Penalty but did not 'join train'

[ANTAR]

My teenage daughter travels to London infrequently and has payment Oyster Card. She's sixteen and AFAIK pretty honest. I come from a rail family and she's been brought up to respect the rules.
She intended to travel from East Dulwich to London Bridge for an appointment and went to the barrier, presented her card and it failed to accept as there was insufficient money on it. At that moment staff took her aside and asked where she wanted to go. She told them. She was issued with £20 fixed penalty. She explained she was unaware (and so were we- we top it up for her) it was not in credit. She did not reach the platform, much less join the train or make a journey. Having read the forum, we realise it's possible to auto-update to prevent this in future. Hasn't she got a valid case to contest the penalty as she did not intend to make a journey without payment or valid ticket. She did not attempt to board a train and turned back when her card was declined. Any advice most welcome.

 

[yorkie]

Assuming this Southern Penalty Fares Scheme document is still valid (obtained by FOI in 2012), East Dulwich is not a Compulsory Ticket Area (CTA).

Therefore, if she had not yet travelled by train, the Penalty Fare should not have been issued.

Sadly there are some rogue revenue inspection officers/inspectors, and there's very little we can do about them as there's no effective Regulator, and no ombudsman with any real powers who actually cares.

I would appeal using the appropriate procedure, and write to Southern Customer Services and complain to Passenger Focus. Let us know how you get on.

 

[ANTAR]

Thanks Yorkie. Simple and informed advice - just what I needed.

 

[jon0844]

If the card didn't work, and she didn't walk through, it's ridiculous to give any penalty.

The warning that you didn't have enough money, or your season had expired, or even you were in a zone not covered by your season and didn't have any credit, is a warning to tell you to seek assistance - which would be to top up, buy a separate ticket or renew your season.

Auto top up is bloody useful but not a necessity.

Only if the gate was open, she got the warning and walked on anyway (intending to travel regardless) could I understand it and that would mean stopping her nearer, or even on, the train.

 

[maniacmartin]

I would appeal too.

Note that any subsequent complaint should not be made to Passenger Focus, but rather London Travelwatch, as the incident occurred within their remit area.

 

[Greenback]

I really can't see how a PF can be issued when someone hasn't even passed the barrier. It's absurd. I thought I had topped up my Oyster once, but it hadn't gone through and I was alerted when I got to the barrier. A quick check and it was obvious something had gone wrong, and I tried again, successfully this time.

If anyone had tried to issue me a PF at that point, when I hadn't been anywhere near a train, I would then pursue them with the utmost vigour!

 

[talldave]

If that were me I'd invoice them by the minute for the time taken to sort out a refund. And when they don't pay, take them to small claims.

I've had my Oyster PAYG refused at a tube gate and it's a case of embarrassment and go top up. To be PF'd is insane.

 

[ANTAR]

Your help has really cheered us up. I'll let you know how we get on. An appeal is now in the post. Glad we found this site.

 

[MikeWh]

Assuming this Southern Penalty Fares Scheme document is still valid (obtained by FOI in 2012), East Dulwich is not a Compulsory Ticket Area (CTA).

Even if it was a CTA, if you approach the first validation point and turn back when validation fails then you cannot have committed an offence.

If what we are being told is completely true, this is clearly a travesty.

 

[Class377]

I couldn't find it in a search, but I seem to remember a vaguely similar situation when someone didn't board a service at King's Cross but was written up for prosecution by the guard simply for being on the platform?

EDIT: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=92695 - the result was he didn't get prosecuted in the end. Hopefully you get a similar outcome...

 

[tony6499]

The view on the previous case was intent and what would have happened if they weren't stopped ? This is what the RPI mush have thought and the reasoning behind what he did, doesn't seem right in my eyes but it will be interesting to see if the bylaws cover this scenario

 

[Ddraig]

I really can't see how a PF can be issued when someone hasn't even passed the barrier. It's absurd. I thought I had topped up my Oyster once, but it hadn't gone through and I was alerted when I got to the barrier. A quick check and it was obvious something had gone wrong, and I tried again, successfully this time.

If anyone had tried to issue me a PF at that point, when I hadn't been anywhere near a train, I would then pursue them with the utmost vigour!

I think you are right here, I don't think it's ever appropriate to give a penalty fare to someone entering a station. If they mistakenly present you an invalid ticket or ask to enter without a ticket you send them to buy one. This is because, whilst they do not have a valid ticket, the fare is not yet due since they haven't commenced their journey yet, so they still have the opportunity to rectify this before commencing the journey (on the train this is a different matter, since you will have already begun the journey by the time you find ypur ticket is invalid so you now cannot rectify this before travelling so a PF is appropriate). Any other case, such as someone attempting to sneak past you or presenting a discount or child ticket when they know they are not eligible or an outdated or altered season ticket when they are aware of this should all be reported since this isn't a traveller error.

This case, unless there is more to it than we are presented with seems like the work of a bad actor who is attempting to issue as many PFs as possible. There is no just reason to issue a penalty fare to someone if their oyster had insufficient credit prior to a journey, they should be allowed to top up and proceed, and if by the sound of it they couldn't top it up themselves they should have been given a chance to contact their parents to do it for them or else find another way home.

 

[revenueadvice]

If all this is true I would make a formal complaint. You cannot be charged a penalty before travel. Some inspectors in that area I believe are on commission so there could have been a financial benefit to him and he has picked on a young girl. I would never dream of doing this it is morally wrong and gives other inspectors a bad name. Please complain.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
You can be reported for prosecution before travel if you show intent to avoid. For example jumping ticket gates but a penalty fare cannot be issued before travel.

 

[maniacmartin]

The exception being a compulsory ticket area, which only exist at certain stations, are signed and are not supposed to be on the outside of the gateline.

 

[FOH]

East Dulwich has no barriers (or hadn't the last time I went through there anyway) and the Oyster readers are a good walk away from the platforms and basically on the roadside. I'd be surprised to see someone issue a penalty there. Is she sure she didn't walk up to the platform, which given the distance would clearly show intent to travel.

Edit linked to Google StreetView link

 

[furlong]

If all this is true I would make a formal complaint. You cannot be charged a penalty before travel.

(unless it's a compulsory ticket area, which we're pretty sure East Dulwich is not)

From the SRA Penalty Fare Rules (2002):

6 People who may be charged a penalty fare
6.1 Any person travelling by, present on or leaving a penalty fares train must, if asked by an authorised collector, produce a valid ticket or other authority for the journey they have made or are making.
6.2 If a person fails to produce a valid ticket or other authority in line with rule 6.1, the authorised collector may charge that person a penalty fare, in line with the Regulations and these rules.

If a company wants to be able to charge a penalty fare before someone boards a train, then it needs to meet some particular requirements and designate the area a Compulsory Ticket Area.

 

[RJ]

My teenage daughter travels to London infrequently and has payment Oyster Card. She's sixteen and AFAIK pretty honest. I come from a rail family and she's been brought up to respect the rules.
She intended to travel from East Dulwich to London Bridge for an appointment and went to the barrier, presented her card and it failed to accept as there was insufficient money on it. At that moment staff took her aside and asked where she wanted to go. She told them. She was issued with £20 fixed penalty. She explained she was unaware (and so were we- we top it up for her) it was not in credit. She did not reach the platform, much less join the train or make a journey. Having read the forum, we realise it's possible to auto-update to prevent this in future. Hasn't she got a valid case to contest the penalty as she did not intend to make a journey without payment or valid ticket. She did not attempt to board a train and turned back when her card was declined. Any advice most welcome.

Hi,

I'm familiar with East Dulwich station. I heard there was a revenue block there the week before last or thereabouts.

There are no barriers at East Dulwich. This is the entrance to the platform for London Bridge. Beyond those gates, which are only shut at night, there are two Oyster readers. The path leads up to the platform. Where exactly did the inspectors stop your daughter? At the top of the path or where the ticket machines are?

If it was at any point beyond those Oyster readers, it would be a bad idea to tell the ticket inspectors that you intend to travel when you don't have a ticket or successfully validated Oyster Card. If the story is as told, the Penalty Fare (PF) has no legal basis. So whatever happens, that PF notice would be cancelled. That said, given they have her details, they could choose pursue a Byelaw 18 prosecution failing to produce a valid ticket when requested instead.

On the basis of what you've told us, I'd say that contesting that Penalty Fare would be a gamble - it could be a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire. On the balance of probabilities, I'd say Southern would be unlikely to pursue any further action when the PF is cancelled.

 

[island]

If the passenger did not enter a train for the purpose of travel, I cannot see a byelaw 18 prosecution going anywhere.

 

[jkdd77]

I've never heard of a passenger being prosecuted following a successful appeal against a PF, provided that either there is now no fare due, or any fare still due is paid promptly and within the deadline specified.

 

[CyrusWuff]

If the passenger did not enter a train for the purpose of travel, I cannot see a byelaw 18 prosecution going anywhere.

For a prosecution under Byelaw 18(1) you'd be correct, but Byelaw 18(2) doesn't make that distinction, it merely requires presentation of a ticket inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.

In effect, that makes the entire network a "Compulsory Ticket Area", though I'd guess that may not have been the intention.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

For a prosecution under Byelaw 18(1) you'd be correct, but Byelaw 18(2) doesn't make that distinction, it merely requires presentation of a ticket inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.

In effect, that makes the entire network a "Compulsory Ticket Area", though I'd guess that may not have been the intention.

Really?

The title of Byelaw 18 is "Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas". The word 'travel' has some significance.
The understanding of 'travel' is explicated in Byelaw 18.1 as "shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway" and from this we can understand why there are no Byelaw 18 prosecutions of persons who were not travelling, and travelling without a ticket.

I'd be astonished to learn of any Prosecutor seeking to bring forward a Prosecution for a Byelaw 18 offence against a non-travelling passenger unless it was in conjunction with other alleged offences or incidents.

 

[jkdd77]

If a person isn't travelling by train, and hasn't travelled by train, then I don't see that there can be any offence under 18(2) (the title of which refers to "Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas"), since there is no requirement for a non-traveller to have a ticket in a non-compulsory ticket area and so there is nothing to hand over.

Otherwise, anyone who entered railway premises (for example, to buy a ticket for future travel), would potentially commit an offence, and the whole of byelaw 17 would be redundant.

Edit- typed before seeing DaveNewcastle's post

 

[drbdrb]

Sadly there are some rogue revenue inspection officers/inspectors, and there's very little we can do about them as there's no effective Regulator, and no ombudsman with any real powers who actually cares.

Surely the person that should deal with rogue employees is the employer?

Do they (if so how do situations like this occur) or is there a reason why they don't?

 

[VauxhallandI]

Surely the person that should deal with rogue employees is the employer?

Do they (if so how do situations like this occur) or is there a reason why they don't?

If TOC's had a track record of following the rules of engagement then yes but as they don't then I'm afraid we can't let the fox be in charge of the hen coup

 

[SouthStand]

And some people on here wonder why rail staff get assaulted...

 

[drbdrb]

If TOC's had a track record of following the rules of engagement then yes but as they don't then I'm afraid we can't let the fox be in charge of the hen coup

Your implication is by referring to the TOC as a "fox", that Southern Trains are encouraging their employees to act in this manner. Is that really the case?

Or do Southern just not care how their employees behave? Or are Southern fully aware of how their employees behave, but know if they try to do anything about it "problems" will occur.

So are the TOCs evil, apathetic, or powerless?

 

[NSEFAN]

And some people on here wonder why rail staff get assaulted...

I'd be pretty peeved for receiving a penalty fare incorrectly, but that wouldn't then give me an excuse to hurl abuse at the gateline staff.

 

[SouthStand]

I'd be pretty peeved for receiving a penalty fare incorrectly, but that wouldn't then give me an excuse to hurl abuse at the gateline staff.

The problem is, if you're going to run a draconian system like the penalty fare system, you have to be 99.9% sure you're correctly issuing them. Unfortunately, the TOCs aren't.

 

[455driver]

The problem is, if you're going to run a draconian system like the penalty fare system, you have to be 99.9% sure you're correctly issuing them. Unfortunately, the TOCs aren't.

Got some proof of that then?
Or is this just the usual keyboard warrior wibble!

 

[Monty]

Got some proof of that then?
Or is this just the usual keyboard warrior wibble!

Pretty much.