s expressed in the second sentence.

 

[sot]

I believe unless the ticket restricts it the premise is the outbound is a start and finish short taken to the extreme with not travelling.

This was pretty much impossible to police in the era of paper tickets. As was the potential for reverse usage.

In the modern age, they can definitely track the reverse usage, they could also 'track' the lack of use of the outbound. This is a little worrying mind you since if you started at a barrierless station and the end destination was unbarriered or was open you couldn't really prove the lack of a scan was the lack of use.

I do hope that due to poor drafting and more government ownership that these conditions are not repeatedly twisted to the detriment of the travelling public.

OP may be a good idea to now remove or redact the ticket image if it still is there and contains the UTN and barcode.

 

[Hadders]

We are starting to drift off-topic here into speculative discussion which is unhelpful to the OP.

To be clear, there is no requirement to use the outward portion of a ticket. Even if there was a rule saying that the outward portion must be used before the return portion becomes valid for use there is no way it could be enforced.

Any further discussion about whether the outward portion of a ticket must be used before the return portion becomes valid should be in a new thread to avoid de-railing this one.

 

[LiamTaylor]

There is no requirement to use the outbound portion of a return ticket, but you cannot use it once you’ve started using the return portion.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Oct 2025 ==

Something the OP hasn’t told us is whether the online booking history shows several mistakes of this nature. If it does, I would would be less inclined to pursue further.

I don’t know the answer to this, but can check. How would Southeastern be able to get access to someone’s Trainline account though. Aren’t they two completely separate companies?

 

[AlterEgo]

I don’t know the answer to this, but can check. How would Southeastern be able to get access to someone’s Trainline account though. Aren’t they two completely separate companies?

Data access request under the guise of detecting or preventing crime.

 

[Hadders]

I don’t know the answer to this, but can check. How would Southeastern be able to get access to someone’s Trainline account though. Aren’t they two completely separate companies?

Yes, Southeastern can check Trainline accounts and have data sharing agreements in place for this sort of thing.

All legal under GDPR as it’s for the prevention and detection of crime.

 

[John R]

I don’t know the answer to this, but can check. How would Southeastern be able to get access to someone’s Trainline account though. Aren’t they two completely separate companies?

And to add to the previous two comments, the rail companies investigation teams are doing this all the time, so it wouldn't be at all unusual.

 

[fandroid]

If this cannot be amicably resolved by discussion with Southeastern, I think it is well worth while involving your MP. It fits perfectly with the public's concept of an unfair penalty for an honest mistake which cost the the railway nothing (all that was required was to point out that the Outward portion of the ticket was no longer valid)

 

[Hadders]

I don’t know the answer to this, but can check. How would Southeastern be able to get access to someone’s Trainline account though. Aren’t they two completely separate companies?

I think the ticket purchasing history is relevant before escalating.

 

[fandroid]

I didn't pick up when this happened or when the last appeal result was given. If it's still within the time limits, should the OP pay the lower rate now, in the hope of getting a refund/compensation later?

 

[Hadders]

I didn't pick up when this happened or when the last appeal result was given. If it's still within the time limits, should the OP pay the lower rate now, in the hope of getting a refund/compensation later?

The OP has exhausted all three appeals so the Penalty Fare must now be paid.

Subsequent escalation (to Transport Focus or MP, for example) might be worthwhile but this should be done after the PF has been paid.

As I’ve said upthread, the decision on further escalation needs to be taken after checking the purchase history.

 

[jfollows]

Yes.
But three appeals, however worded, seem to have failed to grasp that the ticket was valid, as I guessed and which subsequent posts have confirmed.
The system is rotten, self-perpetuating and incompetent. All three appeals probably built on the misconceptions of the earlier appeals.
It’s not hard to get it right, I don’t think.

 

[Hadders]

Yes.
But three appeals, however worded, seem to have failed to grasp that the ticket was valid, as I guessed and which subsequent posts have confirmed.
The system is rotten, self-perpetuating and incompetent. All three appeals probably built on the misconceptions of the earlier appeals.
It’s not hard to get it right, I don’t think.

We don’t know what was said in the appeals, so I don’t really think we can comment on that.

 

[KirkstallOne]

The OP has exhausted all three appeals so the Penalty Fare must now be paid.

I don’t think it must be paid, OP’s wife could write to the train company and say they now regard this as a civil dispute as prosecution is now barred under regulation 11 of the Penalty Fare Regulations. They can then lay out their case again and negotiate.

It would be remiss to not flag the controversial non-binding ruling in South Eastern Trains vs Nana Monteiro should OP choose this route:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-appealed-penalty-fares-february-2025.287394/

But we also have the fact that there seems to be a pause on these sort of low level, strict liability prosecutions due to the lay prosecutor debacle:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...lay-prosecutors-in-court.290879/#post-7428748

Finally, see here for someone who was taking this route, the prosecution was dropped:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/amended-title-sjp-after-penalty-notice-cancelled.283802/

The path of least resistance is to pay up but it depends how strongly OP’s wife feels about this and the potential ramifications should things go against her and they receive a minor criminal conviction and a ~£400 fine.

 

[jkdd77]

I don't agree with those who have said the OP's wife is somehow legally obliged to pay the PF even though it is invalid.

A valid PF- one issued in accordance with the Penalty Fares Regulations- is a valid, enforceable, debt, and must be paid, but an invalid PF is not.

The statute https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/366/regulation/5 states

Penalty fares​

5.—(1) Subject to regulations 6, 7 and 10, if a person fails to produce a platform ticket or a valid travel ticket in accordance with regulation 4, a collector may charge that person a penalty fare."

This particular, specific, PF was invalid because it has no basis in statute, since the OP's wife did in fact produce a valid travel ticket ticket in accordance with regulation 4.

The OP's wife owed nothing when the PF was issued because it was- as it remains now- a legal nullity, and the rejection of the appeals did nothing to change that fact, nor to somehow transform it into an enforceable debt.

The fact that 'the railway' may think invalid PFs are nevertheless legally enforceable is irrelevant; no court would agree. The provision of the Penalty Fares Regulations- namely Regulation 12- providing for civil recovery of unpaid PFs provides for recovery only of those PFs issued in accordance with 5(1), and this particular specific PF was not issued in accordance with 5(1), because the condition of failing to present a valid travel ticket was not met, since the ticket presented was indeed valid.

If the matter did proceed to a civil court, the court would have one question to decide: whether the PF was issued in accordance with 5(1) and hence is a valid PF; if so, judgment would be entered in favour of the claimant by virtue of Regulation 12; if not, the claim would be dismissed. While it would be wrong to absolutely guarantee a particular decision in the so-called (D)DJ lottery, it is clear that the correct decision would be for the court to dismiss the claim, if brought.

Furthermore, the OP's wife is an a stronger position than most because the clear validity of her ticket means that she has a clear substantive defence to any criminal prosecution, in addition to the prosecution itself being statute barred by any non-perverse interpretation of the Regulations.

In my opinion, there is nothing to negotiate; all the OP's wife needs to do is say that the alleged debt is denied in its entirety, and that she won't be paying a penny until and unless ordered to do so by a court. That said, since courts disapprove of ambush defences, it would also be advisable to state the reasons for the refusal- namely, that the ticket presented was valid; hence the PF was invalid.