Penalty Fare

[elaineb101]

Hi,

On my regular commute last week I forgot to purchase my ticket prior to boarding. As the inspector approached I asked to buy a ticket (which I have been allowed to do in the past) and was told I would be issued a penalty fare. I gave my details and was issued the penalty, however the inspector told me I could appeal the fare as I explained this is my daily route and I have bought this ticket hundreds of times in the past 2 years. I assume this is no basis for an appeal and this was simply said to ensure I complied when being issued the ticket?

Fare attached in case the experts think I may have some grounds to appeal?

Thanks!

 

[methecooldude]

The amount is wrong, there is no fare from Tile Hill to New Street that is £5.40, unless I'm missing something?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

The amount is wrong, there is no fare from Tile Hill to New Street that is £5.40, unless I'm missing something?

Indeed. £5.40 looks to be the Anytime Day Single fare from Hampton-in-Arden to Birmingham Stns, which is round about where the train in question likely was, at 0830 on 24NOV2025.

 

[tatitiliti]

Indeed. £5.40 looks to be the Anytime Day Single fare from Hampton-in-Arden to Birmingham Stns, which is round about where the train in question likely was, at 0830 on 24NOV2025.

That should be enough of an error to get a successful appeal, no? May take a few tries though.

 

[furlong]

The fare must be charged from where the passenger boarded (unless the inspector does not know, when the last station at which it stopped is used).

Appeal against the notice on the ground 16(3)(a) that it was not issued in accordance with the requirements of the regulations and that therefore under 16(7) if this is a first appeal the appeal must be allowed.

(2A) In paragraph (1A), “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).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Dec 2025 ==

(There's also the question of whether the PF should only have been issued to the next station - presumably there were still additional stops before New Street with lower fares.)

 

[scrapy]

Also should the 'issued at' not show where the train is? Or the next calling point? 'On train' is not very useful. Might as well say 'planet earth'.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

After Hampton-in-Arden, the penultimate stop would have been Birmingham International and then Birmingham New Street.

 

[blimmo]

'On train' is not very useful. Might as well say 'planet earth'.

It is to distinguish from penalty fares issued at the barriers after leaving a train. Anyway I believe the "issued at" field is not statutory so irrelevant to the appeal (although I agree that being more specific would be useful to determine the validity of the PF!).

 

[elaineb101]

Unfortunately I had the below notice that my appeal was denied - is there any point in further appealing? Either way thank you all for your help and guidance!

‘Thank you for your correspondence concerning the above referenced Penalty Fare Notice issued by West Midlands on Monday 24 November 2025.


The Appeals Service (AS) is independent of West Midlands. AS provide a service which gives the recipient of a Penalty Fare Notice the opportunity to dispute the issue. To ensure consistency, AS follow a Code of Practice compliant with the criteria set out in the Railways (Penalty Fares) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 when making assessments of Penalty Fare Notice appeals.


All transport companies operating a Penalty Fare scheme display warning notices which advise transport users of their obligations and the potential consequences in failing to meet these.


The transport user is required to show on request a valid ticket. Whilst I acknowledge the points raised in your appeal, It remains the responsibility of the passenger to ensure they hold a valid ticket prior to travelling. As you chose to board the train without first holding a valid ticket for your journey, the inspector was correct to issue a Penalty Fare on this occasion.


On assessment your appeal has been declined, however you have the right to re-appeal.’

 

[AlterEgo]

The first appeal is almost always declined in cases like this. Re-appeal, with the same points.

The third appeal is more independent and done by a different panel. These people may even have completed secondary education and can comprehend arguments in the English language.

 

[elaineb101]

Second appeal also denied - third times the charm!

 

[Egg Centric]

Second appeal also denied - third times the charm!

If it's not too late, post the third appeal here first for forum members to proof read it before sending it off. While it's true that most of the third appeal tier can speak English and know what a train is, they do still need their hands holding in the way you phrase it.

 

[elaineb101]

If it's not too late, post the third appeal here first for forum members to proof read it before sending it off. While it's true that most of the third appeal tier can speak English and know what a train is, they do still need their hands holding in the way you phrase it.

Didn’t see this before submitting but my appeal was upheld - just the £6 fare to pay rather than £105.40 fine. Thanks to all for the advice!

 

[AlterEgo]

Good news, well done for persevering with it!

 

[furlong]

And now if you want to take this any further, you can escalate it to Transport Focus and ask if they will investigate why the first two appeals were rejected incorrectly. Anecdotally, the forum sees this a lot but it should not be happening. This was a straightforward error that should have been accepted on the first appeal.

An interesting angle to look at might be whether the 'Appeals Service' got paid extra by rejecting it twice, and whether it has a financial incentive to act incompetently. If so they should consider asking for a mechanism, perhaps involving a report to Transport Focus, that enables the final appeals panel to flag the handling of previous appeals in a case as so poor as to deserve a financial penalty.