Northern Rail Fine - Train passes through station but doesn't stop there

[dogma]

First stage is essentially internal to the operator. Although supposedly independent they are not really; he who pays the piper calls the tune. Same with the second stage. It’s only the third stage which is truly independent.

In terms of timescale, at each stage the appeal body have 21 days to decide, the time starting upon their receipt of the appeal. Each stage has its own 21 day period; it isn’t cumulative.

If, at any appeal stage, the panel do not decide within 21 days then your son will cease to be liable for the penalty fare.

Again, thank you for your help here. I appreciate it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Since that paragraph only applies to appeals under Regulations 16 and 17, it would appear that there is no commutation of the amount payable if a Regulation 18 appeal is not decided within 21 days of receipt.

The commutation for final stage appeals is in regulation 18(8A):
If an appeal is against a penalty fare calculated in accordance with regulation 9(1A) or (4A), where the relevant Final Appeal Panel—
(a)notifies the operator that an appeal has been allowed; or
(b)fails to adhere to the time period specified in paragraph 15(d) of Schedule 2, the appellant is not liable to pay the penalty fare in question and is only liable to pay the full single fare applicable for their journey.

Paragraph 15(d) of Schedule 2 states-
the relevant Final Appeal Panel must decide whether to allow or not to allow the appeal before the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the appeal is received.

 

[John Palmer]

The commutation for final stage appeals is in regulation 18(8A):
If an appeal is against a penalty fare calculated in accordance with regulation 9(1A) or (4A), where the relevant Final Appeal Panel—
(a)notifies the operator that an appeal has been allowed; or
(b)fails to adhere to the time period specified in paragraph 15(d) of Schedule 2, the appellant is not liable to pay the penalty fare in question and is only liable to pay the full single fare applicable for their journey.

Paragraph 15(d) of Schedule 2 states-
the relevant Final Appeal Panel must decide whether to allow or not to allow the appeal before the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the appeal is received.

Apologies, you are absolutely correct. I was confusing the commutation provision in Regulation 18(8A) with the time limit, in Regulation 18(10), for repayment of a previously paid penalty fare following a successful final appeal. It does remain the case that Regulations 18(9)(b) and 18(10)(b) both identify time limits that can never arise because they refer to the time limit for deciding a different appeal.

Looking further at Regulation 18, I note that paragraphs (9) and (10) both set out the refund entitlements of "the appellant referred to in paragraph (8)", though the amounts to be refunded are different: under (9), any part of the penalty fare the appellant has previously paid, under (10) only the amount by which the sum already paid exceeds the full single fare applicable. I think it was probably intended that paragraph (10) would apply to "the appellant referred to in paragraph (8A)", though that is not what the regulation says.

 

[Egg Centric]

That may be the case but "I've been undercharged" doesn't look strong grounds for an appeal (as we've seen on another recent case).

I think it's a perfectly reasonable ground for appeal. The ticket must be in line with regulations and I don't see why the error being in the passenger's favour is relevant - do we think that it would be acceptable to issue penalty fares based on a nominal value of 10p? The drafters of the law could easily have put something in about the fare being incorrectly calculated to the passengers favour - but they didn't.

That tribunals may not be adhering to the regulations themselves should shock no one. But the plain language of Regulation 9 re: calculating the fare and Regulations 16-18 re: breaches of regulation = upholding the appeal don't seem to have any ambiguities. So unless there's some superseding legal principle - I'm not a lawyer after all, but a software engineer and I read laws like the latter - then an undercharge really ought to be upheld as a reason for appeal in my view.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think it's a perfectly reasonable ground for appeal. The ticket must be in line with regulations and I don't see why the error being in the passenger's favour is relevant - do we think that it would be acceptable to issue penalty fares based on a nominal value of 10p? The drafters of the law could easily have put something in about the fare being incorrectly calculated to the passengers favour - but they didn't.

That tribunals may not be adhering to the regulations themselves should shock no one. But the plain language of Regulation 9 re: calculating the fare and Regulations 16-18 re: breaches of regulation = upholding the appeal don't seem to have any ambiguities. So unless there's some superseding legal principle - I'm not a lawyer after all, but a software engineer and I read laws like the latter - then an undercharge really ought to be upheld as a reason for appeal in my view.

The appeals assessors clearly (at least sometimes) do not take the same view. There is no harm to the passenger, who has in fact benefited. We all know that's a BS ground to appeal - that you didn't get charged *enough* - and we do hope that assessors might take the stricter view you do. I happen to agree with you, but do see it as against natural justice that a PF should fail because the train company was entitled to ask for more money but forgot to.

 

[Egg Centric]

The appeals assessors clearly (at least sometimes) do not take the same view. There is no harm to the passenger, who has in fact benefited. We all know that's a BS ground to appeal - that you didn't get charged *enough* - and we do hope that assessors might take the stricter view you do. I happen to agree with you, but do see it as against natural justice that a PF should fail because the train company was entitled to ask for more money but forgot to.

I do agree in isolation it is a rather perverse/unnatural argument - but I also think that a penalty fare of £100 in this instance (assuming OP and his/her son are telling the truth) is also against natural justice so take the view that what's good for the goose is good for the gander here.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It does remain the case that Regulations 18(9)(b) and 18(10)(b) both identify time limits that can never arise because they refer to the time limit for deciding a different appeal.

Looks like the drafter of the amending regulations in 2022 just did CTRL+C and CTRL+V. It isn't a surprise as the amending regulations are a complete mess.

As you note, it leaves the ridiculous situation where if you've already paid you're not entitled to a refund but if you haven't paid you are not liable. A perverse incentive to not pay promptly.

I happen to agree with you, but do see it as against natural justice that a PF should fail because the train company was entitled to ask for more money but forgot to.

It's a tough one. I don't disagree with your comment about natural justice.

But, on the other hand, Penalty Fares are issued where a passenger has made a genuine mistake in purchasing an incorrect ticket or travelling outside the validity of their ticket. There are consequences to that honest mistake: the railway does not give the passenger the opportunity to regularise their mistake and a penalty is imposed.

The same should apply in reverse- if an RPI issues a Penalty Fare notice incorrectly, even if the error is in the passenger's favour, then the Penalty Fare should be struck out without giving the railway the opportunity to regularise the mistake. Geese and ganders and all that. In other areas of law the issuing of a defective notice is enough to strike out a claim.

However, in practical terms, I think we can agree that all that would really happen is that the railway would stop issuing Penalty Fares and go back to the routine use of Penalty Fakes. Heads they win, tails you lose.

 

[sheff1]

I happen to agree with you, but do see it as against natural justice that a PF should fail because the train company was entitled to ask for more money but forgot to.

To me natural justice means that if a TOC can't correctly isssue a PF in accordance with the very clear legislation it deserves to fail. After all, if they are issuing a PF on the basis that the passenger has not complied with legal requirements surely they themselves should be complying with the legal requirements when doing so.

 

[dogma]

My first appeal has been rejected and I've copied the outcome below. Can anyone here help with how I should appeal again and what I should state?

I understand the penalty fare is being contested because the train did not stop at the required station.
The NRCoT state that if a passenger travels to a station or zone beyond the one specified on their ticket,
they will be treated as having joined the train without a ticket for that additional part of their journey and
may be liable to pay a Penalty Fare Notice.
Unfortunately, it remains the passenger's responsibility to join the correct train and to alight at the correct
station. Train companies will only accept the blame for over-carrying a passenger where the train has not
been advertised or announced correctly prior to its departure.
Therefore, any passenger who fails to alight from a train at the last station within the validity of their ticket
may be liable to pay a penalty fare if they encounter a revenue protection inspector, and they are travelling
in a penalty fares train from a penalty fares station.
Of course, the exception would be where services were severely disrupted or where the train had failed to
stop at the relevant advertised destination station on its line of route (given that both of these scenarios
would be outside the passenger's control).
In this instance it has been established that the train was properly advertised and that it stopped at the
required station. On that basis, I'm afraid it has been concluded by Penalty Services that the Penalty Fare
Notice should stand.
Although the mitigation mentioned on appeal regarding your son has been taken into consideration, there is
no evidence to support the discretion guidelines having been breached by the authorised collector at the
time of issue.

This is what I stated in my first appeal:

My 16 year old son was returning home from college and had purchased a train ticket from Rochdale to Walsden with his 16-17 saver rail card.
He boarded the 16:13 train from Rochdale to Leeds in error as the train was 2 minutes late and departed at 16:15 from the same platform as his intended train.
His intended train was the 16:17 train from Rochdale to Blackburn which was also delayed by 2 minutes.
His intended stop was Walsden, but although the train he was on passes through Walsden station, it does not stop there. He also had no opportunity to get off this train at another station before it and get on the correct train as the next station stop after Rochdale was Todmorden.
No conductor was available on the train.
He left the train at Todmorden where he was stopped on the exit to the platform by the RPO who issued him a penalty fare totalling £53.20, despite him explaining the above.
As you can see from our home address, he lives in Walsden and was returning home from College. Walsden train station is closer to our home address than Todmorden and he would not intentionally have got a train which only stops at Todmorden.
I'd attached his ticket, 16-17 saver rail card and screenshots from realtimetrains.co.uk showing the information regarding the stops and delay on the trains I've described which caused him to unintentionally board the incorrect train.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Feb 2025 ==

Just wondering if anyone has any suggestions here?

 

[Egg Centric]

They will (almost) always reject your first and second appeal. So in my view it doesn't really matter, just submit whatever for your second appeal which they'll also reject and then come back here for the wording of your third.

Others may disagree with me but I think that's the pragmatic approach.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Although the mitigation mentioned on appeal regarding your son has been taken into consideration, there is
no evidence to support the discretion guidelines having been breached by the authorised collector at the
time of issue.

That's an interesting sentence - the second part of it implies that the assessor dealing with the appeal is only looking at whether the RPI breached the discretion guidelines at the time, rather than whether there are other reasons why discretion might be exercised now.

Am I right in reading it that way? If so, is that the right approach - everything has to be explained at the time the PF is issued?

 

[dogma]

Second appeal was rejected stating this:




Would anyone be kind enough to advise what I should state on our third appeal?

This is what I stated in second appeal:

My 16 year old son was returning home from Rochdale College on 30th January 2025 and that morning had purchased a (return) train ticket from Walsden to Rochdale with his 16-17 saver rail card.

On his return journey home to Walsden, there were two trains departing from the same platform at Rochdale Station - the 16:13 train from Rochdale to Leeds and the 16:17 train from Rochdale to Blackburn (both delayed). Both these trains were delayed and departed Rochdale Station from the same platform - the delays on both trains meant the trains departing times were almost identical.

These delays, poor signage and the fact both trains were leaving from the same platform, caused him to unintentionally get on the delayed 16:13 train from Rochdale to Leeds and not his intended 16:17 train from Rochdale to Blackburn.

The delayed 16:13 train from Rochdale to Leeds passes through Walsden station but does not stop at it. There are no station stops between Rochdale and Todmorden, so there was no opportunity for him to get off at a station before Walsden and wait for a train that stops at Walsden. There was also no conductor available on this train. He left the train at the next possible station stop, Todmorden.

He was stopped on the exit to the platform by a Revenue Protection Officer who issued him a penalty fare totalling £53.20, despite him explaining the above issues. I feel there should have been some discretion applied by the RPO given the above and no Penalty Fare Charge made. As I've stated, he was returning home from college. Walsden train station is a walkable distance from our home address. Todmorden is over two miles from our home address.

He would not intentionally have got on a train which only stops at Todmorden and the fact he had to leave the train at Todmorden meant he had to make his own way back to Walsden that day. See supporting documents showing the delays and station stops of both trains and our home address location in relation to these stations (highlighting the distances).

 

[Egg Centric]

As noted, first and second line appeals will always be rejected to the first approximation. IMO you should clearly raise the technical points I gave you, quoting from the regulations.

 

[dogma]

As noted, first and second line appeals will always be rejected to the first approximation. IMO you should clearly raise the technical points I gave you, quoting from the regulations.

I've been back through your posts on this thread. Are you indicating I should appeal on the grounds of the fare cost from Walsden to Todmorden he was charged being incorrect ? £3.20 is a full single fare from Walsden to Todmorden so that seems correct to me unless I've misunderstood you?

 

[amahy]

As a regular commuter from Manchester to Walsden I find this confusing.

When at Manchester and the next Walsden train isn’t for a long time, or one is cancelled, I am frequently advised to board a train to Todmorden, change platforms, and board the next train towards Walsden from Tod (this works on every XX:57 departure from Victoria, arriving at Tod at XX:19, then boarding the XX:21 returning to Walsden, arriving at XX:24). According to ruling of the appeal, I would be eligible for a penalty fare every time, despite following instructions from station staff.

The definition of “severely disrupted” services is also incredibly vague. Would one cancellation of a Walsden service be classed as severe disruption, given the 2 hour service gap this would cause?

 

[AlterEgo]

I've been back through your posts on this thread. Are you indicating I should appeal on the grounds of the fare cost from Walsden to Todmorden he was charged being incorrect ? £3.20 is a full single fare from Walsden to Todmorden so that seems correct to me unless I've misunderstood you?

The Penalty Fare can't be for a Walsden to Todmorden fare as the train didn't stop there; they relate to the journey actually undertaken.

As has been pointed out, this does not meet the letter of the regulations although we have seen this logic ("I was undercharged") fail to yield results recently.

 

[dogma]

As a regular commuter from Manchester to Walsden I find this confusing.

When at Manchester and the next Walsden train isn’t for a long time, or one is cancelled, I am frequently advised to board a train to Todmorden, change platforms, and board the next train towards Walsden from Tod (this works on every XX:57 departure from Victoria, arriving at Tod at XX:19, then boarding the XX:21 returning to Walsden, arriving at XX:24). According to ruling of the appeal, I would be eligible for a penalty fare every time, despite following instructions from station staff.

The definition of “severely disrupted” services is also incredibly vague. Would one cancellation of a Walsden service be classed as severe disruption, given the 2 hour service gap this would cause?

I think you are very aware of the frequency of trains to Walsden station then and the number of delays and cancellations.

It would seem from our experience that they would issue a penalty fare and it would be your responsibility to prove you were following instructions from station staff.

 

[furlong]

Reread your second appeal. You only asked them to consider this one matter:
"I feel there should have been some discretion applied by the RPO "

It might have been better to invite the person handling the appeal to consider the wider circumstances you described and show some discretion themselves rather than merely asking them to consider whether the RPO should have acted differently (which could only take into account what the RPO knew at the time, not any of the extra context you provided).

 

[Tetchytyke]

As @furlong says, try and keep things clear. Your son inadvertently boarded the incorrect train due to the delay to the initial train and was, as a result, overcarried. This should be the basis of the appeal, not that the RPO should have exercised discretion.

You may wish to separately add the technical issues that @Egg Centric discussed, although I wouldn't recommend making these the main part of any appeal for the reasons @AlterEgo has already explained.

 

[furlong]

Oh I think the OP should certainly argue that the PF was not issued in accordance with the regulations for the reasons discussed as the main plank of the final appeal. The regulations are very specific about the fare that must be charged. Throw in non-compliant signage too as well as repeating the arguments already made as compelling circumstances for the appeals body (not the RPO).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Feb 2025 ==

Quote the part of the regulations that explains the 'full single fare applicable' and the 'boarding station'. 9(2A), 9(3)(a) as well as 16(3)(a), 16(3)(d), 18(2)(b) etc. together with 18(4) giving them no alternative but to uphold the appeal. It's one of those cases where you could suggest they take legal advice and provide the legal reasoning if minded to reject it to make it hard for them to hide behind ignorance if you have to take it further and allege malfeasance or similar.

 

[gray1404]

I would strongly suggest that you post a draft of your third and final appeal here first for people to have a look at and feedback on before you submit the appeal.

 

[dogma]

Thanks everyone. Here's my first draft. Appreciate any feedback. Am I subject to a 2000 character limit again on this appeal?

I am re-appealing as I do not believe my case has been considered properly on the appeals I have made so far.

I will again reinstate my sons scenario. Whilst attempting to return home from Rochdale to Walsden, two trains were delayed that leave from the same platform. He inadvertently boarded the incorrect train due to the delay to the initial train and was, as a result, overcarried. This was a direct result of poor signage on both the platform and train; the delays in both trains; and the fact they left the same platform at the same time. The train he boarded passes though Walsden station but does not stop there. The only and first stop on this train was Todmorden, so he had no opportunity to get off this train before Walsden and board the correct train. He left the train at Todmorden where he was stopped by a RPO on the exit to the platform and issued a PF.

My points of appeal are as follows:

1. The signage; delays on these trains; and the fact they left from the same platform directly caused this issue.

2. I do not believe the PF was issued in accordance of the regulations. The PF was issued from Walsden to Todmorden. The train didn't stop at Walsden. Regulation 9(2A) states ""the full single fare applicable” is the full single fare for the journey in question from the boarding station to the station that the penalty fare authorises the person to travel to under regulation 5(5A)"". 9(3A) states ""the boarding station" means the station at which the person boarded the train"". 16(3A) states "The grounds on which an appeal under this regulation may be made are that — the penalty fare was not charged in accordance with the requirements of these Regulations" and 16(3D) states "there are compelling reasons why, in the particular circumstances of the case, the appellant should not be liable to pay the penalty fare". 18(2B) states "An appeal under this regulation must be made - on one or more of the grounds specified in regulation 16(3)". Finally, 18(4D) states "(4) If the relevant Final Appeal Panel, after considering an appeal under this regulation, concludes that any ground specified in regulation 16(3) applies, it must, subject to paragraph (7), allow the appeal".

3. I would ask the person handling this appeal consider the wider circumstances I've already described and show some discretion themselves rather than consider whether the RPO should have acted differently at the time (given they did not have at the time, the extra context I've provided).

I would request that the appeal panel take legal advice and provide the legal reasoning if minded to reject the appeal.

 

[AlterEgo]

Thanks everyone. Here's my first draft. Appreciate any feedback. Am I subject to a 2000 character limit again on this appeal?

No; you can freehand a longer appeal if you like by exporting a Word doc or similar and attaching it, saying in the box "Please see the attachment for my appeal"

I am re-appealing as I do not believe my case has been considered properly on the appeals I have made so far.

I will again reinstate my sons scenario. Whilst attempting to return home from Rochdale to Walsden, two trains were delayed that leave from the same platform. He inadvertently boarded the incorrect train due to the delay to the initial train and was, as a result, overcarried. This was a direct result of poor signage on both the platform and train; the delays in both trains; and the fact they left the same platform at the same time. The train he boarded passes though Walsden station but does not stop there. The only and first stop on this train was Todmorden, so he had no opportunity to get off this train before Walsden and board the correct train. He left the train at Todmorden where he was stopped by a RPO on the exit to the platform and issued a PF.

My points of appeal are as follows:

1. The signage; delays on these trains; and the fact they left from the same platform directly caused this issue.

You can't just say this - you need to say what, exactly, was deficient about the signage, and I'd restate again the exact nature of the delays. Are you talking about Penalty Fare signage here or something else?

2. I do not believe the PF was issued in accordance of the regulations. The PF was issued from Walsden to Todmorden. The train didn't stop at Walsden. Regulation 9(2A) states ""the full single fare applicable” is the full single fare for the journey in question from the boarding station to the station that the penalty fare authorises the person to travel to under regulation 5(5A)"". 9(3A) states ""the boarding station" means the station at which the person boarded the train"". 16(3A) states "The grounds on which an appeal under this regulation may be made are that — the penalty fare was not charged in accordance with the requirements of these Regulations" and 16(3D) states "there are compelling reasons why, in the particular circumstances of the case, the appellant should not be liable to pay the penalty fare".

I think this is confusing wording. What are the compelling reasons, and why are they being bundled in with Point 2, which addresses the technicalities of the PF?

18(2B) states "An appeal under this regulation must be made - on one or more of the grounds specified in regulation 16(3)". Finally, 18(4D) states "(4) If the relevant Final Appeal Panel, after considering an appeal under this regulation, concludes that any ground specified in regulation 16(3) applies, it must, subject to paragraph (7), allow the appeal".

3. I would ask the person handling this appeal consider the wider circumstances I've already described and show some discretion themselves rather than consider whether the RPO should have acted differently at the time (given they did not have at the time, the extra context I've provided).

I would request that the appeal panel take legal advice and provide the legal reasoning if minded to reject the appeal.

There's no need for this line - it feels desperate and they won't "take legal advice" they decide these in minutes.

You might also ask the panel to account for your son's age as well, under compelling grounds.

You'll be pleased to know the debt for the PF is likely unenforceable; not sure if anyone's pointed out the obvious here because he is only 16 and can't accrue a civil debt in these circumstances.

 

[dogma]

Thank you. Second try. More scenario this time.

**************************************************

I am re-appealing as I do not believe my case has been considered properly on the appeals I have made so far.

I will again reinstate my 16 year old sons scenario. He was returning home from Rochdale College on 30th January 2025. On his return journey home to Walsden, there were two trains departing from the same platform at Rochdale Station - the 16:13 train from Rochdale to Leeds and the 16:17 train from Rochdale to Blackburn. Both these trains were delayed, which meant the trains departing times were almost identical. He inadvertently boarded the incorrect train due to the delay to the initial train and was, as a result, overcarried. The train he boarded passes though Walsden station but does not stop there. The only and first stop on this train was Todmorden, so he had no opportunity to get off this train before Walsden and board the correct train. He left the train at Todmorden where he was stopped by a RPO on the exit to the platform and issued a PF. He lives in Walsden and Walsden Station is within walking distance of our house. Todmorden Station is 2 1/2 miles away. He would not have intentionally boarded a train that only stops at Todmorden.

My points of appeal are as follows:

1. The delays on these trains, along with the fact they left from the same platform within 2 minutes of each other directly caused this issue.

2. My second appeal was rejected and stated:

"Of course, the exception would be where services were severely disrupted or where the train had failed to stop at the relevant advertised destination station on its line of route (given that both of these scenarios would be outside the passenger's control).I note that you mentioned that the train that your son was meant to board was running 2 minutes late and that both trains left from the same platform, this mitigation has been taken into consideration, and there is no evidence to support the discretion guidelines having been breached by the authorised collector at the time of issue"

I would ask the person handling this appeal consider my sons age here as well as the wider circumstances I've already described and show some discretion themselves, rather than consider whether the RPO should have acted differently at the time (given they did not have at the time, the extra context I've provided).

3. I do not believe the PF was issued in accordance of the regulations.

Regulation 9(2A) states ""the full single fare applicable” is the full single fare for the journey in question from the boarding station to the station that the penalty fare authorises the person to travel to under regulation 5(5A)"". 9(3A) also states ""the boarding station" means the station at which the person boarded the train"".

The boarding station was Rochdale. The PF was issued from Walsden to Todmorden and so was not issued in accordance with these regulations.

**************************************************

Should I also quote these regulations in point 3?

16(3A) "The grounds on which an appeal under this regulation may be made are that — the penalty fare was not charged in accordance with the requirements of these Regulations"

16(3D) states "there are compelling reasons why, in the particular circumstances of the case, the appellant should not be liable to pay the penalty fare".

18(2B) states "An appeal under this regulation must be made - on one or more of the grounds specified in regulation 16(3)". Finally, 18(4D) states "(4) If the relevant Final Appeal Panel, after considering an appeal under this regulation, concludes that any ground specified in regulation 16(3) applies, it must, subject to paragraph (7), allow the appeal".

 

[JordR]

Should I also quote these regulations in point 3?

16(3A) "The grounds on which an appeal under this regulation may be made are that — the penalty fare was not charged in accordance with the requirements of these Regulations"

16(3D) states "there are compelling reasons why, in the particular circumstances of the case, the appellant should not be liable to pay the penalty fare".

18(2B) states "An appeal under this regulation must be made - on one or more of the grounds specified in regulation 16(3)". Finally, 18(4D) states "(4) If the relevant Final Appeal Panel, after considering an appeal under this regulation, concludes that any ground specified in regulation 16(3) applies, it must, subject to paragraph (7), allow the appeal".

I think you could make the technical argument briefly, as it's an absolute:

"It is clear that regulation 16(3A) is relevant as the penalty fare was issued in the wrong amount. The regulations are not concerned that the correct penalty fare would have been a higher amount. If you determine that the penalty fare was issued in the wrong amount, regardless of it being lower, you are required by regulation 18(4D) to allow this appeal."

I think your regulation 16(3D) ground relies more on discretion and the best case you can is already made out in your draft.

 

[dogma]

Thanks again. Third draft below. Does this cover everything?

**************************************************
I am re-appealing as I do not believe my case has been considered properly on the appeals I have made so far.

I will again restate my 16 year old sons scenario. He was returning home from Rochdale College on 30th January 2025. On his return journey home to Walsden, there were two trains departing from the same platform at Rochdale Station - the 16:13 train from Rochdale to Leeds and the 16:17 train from Rochdale to Blackburn. Both these trains were delayed, which meant the trains departing times were almost identical. He inadvertently boarded the incorrect train due to the delay to the initial train and was, as a result, overcarried. The train he boarded passes through Walsden station but does not stop there. The only and first stop on this train was Todmorden, so he had no opportunity to get off this train before Walsden and board the correct train. He left the train at Todmorden where he was stopped by a Revenue Protection Office on the exit to the platform and issued a Penalty Fare. He lives in Walsden and Walsden Station is within walking distance of our house. Todmorden Station is 2 1/2 miles away. He would not have intentionally boarded a train that only stops at Todmorden.

My points of appeal are as follows:

1. Regulation 16(3D) states "there are compelling reasons why, in the particular circumstances of the case, the appellant should not be liable to pay the penalty fare". The delays on these trains, along with the fact they left from the same platform within 2 minutes of each other directly caused this issue.

2. My second appeal was rejected and stated:

"Of course, the exception would be where services were severely disrupted or where the train had failed to stop at the relevant advertised destination station on its line of route (given that both of these scenarios would be outside the passenger's control).I note that you mentioned that the train that your son was meant to board was running 2 minutes late and that both trains left from the same platform, this mitigation has been taken into consideration, and there is no evidence to support the discretion guidelines having been breached by the authorised collector at the time of issue"

I would ask the person handling this appeal consider my sons age here as well as the wider circumstances I've already described and show some discretion themselves, rather than consider whether the RPO should have acted differently at the time (given they did not have at the time, the extra context I've provided).

3. I do not believe the Penalty Fare was issued in accordance of the regulations.

Regulation 9(2A) states "the full single fare applicable” is the full single fare for the journey in question from the boarding station to the station that the penalty fare authorises the person to travel to under regulation 5(5A). 9(3A) also states "the boarding station" means the station at which the person boarded the train".

The boarding station was Rochdale. The Penalty Fare was issued from Walsden to Todmorden and so was not issued in accordance with these regulations.

It is clear that regulation 16(3A) is relevant as the penalty fare was issued in the wrong amount. The regulations are not concerned that the correct penalty fare would have been a higher amount. If you determine that the penalty fare was issued in the wrong amount, regardless of it being lower, you are required by regulation 18(4D) to allow this appeal.
**************************************************

 

[SuspectUsual]

Tiny typo - do you mean "restate" rather than "reinstate"?

 

[dogma]

Tiny typo - do you mean "restate" rather than "reinstate"?

Thank you. I've edited it now.