Off-peak ticket used during peak time

[furlong]

The clock stops on the £50 discount deadline while they are processing appeals - so you get extra time to pay the lower amount if you appeal.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Sep 2025 ==

One inconsistency in your appeal still puzzles me. How were you rushing to buy the ticket before the train arrived when the train should have departed 5 minutes earlier? The next one wasn't for another 25 minutes. You wouldn't turn up at that time aiming to catch the later one, and if you were aiming for the earlier one it was late so you had extra time. How do you account for your use of the word "rush"?

 

[EmbedShampoos]

The clock stops on the £50 discount deadline while they are processing appeals - so you get extra time to pay the lower amount if you appeal.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Sep 2025 ==

One inconsistency in your appeal still puzzles me. How were you rushing to buy the ticket before the train arrived when the train should have departed 5 minutes earlier? The next one wasn't for another 25 minutes. You wouldn't turn up at that time aiming to catch the later one, and if you were aiming for the earlier one it was late so you had extra time. How do you account for your use of the word "rush"?

I had saved the latest train times on the home page of the TPE app, and saw that the incoming train was delayed. I was aiming for the earlier train, but was made late from having to return home for my phone shortly after leaving. I would have given up on the earlier train had I also not seen it delayed.

 

[Olivine]

Personally - I’d pay the £54 ASAP and chalk this down. You’ve already been fairly lucky to not have had your details taken down and been asked to account for prior journeys if there is some level of irregularity with regards to short-faring here - I’m absolutely not implying that is the case but if it does apply then I would certainly be taking it as a lesson for what was arguably a very small saving on the ticket with the railcard.

I don’t see how chasing this further down the line with the stress and anxiety is of any tangible benefit to you, when ultimately it’s £50, and no criminal record or further stress of having to account for it or prior journeys.

 

[WesternLancer]

Personally - I’d pay the £54 ASAP and chalk this down. You’ve already been fairly lucky to not have had your details taken down and been asked to account for prior journeys if there is some level of irregularity with regards to short-faring here - I’m absolutely not implying that is the case but if it does apply then I would certainly be taking it as a lesson for what was arguably a very small saving on the ticket with the railcard.

I don’t see how chasing this further down the line with the stress and anxiety is of any tangible benefit to you, when ultimately it’s £50, and no criminal record or further stress of having to account for it or prior journeys.

I tend to think this approach has some benefits and should be given serious consideration.

 

[gray1404]

If the OP does pay though that doesn't stop them from using all 3 appeal. They will be refunded if any appeal is upheld.

 

[WesternLancer]

If the OP does pay though that doesn't stop them from using all 3 appeal. They will be refunded if any appeal is upheld.

Helpful to point that out I think.

 

[furlong]

Your basic argument is that you presented a ticket that was valid subject to the payment of the difference in fare specified in condition 9.5 which you were and remain willing to pay.

 

[father_jack]

Your basic argument is that you presented a ticket that was valid subject to the payment of the difference in fare specified in condition 9.5 which you were and remain willing to pay.

And that basic argument is flawed and has been debunked in the thread.

 

[Watershed]

And that basic argument is flawed and has been debunked in the thread.

I would not at all agree with that. You've made various allegations against the OP but I haven't seen anything that would explain why 9.5 wouldn't apply.

 

[Wallsendmag]

I would not at all agree with that. You've made various allegations against the OP but I haven't seen anything that would explain why 9.5 wouldn't apply.

Does seleceting a train that gave a railcard discount not show intent to avoid the correct fare?

 

[gray1404]

I think the best thing that could happen here is that the OP submits an appeal and sees how they get on. They should be prepared to use all 3 appeals if needed. This is as we disproportionately see more success at the third appeal compared to the first two.

They should appeal on the basis that the penalty fare was not issued in accordance with the regulations. Specifically that the National Rail Conditions of Travel give provision for an excess to be sold when the ticket is only not valid due to the time of day.

If the OP wises to pay the Penalty Fare in the meantime so they know the matter will not escalate and to ensure they receive the early payment discount, they know they will be refunded if any one of their 3 appeals is upheld.

 

[b0b]

Does seleceting a train that gave a railcard discount not show intent to avoid the correct fare?

Then a penalty fare is still inappropriate to deal with this situation.

 

[AlterEgo]

Does seleceting a train that gave a railcard discount not show intent to avoid the correct fare?

A moot point really as companies don't tend to prosecute under RoRA any more following the scandal. They cannot use the SJP to do so.

I would not at all agree with that. You've made various allegations against the OP but I haven't seen anything that would explain why 9.5 wouldn't apply.

Worth pointing out also this is the same nationalised train company who had to withdraw prosecutions for exactly the same matter, and not only that, quash existing ones. An excess fare is payable; it is the only remedy in the passenger contract as you point out, because the NRCoT says you *will*, not may, be charged the difference.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Personally I’d appeal to all three levels, there’s no financial penalty to you for doing so. Rely on 9.5 of NRCOT.

Make them work for it. If you lose at level three then pay up. I don’t actually think you’ll win any of the appeals, but waste their time. I think everyone should always appeal to the third stage.

Maybe contact the local newspapers too? Northern have- rightly- been getting a lot of stick for this sort of thing. They said they’d stop doing it. They haven’t stopped doing it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Sep 2025 ==

Does seleceting a train that gave a railcard discount not show intent to avoid the correct fare?

No. Next.

 

[furlong]

Don't forget that the passenger knows that Leeds has barriers in operation. It is surely far more likely that this was a mistake than any deliberate attempt to avoid the fare which the OP would have known the barriers would have detected (as they did). Condition 9.5 exists to ensure that mistakes likely to be due to the complexity of the fares system can be regularised easily without penalty.

Quoting again from the SRA's Policy in 2002 (4.29)- and the complexity of ticket restrictions has only increased since then:

Ticket restrictions. Many types of ticket cannot be used at certain times of day, on certain days of the week or on certain trains. These ticket restrictions can be complicated, and even familiar tickets such as cheap day returns can have different restrictions on different routes.
If a passenger travels on a train on which their ticket is not valid, it is more likely that the restrictions were not properly explained to them than that they are deliberately trying to avoid paying the right fare. We believe that it is up to the train operators to make sure that each passenger understands the restrictions which apply to the ticket which they are sold.
Under rule 7, a passenger may not be charged a penalty fare if he or she has a ticket for the journey which they are making that is not valid on that train only because of a ticket restriction. In these cases, the passenger only needs to pay the excess fare, in line with the National Rail Conditions of Carriage.

 

[reb0118]

My take on this is that I agree, in general, that an excess (to the cheapest fare that would be valid for the journey being made) should be the remedy for situations where a mere time restriction invalidates the original ticket.

However, when dealing with railcard minimum fares, how the passenger selects their train of choice does matter, and if a systematic trail of evidence is discovered, then they should expect follow up action.

A penalty fare is probably reasonable in those circumstances......but if you would rather passengers doing so were just reporting for prosecution, then crack on.

As an aside: whilst I fully understand the concept of minimum fares, and why we have them, my own personal choice would be to scrap them. However, we can only work with the system we've got.

 

[alistairlees]

The OP did not select a train time - see post 11.

 

[AlterEgo]

My take on this is that I agree, in general, that an excess (to the cheapest fare that would be valid for the journey being made) should be the remedy for situations where a mere time restriction invalidates the original ticket.

However, when dealing with railcard minimum fares, how the passenger selects their train of choice does matter, and if a systematic trail of evidence is discovered, then they should expect follow up action.

A penalty fare is probably reasonable in those circumstances......but if you would rather passengers doing so were just reporting for prosecution, then crack on.

As an aside: whilst I fully understand the concept of minimum fares, and why we have them, my own personal choice would be to scrap them. However, we can only work with the system we've got.

This comes up all the time. The railway regularly allows passengers to, for example, travel off route without paying the appropriate fare and only pay the excess when on board. That is, to pay when challenged. It is not an offence nor something one can be penalty fared for. The same applies to the use of time restricted tickets during times it is not valid.

In both cases the passenger is doing something they are contractually entitled to do - commence the journey and then pay the correct fare when asked for it.

 

[Kite159]

..

This comes up all the time. The railway regularly allows passengers to, for example, travel off route without paying the appropriate fare and only pay the excess when on board. That is, to pay when challenged. It is not an offence nor something one can be penalty fared for. The same applies to the use of time restricted tickets during times it is not valid.

In both cases the passenger is doing something they are contractually entitled to do - commence the journey and then pay the correct fare when asked for it.

Until the NRCOT gets changed to remove the right to attempt to use a Railcard discounted offpeak ticket at a time where they would have needed an anytime ticket without a Railcard discount. But agreed the OP should have been excessed to £12 in line with the minimum fare.

Chances are the OP knew what they were doing and was hoping the poorly trained agency barrier staff at Leeds to just take a glance at the ticket and open up a manual gate without actually looking at the ticket in detail.

 

[[.n]]

It is possible to excess to the £12 minimum fare though - is there an argument that this should be the correct course of action? (To play devils advocate only.)

This I think is the correct action that I have seen / had applied in the past when this has been an issue

 

[Puffing Devil]

The reason the OP received a penalty fare instead of being asked to pay an excess fare is that the ticket was invalid on multiple counts. The Conditions of Travel state that if you use a time-restricted ticket (such as an off-peak ticket) at the incorrect time, you will be charged the difference to a valid ticket for that service.

However, the Conditions also say that if you're travelling with a Railcard-discounted ticket and the Railcard isn't valid for the journey, you are treated as having no valid ticket at all. The Railcard's own terms, as specified in the National Rail Conditions of Travel, stipulate that a minimum fare applies during the morning peak. Because the OP's ticket cost well below that minimum, it was invalid from the moment of purchase, regardless of the time restriction.

This means that we're not dealing with a simple time violation that could be "excessed". We're dealing with a passenger who had an invalid ticket, which, under the regulations, allows the issue of a penalty fare. The ticket was fundamentally void due to the railcard rule, which takes precedence over the off-peak restriction.

I'd be pleased if anyone could show me published rules or regulations to the contrary, rather than undocumented custom and practice.

 

[furlong]

The reason the OP received a penalty fare instead of being asked to pay an excess fare is that the ticket was invalid on multiple counts.

Please would you quote chapter and verse for your lines of argument? 9.5 lists no such exceptions and we have the assessment of the SRA plus what happened last year when the minimum fare issue hit the press and it was accepted people should not be penalised for falling foul of this widely unknown and unexpected rule.

 

[Watershed]

Does seleceting a train that gave a railcard discount not show intent to avoid the correct fare?

The OP has already told us that they didn't 'select' a train, but rather repurchased a recently bought fare, thus skipping the selection of a particular train.

Even if the OP had actually selected a different train, that is far from being sufficient to prove intent to avoid payment. There are many other explanations as to why they might have done so - not least of which that they thought they were being overcharged, that they changed their mind on which train they wanted to take etc.

Finally, intent to avoid payment has nothing to do with issuing a Penalty Fare. PFs are issued on a strict liability basis, irrespective of intent.

Then a penalty fare is still inappropriate to deal with this situation.

Exactly. It has to be an excess fare, or an MG11 if the member of staff has reason to believe there is intent to avoid payment (which the TOC will need to prove - good luck with that).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Sep 2025 ==

However, the Conditions also say that if you're travelling with a Railcard-discounted ticket and the Railcard isn't valid for the journey, you are treated as having no valid ticket at all.

Where do they state that? Please can you quote the condition yo uare referring to?

 

[AlterEgo]

The reason the OP received a penalty fare instead of being asked to pay an excess fare is that the ticket was invalid on multiple counts. The Conditions of Travel state that if you use a time-restricted ticket (such as an off-peak ticket) at the incorrect time, you will be charged the difference to a valid ticket for that service.

However, the Conditions also say that if you're travelling with a Railcard-discounted ticket and the Railcard isn't valid for the journey, you are treated as having no valid ticket at all. The Railcard's own terms, as specified in the National Rail Conditions of Travel, stipulate that a minimum fare applies during the morning peak. Because the OP's ticket cost well below that minimum, it was invalid from the moment of purchase, regardless of the time restriction.

But that isn't the same as the railcard not being valid. The railcard was valid - how could it be anything else? That it was valid isn't in dispute. It was in date, used by the holder, and presented. The sole issue is that the ticket was time restricted and being used at a time at which it was not valid, and we have already seen there is only one possible remedy in the Conditions, which is to charge the excess fare. And, as you go say in this section, "the ticket was invalid"

That is why identical cases were removed from Northern's prosecution track last year, and why convictions for the same were quashed (this is the same company involved here!). It is also why penalty fares can't be completed for being off-route, breaking journey when disallowed, or using a time restricted ticket at a time not valid.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Please would you quote chapter and verse for your lines of argument? 9.5 lists no such exceptions and we have the assessment of the SRA plus what happened last year when the minimum fare issue hit the press and it was accepted people should not be penalised for falling foul of this widely unknown and unexpected rule.

The reason for this is that the ticket is treated as fundamentally invalid from the start due to the Railcard conditions. As outlined in Condition 8.4, when you purchase a Railcard, the full terms and conditions will be provided to you. Furthermore, Condition 8.2 specifies that the Railcard may have additional restrictions which will apply to any Tickets you buy when using it. This is key. Condition 8.5 states that if you are travelling with a Railcard discounted ticket and are unable to present the Railcard, you "will be treated as having joined a train without a valid Ticket". The same logic applies when the ticket itself violates a key term of the Railcard, such as a minimum fare. Condition 9.2 then specifies the allowed actions for a passenger without a valid ticket. These include charging the full, undiscounted fare, issuing a penalty fare, or reporting the incident for prosecution. The document does not list excessing the fare to meet a Railcard's minimum as an option.

The SRA rule does not apply in this case, as it involves a stacking of errors, not just a minimum fare issue.

That is why identical cases were removed from Northern's prosecution track last year, and why convictions for the same were quashed (this is the same company involved here!). It is also why penalty fares can't be completed for being off-route, breaking journey when disallowed, or using a time restricted ticket at a time not valid.

Identical cases? Off-peak ticket out of hours stacked with a Railcard discount?

 

[AlterEgo]

Identical cases? Off-peak ticket out of hours stacked with a Railcard discount?

Passengers who had travelled with a ticket when not valid due to the Railcard minimum fare. No idea what you mean by "stacking" here, or what relevance this has.

The principle is, the tickets are time restricted when Railcard discounted, and an excess only is payable.

Railcard Prosecutions

Northern | Buy Cheap Train Tickets and Check Train Times

www.northernrailway.co.uk

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Sep 2025 ==

Condition 8.5 states that if you are travelling with a Railcard discounted ticket and are unable to present the Railcard, you "will be treated as having joined a train without a valid Ticket". The same logic applies when the ticket itself violates a key term of the Railcard, such as a minimum fare.

No it doesn't. This is cope because you went all in on the poster in Post 4 by telling them to pay and cannot leave the matter alone after numerous posters have provided evidence that not even the railway treats the Condition in this way. This has clearly annoyed you because you are starting to go on about things like

Because the OP's ticket cost well below that minimum, it was invalid from the moment of purchase

(what does "well" below have anything to do with the matter at hand? It is either at the minimum fare or not)

and "stacking of errors", despite this not being relevant.

8.5 is about failing to present a railcard. That's it. That's all it says.

The ticket is time restricted for two discrete reasons. Excess fare is the only remedy.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Passengers who had travelled with a ticket when not valid due to the Railcard minimum fare. No idea what you mean by "stacking" here, or what relevance this has.

The principle is, the tickets are time restricted when Railcard discounted, and an excess only is payable.

You mentioned that prosecutions had been stopped by passengers in identical circumstances. Now you say only passengers with Railcard discounts before 10am. That is not identical. The OP had both a time-restricted ticket and one that was also below the railcard minimum. Even if the underlying fare were to be excessed, it would still be below the minimum.

No it doesn't. This is cope because you went all in on the poster in Post 4 by telling them to pay and cannot leave the matter alone after numerous posters have provided evidence that not even the railway treats the Condition in this way. This has clearly annoyed you because you are starting to go on about things like

I've yet to see the evidence provided by anyone to show that tickets can be excessed up to the £12 minimum fare.

My opinion remains unchanged since my initial post. I did not go "all in"; I provided a reasoned opinion, in line with other posters who also also posted at the same time.

(what does "well" below have anything to do with the matter at hand? It is either at the minimum fare or not)

I apologise for having the audacity to use an adverb to show the extent of the underpayment.

and "stacking of errors", despite this not being relevant.

8.5 is about failing to present a railcard. That's it. That's all it says.

The ticket is time restricted for two discrete reasons. Excess fare is the only remedy.

The "stacking of errors" is the crux of the matter here. You cannot excess a ticket that is invalid.

8.5 is used to set the precedent for handling invalid tickets and could be used as an argument if this ever came to a serious discussion in court.

I'll wait and see the outcome of the appeals to the PFs.

 

[furlong]

Condition 8.5 states that if you are travelling with a Railcard discounted ticket and are unable to present the Railcard, you "will be treated as having joined a train without a valid Ticket".

8.5 says

If you are travelling with a Railcard discounted Ticket and are unable to present the Railcard when asked by the staff or authorised agents of a Train Company, you will be treated as having joined a train without a valid Ticket and Conditions 9.1 – 9.5 will apply.

The passenger was able to present the Railcard, so this clause does not apply.

The same logic applies when the ticket itself violates a key term of the Railcard, such as a minimum fare.

Where is that written? The minimum fare rule merely imposes a (further) time restriction on the (off-peak) ticket purchased. And worse, this time restriction is often hidden, not made clear during the purchase process, and - despite all the fuss last year - STILL not displayed on the ticket as it really ought to be!

 

[AlterEgo]

I've yet to see the evidence provided by anyone to show that tickets can be excessed up to the £12 minimum fare.

Regardless, what is in question here is not whether staff are trained or internal policy allows or whether the software will let you, but rather what the passenger contract says is the proper remedy.

There is no need to necessarily excess it to the minimum fare either. The lowest priced ticket valid for the train you are using is what the customer is legally entitled to. It is there in black and white.

The "stacking of errors" is the crux of the matter here. You cannot excess a ticket that is invalid.

Good heavens this is so far gone. Yes you can! What is the purpose of an excess fare otherwise? It is in condition 9 which is helpfully called "Travelling Without A Valid Ticket" and explains how you excess an invalid ticket to a valid one. You're better than this.

 

[Starmill]

And that basic argument is flawed and has been debunked in the thread.

As you're not Penalty Services, at the end of the day, that's not your call. Sorry to spoil your fun.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Sep 2025 ==

Until the NRCOT gets changed to remove the right to attempt to use a Railcard discounted offpeak ticket at a time where they would have needed an anytime ticket without a Railcard discount. But agreed the OP should have been excessed to £12 in line with the minimum fare.

Pretty sure this is something you've been posting for quite a number of years now? Perhaps you ought set us a deadline by which your suggested change will have come into force