penalty fares question

[mickey]

It's been documented before that penalty fares have been cancelled on a technicality, i.e. if the 'authorised collector' makes a mistake or doesn't fill it out correctly.

BUT... how strictly is this applied? For example, there is a box to be ticked to say whether the passenger was in 1st or std class, and one to say whether s/he was found on a train or at a station. If the RPI ticks the wrong box, is the PF likely to be thrown out on appeal?

 

[scotsman]

It's been documented before that penalty fares have been cancelled on a technicality, i.e. if the 'authorised collector' makes a mistake or doesn't fill it out correctly.

BUT... how strictly is this applied? For example, there is a box to be ticked to say whether the passenger was in 1st or std class, and one to say whether s/he was found on a train or at a station. If the RPI ticks the wrong box, is the PF likely to be thrown out on appeal?

If they tick 1st and you were in Standard - then the PF in void as it is incorrectly filled out.


Reverse should also apply, however Train/Station is a bit different - as a Conductor could call out a team of RPIs if they have a passenger refusing to pay a fare. Either could apply in this situation.

 

[mickey]

If they tick 1st and you were in Standard - then the PF in void as it is incorrectly filled out.
Reverse should also apply, however Train/Station is a bit different - as a Conductor could call out a team of RPIs if they have a passenger refusing to pay a fare. Either could apply in this situation.

...OK, so let's clarify. Ignore the 1st/std part and let's concentrate on the second bit. A passenger is on a train, and a RPI comes up to him within seconds of boarding (this removes the possibility the RPIs were called by a conductor - it was just a normal 'round'). Neither the RPI or the passenger leaves the train in the whole time they were conversing, both polite and the passenger was co-operating, and at the end the RPI leaves and allows the passenger to continue with his journey. Only later does the passenger see the mistake. Let's say it's on a route where RPIs usually work at stations but on this occasion were moving around, which explains why the RPI might have ticked the wrong box. Is the passenger likely to win the appeal? After all, the sheet was definitely filled out incorrectly.

 

[scotsman]

...OK, so let's clarify. Ignore the 1st/std part and let's concentrate on the second bit. A passenger is on a train, and a RPI comes up to him within seconds of boarding (this removes the possibility the RPIs were called by a conductor - it was just a normal 'round'). Neither the RPI or the passenger leaves the train in the whole time they were conversing, both polite and the passenger was co-operating, and at the end the RPI leaves and allows the passenger to continue with his journey. Only later does the passenger see the mistake. Let's say it's on a route where RPIs usually work at stations but on this occasion were moving around, which explains why the RPI might have ticked the wrong box. Is the passenger likely to win the appeal? After all, the sheet was definitely filled out incorrectly.

In that case you should have a good shout, as long as you explain that while it was ticked 'Station' and it was issued on a train.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . A passenger is on a train, and a RPI comes up to him within seconds of boarding
. . .
, which explains why the RPI might have ticked the wrong box. Is the passenger likely to win the appeal? After all, the sheet was definitely filled out incorrectly.

That's just too much information mickey, (though thanks for explaining).
If its wrong, then its wrong.
Anything factually incorrect renders the document void (with the exception of any information which the passenger provided which might be incorrect).
It doesn't matter how understandable the error is.

 

[mickey]

That's just too much information mickey, (though thanks for explaining).

I think we've all read far too many posts where the situation has been left unclear, either deliberately or otherwise, and I didn't want to fall into that trap
Thank you for replying.

 

[RJ]

I received a Penalty Fare with incorrect details recorded. Neither the IAS nor the TOC would cancel it for that reason. I won't wish you good luck but I'm sure you'll have fun trying to get it cancelled.

 

[87 027]

My wife got PF'd on an Ashford International - Orpington service having travelled in on the Eurostar from Paris, not realising she couldn't just buy a ticket on the train (and oblivious to the signs at Ashford which told her that she had to have a valid ticket before boarding). An open and shut case as far as the rules are concerned.

We appealed on the following grounds:
1. PF was calculated on double the full fare from Ashford-Orpington, not from Ashford to the next stopping station, Staplehurst (which the train hadn't yet reached)
2. On that basis, incorrect fare used as split ticket Ashford-Staplehurst plus Staplehurst-Orpington was at that time about 40p cheaper than the through ticket, and valid because train stops at the station where changing from one ticket to the other
3. She was told she had to (and so did) pay the full amount straight away rather than just the fare element now and the penalty element within 28 days
4. SRA guidance at the time stated it was undesirable to levy penalty fares from international interchanges such as aiports as there was an increased risk of confusing people unfamiliar with the system
5. No opportunity to buy a ticket at any point between the international and domestic platforms at Ashford (i.e. no TVM) - need to exit and then reenter the barriers to use the booking office, not obvious to to the occasional traveller simply following the direction signs to the domestic services
6. The Penalty Fares warning poster on the domestic platforms was the same size as and displayed next to various advertising posters and didn't particularly stand out as an official communication

Our appeal was successful, but IPFAS didn't state why. I suspect point 1 was the main clincher. If the fare had been correct I don't know if any of the other issues woud have carried any weight.

 

[mickey]

Our appeal was successful, but IPFAS didn't state why. I suspect point 1 was the main clincher. If the fare had been correct I don't know if any of the other issues woud have carried any weight.

If the fare is incorrect or the passenger is incorrectly told s/he has to pay the full amount immediately, I think it's a definite clear-cut case and an appeal will (or certainly ought to be) successful.

In this case assume the fare is correct. I don't know why an RPI would tick the wrong box (i.e. whether it's deliberate or accidental). What I'd like to know is whether the fact that there's an indisputable factual inaccuracy renders it invalid.

EDIT: I've just thought of something else... Does the passenger have to be offered a ticket just to the next station, or can the RPI default to the original journey being made?

 

[John @ home]

We appealed on the following grounds: ...

Our appeal was successful, but IPFAS didn't state why.

Another reason may be that Eurostar's website continues to mention free travel with Southeastern even though Seat 61 reports that it was discontinued as of 13 December 2009.