Rejected UPFN appeal with a valid ticket

[ph1985]

First, apologies for my first post being a long one...there's not much official advice out there for these appeals.

Due to a London Underground power failure I was extremely pushed for time upon arrival to Waterloo station, and only had time to try one collection machine by the time I arrived. By sod's law this froze, so I had no option but to get the train to Poole as I had business meetings the other end.

Before departure I found the guard, showed him the email confirmation on my phone, explained the situation and asked him if I could travel. He advised that I could stay on the train and he would issue me with an UPFN that would be ripped up when I got to Poole, printed my ticket off and presented it to the ticket office. At this point I'd never even heard of IRCAS.

The ticket office in Poole told me this was rubbish and I'd need to appeal to IRCAS who would certainly uphold the appeal as I had a valid ticket for the journey I took. Lo and behold they haven't, and I have 14 days to pay them or face the consequences.

I have the guard's name and authority number, the full valid ticket for the journey I took, and all the correspondence from day one. What is the best course of action from this point, other than a strongly worded letter of complaint to Southwest Trains? Am I able to question the appeal decision or must I wait until a court hearing?

 

[yorkie]

Welcome to the forum

No need for an apology - many people register for this very reason, and this is certainly the sort of query this section exists for!

Can you provide more info please?

Where (and at what time) did your journey start?
What ticketing were you using from the start of your journey and on London Underground?
What time were you due to depart Waterloo?

IRCAS are effectively debt collection for various Train Operating Companies (TOCs).

IRCAS are an awful organisation, and I believe they will persue all claims - unless the TOC itself (SWT, in this case) tells them to drop the claim - until the point where the only option for them to pursue it is to prosecute, but it is the TOC that has to do that. At this point IRCAS pass the matter to the TOC, who may take no action or they may prosecute. In this particular case, I would hope that they would not prosecute for non-payment, and if they did I would hope they'd lose and get bad publicity however this is NOT legal advice and if SWT do not accept your appeal I would obtain legal advice before going down this road.

My advice is to write DIRECTLY to SWT, urgently and send a copy to IRCAS. I would also contact Passenger Focus, enclose a copy of the letter you are sending to SWT and all other relevant info.

If you would like me to proof read your letter you are welcome to send me a PM.

You have 14 days originally to respond otherwise they add fees. I know that if you respond within 14 days that extends the time however I am unsure what the next limits are.

I know of someone whose letters to this awful, illiterate, robotic debt collection organisation were effectively ignored, but a few emails to East Coast and the matter was dropped and an apology (from EC) issued. They were totally valid yet IRCAS was threatening them with a criminal record.

IRCAS should be featured on Watchdog. I wouldn't trust them an inch.

According to a source (which I can't verify, but is credible) it costs the TOCs at least £8 for every case that IRCAS deal with, regardless of outcome.

 

[ph1985]

Welcome to the forum

No need for an apology - many people register for this very reason, and this is certainly the sort of query this section exists for!

Can you provide more info please?

Where (and at what time) did your journey start?
What ticketing were you using from the start of your journey and on London Underground?
What time were you due to depart Waterloo?

IRCAS are effectively debt collection for various Train Operating Companies (TOCs).

IRCAS are an awful organisation, and I believe they will persue all claims - unless the TOC itself (SWT, in this case) tells them to drop the claim - until the point where the only option for them to pursue it is to prosecute, but it is the TOC that has to do that. At this point IRCAS pass the matter to the TOC, who may take no action or they may prosecute. In this particular case, I would hope that they would not prosecute for non-payment, and if they did I would hope they'd lose and get bad publicity however this is NOT legal advice and if SWT do not accept your appeal I would obtain legal advice before going down this road.

My advice is to write DIRECTLY to SWT, urgently.

You have 14 days originally to respond otherwise they add fees. I know that if you respond within 14 days that extends the time however I am unsure what the next limits are.

I would write to SWT and put a copy to IRCAS. But I believe it is SWT who need to inform IRCAS to drop the case.

Thanks for the prompt response. Details you requested:

I was on the 0935 train from London Waterloo to Poole. This was the train I had a reservation for.

I used a paper day travelcard on LU that may/may not have been binned by my expenses department. There will be a record of it though. On SWT I had purchased an Advance 1st single for the 0935 train to be printed at Waterloo.

Tomorrow I plan firstly to call SWT's customer services although I don't expect to get far. Following that I will write to them and visit the Citizen's Advice Bureau before looking at paid legal services. I'm sure they know it's not worth people's time to pay for a lawyer to defend an £83 fine.

 

[yorkie]

Did you allowed sufficient connectional allowance time? This could be significant.

If you don't want to say where you started your journey, can you tell us if it started on LU or NR? If the latter, which terminal (or other interchange station) did you arrive at, and what time was this train scheduled to arrive?

 

[ph1985]

Did you allowed sufficient connectional allowance time? This could be significant.

If you don't want to say where you started your journey, can you tell us if it started on LU or NR? If the latter, which terminal (or other interchange station) did you arrive at, and what time was this train scheduled to arrive?

I begun the journey at Canada Water approximately 30-40 minutes before - I make this journey regularly and always leave at least 30 minutes. The journey should take 8 minutes according to TFL but the date in question [18th October] was when the Jubilee Line had significant power failures - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11567833 - and the train sat in the tunnel for a long time before eventually terminating at Southwark, leaving me to walk to Waterloo.

I hadn't thought this significant as surely IRCAS/SWT would say it's not their problem what happens on LU?

 

[yorkie]

I begun the journey at Canada Water approximately 30-40 minutes before - I make this journey regularly and always leave at least 30 minutes. The journey should take 8 minutes according to TFL but the date in question [18th October] was when the Jubilee Line had significant power failures - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11567833 - and the train sat in the tunnel for a long time before eventually terminating at Southwark, leaving me to walk to Waterloo.

I hadn't thought this significant as surely IRCAS/SWT would say it's not their problem what happens on LU?

It's a can of worms, if you did a journey originating at an NR station involving a cross-London transfer, if you do not allow the recommended minimum time then they may say that it is your problem if you miss the train. If you do allow the recommended minimum time then it could be considered "one journey" and this can strengthen your case. I was really looking for something that could make your case stronger.

One thing I did find that may be helpful is this claim on their website:
https://www.ircas.co.uk/aboutus.shtml

"We work closely with Transport Providers to ensure maximum revenue protection whilst also providing a safety net to protect genuine customers.."

Clearly someone who has experienced delays, who has evidence of those delays, who has approached the guard, taken advice from a guard and complied with it, should be considered a "genuine customer" in any sensible definition of the term. If they treat someone in your circumstances with contempt then I would contest that claim (anyone know if this claim can be referred to any organisation who can then deal with the complaint? e.g the ORR?)

Anyway, contact SWT/Passenger Focus and the not-very-nice people at IRCAS and please let us know how you get on.

 

[ph1985]

It's a can of worms, if you did a journey originating at an NR station involving a cross-London transfer, if you do not allow the recommended minimum time then they may say that it is your problem if you miss the train. If you do allow the recommended minimum time then it could be considered "one journey" and this can strengthen your case. I was really looking for something that could make your case stronger.

One thing I did find that may be helpful is this claim on their website:
https://www.ircas.co.uk/aboutus.shtml

"We work closely with Transport Providers to ensure maximum revenue protection whilst also providing a safety net to protect genuine customers.."

Clearly someone who has experienced delays, who has evidence of those delays, who has approached the guard, taken advice from a guard and complied with it, should be considered a "genuine customer" in any sensible definition of the term. If they treat someone in your circumstances with contempt then I would contest that claim (anyone know if this claim can be referred to any organisation who can then deal with the complaint? e.g the ORR?)

Anyway, contact SWT/Passenger Focus and the not-very-nice people at IRCAS and please let us know how you get on.

Do you know what the minimum time is for National Rail transfers?

Thanks for the help. I'll definitely include that quote from their site in the letter and probably get one of our company lawyers to have a glance over it. When I get a response I will be sure to post it

 

[Lampshade]

Do you know what the minimum time is for National Rail transfers?

The minimum connection time for London Waterloo is 15 minutes but as you mentioned in the OP, it wasn't your fault you arrived on the last minute.

 

[Ferret]

It's a can of worms, if you did a journey originating at an NR station involving a cross-London transfer, if you do not allow the recommended minimum time then they may say that it is your problem if you miss the train. If you do allow the recommended minimum time then it could be considered "one journey" and this can strengthen your case. I was really looking for something that could make your case stronger.

One thing I did find that may be helpful is this claim on their website:
https://www.ircas.co.uk/aboutus.shtml

"We work closely with Transport Providers to ensure maximum revenue protection whilst also providing a safety net to protect genuine customers.."

Clearly someone who has experienced delays, who has evidence of those delays, who has approached the guard, taken advice from a guard and complied with it, should be considered a "genuine customer" in any sensible definition of the term. If they treat someone in your circumstances with contempt then I would contest that claim (anyone know if this claim can be referred to any organisation who can then deal with the complaint? e.g the ORR?)

Anyway, contact SWT/Passenger Focus and the not-very-nice people at IRCAS and please let us know how you get on.

This is why I hate Advance tickets! Ok, yes, there's a condition that states if you miss your first booked train for any reason you must buy a ticket. The OP (through no fault of his own) was in breach of this condition so you could say that SWT are entitled to have him buy a new ticket. However, does common sense not come into it at some point?! I can recall numerous instances of messages from my employer's control stating 'Major road accident near Crapdriversville, please exercise discretion with Advance tickets', or words to that effect. Indeed, I have known Virgin West Coast page out messages about the Underground going Pete Tong and then saying 'please allow Advance ticketholders to travel on later trains'. Given that SWT and VWC are kind of related given Stagecoach's involvement in the latter franchise, why the difference in policy?

 

[ph1985]

It's a can of worms, if you did a journey originating at an NR station involving a cross-London transfer, if you do not allow the recommended minimum time then they may say that it is your problem if you miss the train. If you do allow the recommended minimum time then it could be considered "one journey" and this can strengthen your case. I was really looking for something that could make your case stronger.

One thing I did find that may be helpful is this claim on their website:
https://www.ircas.co.uk/aboutus.shtml

"We work closely with Transport Providers to ensure maximum revenue protection whilst also providing a safety net to protect genuine customers.."

Clearly someone who has experienced delays, who has evidence of those delays, who has approached the guard, taken advice from a guard and complied with it, should be considered a "genuine customer" in any sensible definition of the term. If they treat someone in your circumstances with contempt then I would contest that claim (anyone know if this claim can be referred to any organisation who can then deal with the complaint? e.g the ORR?)

Anyway, contact SWT/Passenger Focus and the not-very-nice people at IRCAS and please let us know how you get on.

I am unable to send you a PM...

 

[MikeWh]

I am unable to send you a PM...

That post should have enabled you to send PMs. You need to have made 5 posts.

 

[ph1985]

That post should have enabled you to send PMs. You need to have made 5 posts.

Perhaps there's a delay. Ill try later

 

[RJ]

IMO the OP is only entitled to a refund on the Underground journey, that is if it can be proven that the journey was delayed. Value of up to £4.50.

 

[yorkie]

IMO the OP is only entitled to a refund on the Underground journey, that is if it can be proven that the journey was delayed. Value of up to £4.50.

It's a shame the OP started his journey on LU, I do not believe that a rail "journey" (singular) can start at a station that does not have NR services/ticketing*. (I'm not saying I agree with it, but that's my interpretation - and, I guess yours too?) therefore it counts as a LU journey plus a NR journey. Common sense says the OP should be refunded, if nothing else because staff said he would. The rules don't force SWT to do it. But the onus is on them to collect the debt. If the OP had paid, I'd say he would have almost no chance of recovering it. SWT are very anti-passenger, and if they refuse to budge, the OP then has to decide whether to risk prosecution and SWT would then have to decide whether it was worth it. I'd love to see SWT lose in court over something like this, if they were foolish** enough to persue it, however I'd suggest to the OP that lawyers would need to advise on the legal perspective before risking anything.

There is an interesting blog article about SWT here (note it is about penalty fares, this doesn't relate to the OP's scenario, but it says a lot about how SWT behave). I've heard a lot of bad experiences with SWT. They seem to treat their customers like dirt. However this should be of no surprise whatsoever when you consider Brian Souter's background.

(* Obviously this is different for journeys wholly within the London area on products such as Oyster PAYG, but I'm talking about NR journeys under the NRCoC here)

(** Not 'foolish' from a legal perspective necessarily - IANAL - but from the perspective of getting bad publicity, if nothing else)

 

[Deerfold]

IMO the OP is only entitled to a refund on the Underground journey, that is if it can be proven that the journey was delayed. Value of up to £4.50.

Despite having followed the advice of a member of SWT staff? If the guard had said they could not travel they would than have had the choice not to.

You're sometimes very quick to damn customers.

 

[asylumxl]

You're sometimes very quick to damn customers.

It does seem that a large number of forum members think that the rules are unquestionable and must be followed to the letter.

I hope the OP gets things sorted in his favour .

 

[RJ]

It does seem that a large number of forum members think that the rules are unquestionable and must be followed to the letter.

I hope the OP gets things sorted in his favour .

And a large number of forum members who have no understanding of how IRCAS/IAS/IPFAS operate or who haven't studied the passenger/TOC contract seem to be offering advice based upon ideals. Advice which is unlikely to yield any success and only wastes time for all concerned.

Despite having followed the advice of a member of SWT staff? If the guard had said they could not travel they would than have had the choice not to.

You're sometimes very quick to damn customers.

I'm not going to give anyone false hope. Having had experience of IRCAS (and getting them to overturn their original rejection of my appeal in my case), I discovered that they have a code of conduct which they adhere to rigorously. They also have a system of precedence in place.

In my case, I paid the PF up front because a.) I didn't want the hassle of threats, summons etc during my exam period and b.) I knew it was going to get refunded despite warnings this would not happen! My appeal was initially rejected but a letter I wrote ensured that it got cancelled and I was refunded.

If the OP had a through ticket incorporating Tube travel or there was no ticket machine/ticket office available at Waterloo then there might've been a case.

 

[Deerfold]

And a large number of forum members who have no understanding of how IRCAS/IAS/IPFAS operate or who haven't studied the passenger/TOC contract seem to be offering advice based upon ideals. Advice which is unlikely to yield any success and only wastes time for all concerned.



I'm not going to give anyone false hope. Having had experience of IRCAS (and getting them to overturn their original rejection of my appeal in my case), I discovered that they have a code of conduct which they adhere to rigorously. They also have a system of precedence in place.

In my case, I paid the PF up front because a.) I didn't want the hassle of threats, summons etc during my exam period and b.) I knew it was going to get refunded despite warnings this would not happen! My appeal was initially rejected but a letter I wrote ensured that it got cancelled and I was refunded.

If the OP had a through ticket incorporating Tube travel or there was no ticket machine/ticket office available at Waterloo then there might've been a case.

So is the fact the SWT guard provided incorrect information irrelevant? Are people supposed to be able to tell if they're being given incorrect information?

 

[asylumxl]

And a large number of forum members who have no understanding of how IRCAS/IAS/IPFAS operate or who haven't studied the passenger/TOC contract seem to be offering advice based upon ideals. Advice which is unlikely to yield any success and only wastes time for all concerned.

Because your post really contributed greatly to helping him.

The OP left more than enough time to reach his destination, and the Guard should not have mis-advised him.

 

[yorkie]

I discovered that they have a code of conduct

Any chance we can see it? Either their official one or what you reckon it is.

I reckon their code of conduct is not exactly to be nice to people but I'd like more to go on than that!

which they adhere to rigorously. They also have a system of precedence in place.

Details of any precedents would be most welcome!

 

[RJ]

Because your post really contributed greatly to helping him.

The OP left more than enough time to reach his destination, and the Guard should not have mis-advised him.

And that's relevant because...? If someone gives you an UPFN then that's it. It means nothing if your copy is ripped up because the staff issuing it has other copies which will have been processed accordingly.

 

[asylumxl]

And that's relevant because...? If someone gives you an UPFN then that's it. It means nothing if your copy is ripped up because the staff issuing it has other copies which will have been processed accordingly.

But the OP was told:

that I could stay on the train and he would issue me with an UPFN that would be ripped up when I got to Poole, printed my ticket off and presented it to the ticket office.

Had he not been told this, he would probably have purchased a new ticket instead and the UPFN would not have been issued.

 

[ph1985]

But the OP was told:



Had he not been told this, he would probably have purchased a new ticket instead and the UPFN would not have been issued.

Exactly correct. I expense all business travel so I have absolutely no reason to fare dodge and would have just bought another ticket.

 

[RJ]

Any chance we can see it? Either their official one or what you reckon it is.

I reckon their code of conduct is not exactly to be nice to people but I'd like more to go on than that!

Details of any precedents would be most welcome!

https://www.ircas.co.uk/docs/ias_codeofpractice.pdf

I don't have details of any cases they have previously handled, I'm going by what they told me in the letter they sent me when deciding to approve my appeal. Something to do with consistent decisions for similar cases.

 

[asylumxl]

I say just talk to SWT, and keep at it. If they still do not budge, take it to other independent groups. There are a few organisations set up to oppose PFs out there which will help deal with the companies involved. I'm sure Yorkie will post links to some at some point.

 

[MikeWh]

Technically Canada Water is an NR station, albeit run by TfL with underground in two directions and overground in the other two. It is all one station though, the entrance is at the top, ELL down one floor and Jubilee down again.

 

[ph1985]

So according to Section 7.4 of the Penalty Fares Policy - https://www.ircas.co.uk/docs/SRA - Penalty Fare Policy 2002.pdf - if they are not satisfied that a person is a fit and proper person to be an authorised collector they may withdraw that person's authority to issue penalty fares.

The guard's knowledge of the penalty fare process is pretty fundamental to being able to issue penalty fares, so could giving me false information give me an avenue to go down with that?

 

[Matt Taylor]

But you were given a UPFN and not a Penalty Fare so avenue is not relevant in this case.

 

[mumrar]

It does seem that a large number of forum members think that the rules are unquestionable and must be followed to the letter.

That's not quite true. When something is not how someone wishes it was, or people want to try an alternative route, or someway to avoid a restriction, the like to try and interpret rules as vague or unambiguous.

When people find a fiddle, or some way round a price or route that results from an error, they then expect the rules to be black and white, as rigid as possible, so that they can quote them in defence of what they know shouldn't be permissible for their little fiddle.

I believe it's called wanting to have ones cake and eat it!

 

[Sapphire Blue]

That's not quite true. When something is not how someone wishes it was, or people want to try an alternative route, or someway to avoid a restriction, the like to try and interpret rules as vague or unambiguous.

When people find a fiddle, or some way round a price or route that results from an error, they then expect the rules to be black and white, as rigid as possible, so that they can quote them in defence of what they know shouldn't be permissible for their little fiddle.

I believe it's called wanting to have ones cake and eat it!

So someone working within the rules is a fiddle now is it?

Talk about cake and eat it, that sounds more like pot and kettle to me.