Greater Anglia Fining 16 Year Old for Wrong Ticket

[Carla Murrells]

What’s that all about? I can’t see that it has any impact on the issue of a Penalty Fare and whether it was correctly issued.

So is it best to just go on the reason given on the notice then - I thought the fact she has a penalty fare as an adult was not acceptable?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2024 ==

Response attached

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2024 ==

Apologies, this is the latest one.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2024 ==

Keep the first paragraph and cut out the rest. Please upload a copy of the rejection from the second appeal.

 

[Haywain]

So is it best to just go on the reason given on the notice then

Your appeal can only be on why the notice was incorrectly issued and that MUST be by stating why the notice does not accord with the requirements of the regulations.

 

[MotCO]

I'm not sure quoting UNICEF or gov.uk will be sufficient grounds for appeal. The railways have defined the age for child tickets, and as a passenger you have to accept their terms.

I know ignorance is not a defence in the eyes of the law, but since the friend bought the tickets and did not show your daughter her ticket since it was on her phone, how was your daughter to know that a wrong ticket had been pirchased for her. In my eyes this is a better defence, although I fear it won't succeed.

With regards to the Penalty Fare not being issued per the regulations, I think that you need to quote chapter and verse of the regs rather than just quote them - it makes it easier for the arbitrater to understand your argument and makes it easier to accept your reasons. The other classic error made by rail companies is that the posters at the station do not quote the actual words that the regs state should be used. This may give a second line of appeal, but you do need to go to the home station find the posters, and compare the exact wording.

 

[Carla Murrells]

So is it best to just go on the reason given on the notice then - I thought the fact she has a penalty fare as an adult was not acceptable?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2024 ==

Response attached

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2024 ==

Apologies, this is the latest one.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2024 ==

I’m not sure if I have attached these so they are visible - I’m trying, sorry

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2024 ==

I'm not sure quoting UNICEF or gov.uk will be sufficient grounds for appeal. The railways have defined the age for child tickets, and as a passenger you have to accept their terms.

I know ignorance is not a defence in the eyes of the law, but since the friend bought the tickets and did not show your daughter her ticket since it was on her phone, how was your daughter to know that a wrong ticket had been pirchased for her. In my eyes this is a better defence, although I fear it won't succeed.

With regards to the Penalty Fare not being issued per the regulations, I think that you need to quote chapter and verse of the regs rather than just quote them - it makes it easier for the arbitrater to understand your argument and makes it easier to accept your reasons. The other classic error made by rail companies is that the posters at the station do not quote the actual words that the regs state should be used. This may give a second line of appeal, but you do need to go to the home station find the posters, and compare the exact wording.

Ok thank you

 

[skyhigh]

I’m not sure if I have attached these so they are visible - I’m trying, sorry

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2024 ==


Ok thank you

They are visible, along with both your and your daughter's full name and address. You need to remove them and reupload redacted copies.

 

[MotCO]

The wording required by the The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 are: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/366/schedule/1


1.—(1) A standard notice must contain—

(a)the penalty fares logo as shown in Part 3;

(b)the word “WARNING” in large, prominent text at the top of the notice;

(c)the wording “Please buy your ticket before you travel otherwise you may be charged a Penalty Fare”;

(d)[F1subject to paragraph (da),] the wording “A Penalty Fare is £20 or twice the full single fare applicable to your journey (whichever is greater)”;

[F2(da)in stations in England, the wording “A Penalty Fare is £100 plus the price of the full single fare applicable for your intended journey. However, if it is paid within 21 days, the Penalty Fare is reduced to £50 plus the price of the single fare applicable”;]

(e)wording which indicates where information about the circumstances in which a person may be charged a penalty fare in relation to travel by, presence on or leaving a train is published or may be obtained; and

(f)the logo, and name if the logo does not contain the name, of each operator that charges penalty fares in relation to trains arriving at or departing from the area of the station to which the notice applies.

(2) The absence of a logo or name, as required by sub-paragraph (1)(f), on a notice only invalidates the notice in relation to the operator whose logo or name is missing.

Often the wording in section (c) is different - e.g. 'may' is sometimes replaced with 'shall'. The exact wording per the Regulations must be used.


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/366/regulation/3 gives further details, including valid reasons. 'MTicket' is not a reason, nor the valid reason, i.e. it should say something like 'child ticket not valid due to age' (para 2 a iii).

 

[Carla Murrells]

They are visible, along with both your and your daughter's full name and address. You need to remove them and reupload redacted copies.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2024 ==

The wording required by the The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 are: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/366/schedule/1


1.—(1) A standard notice must contain—

(a)the penalty fares logo as shown in Part 3;

(b)the word “WARNING” in large, prominent text at the top of the notice;

(c)the wording “Please buy your ticket before you travel otherwise you may be charged a Penalty Fare”;

(d)[F1subject to paragraph (da),] the wording “A Penalty Fare is £20 or twice the full single fare applicable to your journey (whichever is greater)”;

[F2(da)in stations in England, the wording “A Penalty Fare is £100 plus the price of the full single fare applicable for your intended journey. However, if it is paid within 21 days, the Penalty Fare is reduced to £50 plus the price of the single fare applicable”;]

(e)wording which indicates where information about the circumstances in which a person may be charged a penalty fare in relation to travel by, presence on or leaving a train is published or may be obtained; and

(f)the logo, and name if the logo does not contain the name, of each operator that charges penalty fares in relation to trains arriving at or departing from the area of the station to which the notice applies.

(2) The absence of a logo or name, as required by sub-paragraph (1)(f), on a notice only invalidates the notice in relation to the operator whose logo or name is missing.

Often the wording in section (c) is different - e.g. 'may' is sometimes replaced with 'shall'. The exact wording per the Regulations must be used.


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/366/regulation/3 gives further details, including valid reasons. 'MTicket' is not a reason, nor the valid reason, i.e. it should say something like 'child ticket not valid due to age' (para 2 a iii).

Thank you for this. I will go to the station in the morning and check the notices.

 

[30907]

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2024 ==


Thank you for this. I will go to the station in the morning and check the notices.

FYi re the regulations, most/all signs say in (c) "may have to pay..." not "be charged."
It has been stated on this forum quite recently that a court would regard the difference as trivial (sorry, I can't recall the details enough for our search engine) - I certainly don't recall a successful appeal based on that.

Your "redacted" letter still shows your personal details.

 

[Carla Murrells]

FYi re the regulations, most/all signs say in (c) "may have to pay..." not "be charged."
It has been stated on this forum quite recently that a court would regard the difference as trivial (sorry, I can't recall the details enough for our search engine) - I certainly don't recall a successful appeal based on that.

Your "redacted" letter still shows your personal details.

Thank you

 

[Hadders]

FYi re the regulations, most/all signs say in (c) "may have to pay..." not "be charged."
It has been stated on this forum quite recently that a court would regard the difference as trivial (sorry, I can't recall the details enough for our search engine) - I certainly don't recall a successful appeal based on that.

Your "redacted" letter still shows your personal details.

We're not talking about what a court thinks. It's the independent appeals panel that decides third stage appeals.

The Penalty Fare regulations specify a very precise form of wording for the signs. If this wording is not used then then the signs are not compliant.

 

[furlong]

What’s that all about? I can’t see that it has any impact on the issue of a Penalty Fare and whether it was correctly issued.

Put simply it is claiming that the Penalty Fares Regulations (that reverse the burden of proof but nevertheless remain a civil matter) are not compliant with an international obligation. (I have not looked into this, but making such challenges, even if such an argument has legs, tends to be complicated and expensive.)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jul 2024 ==

(On the signs, there's also the problem that the term "intended journey" is a misleading summary of what the regulations actually say.)

(By the way, I am not persuaded that an appeal solely on 5(2)(b) should necessarily be upheld: The more generic text elsewhere on the notice might be considered sufficient explanation.)

I don't think we've seen the text of the appeal, but based on whatever it was you wrote, you should also consider whether or not that response complies with the requirement to provide reasons.

 

[The exile]

Sorry, didn’t finish the initial response! My daughter just seems to be in a world of her own, a bit dreamy and not aware, I’m honestly not being horrible but I just don’t think she’s aware like she needs to be. I suppose she is just starting out, I am trying to make her aware and glad that’s she’s made a move to get out into the wider world, just didn’t expect to have to deal with such a major thing (for a minor in any case) so soon.

In which case, having to find a (legal) way of paying the penalty fare sounds like an excellent initiation into the real world.

 

[Carla Murrells]

Just an update for everyone who helped me - IRCAS accepted the 3rd appeal, thank you so much for all the advice, for both myself and my daughter. It really helped us out. I just hope that the Inspector did get addressed by seniors about the manner in which she dealt with both girls. Thank you all again

 

[AlterEgo]

Good to hear. The notice was invalid, and it is often at the third attempt that you can be successful in getting them to abide by the law.

 

[MotCO]

Just an update for everyone who helped me - IRCAS accepted the 3rd appeal, thank you so much for all the advice, for both myself and my daughter. It really helped us out. I just hope that the Inspector did get addressed by seniors about the manner in which she dealt with both girls. Thank you all again

What was the basis of the appeal? Was it based on the reason given being 'MTicket', or the Penalty Fare notices were inadequate? I think we have yet to see a successful appeal based on inadequate notices - they tend to dress it up as something else.

 

[Starmill]

Just an update for everyone who helped me - IRCAS accepted the 3rd appeal, thank you so much for all the advice, for both myself and my daughter. It really helped us out. I just hope that the Inspector did get addressed by seniors about the manner in which she dealt with both girls. Thank you all again

Thank you for returning with the answer to your third appeal - this is certainly the correct outcome. The inspector's jobs are to make the company money, so I'm afraid that complaints about their conduct aren't very likely to change anything. You're entitled to lodge the complaint of course but that's very unlikely to result in any changes.

However, luckily, you secured a good outcome here. The best defence against perceived or actual rudeness from staff is to ensure that you / your daughter always have the correct ticket before boarding in the future. As others commented, your daughter being under 18 means they can use the 16 & 17 Saver card to get a discount in the future note the card must be carried on all journeys. https://www.16-17saver.co.uk

 

[Carla Murrells]

The appeal was made on the basis of reason given being ‘MTicket’. We now have the 16/17 Saver card. We’ll be very careful hereon.

 

[MikeWh]

The appeal was made on the basis of reason given being ‘MTicket’. We now have the 16/17 Saver card. We’ll be very careful hereon.

Good to know. Thanks for explaining the outcome, it's really useful to build a picture.