Phone died after getting on train

[Watershed]

Yes I would agree. This is plainly the type of case where the Appeals Panel should be using the ORR's review of revenue protection activities to inform their actions.

If a ticket can be produced which not only would have been valid at the time of travel but was scanned at a time and location that indicates it was used on the train in question, I would suggest that is very clear evidence that there was no possibility of revenue loss. That is precisely one of the scenarios where the ORR review suggests no penalty should be imposed.

Transport Focus don't intervene in every case and even if they do, it may not happen quickly enough for you to maintain the option to pay the Penalty Fare at the reduced rate. So you may want to consider paying the Penalty Fare now - if you are in a financial position to do so - and then bringing a claim against GTR afterwards to claim it back.

 

[Sasomida]

I cannot see anything in that letter where they address the issue of whether the Penalty Fare was issued in accordance with the regulations. They appear to have completely ignored this.

 

[Watershed]

I cannot see anything in that letter where they address the issue of whether the Penalty Fare was issued in accordance with the regulations. They appear to have completely ignored this.

This is sadly common in our experience of these Appeals Bodies, which are by and large useless. They totally ignore what you have written and just moralise, e.g. here: "The passenger has the option to carry a battery pack to ensure their device is fully functional" - which is totally irrelevant to the point being made, not to mention condescending. Clearly only a small proportion of passengers carry such battery packs, so the rest of us are just reliant on good luck that our batteries running out doesn't coincide with an RPI checking tickets.

It was not claimed that leeway should be exercised because it was impossible to charge the phone, instead that there are 'compelling reasons' because the industry regulator recognises people should not be penalised in these circumstances even if the law allows for it.

 

[furlong]

They are required to give reasons for their decision. The reason they have given bears no relation to the grounds upon which you made your appeal. It's as if they didn't even read it - see their very own use of the words "in line with the regulations" which your appeal claims did not happen! It's as if they didn't consider your argument that in law they have no choice other than to uphold your appeal! That looks like blatant maladministration to me.

Firstly, go to Transport Focus. They have shown success in previous similar situations. (Personally, I'd be taking advice on whether there's any mileage in alleging misfeasance in public office against the panel members personally along the lines that they are performing a public duty, which would first need to be established, and then that they acted recklessly.)