Railcard Fine

[Mcr Warrior]

Would I be right in saying that the OP will possibly end up paying three times for their journey?

Firstly there's the £18.30 railcard discounted travelcard.

Secondly, whatever ticket(s) were purchased (for onward travel from Waterloo?), this at the behest of the RPI.

And thirdly, ignoring the £100 admin fee, there's also the £15.20 (Martins Heron -> London Waterloo) Anytime Day Single which is now being demanded by SWR.

 

[Towers]

I tried to reason with the officer to let me through, get connection and prove I had a railcard, however he wouldn’t budge on the decision

He was quite right in that you didn't have a valid railcard when asked, that would seem a clear fact. However, this is allowed - once in a 12 month period - if the passenger does indeed have a railcard, but simply isn't able to show it. What then seems to have happened is that the inspector has proceeded along the "doesn't have a railcard" avenue with a report to the prosecutions department. That, again, at that moment was perfectly reasonable, he had reason to suspect that you did not have a railcard and were committing fraud.

Where it gets a bit odd is in that you very shortly afterward then produced your railcard, but the inspector chose to make his submission to the prosecutions department anyway. At this point it should have been (assuming all was as described) clear to him that the grounds for prosecution no longer existed, or at least that you were clearly going to be able to produce evidence that would stop the prosecution at a later stage, so it's rather odd that he went ahead. Hence my asking earlier if you were certain the the inspector definitely acknowledged the railcard.

 

[lucasnaz]

He was quite right in that you didn't have a valid railcard when asked, that would seem a clear fact. However, this is allowed - once in a 12 month period - if the passenger does indeed have a railcard, but simply isn't able to show it. What then seems to have happened is that the inspector has proceeded along the "doesn't have a railcard" avenue with a report to the prosecutions department. That, again, at that moment was perfectly reasonable, he had reason to suspect that you did not have a railcard and were committing fraud.

Where it gets a bit odd is in that you very shortly afterward then produced your railcard, but the inspector chose to make his submission to the prosecutions department anyway. At this point it should have been (assuming all was as described) clear to him that the grounds for prosecution no longer existed, or at least that you were clearly going to be able to produce evidence that would stop the prosecution at a later stage, so it's rather odd that he went ahead. Hence my asking earlier if you were certain the the inspector definitely acknowledged the railcard.

He had acknowledged it but seemingly didn’t care for it. Given I’d spent the last 15/20 minutes explaining to him that the website to set up the railcard wouldn’t load I expected more.

 

[skyhigh]

Wasn't there another recent thread where an inspector didn't give sufficient time for someone to produce their ticket? Is there a growing impatience amongst RPIs to get through their inspections as quickly as possible?

I think waiting 20 minutes for someone to produce their railcard is fairly reasonable, in my opinion.

Given I’d spent the last 15/20 minutes explaining to him that the website to set up the railcard wouldn’t load

 

[lucasnaz]

I think waiting 20 minutes for someone to produce their railcard is fairly reasonable, in my opinion.

I agree, but having explained to him that I physically cannot get any service where we were (one of his colleague’s agreed) it doesn’t make sense.

 

[Western Sunset]

If all that has been said by the OP is true (and I've no reason to doubt it), the only mitigating thing in the inspector's favour is that he thought the OP didn't have a valid railcard and was trying to buy a new one.

As it appears perfectly clear that the OP did have a valid railcard, surely the "once forgotten" rule can be applied here, if nothing else?

 

[Haywain]

Whatever the RPI was thinking is largely irrelevant now but I can’t help thinking that he considered 20 minutes plus the train journey was plenty long enough and that the OP can deal with the prosecutions team to resolve the matter.

 

[gray1404]

The train company have to allow you a one-time in 12-months to produce a Railcard if you could not provide it at the time of travel.

 

[AlterEgo]

The train company have to allow you a one-time in 12-months to produce a Railcard if you could not provide it at the time of travel.

No they don’t. The policy applies only if you have had to purchase a new ticket or have been given a Penalty Fare.

 

[gray1404]

No they don’t. The policy applies only if you have had to purchase a new ticket or have been given a Penalty Fare.

I disagree as there has to be consistency between the application and the conditions of issue of the railcard allow you to forget it once in a 12-month period.

Otherwise you'll end up with a situation where somebody genuinely forgets their railcard one is allowed to produce in future and the other one gets prosecuted. Some train companies do not require you to purchase a new ticket or issue a penalty fare, they allow you to send a copy in at a later date.

 

[Haywain]

I disagree as there has to be consistency between the application and the conditions of issue of the railcard allow you to forget it once in a 12-month period.

I don't agree. And I'm not convinced that this railcard was actually forgotten.

Otherwise you'll end up with a situation where somebody genuinely forgets their railcard one is allowed to produce in future and the other one gets prosecuted. Some train companies do not require you to purchase a new ticket or issue a penalty fare, they allow you to send a copy in at a later date.

That's the problem with having many different train companies - even when applying a joint policy there will be variations in how it's done.

 

[Towers]

Real-world actions may range from nothing at all, to an excess, to a new ticket or even, as in this case, a letter turning up threatening court. I've also heard of guards being instructed to issue Unpaid Fares Notices, in order that the customer is recorded somewhere for the purposes of keeping track of 'once in a 12 month period' (as otherwise you could walk up to a different ticket office window every day with assorted tickets wanting refunding). So, who knows what might happen!

 

[Western Sunset]

This is from the National Rail website in the FAQ section about forgotten railcards:

"If you are travelling by train on a ticket with a Railcard discount, you must travel with your valid Railcard. If you forget your Railcard you will either be required to buy a new ticket or you may on certain services be liable for a Penalty Fare. However, a train company will normally allow you to claim back this extra expense on the first occasion in each year where this happens.

Each train company will have their own process for doing this. You will need to provide proof of your Railcard and either the original and additional tickets that you have purchased, or if you have not yet paid, details of the notice to pay or notice of Penalty Fare. Where you have already paid for additional tickets you should contact the relevant train company’s customer services department; in the case of a notice to pay of notice of Penalty Fare, you should follow the instructions included on how to challenge or appeal the charge."

The way I read the bit I've shown in bold, is that it's the process of being reimbursed that may differ between TOCs, but not the actual nationwide policy of being allowed to forget it once a year.

 

[Birmingham]

I understand that GWR, for example, reports passengers to their prosecution team who will write to them with an opportunity to provide a copy of their railcard: if the passenger is able to supply the railcard, no further action is taken; if they are not, they continue down the usual prosecution pathway (which would probably end in an out-of-court settlement). This doesn't penalise passengers who had actually forgotten their valid railcard but can penalise passengers who didn't have a valid railcard rather more severely than, say, just a new ticket or even a Penalty Fare.

 

[lucasnaz]

They’ve responded to my email and decided not to pursue my case any further, appreciate the help

 

[Dai Corner]

They’ve responded to my email and decided not to pursue my case any further, appreciate the help

That's a good outcome for you. Thanks for coming back and letting us know.

 

[Western Sunset]

They’ve responded to my email and decided not to pursue my case any further, appreciate the help

I should think so too. That'll be a weight off your mind. Regards.

 

[jumble]

They’ve responded to my email and decided not to pursue my case any further, appreciate the help

It just goes to show that some people in prosecutions if approached in a non entitled reasonable manner to correct the misapprehension that you did not have a card at all are willing to do the right thing when they find out.

 

[Western Sunset]

One would hope that all staff working in the prosecutions section of a TOC (or other firms if sub-contracted out) would do the right thing if they'd made an error.

 

[Deafdoggie]

It just goes to show that some people in prosecutions if approached in a non entitled reasonable manner to correct the misapprehension that you did not have a card at all are willing to do the right thing when they find out.

But the OP did have a railcard, and showed it. And surely the staff should be doing the right thing anyway? It's a worry to learn some staff deliberately and purposely do the wrong thing. But does explain a lot.

 

[Haywain]

But the OP did have a railcard, and showed it.

After what the OP has stated was a 20 minute interview had been concluded. That's not when you are required to show a railcard.

 

[jumble]

But the OP did have a railcard, and showed it. And surely the staff should be doing the right thing anyway? It's a worry to learn some staff deliberately and purposely do the wrong thing. But does explain a lot.

After what the OP has stated was a 20 minute interview had been concluded. That's not when you are required to show a railcard.

After what the OP has stated was a 20 minute interview had been concluded. That's not when you are required to show a railcard.

Out of interest if you were working in a prosecutions dept would you have cancelled the settlement ? or would you have taken the same pragmatic view that the OP had paid and that the garbage Wi-Fi that your company supplied did not work properly which then caused the issue

 

[Haywain]

Out of interest if you were working in a prosecutions dept would you have cancelled the settlement ? or would you have taken the same pragmatic view that the OP had paid and that the garbage Wi-Fi that your company supplied did not work properly which then caused the issue

Well, I don’t think I’d have taken the view that the OP shouldn’t have been stopped at all, or that the RPI was somehow in the wrong.

 

[jumble]

Well, I don’t think I’d have taken the view that the OP shouldn’t have been stopped at all, or that the RPI was somehow in the wrong.

To be fair I was not advocating either of those things
The OP absolutely should have been stopped
The RPI may be duty bound by their employer to submit the report once he has completed it and get in trouble if they do not who knows
However what we do not know is if the RPI put in their report that they eventually did see a valid railcard

 

[Haywain]

To be fair I was not advocating either of those things
The OP absolutely should have been stopped
The RPI may be duty bound by their employer to submit the report once he has completed it and get in trouble if they do not who knows
However what we do not know is if the RPI put in their report that they eventually did see a valid railcard

There’s really rather a lot that we don’t know as we only get one side of the story here.

 

[jumble]

There’s really rather a lot that we don’t know as we only get one side of the story here.

Agreed