Merseyrail Penalty Fare - No facility to purchase

[L401CJF]

Update - Penalty fare has been dropped on first appeal. Cheers for the input!

 

[AlterEgo]

Great to hear and thanks for the update.

 

[142blue]

You should not have been issued a PF. The ticket you wanted was not available and you purchased this at the earliest opportunity

Get a claim in and also ask for compensation for your time and distress

 

[skyhigh]

Get a claim in

What sort of claim?

 

[142blue]

A complaint, they are going against their own regulations regarding retailing of fares. You can't buy the ticket you need so you get stung with a PF? No chance

 

[L401CJF]

As the PF wasnt issued to me but rather a friend, he is making a complaint himself but mostly about the attitude of the Carlisle Rent-a-thug. Hes not looking for any compensation.

I have emailed Merseyrail myself asking about the situation to which they responded the passenger should just "Buy before they board or top up the card at a Newsagent".

I replied asking the following:
-Whether it is reasonable to expect a customer to pay an additional fare to a point which they can reach facilities to buy the intended ticket
-If it is expected for a customer to buy a ticket to a ticket office, can it be excessed into a Saveaway at the office, or is the customer expected to pay more than they should.
-Asking whether PayPoint retailers outside of the Merseyside PTE area (Cheshire West) offer Merseytravel card topups in the first place
-Detailing Penalty Fare Guidelines 2018
"4.1.3 Traveling on a train

A collector cannot charge a penalty fare to a person if.

1. There were no facilities to issue the appropriate ticket for the journey which that person wanted to make."

Saying that surely if I intend to use a bus from say Eastham Rake, then the facilities are unavailable at Overpool/Capenhurst etc to sell a ticket for the Journey I wanted to make, so I should be allowed to buy at Eastham Rake.

Been nearly a month and no response to my reply.

 

[island]

Detailing Penalty Fare Guidelines 2018
"4.1.3 Traveling on a train

A collector cannot charge a penalty fare to a person if.

1. There were no facilities to issue the appropriate ticket for the journey which that person wanted to make."

Saying that surely if I intend to use a bus from say Eastham Rake, then the facilities are unavailable at Overpool/Capenhurst etc to sell a ticket for the Journey I wanted to make, so I should be allowed to buy at Eastham Rake.

It should be noted that these are guidelines as opposed to rules. The rules (section 6 of the Penalty Fares Regulations) only excuse a passenger if there were "no facilities in operation for the sale of a travel ticket".

 

[some bloke]

The rules (section 6 of the Penalty Fares Regulations) only excuse a passenger if there were "no facilities in operation for the sale of a travel ticket".

The regulation adds, "...for that passenger’s journey".

 

[Bletchleyite]

The rule adds, "...for that passenger’s journey".

If the first journey is to Liverpool, arguably selling a single to Liverpool meets this.

 

[some bloke]

If the first journey is to Liverpool, arguably selling a single to Liverpool meets this.

He was doing a bit of train and bus bashing around Liverpool

Arguable maybe, but is it convincing? The Conditions of Travel mention using more than one ticket for a "journey", rather than to a "first journey". So it may seem reasonable to think that the intended "journey" using a rover/day ticket to go in various directions is beyond the first change of train or opportunity to buy.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Apr 2022 ==

I replied asking the following:
-Whether it is reasonable to expect a customer to pay an additional fare to a point which they can reach facilities to buy the intended ticket
-If it is expected for a customer to buy a ticket to a ticket office, can it be excessed into a Saveaway at the office, or is the customer expected to pay more than they should.

Those seem very reasonable questions.

Also, if the appeal panel didn't give much detail of their reasons, would it be appropriate to ask them - to avoid future trouble, for one thing - the basis of their decision?

Or whether their decision was on the basis of specific issues (which you can mention to them) about what passengers may or may not do?

It might seem unreasonable for them to refuse to clarify.

 

[L401CJF]

Buying a ticket to Liverpool (or another booking office depending on the exact journey wishing to take) is fair enough - but only if the passenger is not going to be out of pocket for doing so.

For example, a single from Capenhurst to Liverpool is currently £8.05, which is considerably more than a Saveaway - how would that work? Pay £8.05, refund at Liverpool, buy a Saveaway? Or expect the Customer to pay £8 for a single plus the Saveaway totalling over £13?

Its £3.20 for a single from Capenhurst to Hooton, so if I was to go out of my way, add a 10/15minute wait into my journey there, go into the office with my £3.20 ticket would they no questions asked no hassle given excess it into a Saveaway if the difference is paid?

If buying a single then excessing or refunding (depending on whether it was more or less than Saveaway) it is an option that doesnt cause much extra hassle, but would it be that straight forward in reality? At the end of the day it cannot be expected for a customer to pay more than they should for a journey just because the facilities at the origin dont sell a ticket that is valid there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Does the TVM sell the Merseyrail only day ticket, which is priced at 10p below the relevant Saveaway? I think Merseyrail TVMs do sell those.

 

[some bloke]

Its £3.20 for a single from Capenhurst to Hooton, so if I was to go out of my way, add a 10/15minute wait into my journey there, go into the office with my £3.20 ticket would they no questions asked no hassle given excess it into a Saveaway if the difference is paid?

If buying a single then excessing or refunding (depending on whether it was more or less than Saveaway) it is an option that doesnt cause much extra hassle, but would it be that straight forward in reality?

Maybe a further question you could ask is,

"Will Merseyrail ensure staff training is adequate for passengers to [receive the relevant service]"?

 

[L401CJF]

Does the TVM sell the Merseyrail only day ticket, which is priced at 10p below the relevant Saveaway? I think Merseyrail TVMs do sell those.

They do, but my question above is then raised as to whether staff are able to (and willing) to excess it into a Saveaway. I believe somebody further upthread has had it done before but if I remember correctly that was due to being incorrectly issued a day saver when asking for a Saveaway.

 

[some bloke]

Doesn't the appeal decision imply that in the panel's view the passenger didn't breach the regulations - including travel to the more convenient station rather than the nearest where they can buy the ticket they want - and can lawfully do it again?

If a magistrate heard of the appeal decision in relevantly similar circumstances, how could they convict?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Apr 2022 ==

Even if the criteria for a bylaw offence are different from those for a penalty fare, perhaps the appeal panel is in effect giving the impression that the conduct is lawful.

 

[Starmill]

Northern's ticket machines specifically say on them that if you cannot for any reason use the ticket machine you should speak to a member of staff or visit the ticket office. If the station has no staff and there is no open ticket office then you may board the train and speak to staff on the train or at your destination.

I'm surprised Merseyrail don't have a suitable policy?

 

[Haywain]

If a magistrate heard of the appeal decision in relevantly similar circumstances, how could they convict?

Even if the criteria for a bylaw offence are different from those for a penalty fare, perhaps the appeal panel is in effect giving the impression that the conduct is lawful.

The appeal decision means that, for whatever reason, the PF was incorrectly issued. That cannot be taken to mean that conduct is lawful in relation to a different case.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's long been the case that PTE offerings aren't available at all sales channels. So far as I know, you can't (or couldn't for years, the new big screen TVMs may do them) buy the TfGM equivalents at unstaffed stations in the Manchester area.

 

[some bloke]

The appeal decision means that, for whatever reason, the PF was incorrectly issued. That cannot be taken to mean that conduct is lawful in relation to a different case.

If the appeal was on brought on a single ground and was allowed, the passenger might be justified in thinking the panel accepted the argument.

If the panel finds some other factor which means the penalty fare was incorrectly issued, isn't it reasonable to say so, even if the panel's process is a quick and cheap one?

Also, I'm suggesting above that for the panel to refuse to say on request whether the grounds were accepted might seem unreasonable - not least because the person is now unclear what they should do.

 

[Watershed]

If the appeal was on brought on a single ground and was allowed, the passenger might be justified in thinking the panel accepted the argument.

If the panel finds some other factor which means the penalty fare was incorrectly issued, isn't it reasonable to say so, even if the panel's process is a quick and cheap one?

Also, I'm suggesting above that for the panel to refuse to say on request whether the grounds were accepted might seem unreasonable - not least because the person is now unclear what they should do.

Regardless of whether it's reasonable or not - what are you going to do if the panel come to an incorrect conclusion, or unreasonably refuse to give their reasons? Spend £10k on a judicial review? I hardly think so.

As with all legal rights etc. you have to consider the practicalities. If an appeal is wrongly rejected, the most important thing is that prosecution has already been barred. So appeal at all three stages, and if that is still not successful, the worst outcome you can legally face is to be held civilly liable for the value of the Penalty Fare. Not exactly the end of the world.

 

[some bloke]

Regardless of whether it's reasonable or not - what are you going to do if the panel come to an incorrect conclusion, or unreasonably refuse to give their reasons? Spend £10k on a judicial review? I hardly think so.

As with all legal rights etc. you have to consider the practicalities. If an appeal is wrongly rejected, the most important thing is that prosecution has already been barred. So appeal at all three stages, and if that is still not successful, the worst outcome you can legally face is to be held civilly liable for the value of the Penalty Fare. Not exactly the end of the world.

I was suggesting asking the panel, rather than taking legal action if they refuse.

The reasons for the suggestion are that the company is being difficult about clarifying the issue, and answers might help some people avoid worry and hassle in future. And if the panel refuse, which they may well do, it adds to the overall picture which people may want to use in arguing for better arrangements.

If the passenger wants, perhaps a subject access request might reveal some information clarifying what the panel thought, though the records they keep may be minimal.

 

[pedr]

The liability to pay a penalty fare and the commission of a bylaw or RoRA offence are entirely separate, and proceedings in relation to one are of no formal relevance relating to the other.

Even if this were not the case, decisions of administrative decision makers (and magistrates' courts) do not have any precedental value. There is nothing wrong with two identical proceedings being decided differently because the decision-makers have differing understandings of the precise way in which the rules they are using actually work.

The (impractical) route to challenge a wrongly-upheld penalty fare would be to defend the action for recovery of the debt, and appeal should the first-instance court decide against you. Since it doesn't appear that TOCs actually pursue penalty fare debts in this way (regularly, perhaps at all) this is not actually going to be possible.

The route to challenge a wrongful conviction for a criminal offence is to either seek a re-hearing in the Crown Court (through an odd, no-jury procedure for challenging magistrates' court convictions) or to appeal by way of case stated to the High Court. I think it's likely that a very large proportion of any cases where the defendant was sufficiently represented to take up those options wouldn't actually be pursued by the TOC - though the handful of reported cases which exist interpreting the RoRA arose through these procedures.

 

[STINT47]

The regulations and guidelines do have a degree of contradiction and could be interpreted either way.

Consumer law does say that when two sets of conditions contradict each other the law will find in favour of the conditions that most advantage the customer. So the penalty fare has been correctly withdrawn on appeal.

Regardless of the above this whole scenario encountered by the passenger is getting silly and I'm sure this is not a scenario the penalty fare scheme was established for.

Penalty fares are designed to discourage fare evasion. TOCs should focus on the small section of thd public who think the railway is free for their own us. It's not for getting a quick result from people who have every intention of buying a ticket and will do so as soon as they can. Arguing over sections of various guidelines and regulations and their interpretation is not what the scheme is for or a useful use of resources.

I feel Mersyrail ate going for the low hanging fruit hoping people will just pay up.

 

[Haywain]

It's not for getting a quick result from people who have every intention of buying a ticket and will do so as soon as they can.

Those people are often the same ones who will happily take the opportunity not to pay ("pay when challenged"). The question is how you tell the difference.

 

[STINT47]

Those people are often the same ones who will happily take the opportunity not to pay ("pay when challenged"). The question is how you tell the difference.

I guess this is where effective training of RPIs would come in. Given class room training and on the job experience they must start to get a feel for who they are dealing with.

I do however see your point and no system is going to be perfect or avoid mistakes being made, if it did there would be no need for an appeals team. For the vast majority of staff who do their best they have my respect and sympathy for some of the people they must encounter

 

[mmh]

Those people are often the same ones who will happily take the opportunity not to pay ("pay when challenged"). The question is how you tell the difference.

You can't, and that's why I don't want anyone working for on behalf of the railway deciding. It's been proved time and time again the railway is not competent to do that with any confidence of reliability or predictability.

 

[Haywain]

You can't, and that's why I don't want anyone working for on behalf of the railway deciding. It's been proved time and time again the railway is not competent to do that with any confidence of reliability or predictability.

Do you seriously think an outsider is better placed to make such a decision?

 

[mmh]

Do you seriously think an outsider is better placed to make such a decision?

To decide if someone should receive a penalty notice or be prosecuted? Yes, of course I do. We have a judicial system for a reason, and as I said the railway shows little ability to use the additional powers it has with any consistency, so it's high time those powers were removed from it.

 

[island]

If a magistrate heard of the appeal decision in relevantly similar circumstances, how could they convict?

Very easily and lawfully.

"Appeal panel" decisions are not binding on Magistrates; only High Court and above decisions are. And that assumes that there even was a decision; the OP says in post 31 that the penalty fare was "dropped" which could mean Miseryrail decided to cancel it when faced with the appeal.

 

[AlterEgo]

I guess this is where effective training of RPIs would come in. Given class room training and on the job experience they must start to get a feel for who they are dealing with.

Yes, but they are not psychic.