Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
This needs to be written as a NEW appeal under regulation 18 referring directly to the grounds permitted.
What you propose is I'm afraid all jumbled up making it easy to be disregarded. There are quite a few examples of how to do this on other threads including recently.
@MotCO the insoector charged 1 way return fare not reutn, so ill.amemd this.
Also, I intend to appeal on 4 grounds
1) PFN is not valid as originating stating should be Liverpool.Street not Shenfield
2) appeals procedure not followed correctly
a)officer stated i should have corrected the inspector
b) officer ignored grounds of appeal despite hinting the PFN may be incorrect
3) misleading information provided by the issuing inspector
4) mitigating circumstances due to a replacement bus service in the morning making is travel from Shenfield
@furlong
regulation 18? Apologies for my ignorance but does this relate to a technical mistake in the PFN?
@MotCO the insoector charged 1 way return fare not reutn, so ill.amemd this.
Also, I intend to appeal on 4 grounds
1) PFN is not valid as originating stating should be Liverpool.Street not Shenfield
2) appeals procedure not followed correctly
a)officer stated i should have corrected the inspector
b) officer ignored grounds of appeal despite hinting the PFN may be incorrect
3) misleading information provided by the issuing inspector
4) mitigating circumstances due to a replacement bus service in the morning making is travel from Shenfield
@furlong
regulation 18? Apologies for my ignorance but does this relate to a technical mistake in the PFN?
I'm still confused about the return ticket. Normally if you do not have the correct ticket, you get stopped and the offence you get charged with is for the whole journey you have undertaken. They don't ask you to pay for part of the journey and report you for part of the journey, unless I am not understanding something that happened here.
Constructing the perfect wobbling tower of myriad appeal reasons has often proved ineffective. Select one ground, and appeal on it. The first two appeals, and even the third one occasionally, are completely constrained by the official/s' time. They ain't got time to read all that, to put it bluntly.
Think of it like a football game, where you believe the ball was over the line and you've scored a goal. The only thing you need to show is that the ball was over the line, not that the game was hard or it was raining or the referee was a bit mean. This appeal is vastly overcomplicated and they should appeal on the first ground only - that the PF was not issued in line with the regulations, because the fare is incorrect!
I have drafted the following appeal, which is simple and less complicated. Can you please have a look and suggest any changes?
Dear appeals team
I want to appeal against the Penalty Fare Notice XXXXX
I received the above Penalty Fare notice for not having a valid ticket on xxxx. I was stopped by the officer while returning from London Liverpool Street to Chelmsford. I explained the details of my journey, clearly stating that I had touched my contactless card before boarding the train at London Liverpool Street. I was unaware that contactless payments did not work outside London as I am not a regular commuter. Nevertheless, the officer for some reason charged me a fare from Shenfield to Chelmsford, issued a penalty fare notice, and advised me to appeal, explaining my circumstances. When I arrived home and checked the Penalty Fare Notice, it was invalid as the boarding station on the notice was Shenfield, where I boarded the train from London Liverpool Street. When I appealed against this, the grounds of my appeal were rejected without any reasonable explanation. Therefore, I would like to request the appeals team to reconsider my appeal on the following grounds:
This penalty fare notice violates the Railways (Penalty Fares) (Amendment) regulations 2022.
9(1A) In respect of England, where a penalty fare is charged under regulation 5(1) to a person travelling by, present on, or leaving a train, the amount of the penalty fare is—
(a) £100 plus the price of the full single fare applicable,
...
(2) In paragraph (1), “the full single fare applicable” is the full single fare for the journey in
...
(3) In paragraph (2) and (2A), “the boarding station” means—
(a) the station at which the person boarded the train
Hence, the Penalty Fair Notice was not issued per the regulations as
1) the boarding station is incorrect (Please see proof of my contactless payment at London Liverpool Street)
2) the amount of the penalty fare is incorrect (please see the penalty fare notice and the one-way fare charged by the officer)
Sorry, I'm too busy at the moment to help you write this but there are good examples on other recent threads - I'm sure someone can help you find them. You MUST state the grounds for appeal in legal terms. "This an appeal under regulation 18.... on the grounds....". And the "Amendment" regulations only amend so weren't violated.
I think it is pretty good now, much clearer. To take Furlong’s points on board you just need to add that therefore you are appealing under Regulation 16(3) which states an appeal MUST be allowed if:
“a) the penalty fare was not charged in accordance with the requirements of these Regulations;”
Since this penalty fare was for the wrong amount and the wrong starting point, it was not charged according to the regulations and therefore the appeal should be allowed.
The second point is that the official title of the regulations is:
The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018
as amended by
The Railways (Penalty Fares) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
I would amend this today and post the final draft before submission.
Is it worth mentioning anything about the signage at Chelmaford Station? The section of journey from London Liverpool Street to Chelsmford is unique as the contactless cards are acceptable for certain length of the journey and not all. I was not aware of this and there is no clear signage to guide commuters.
I think just keep it simple and stick to the primary point, the Penalty Fare wasn’t issued correctly and therefore the appeal should be upheld.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Just to add why, put yourself in the shoes of the assessor. If there is just a single point - this penalty fare wasn’t issued according to the regulations and this is a reason to allow an appeal - you are forcing them to confront it. To deny the appeal they must say either it was issued correctly, or invalid penalty fares must still be paid. If you give them 6 different reasons in a fairly long explanation there is just too much opportunity for them to not address the main point and deny the appeal because one of the other reasons is not valid.
Please find attached the response from the independent appeals service. This was our third and final appeal and the response was the shortest of all 3! Lol...
We have received your final appeal against issue of the above Penalty Fare. Your case has been fully considered
by an independent panel consisting of three members approved by Transport Focus and London TravelWatch,
bodies that represent the interests of the travelling public.
Your appeal has been rejected.
The decision made by the Independent Appeals Panel is final and Greater Anglia is bound by this decision. There
are no further options to appeal this case.
The official watchdog bodies for transport users are London Travelwatch (for journeys within the London area) and
Transport Focus (for all other journeys). Although unable to overrule the decision made by AS or the Independent
Appeals Panel, they can consider whether due process has been followed. AS are unable to place a case on hold,
whilst pending an investigation from a third party.
Please find attached the response from the independent appeals service. This was our third and final appeal and the response was the shortest of all 3! Lol...
We have received your final appeal against issue of the above Penalty Fare. Your case has been fully considered
by an independent panel consisting of three members approved by Transport Focus and London TravelWatch,
bodies that represent the interests of the travelling public.
Your appeal has been rejected.
The decision made by the Independent Appeals Panel is final and Greater Anglia is bound by this decision. There
are no further options to appeal this case.
The official watchdog bodies for transport users are London Travelwatch (for journeys within the London area) and
Transport Focus (for all other journeys). Although unable to overrule the decision made by AS or the Independent
Appeals Panel, they can consider whether due process has been followed. AS are unable to place a case on hold,
whilst pending an investigation from a third party.
I fear you may have to pay as the watchdog bodies may sit outside the freezing of the payment process deadlines. You do not want the costs of this to escalate even if you go to them and that’s ultimately successful.
There is no right of appeal any more. However you can still *complain* and raise the issue with the watchdog, and I would encourage you to, because the penalty fare was technically incorrect despite being issued in the proper circumstances.
What we are increasingly seeing is a situation where some appeals assessors/panels appear to be bored with passengers being justly issued a penalty fare and retroactively finding technical methods of appeal. In this case, the penalty fare was the proper course of action, but the fare charged was incorrect. However, this was to the passenger's benefit, as it was for a lower fare than was due. If the inspector had done their job properly, they would simply have charged the passenger more.
I encourage the forum hive mind to take this into account in future, as there is a trend for posters to mount three or four discrete avenues of appeal in one response, which I have felt has been increasingly less effective. I feel that appealing on a single and easily provable ground is more effective, but especially so where that ground can be shown to have caused harm to the passenger. There has been, for example, not a single PF I can remember that was upheld on the grounds of very slightly deficient signage wording/placement, nor one upheld on the basis that verbal permission had been given.
What we are increasingly seeing is a situation where some appeals assessors/panels appear to be bored with passengers being justly issued a penalty fare and retroactively finding technical methods of appeal. In this case, the penalty fare was the proper course of action, but the fare charged was incorrect. However, this was to the passenger's benefit, as it was for a lower fare than was due. If the inspector had done their job properly, they would simply have charged the passenger more.
Thanks a lot for all your help. We have appealed to the local MP to see if they could offer any help and, if not, will pay the PFN, which we feel is very unfair as it is at the discretion of the person issuing who could have considered the mitigating circumstances. They usually let people off the first time. It is also very frustrating that the appeals service is a sham. This is a general reflection of the current negativity prevailing in our society. The parking and speed cameras are two examples, and now this is another money-making scam by railways.
I agree that having exhausted the appeals process the Penalty Fare is now due and should be paid to avoid the matter escalating. By all means get your MP involved, rail fare evasion and prosecutions is a hot topic at the moment, but there's no provision for the Penalty Fare to be put on hold if you take the matter to your MP.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
