Penalty notice for unprinted ticket

[Metalslug]

Hi all,

I’m be interested in the thoughts of this group as to whether the following penalty notice is worth challenging.

Today, my wife was making her once a month journey into Liverpool.

She bought her tickets on the Trainline app before she left the house and went to the machine at our home station (Orrell) to collect them. The machine at the station was out of order and she has a time stamped photo of the machine stating this.

When she got on her train, she told the conductor about the machine not printing and he advised her just to print it at the other end of her journey.

Her journey involves a change over at Headbolt Lane station and as her train was waiting at the platform, she transitioned immediately over to that train for the final leg to Liverpool.

When she got to Liverpool Moorfields she explained the situation but the staff would not let her through to print her ticket and issued her with a penalty for non payment.

Their argument is that she should have printed the ticket at the station at Headbolt Lane and not waited until Liverpool.

She had the proof of purchase on the Trainline app plus a time-stamped photo of the error message on the machine, but they were not willing to take it into consideration.

On her penalty notice, it says she was travelling between Headbolt Lane and Moorfields when she actually started her journey in Orrell - I’m not sure if this has any bearing on the validity of the notice?

It’s worth noting that the leg from Orrell to Headbolt is Northern Rail and Headbolt to Moorfields is Merseyrail - not sure if that has any bearing either?

Is it worth appealing or should we just pay up? It just feels very unfair.

 

[jfollows]

The National Rail Conditions of Travel (https://assets.nationalrail.co.uk/e...3/National_Rail_Conditions_of_Travel_2024.pdf) only state that a ticket needs to be bought “as soon as you are reasonably able” and you are not expected to miss a connecting train in order to do so. Others may have a better reference in your wife’s defence, but she was not required to print her ticket at Headbolt Lane under the circumstances you describe.

She should appeal, not pay up, but wait for more input here first.

 

[AlterEgo]

First of all, could you upload a copy of the notice with the personal details redacted? Aside from the appeal based on the machine not working, there may be technical issues relating to how the notice has been filled out.

 

[Gloster]

Please post any paperwork that your wife was given: obscure her name, address and any other identifying details, such as reference numbers. That will provide information for the experts.

 

[janb]

The National Rail Conditions of Travel (https://assets.nationalrail.co.uk/e...3/National_Rail_Conditions_of_Travel_2024.pdf) only state that a ticket needs to be bought “as soon as you are reasonably able” and you are not expected to miss a connecting train in order to do so. Others may have a better reference in your wife’s defence, but she was not required to print her ticket at Headbolt Lane under the circumstances you describe.

She should appeal, not pay up, but wait for more input here first.

For reference, the connections at Headbolt Lane are 15/16 minutes. All the Northern trains this morning arrived on time, except the 0741 arrival was 3 minutes late which reduced that connection to 12 minutes. Of course the 15 minute frequency on Merseyrail may mean that someone going straight from train to train may end up on the train 15 minutes earlier than the one they had booked for.

 

[Metalslug]

Here is the penalty notice.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jun 2024 ==

For reference, the connections at Headbolt Lane are 15/16 minutes. All the Northern trains this morning arrived on time, except the 0741 arrival was 3 minutes late which reduced that connection to 12 minutes. Of course the 15 minute frequency on Merseyrail may mean that someone going straight from train to train may end up on the train 15 minutes earlier than the one they had booked for.

Apologies, it was actually Thursday when it happened, not today (Saturday). I drafted this on Thursday while I waited for permission to post.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jun 2024 ==

Details to prove ticket was bought before train was boarded and photo of ticket machine showing that tickets could not be printed at Orrell.

 

[jfollows]

Yes, the penalty notice is wrong and Metalslug's wife needs to appeal.

It's just bonkers that she had a ticket, was unable to print it due to a failing of the railway and nothing to do with her, and she doesn't then have to jump through hoops to print the ticket en route.

Demonstrating that it wasn't possible to print and collect the ticket at the origin station should suffice to enable her to print it and pass through at her destination.

She didn't have to attempt to print the ticket at Headbolt Lane. Maybe doing so would have made some people happier, but that shouldn't have been her problem.

Appeal on the basis that it wasn't possible to print and collect the ticket at the origin station and that it's totally reasonable to plan on doing so at the destination station.

 

[Metalslug]

Yes, the penalty notice is wrong and Metalslug's wife needs to appeal.

It's just bonkers that she had a ticket, was unable to print it due to a failing of the railway and nothing to do with her, and she doesn't then have to jump through hoops to print the ticket en route.

Demonstrating that it wasn't possible to print and collect the ticket at the origin station should suffice to enable her to print it and pass through at her destination.

She didn't have to attempt to print the ticket at Headbolt Lane. Maybe doing so would have made some people happier, but that shouldn't have been her problem.

Appeal on the basis that it wasn't possible to print and collect the ticket at the origin station and that it's totally reasonable to plan on doing so at the destination station.

Thank you for assuring us that we have a reasonable case. Can I please just check which part of the penalty notice you feel is wrong?

We’ll prepare the appeal now and let you know how we got on.

 

[AlterEgo]

“Trainline” is not a ground to issue a penalty fare. The notice is therefore not complaint on this ground alone.

 

[Metalslug]

“Trainline” is not a ground to issue a penalty fare. The notice is therefore not complaint on this ground alone.

That’s a good point - thank you. We’ll add that to the appeal.

 

[Snow1964]

The single fare from Orrell to Moorfields is £5.60. (The £7.60 paid is anytime return)

The penalty has been charged as £4.80 (+£100 or +£50 if paid promptly) The £4.80 appears to be from an intermediate station (Headbolt lane).

Therefore been charged wrong penalty fare as it is not the fare from origin to destination.


I realise the penalty was issued few minutes before her itinerary scheduled arrival time, so got earlier connecting train, but as it was anytime ticket this is irrelevant.
EDIT per real-time trains, on Thursday, train from Orrell arrived 2 minutes early, and train to Moorfields that was caught was 1 minute late. So wouldn't have caught this unplanned connection if gone off to print a ticket

 

[AlterEgo]

The single fare from Orrell to Moorfields is £5.60. (The £7.60 paid is anytime return)

The penalty has been charged as £4.80 (+£100 or +£50 if paid promptly) The £4.80 appears to be from an intermediate station (Headbolt lane).

Therefore been charged wrong penalty fare as it is not the fare from origin to destination.


I realise the penalty was issued few minutes before her itinerary scheduled arrival time, so got earlier connecting train, but as it was anytime ticket this is irrelevant.
EDIT per real-time trains, on Thursday, train from Orrell arrived 2 minutes early, and train to Moorfields that was caught was 1 minute late. So wouldn't have caught this unplanned connection if gone off to print a ticket

A penalty fare only has to cover the journey the OP made on the train they were caught on, or immediately preceding that if they were caught at a station. It doesn’t have to cover the whole journey including connections.

 

[furlong]

There are several grey areas here - it's a rather complicated appeal, and may need to rely on cutting through all the complexity with a "compelling reasons" argument rather than delving into the minutiae of the text of the regulations.

It was not necessarily wrong under the regulations to issue the penalty:
- if the machine was capable of selling a new ticket, then a new ticket should have been purchased to avoid the penalty (the regulations don't exclude a machine that's not working only for collection of pre-purchased tickets)
- it was correct to issue it from Headbolt Lane ("the station at which the person boarded the train") - however this does mean the authority to collect at the destination was given BEFORE the journey in respect of which the penalty was imposed but under the regulations only authority given at the station counts, not on board
- "no ticket" is a sufficient reason - "trainline" doesn't matter ("an explanation of why the person is being charged a penalty fare")
So it might be necessary to make arguments at a higher level based on the contract (i.e. collection code deemed to be a valid ticket when collection facilities out of order etc.). If the appeal fails, then there could still be a case for breach of contract, but damages wouldn't necessarily include the penalty, only the second fare paid.

 

[island]

There are several grey areas here - it's a rather complicated appeal, and may need to rely on cutting through all the complexity with a "compelling reasons" argument rather than delving into the minutiae of the text of the regulations.

It was not necessarily wrong under the regulations to issue the penalty:
- if the machine was capable of selling a new ticket, then a new ticket should have been purchased to avoid the penalty (the regulations don't exclude a machine that's not working only for collection of pre-purchased tickets)
- it was correct to issue it from Headbolt Lane ("the station at which the person boarded the train") - however this does mean the authority to collect at the destination was given BEFORE the journey in respect of which the penalty was imposed but under the regulations only authority given at the station counts, not on board
- "no ticket" is a sufficient reason - "trainline" doesn't matter ("an explanation of why the person is being charged a penalty fare")
So it might be necessary to make arguments at a higher level based on the contract (i.e. collection code deemed to be a valid ticket when collection facilities out of order etc.)

Yes, that seems to sum it up. The regulations don’t provide an exemption for passengers where the ticket machine is capable of selling a new ticket even if it can’t print an online purchase. So it seems to me the Penalty Fare is legally valid even if it’s rather unfair by the normal sense of the word. The passenger should have printed off the ticket at Headbolt Lane rather than rushing to a(n invalid) connection.

 

[Watershed]

Hello and welcome to the forum!

Based on what you have described, the Penalty Fare should definitely not have been issued, and you should definitely appeal.

There are three stages of appeal, and you can (and should) pursue it as far as the third stage if necessary, because our experience is that the first and second stage appeals panels often spuriously reject valid appeals, which are then accepted at the third stage.

When writing your appeal, you want to keep it as clear and simple as possible, outlining the precise ground(s) under which you are appealing. Ideally, you want to refer to exact conditions or regulations, so that the assessors don't have to look these up themselves.

One point to note is that buying a ticket isn't sufficient as far as the Penalty Fares Regulations are concerned. It's necessary to actually have the physical (or digital) ticket in your possession, i.e. collected in the case of a "collect at station" booking, for it to be valid.

The first ground of appeal would be under Regulation 6(3) and 6(2)(a) - that your wife began her journey at a station where there were no facilities in working order to buy a ticket (Orrell), and that she did not have time to buy a ticket before her connecting train left at Headbolt Lane.

Regulation 6(6) creates a counter-exception to this, if you are "invited" to buy a ticket and "refuse" to do so. But in this case, your wife presumably didn't "refuse" to buy a ticket - she merely followed the conductor's advice in not buying one. Had the conductor required her to pay for one, she would presumably have done so. In any case, I wouldn't bring this up - it's for Merseyrail to prove that the counter-exception applies, if they want to argue that.

There may be further grounds of appeal, such as based on the amount of the Penalty Fare, the way it's been filled out, non-compliant signage and so forth - but I'll allow others to elaborate on that.

 

[methecooldude]

The first ground of appeal would be under Regulation 6(3) and 6(2)(a) - that your wife began her journey at a station where there were no facilities in working order to buy a ticket (Orrell)...

But that's not true tho, yes, the OPs wife could not collect the ticket, but there is no evidence that the machine could not sell a new ticket. I don't see how an appeal using that regulation would succeed

 

[reb0118]

My understanding is that the conductor on the first train should (in theory) have sold the passenger a new ticket.

Then the following should happen, either the original ticket is refunded, without fee, due to being unable to be fulfilled, or, if the new ticket is more expensive, the original should be printed off at the booking office and the new ticket refunded.

In practice having one company issue a new ticket that may be attempted to get refunded at a second company's booking office is problematic.

 

[JBuchananGB]

As a minor side issue - any TVM at Headbolt Lane would not have been able to issue the ticket, because MerseyRail's TVMs do not have that functionality. The passenger would have had to enquire at the ticket office.

 

[furlong]

My understanding is that the conductor on the first train should (in theory) have sold the passenger a new ticket.

And make them pay twice?
No, what should have happened is that instead of issuing a PF at their destination, Merseyrail should have assisted the passenger in collecting their ticket and then clipped/stamped/cancelled the used portion in the normal manner.
The passenger could argue that the contract for travel remained in place, and the failure of a rail company to provide the contractual facility to collect their ticket doesn't get the railway out of its obligation to convey the passenger to their destination. That the regulations allow the railway to impose a PF on a passenger due to the railway's own failure to adhere to its side of the contract is perverse - clearly a flaw in the regulations - and should amount to a "compelling reason".

The situation should also be reported to Transport Focus with a view to them seeking an appropriate update to the regulations.

 

[najaB]

And make them pay twice?
No, what should have happened is that instead of issuing a PF at their destination, Merseyrail should have assisted the passenger in collecting their ticket and then clipped/stamped/cancelled the used portion in the normal manner.

While I agree that the customer-focused approach would have been for the gateline staff to allow the passenger to collect their ticket at the destination, the guard on the first train would have been 100% in the right to charge the passenger for a ticket to cover the train that they were on. Given the information available to the guard at that point in time there was no practical difference between "I couldn't print the ticket", "I didn't bother to print the ticket" or "I didn't bother to buy a ticket".

 

[wilbers]

While I agree that the customer-focused approach would have been for the gateline staff to allow the passenger to collect their ticket at the destination, the guard on the first train would have been 100% in the right to charge the passenger for a ticket to cover the train that they were on. Given the information available to the guard at that point in time there was no practical difference between "I couldn't print the ticket", "I didn't bother to print the ticket" or "I didn't bother to buy a ticket".

the photo of the ticket machine not allowing collection of tickets, and a booking reference makes it obvious it can only be the first of those 3.

 

[najaB]

the photo of the ticket machine not allowing collection of tickets, and a booking reference makes it obvious it can only be the first of those 3.

Not really. The guard has no way to confirm (other than taking the passenger's word) that the picture was taken at that station at that time. Nor are they usually able to see what ticket the booking reference is associated with.

 

[AlbertBeale]

And make them pay twice?
No, what should have happened is that instead of issuing a PF at their destination, Merseyrail should have assisted the passenger in collecting their ticket and then clipped/stamped/cancelled the used portion in the normal manner.
The passenger could argue that the contract for travel remained in place, and the failure of a rail company to provide the contractual facility to collect their ticket doesn't get the railway out of its obligation to convey the passenger to their destination. That the regulations allow the railway to impose a PF on a passenger due to the railway's own failure to adhere to its side of the contract is perverse - clearly a flaw in the regulations - and should amount to a "compelling reason".

The situation should also be reported to Transport Focus with a view to them seeking an appropriate update to the regulations.

Logically, I'm not clear about that bold bit... A ticket was booked via a private intermediary, and it's that ticket that couldn't be printed. In that case, surely - as far as the railway is concerned - there's not yet any ticket or contract in existence. I assume the correct procedure here is to buy a ticket directly from the machine, and refund the one paid for but uncollectable. My take on the logic is that if you tried to buy a ticket at the machine at the station, and it didn't print, then you're absolved from the rule that you must have a ticket before starting your journey. But it seems that in this case there was no attempt to buy at the station, just a failed attempt to print a ticket bought from a third party.

 

[AdamWW]

Logically, I'm not clear about that bold bit... A ticket was booked via a private intermediary, and it's that ticket that couldn't be printed. In that case, surely - as far as the railway is concerned - there's not yet any ticket or contract in existence.

"Surely?" The "private intermediary" is an authorised ticket seller. This would seem an incredibly unreasonable argument to me, even if it wasn't for the fact that the NRCoT says (my bold):

The terms and conditions of these National Rail Conditions of Travel are set out below in Part C to Part H (the “Conditions”). They comprise the binding contract that comes into effect between you and the Train Companies1 that provide scheduled rail services on the National Rail Network, when you purchase a Ticket.

Not really. The guard has no way to confirm (other than taking the passenger's word) that the picture was taken at that station at that time. Nor are they usually able to see what ticket the booking reference is associated with.

Yes somebody could take a photo a different time and then fake the timestamp. But surely at some point surely even the railway has to accept that they need to take a small chance that someone is a sophisticated scammer rather than a passenger caught out by circumstances?

I don't know how we've got to the point where it's considered entirely reasonable to penalise someone for going against the letter of some inconsistent and confusing rules when it's pretty clear they haven't done anything actually wrong, and it all arose because the railway couldn't provide a functioning ticket machine in the first place (one which wasn't even programmed to tell the passenger what action to take when it couldn't issue the ticket).

 

[185]

Logically, I'm not clear about that bold bit... A ticket was booked via a private intermediary, and it's that ticket that couldn't be printed. In that case, surely - as far as the railway is concerned - there's not yet any ticket or contract in existence.

If the railway has chosen to allow third party agents to retail it's tickets, in doing so the conditions of carriage, bylaws et al extend to any UK rail ticket sold by a third party retailer. Thus from the moment that transaction concludes, the customer has entered a contractual relationship with the wider railway.

Again, Merseyrail have broken the basic rules all other rail companies have to follow and there seems no end to their obnoxious senior management's "don't care" attitude. A recent FOI request regarding numbers of passengers PF'd or prosecuted by Merseyrail (for failing to collect) went ignored by equally useless taxpayer funded PTE Merseytravel - "we don't hold this data and can't obtain it".

 

[najaB]

Yes somebody could take a photo a different time and then fake the timestamp. But surely at some point surely even the railway has to accept that they need to take a small chance that someone is a sophisticated scammer rather than a passenger caught out by circumstances?

I agree it's unlikely. I'm just pointing out that the only thing that the guard on the first train knew, for a fact, is that the passenger was on their train and didn't have a ticket. As such, they would have been 100% in the right (legally) to charge them for a ticket to cover the journey they were making at that point.

 

[87electric]

Each reply here that favours the side of the railway (in this situation) is what I deem wrong on our railways in this day and age. Scrutinise over pages and pages the minutiae all you want. The passenger in that moment was confused and had to make their own decision in how to proceed.
To give no benefit of the doubt and to deny the help they wanted at their destination is despicable.
For probably nigh on 20 years now when I travel by rail my mindset has changed to one of believing that ticket sellers, checkers (gate line or RPI) do not have sufficient or sometimes even basic knowledge on correct procedures. Paddington proves my point. It’s like it is the norm now. Lack of proper training for customer/passenger service. I actually breathe a sigh of relief when I meet an employee who knows how to resolve a situation depending on the circumstance and actually wants to LISTEN to my issue.

 

[sh24]

Each reply here that favours the side of the railway (in this situation) is what I deem wrong on our railways in this day and age. Scrutinise over pages and pages the minutiae all you want. The passenger in that moment was confused and had to make their own decision in how to proceed.
To give no benefit of the doubt and to deny the help they wanted at their destination is despicable.
For probably nigh on 20 years now when I travel by rail my mindset has changed to one of believing that ticket sellers, checkers (gate line or RPI) do not have sufficient or sometimes even basic knowledge on correct procedures. Paddington proves my point. It’s like it is the norm now. Lack of proper training for customer/passenger service. I actually breathe a sigh of relief when I meet an employee who knows how to resolve a situation depending on the circumstance and actually wants to LISTEN to my issue.

This - the customer is very much in last place far too often.

 

[AlterEgo]

This - the customer is very much in last place far too often.

But this is not advice which is helpful. We can shout at the cloud all we want but we do have to give advice which is realistic and practical.

 

[Haywain]

For probably nigh on 20 years now when I travel by rail my mindset has changed to one of believing that ticket sellers, checkers (gate line or RPI) do not have sufficient or sometimes even basic knowledge on correct procedures. Paddington proves my point. It’s like it is the norm now. Lack of proper training for customer/passenger service. I actually breathe a sigh of relief when I meet an employee who knows how to resolve a situation depending on the circumstance and actually wants to LISTEN to my issue.

And yet tens of thousands of people manage to travel by train every day without expecting or experiencing a hint of difficulty.