Penalty fare for daughter using complimentary delay repay ticket

[Fedupnorthern]

Hi,

My daughter received a penalty fare for using my delay repay complementary ticket issued by Northern. Reason, non transferable. Can she appeal for leniency on this as neither of us were aware? They have been accepted many times in the past.

Thanks.

 

[Haywain]

Can she appeal for leniency on this as neither of us were aware?

It's clearly stated under item 2 of the T&Cs on the back of the coupon.

 

[Egg Centric]

They have been accepted many times in the past..

If you do decide to appeal anyway (for example there may be technical deficiencies- please post the penalty fare in full along with what service and where it was issued as there often are) then don't mention this bit!

 

[Fedupnorthern]

Thank you for the replies.

I hadn't read the small print. Yes it is clearly stated. However in practical terms the staff have been ignoring the correct interpretation in the past, hence my surprise.

No point in appealing on this basis.

 

[AlterEgo]

Thank you for the replies.

I hadn't read the small print. Yes it is clearly stated. However in practical terms the staff have been ignoring the correct interpretation in the past, hence my surprise.

No point in appealing on this basis.

If you share a copy of the notice with her name removed we can see if the notice was lawfully issued despite this. They often aren't!

 

[furlong]

You may still try to argue that that particular key term was not obvious and so needed to be drawn to your attention more prominently if they wished to enforce it in this manner.

 

[SuspectUsual]

You may still try to argue that that particular key term was not obvious and so needed to be drawn to your attention more prominently if they wished to enforce it in this manner.

It's a while since I've received one, but I'm pretty sure the ticket being non-transferrable is mentioned in the covering letter that arrives with it.

 

[Haywain]

It's a while since I've received one, but I'm pretty sure the ticket being non-transferrable is mentioned in the covering letter that arrives with it.

I'm pretty sure my letter mentioned it.

 

[island]

You may still try to argue that that particular key term was not obvious and so needed to be drawn to your attention more prominently if they wished to enforce it in this manner.

Such an argument would be an appeal to customer service, but would not assist in legal proceedings. The requirement to hold a valid ticket is a requirement in criminal law and is not subject to assessment of contractual fairness such as prominence of terms which might apply if it were a civil matter.

 

[Watershed]

Such an argument would be an appeal to customer service, but would not assist in legal proceedings. The requirement to hold a valid ticket is a requirement in criminal law and is not subject to assessment of contractual fairness such as prominence of terms which might apply if it were a civil matter.

The requirement to hold a valid ticket is of course a matter of criminal law, but to determine the validity of a proffered ticket, it is necessary to look at its contractual terms. In turn that means the Consumer Rights Act comes into play.

That said, I agree that the fact that the ticket is non-transferable is stated on the accompanying letter, and on the back of the ticket, is likely to be sufficient to make that a reasonably prominent term.

The OP's concern here lies in the fact that this is a rarely enforced term. I certainly have sympathy with that but it won't help them in an appeal.

I suspect that it is something you would 'get away with' if you at least appeared to be the same gender as the person named on the ticket - since there is no requirement to carry ID to use these tickets - but if we assume the OP is male, then it would have been pretty obvious the ticket was transferred when his daughter used it.

 

[185143]

I'm obviously not putting this forward as a serious suggestion. But if the Penalty Fare is indeed upheld and paid.

Should Northern therefore reissue the ticket, on the grounds that it cannot be used currently, and the fact a Penalty Fare has been paid proves the OP's daughter hasn't used it either? Albeit they attempted to.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm obviously not putting this forward as a serious suggestion. But if the Penalty Fare is indeed upheld and paid.

Should Northern therefore reissue the ticket, on the grounds that it cannot be used currently, and the fact a Penalty Fare has been paid proves the OP's daughter hasn't used it either? Albeit they attempted to.

This would be a bit like being PFed for being caught short faring and asking for a refund on the short-fared ticket (under the old refund rules). I can see the point but in reality it is a hiding to nothing, in practice if a ticket has been misused in any way it is forfeit.

 

[Haywain]

Should Northern therefore reissue the ticket, on the grounds that it cannot be used currently, and the fact a Penalty Fare has been paid proves the OP's daughter hasn't used it either?

No, because paid tickets are not refunded when they have been misused and have resulted in a Penalty Fare Noticed being issued. Plus it is only valid for the date and journey written on the coupon, so if you write those details and don't use it that's tough luck.

 

[HOMELESS]

Is it a requirement to carry ID and provide it with these comp Delay Repay tickets then?
Or simply be of the same gender of the person named on the ticket?

 

[SuspectUsual]

Is it a requirement to carry ID and provide it with these comp Delay Repay tickets then?
Or simply be of the same gender of the person named on the ticket?

It's a requirement to be the person named on the ticket, however enforcement of that is difficult because it isn't a legal requirement to carry proof of ID with you. Realistically, not being the same gender as the person named allows an over-zealous conductor or RPI to get interested; being the same gender and a shrug and an "I don't have any ID on me" would probably be enough to head off any trouble

There is nothing in the text on the back of the ticket about carrying ID

(For what its worth, I've had complimentary tickets arrive with my name written as initial and surname only, and written as Mr Xxxxxx, and I've had them arrive without any name on them at all)

I think the OP's daughter has been pretty unlucky with this one

 

[Watershed]

Is it a requirement to carry ID and provide it with these comp Delay Repay tickets then?

There is no requirement to show ID for these tickets.

Or simply be of the same gender of the person named on the ticket?

In practice, you would probably get away with it if you look like the person named on the ticket, yes. But legally speaking they are non-transferable.

 

[furlong]

Was your name written on the ticket when it arrived, or was it blank? If blank, did you write a name in?
What wording was on the FRONT of the ticket regarding the name?

Could someone upload a picture of a similar letter and ticket, front and back?

 

[toffeedanish]

(For what its worth, I've had complimentary tickets arrive with my name written as initial and surname only, and written as Mr Xxxxxx, and I've had them arrive without any name on them at all)

I use those that are issued with my full name first, followed by any with just my surname plus initial, and only then any issued blank.

 

[lyndhurst25]

How does this fit with Northern’s Delay Repay system allowing you to claim for more than one ticket on a delayed journey?

“- you travelled with other passengers on the same journey and are claiming for your ticket and theirs.
Note that if you are claiming as part of a group then it is your responsibility to ensure your fellow travellers receive any compensation due.”

I’ve not gone through the whole process as a test, but does it really ask for every passenger’s name?



P.S. - I’ve now tested it, and it doesn’t ask for everyone’s name.

 

[purple-Azumas]

Could someone upload a picture of a similar letter and ticket, front and back?

Here's one I've had from January. There's nothing in the text of the letter to say it's non transferable but condition 2 on the back of the ticket does say it's for the named person only. Mine was filled in Mr First Last already.

Attached are images of the letter accompanying a Northern Delay Repay complimentary ticket and the front and back of the ticket itself. Of note is Condition 2: 'It may only be used by the person named overleaf. In case of a 'FAMILY' ticket up to one additional adult and two children may travel free of charge with the named adult.'

 

[furlong]

But why would you look at the back of that ticket?

The example ticket is missing words on the front of it to state that it is issued subject to conditions written on the back.
Neither does the letter state it is issued subject to such conditions. That is a serious omission from the covering letter.

The OP states they were unaware of this condition. Had they read the back of the ticket, they would have been aware and the incident would not have occurred. But nothing in the covering letter or on the face of the ticket explained any of this.

If it was only meant to be used by the person named, why didn't Northern simply write "Passenger's Name" instead of "Customer Name" on the front of the ticket? That's perhaps the simplest thing Northern could have done to avoid hiding this contractual term. "Customer Name" leaves ambiguity as it can be taken just to mean it was issued to that person, not that that person must be the one travelling. And ideally add words indicating it is subject to conditions on the back.

I do think there is an argument to made here that the condition should not be enforced. Not necessarily winnable but worth trying.

Meanwhile Northern needs to change what's printed on the ticket and update the covering letter if they intend to enforce this.

 

[J.C.]

How does this fit with Northern’s Delay Repay system allowing you to claim for more than one ticket on a delayed journey?

“- you travelled with other passengers on the same journey and are claiming for your ticket and theirs.
Note that if you are claiming as part of a group then it is your responsibility to ensure your fellow travellers receive any compensation due.”

I’ve not gone through the whole process as a test, but does it really ask for every passenger’s name?



P.S. - I’ve now tested it, and it doesn’t ask for everyone’s name.

This happened to me. I was awarded eight and they were all in my name although I had claimed for two passengers.
I dropped a message to customer services and they obligingly issued four replacement ones in the other person's name, on evidence that four in my name had been cut up.
In future I'd apply for delay repay by email and make it clear which names I wanted on them rather than use the delay repay system.

But why would you look at the back of that ticket?

The example ticket is missing words on the front of it to state that it is issued subject to conditions written on the back.
Neither does the letter state it is issued subject to such conditions. That is a serious omission from the covering letter.

I really don't think it's unreasonable to expect someone to look at the back of a ticket. It isn't like the terms and conditions are hidden away or on a separate piece of paper.

That said, they do tend to be named in an unpredictable way. I've had some that were totally unnamed so I have some sympathy with the OP if they've had them issued like that in the past.

 

[ainsworth74]

I really don't think it's unreasonable to expect someone to look at the back of a ticket. It isn't like the terms and conditions are hidden away or on a separate piece of paper.

Agreed, I really think this is tilting at windmills to be honest. The terms governing the use of this ticket are far clearer than basically any other ticket I use because all the key terms are clearly written out in very unambiguous terminology. It compares much more favourably than normal tickets I use which are often very light on detail.

I agree that the OPs daughter has been hard done by as regular Northern conductors have clearly not bothered checking in any great detail in the past but this is no different to how Northern conductors will happily sell tickets in scenarios that would cause RPIs to issue Penalty Fares. You can travel on a train one day and buy a ticket, but the next day on the same service be issued a PF.

It would be nice if the letter made it more explicit that it can only be used by the named individual but come on, I don't see how there's any actual viable prospect of appeal on the basis that "I didn't turn the ticket over therefore I was not informed of this condition of use". This isn't the sort of situation like we've had in the past where the railway starts relying on terms buried deep in the NRCoT or confusing Railcard Ts & Cs for terrorising passengers.

Now if Northern had issued a PF because "the ticket was invalid due to Condition 5.1.1 of the NRCoT and the ticket clearly says it's issued subject to the NRCoT" so that should be enough, I'd have a lot more sympathy:

5. Transfer of Tickets​

5.1 A Ticket may be transferred by the person who bought that Ticket to another person, but only if:

5.1.1 the Ticket has not been made out in the passenger's name (which includes where the passenger is identified by a designated Railcard, photocard or other identifying means)

[...]

But it's right there physically printed on the ticket.

If the OP is willing to upload the actual PF we can check for technical error in issuing but I personally wouldn't waste time on appealing because the letter didn't explicitly say "It's only for you to use".

 

[Gloster]

My feeling is that we are in the ‘man on the Clapham omnibus’, or maybe ‘Clapham Junction train’, territory here: is it reasonable to expect the user of the ticket to read the terms and conditions before using it? My personal opinion, which is not based on any legal knowledge or experience, is that as the ticket was obtained in a manner other by normal purchase and the relevant regulation is printed on the ticket, it is a reasonable expectation.

 

[Snow1964]

I really don't think it's unreasonable to expect someone to look at the back of a ticket. It isn't like the terms and conditions are hidden away or on a separate piece of paper.

Thats an interpretation, and looking at back of a ticket might not be reasonable. If you bought a parking ticket and displayed it upside down on your dashboard, so only back was visible, would that be reasonable ?

The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 has a series of reasonableness terms, and generally hidden (or not easily visible) terms and clauses are deemed unenforceable.
If the letter had said about holder only, or front had said subject to terms on reverse then reasonable. But if have to search rear of document to know there are terms, then not reasonable.

Its not a question of is it reasonable to limit to holder only, it's a question of can you enforce that if that term is only on back of voucher and specifically not brought to users attention, unless they take detailed look.

 

[furlong]

My point is that it would have been utterly trivial for Northern to have made sure that nobody could reasonably argue that this requirement was hidden - but they opted not to do that and so now we have here someone who claims they weren't aware and they should be taken at their word. Northern should learn the lesson, write this one off, and update the documents so that nobody else can reasonably argue they fell into this trap again.

Separately from the formal PF appeal, I'd suggest taking this up with customer services, trying to persuade them they need to update both the covering letter (assuming it was the same as the one shared here) and what's printed on the face of the ticket to make this condition clear, and to write off the PF.

 

[sot]

If the card was gummied to the letter would it be reasonable for the pax to have read the back? Said pax may keep it affixed onto the letter until use!?

 

[yorkie]

Is it a requirement to carry ID and provide it with these comp Delay Repay tickets then?

Absolutely not.

Or simply be of the same gender of the person named on the ticket?

Exactly this.

How does this fit with Northern’s Delay Repay system allowing you to claim for more than one ticket on a delayed journey?

“- you travelled with other passengers on the same journey and are claiming for your ticket and theirs.
Note that if you are claiming as part of a group then it is your responsibility to ensure your fellow travellers receive any compensation due.”

I’ve not gone through the whole process as a test, but does it really ask for every passenger’s name?



P.S. - I’ve now tested it, and it doesn’t ask for everyone’s name.

When this has happened to me, the tickets either arrive without a name (which the passenger can write themselves) or all tickets come with the name of the passenger who submitted the Delay Repay claim for the entire group.

 

[ainsworth74]

If the card was gummied to the letter would it be reasonable for the pax to have read the back? Said pax may keep it affixed onto the letter until use!?

It isn't they come loose in the envelope. I thought I'd been short changed once until I realised it had fallen on the floor when taking the letter out of the envelope

 

[lyndhurst25]

It’s a bit of a ridiculous restriction, but it seems that the OP’s daughter has broken the rules by using a gifted ticket.

On the other hand, Northern are asking passengers to transfer supposedly untransferable complementary tickets to their travelling companions if they were travelling as a group and claiming on the others’ behalf. My parents have travelled together and claimed complimentary tickets, both of which have been issued to “Mr Lyndhurst Senior”. Luckily my mother wasn’t penalised for using hers, although the pair of them were travelling together again when she did so.

If the OP’s daughter had been a male then I very much doubt that the ticket inspector would have questioned her if she was indeed the “Mr X” named on the complementary ticket.

She could have said that she was previously travelling as a group and it was Mr X who put in the claim and chances are she’d be believed, but by being honest about how she got the ticket she’s been penalised.

I’ve accumulated a pile of these tickets, some with my name on and others blank, and I’ve now got no recollection of when and for what reason each one was issued, whether or not I was travelling alone or part of group.

Anyway, none of this is of help to the OP’s daughter, who I think has been very unlucky but is is probably best paying the penalty fare unless there is some technicality in the paperwork that she can get off on.