How is fare penalty recorded in bank statement?

[katieliu]

Hi guys, I am in a quite silly situation and would really appreciate if you could help.

More than 1 year ago I was caught at London Bridge railway station for not carrying a valid ticket (I forgot to renew my weekly ticket). The ticket conductor (who stood at the barrier) charged 20 pounds into my debit card. I don't remember exactly how she charged it, but I did tell her my current account didn't have enough money at that time, and she said that was fine. I remember checking bank statement and finding out that the money was actually charged several weeks later. I haven't received any further notice about this since then.

Currently, my employer requires me to disclose whether I have ever been convicted and suddenly I'm worried whether I have actually paid that fare or not. It happened long ago so I don't keep the fare notice anymore. I tried to look the fare up in my bank statement but there are so many 20 pound items.

In your experience, does this situation sound like I have paid the fare? If I never receive a court summon, does that mean I've never been convicted? Exactly how will the fare be called in our bank statements? (eg: South Eastern CD xxxx?). I really want to find it out to set my mind at peace.

Sorry if this sounds too silly. I am totally clueless about UK laws :cry:

Thank you very much

 

[yorkie]

If I never receive a court summon, does that mean I've never been convicted?

Yes.

Unless you have a concern that your post may have been intercepted or there may be an issue with a change of address?

If no such concerns exist, then it sounds like the fare was paid and Southeastern have therefore not needed to pursue you for payment.

 

[455driver]

You were never charged with any offence in the first place.

You were asked to pay a penalty fare which is for an honest mistake, you paid the penalty fare which is the end of the matter.

 

[maniacmartin]

Penalty Fares are not convictions. If you gave your correct name and address and heard nothing since then it's fair to say there is nothing to disclose.

 

[richw]

Did he take your card details on a notepad? If so will explain why it took several weeks to show up, as the transaction would be processed when he submits his report.

 

[katieliu]

Richw, my memory is very vague now. She took my card, did something with it then returned it to me. I told her I wasn't sure if there was enough cash but she said that was ok.

As I remember several weeks later the transaction showed up with a strange name. The problem is, I can't find it now. Which makes me wonder if I really paid for it.


Do you know who will take the charge? South Eastern or HM Revenue or anyone else?

 

[bb21]

A Penalty Fare is not a fine or conviction of any sort. Relax.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Do you know who will take the charge? South Eastern or HM Revenue or anyone else?

They payment could only have been taken by the Railway Company (South Eastern or whatever train Company it was). It has nothing to do with HMRC or any other governmental body - its' just a commercial transaction. As bb21 rightly advises, it was not a fine or conviction, nothing like it, in any way.

 

[island]

A penalty fare payment at a station or on a train will/should appear with the merchant name being the name of the train company which took the payment.

As all above have mentioned, it is not a criminal issue and if paid in full at the time of issue or within 21 days the matter is closed.

 

[Deerfold]

A penalty fare payment at a station or on a train will/should appear with the merchant name being the name of the train company which took the payment.

As all above have mentioned, it is not a criminal issue and if paid in full at the time of issue or within 21 days the matter is closed.

And if the payment had not gone through I'd have expected you to have heard something by now - unless you immediately moved without leaving a forwarding address.

 

[katieliu]

Well, as I lived there for over 1 year after that without hearing of anything else, I suppose it should be ok. I feel reassured now. Thanks a lot for all your advice!

 

[CockneySparrow]

Did he take your card details on a notepad? If so will explain why it took several weeks to show up, as the transaction would be processed when he submits his report.

Hand held terminals are usually a few days later than those at the counter and machines at stations

You can always buy a ticket from them with no money in your account, well £1 say, there has been times I have had to flush out a ticket guy on the platform to buy a ticket after being declined at the desk, works a treat every time

Not sure they are allowed to write card numbers down nowadays

 

[causton]

Not sure they are allowed to write card numbers down nowadays

Presume it's discouraged but still allowed - you still see the boxes in order forms in newspapers, catalogues etc and last July on Gerald (the loco-hauled Arriva Trains Wales service) I had to have my card number written down (well, imprinted) as there was no signal for the chip and PIN reader which was just a standard retail type as opposed to the normal railway type!

 

[CockneySparrow]

Presume it's discouraged but still allowed - you still see the boxes in order forms in newspapers, catalogues etc and last July on Gerald (the loco-hauled Arriva Trains Wales service) I had to have my card number written down (well, imprinted) as there was no signal for the chip and PIN reader which was just a standard retail type as opposed to the normal railway type!

not seen one of them old imprint machines in years

 

[causton]

not seen one of them old imprint machines in years

I'd never seen one before in my life - first time it had been done to me!

 

[richw]

Hand held terminals are usually a few days later than those at the counter and machines at stations

About 8-10 days seems the average for FGW.

 

[CockneySparrow]

About 8-10 days seems the average for FGW.

You probably have a weekend or two in that I guess

 

[richw]

You probably have a weekend or two in that I guess

I tend to use it on a Saturday, and normally see it on my statement the Wednesday after the following Saturday.

 

[Flamingo]

We got told ages ago that we could no longer manually process cards on the buffets. There is an option to manually enter details into the Avantex, but We are supposed to ring the bank for authorisation & check the pin reader or other ID first.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Makes sense. I paid on EC last year with one of the imprint machines, it took them about eight weeks to process the payment, but the buffet operator wanted to see ID before doing it. Makes sense with the fraud implications- the retailer won't get paid if there is an objection to the payment.

 

[island]

Merchants are not allowed to ask for ID when accepting a credit card payment, unless local laws mandate it. What happens in practice, of course, may differ.

 

[Hadders]

I believe a merchant does get paid when an imprint device is used. IIRC a merchant has to be able to show that the card was present at the time of a transaction. Chip and Pin does this as does an imprint of the card.

Swiping a card does not prove that a card was present as it is possible to copy the mag stripe. Where I work I can remember a few years back that if a card was swiped we also had to take an imprint to show the card was present

The cost to a merchant of processing a manual voucher is huge so you rarely see them thesedays.

 

[Flamingo]

Merchants are not allowed to ask for ID when accepting a credit card payment, unless local laws mandate it. What happens in practice, of course, may differ.

Are they not? How come? :-?:-?

 

[maniacmartin]

I'm pretty sure its one of Visa/Mastercard's many rules, designed to make it as quick and easy to use cards as possible

 

[richw]

I'm pretty sure its one of Visa/Mastercard's many rules, designed to make it as quick and easy to use cards as possible

Its within the merchant contract we're not permitted to request additional identification.

 

[causton]

The same way you're not allowed to have a 'fee' for using cards, i.e. 'no payments under £5 by card' or '50p extra charge for card'... but lots of places do?

 

[richw]

The same way you're not allowed to have a 'fee' for using cards, i.e. 'no payments under £5 by card' or '50p extra charge for card'... but lots of places do?

Pretty much, how many members of the public know the ins and outs of the merchant contract though?

 

[island]

Its within the merchant contract we're not permitted to request additional identification.

Correct.

The same way you're not allowed to have a 'fee' for using cards, i.e. 'no payments under £5 by card' or '50p extra charge for card'... but lots of places do?

Correct 25 years ago, but there was a law passed in the UK in the early 90s banning acquirers from having terms in their contracts with merchants prohibiting the charging of surcharges, and striking any such clause out of merchant contracts in existence at the time. I think some contracts may have a prohibition on merchants setting minimum transaction sizes, but there are ways and means of sidestepping this.

Pretty much, how many members of the public know the ins and outs of the merchant contract though?

Very few. I have a merchant account so it's my business to know. I can get into trouble for not "warmly accepting" an American Express card. My acquirer does not allow me to accept transactions under £1 or over a certain four-digit sum. I also have a much lower limit for swiped or key-entered transactions.

 

[jimbo99]

Correct 25 years ago, but there was a law passed in the UK in the early 90s banning acquirers from having terms in their contracts with merchants prohibiting the charging of surcharges, and striking any such clause out of merchant contracts in existence at the time.

Not quite. The law still allows terms in the merchant agreement that stops a merchant charging cardholders more than what acceptance costs them.

Separately, more recently, the law was changed prohibiting merchants charging more than what card acceptance costs them.

So retailers are now typically prevented from over-surcharging two ways: 1) by the merchant agreement 2) the law.

But if they want to pass on their costs, the law stops the merchant agreement from prohibiting this.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

We seem to be taking someone's thread wayy off topic here, but now that we've started, let me seek some clarity . . .

Separately, more recently, the law was changed prohibiting merchants charging more than what card acceptance costs them.

So retailers are now typically prevented from over-surcharging two ways: 1) by the merchant agreement 2) the law.

But if they want to pass on their costs, the law stops the merchant agreement from prohibiting this.

What are we referring to by the phrase "the law" ?
Could this be some consumer legislation?
Perhaps relevant to Contract Law? And perhaps not?
Could you possibly be thinking of the "Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012"?

We really should be told!