Penalty Fared at Wendover

[TurbostarFan]

Back in 2021 I got a penalty fare at Wendover station for chancing that I'd be able to just buy onboard the train since I didn't notice the Penalty Fare signs at Wendover. I appealed and to my great surprise, I won and the Penalty Fare was cancelled. I raised this cogent point with Chiltern Railways, as well as the fact that I was charged the wrong amount i.e. twice the full single fare from Wendover to London Marylebone, when I was in fact Penalty Fared between Wendover and an intermediate station (I can't remember which one and I don't know if it was mentioned on the paperwork, I think it misleadingly stated "London Marylebone" or something like that on it). This meant that I should've been penalty fared between Wendover and the next station, then offered the choice between either leaving the train or buying a new ticket to Marylebone, either that or the RPOs should've been lenient and let me buy a ticket to Marylebone onboard instead and let me off with a warning, which they did not.

I was however invoiced for the full non-discounted fare from Wendover to London Marylebone (where I intended to get off the train, and in fact left). I subsequently decided to avoid pushing my luck and just pay the bill. Was Chiltern in the right to do this?

 

[AlterEgo]

So you passed an opportunity to pay the fare - am I correct? - and chanced buying on board. It seems the appeal succeeded on the basis of the penalty fare being issued to Marylebone and not the next stop, which is a procedural error rendering it invalid. "Didn't see the signs" isn't a valid appeal reason although signage which does not meet the requirements of the regulations is.

As you passed an opportunity to pay Chiltern are saying you should pay the outstanding fare, which puts you in the same position as had you not been caught. Doesn’t it?

 

[skyhigh]

So you passed an opportunity to pay the fare - am I correct? - and chanced buying on board.

Taking the OP's previous username and what is publicly available about them, I'd suspect that it was a deliberate decision not to purchase in the hope of stirring up some conflict.

Seems they've won the appeal on a technicality, and I would very much encourage the OP not to 'chance it' again.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

@TurbostarFan. How much did you get invoiced for exactly?

 

[Watershed]

Back in 2021 I got a penalty fare at Wendover station for chancing that I'd be able to just buy onboard the train since I didn't notice the Penalty Fare signs at Wendover. I appealed and to my great surprise, I won and the Penalty Fare was cancelled. I raised this cogent point with Chiltern Railways, as well as the fact that I was charged the wrong amount i.e. twice the full single fare from Wendover to London Marylebone, when I was in fact Penalty Fared between Wendover and an intermediate station (I can't remember which one and I don't know if it was mentioned on the paperwork, I think it misleadingly stated "London Marylebone" or something like that on it). This meant that I should've been penalty fared between Wendover and the next station, then offered the choice between either leaving the train or buying a new ticket to Marylebone, either that or the RPOs should've been lenient and let me buy a ticket to Marylebone onboard instead and let me off with a warning, which they did not.

I was however invoiced for the full non-discounted fare from Wendover to London Marylebone (where I intended to get off the train, and in fact left). I subsequently decided to avoid pushing my luck and just pay the bill. Was Chiltern in the right to do this?

When TOCs issue a Penalty Fare, they do so in lieu of the normal fare. Therefore, if you successfully appeal a Penalty Fare, there is nothing more to pay and TOCs shouldn't go chancing their arm by asking for the original fare.

In this situation, there's not much they can do if you decline to pay their invoice - once a Penalty Fare decision has been made, the TOC is barred from prosecuting you in relation to that journey.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

When TOCs issue a Penalty Fare, they do so in lieu of the normal fare. Therefore, if you successfully appeal a Penalty Fare, there is nothing more to pay

Does this follow? It seems to me that there are two ways of interpreting the result of a successful appeal against a penalty fare:

1) That the penalty fare is reduced to nil, and so the matter is closed with no further payment (i.e. @Watershed 's position)
2) That it's as if the penalty fare was never issued and so the ordinary fare is due (which appears to be Chiltern's position)

As @Watershed says, it's our understanding that a successful appeal blocks prosecution for the same incident, but this is consistent with (2): someone who had not been caught fare dodging* wouldn't face a penalty fare (because as I understand it they can only be issued during a journey) but would remain liable for the ordinary fare.

Is there anything definitive out there to say which of (1) and (2) is the universally accepted position?

*No reflection on the OP here

 

[Watershed]

Does this follow? It seems to me that there are two ways of interpreting the result of a successful appeal against a penalty fare:

1) That the penalty fare is reduced to nil, and so the matter is closed with no further payment (i.e. @Watershed 's position)
2) That it's as if the penalty fare was never issued and so the ordinary fare is due (which appears to be Chiltern's position)

As @Watershed says, it's our understanding that a successful appeal blocks prosecution for the same incident, but this is consistent with (2): someone who had not been caught fare dodging* wouldn't face a penalty fare (because as I understand it they can only be issued during a journey) but would remain liable for the ordinary fare.

Is there anything definitive out there to say which of (1) and (2) is the universally accepted position?

*No reflection on the OP here

NRCoT 9.2 refers:

9.2 If you are unable to present a valid Ticket when asked and the conditions set out in Condition 6 do not apply, we are permitted in law to take one of the following measures:
9.2.1 To charge you the full undiscounted “anytime” single fare to a station directly served by the train that you are on. You will not be entitled to any discounts or special terms, or to a Ticket to a station other than one served by the train that you are on; or
9.2.2 To charge you a Penalty Fare on certain trains and stations (see Condition 10 below); or
9.2.3 To report you for prosecution.

By including that clause in the NRCoT, the train companies explicitly give up the right to charge the fare if they decide to issue a Penalty Fare.

They cannot then later change their mind, having already issued a (successfully appealled) Penalty Fare.

Ultimately, the only further recourse the TOC would have if they wanted to pursue their invoice, would be to pursue a civil claim. Given the general non-recoverability of costs in the Small Claims Track, it would seem highly unlikely that this would be worth their while.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

NRCoT 9.2 refers:


By including that clause in the NRCoT, the train companies explicitly give up the right to charge the fare if they decide to issue a Penalty Fare.

They cannot then later change their mind, having already issued a (successfully appealled) Penalty Fare.

Ultimately, the only further recourse the TOC would have if they wanted to pursue their invoice, would be to pursue a civil claim. Given the general non-recoverability of costs in the Small Claims Track, it would seem highly unlikely that this would be worth their while.

But if the penalty fare fails on appeal, have the railway implemented 9.2.2? If not, then there's nothing in NRCoT 9.2 to stop them pursuing 9.2.1 or 9.2.3.

So the question is still 'what is the result of a successful penalty fare appeal?'

 

[Watershed]

But if the penalty fare fails on appeal, have the railway implemented 9.2.2? If not, then there's nothing in NRCoT 9.2 to stop them pursuing 9.2.1 or 9.2.3.

So the question is still 'what is the result of a successful penalty fare appeal?'

The fact that a Penalty Fare has been appealed doesn't mean that it's not been issued. So the TOC has still decided to deal with the situation through 9.2.2, and is thus no longer entitled to deal with it under another subparagraph.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

The fact that a Penalty Fare has been appealed doesn't mean that it's not been issued. So the TOC has still decided to deal with the situation through 9.2.2, and is thus no longer entitled to deal with it under another subparagraph.

And as I asked in my first post, is there anything we can rely on to support this interpretation other than our own opinions? Is there anything in writing from 'the railway' that we can quote?

I'd love to ask for a court judgement as a precedent, but as we all know cases like this rarely reach a court whose opinion makes a precedent.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think a lot there depends on how you interpret the word "charged". I can see how @Watershed is reading it in line with the dictionary definition of a demand as "issuing the Penalty Fare", but many people also think charging means an actual demand which is then followed through. People say "They tried to charge me £20 for the fish until I complained and it was reduced!"

 

[thedbdiboy]

NRCoT 9.2 refers:


By including that clause in the NRCoT, the train companies explicitly give up the right to charge the fare if they decide to issue a Penalty Fare.

They cannot then later change their mind, having already issued a (successfully appealled) Penalty Fare.

Ultimately, the only further recourse the TOC would have if they wanted to pursue their invoice, would be to pursue a civil claim. Given the general non-recoverability of costs in the Small Claims Track, it would seem highly unlikely that this would be worth their while.

The fact that a Penalty Fare has been appealed doesn't mean that it's not been issued. So the TOC has still decided to deal with the situation through 9.2.2, and is thus no longer entitled to deal with it under another subparagraph.

The wording and interaction of the NRCoT and the Penalty Fare regulations is in a number of areas confusing. However, this is a classic area where different interpretations might be argued by the legal profession before a judge. It is not clear cut that whether by pursuing the use of one clause in 9.2 a train company gives up the right to use another if the the first one is not able to be taken to a conclusion.

You will probably be aware that a new set of Penalty Fare regulations in connection with the proposed Penalty increase is in the course of being drafted and I understand that more attention is being paid to ensuring that they work in tandem with the NRCoT - although we won't know the detail until they are laid before Parliament.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd agree it can be read either way. If you did travel and hadn't paid a fare, my line is that you clearly should do so, I don't see why a successful PF appeal should exempt you from paying the fare you should have paid and didn't, and one interpretation is that Chiltern is correct anyway. Not a fight I'd have.

 

[island]

I'd agree it can be read either way. If you did travel and hadn't paid a fare, my line is that you clearly should do so, I don't see why a successful PF appeal should exempt you from paying the fare you should have paid and didn't, and one interpretation is that Chiltern is correct anyway. Not a fight I'd have.

I agree. I accept there are multiple possible interpretations, but I wouldn't like to try and defend a civil claim for the fare, on the basis of the civil law doctrine of quantum meruit.

 

[Watershed]

I agree. I accept there are multiple possible interpretations, but I wouldn't like to try and defend a civil claim for the fare, on the basis of the civil law doctrine of quantum meruit.

Quantum meruit is a remedy for when there is no contract, or particulars such as price are left undefined. It is not there for when a party has explicitly given up one right in exchange for pursuing another.

Frankly this seems to be an academic discussion, as TOCs simply do not engage in such civil claims - but even if they did, I would be happy to defend any such claim on the basis that the TOC has made its decision under NRCoT 9.2 and cannot "take backsies" having lost an appeal.

 

[TurbostarFan]

Do I have a legal right to the fare which I already paid? I should add that I have a disabled railcard but wasn't offered that discount.

 

[AlterEgo]

Quantum meruit is a remedy for when there is no contract, or particulars such as price are left undefined. It is not there for when a party has explicitly given up one right in exchange for pursuing another.

Frankly this seems to be an academic discussion, as TOCs simply do not engage in such civil claims - but even if they did, I would be happy to defend any such claim on the basis that the TOC has made its decision under NRCoT 9.2 and cannot "take backsies" having lost an appeal.

I’d be interested to see any legal judgment that decreed, that by having tried to charge the wrong fare (in this case a Penalty Fare), and been unsuccessful, the company cannot in fact recover any fare at all, even the proper fare.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do I have a legal right to the fare which I already paid? I should add that I have a disabled railcard but wasn't offered that discount.

Railcards can't be used on board unless there's no means of purchase at the origin, so probably not, unfortunately. You could ask them though.

 

[Haywain]

Do I have a legal right to the fare which I already paid? I should add that I have a disabled railcard but wasn't offered that discount.

If you are asking if they will partially refund what you have now paid, you appear to have accepted that you were liable for the fare so I can't see that you'll be getting anything back.

 

[The Phoenix]

They can still prosecute as they do for non payment of the penalty fare.

In some circumstances payment has been refunded and and the notice has been cancelled in response to a complaint and a prosecution has been successful.

It's the same with part payment only taken if they refund the monies already paid a prosecution can commence for non payment. The repayment is to comply with double jeopardy rules.

 

[Watershed]

They can still prosecute as they do for non payment of the penalty fare.

In some circumstances payment has been refunded and and the notice has been cancelled in response to a complaint and a prosecution has been successful.

It's the same with part payment only taken if they refund the monies already paid a prosecution can commence for non payment. The repayment is to comply with double jeopardy rules.

Prosecution is barred once an appeal has been brought and decided. See regulation 11(3).

 

[danielcanning]

Railcards can't be used on board unless there's no means of purchase at the origin, so probably not, unfortunately. You could ask them though.

There’s an exception for Disabled Railcard users, if you have a disability that prevents you buying a ticket at your origin station, you can purchase one on the train/at your destination…

 

[skyhigh]

There’s an exception for Disabled Railcard users, if you have a disability that prevents you buying a ticket at your origin station, you can purchase one on the train/at your destination…

But as the OP notes, they didn't have an accessibility need which meant they couldn't use the origin facilities. They admit they chanced buying on the train.

Abusing the conditions won't do anyone any good in the long run.

 

[Kilopylae]

And as I asked in my first post, is there anything we can rely on to support this interpretation other than our own opinions?

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 any ambiguous wording in a contract is to be interpreted in the terms which would be most favourable to the customer. Also known as the contra proferentem rule.