Rejected UPFN appeal with a valid ticket

[MikeWh]

There's a lot of bickering going on here, none of which is helping the OP. Neither are posters who are so concerned about giving letter-of-the-law correct advice that they don't read the thread properly. The UPFN hasn't actually been ripped up, it was just suggested that this would happen. As far as I can see there are several factors in the OPs favour.

1. The guard at Waterloo advising him that the UPFN he was issued with would be destroyed at Poole once the correct ticket was produced.
2. The ticket office clerk at Poole saying that he would win once he appealed.
3. The fact that the disruption to his earlier journey was sufficient to interest BBC News.
4. There must also be some log confirming that the TVM at Waterloo froze, presumably needing to be reset by someone.

Whilst 3 and 4 are not significant on their own, they influenced the guard in 1. Both 1 and 2 are extremely significant as you must be able to accept the advice given by staff unless the staff make it clear that they are not sure about the answers they are giving.

One thing I do wonder. If all else fails and the UPFN has to be paid, is there then a case for the company paying the expenses of the traveller to issue a claim against SWT without risking the traveller getting a criminal record. With suitable publicity is it not possible that SWT would refund rather than be taken through the courts by a company that could possibly afford it.

For the future, I've looked at advance fares for 15th Dec on the 1035 (as an example) and can get 1st class from Waterloo for £19. If I then make it start at Canada Water it only adds £2 to the fare. You would then (a) already have the ticket, and (b) be covered against disruption on the Underground. The downsides are that as Canada Water is a TfL station you cannot collect TOD from their machines. Plus the NRES journey planner refuses point blank to route you via the Jubilee Line. However, perhaps a person might be able to force tickets to be issued that way.

 

[mumrar]

Well done for misinterpreting the post. People want the companies to be flexibe when they don't have their ticket, but show an iPhone screen or something, so they don't have to pay again. The rules say, lost ticket buy a new one. If that happens people go off on one.

But if there's a great way of flouting logic by the rules, then they don't want them to be flexible at all and demand the TOCs stick to the rules rigidly.

Perhaps the word hypocrisy would be better, or duplicity?

 

[Greenback]

I thiink you are being a bit harsh - if you look at the lost ticket thread you'll see that no one is really disputing the fact that a new ticket would have needed to have been bought if the person hadn't been able to find their lost ticket.

The real issue here is the delay, the failure to be able to print out the pre booked ticket and the conflicting info given by staff members.

 

[yorkie]

The rules say, lost ticket buy a new one. If that happens people go off on one.

But the OP didn't lose a ticket. He was unable to collect it before the train left Waterloo due to SWT's machine freezing and earlier delays meaning he didn't have time to faff around with other machines.

Also he did obtain a new ticket, in the form of a UPFN, on the understanding that the UPFN would not need to be paid if the original ticket was produced at the destination, which it was.

 

[RJ]

There's a lot of bickering going on here, none of which is helping the OP. Neither are posters who are so concerned about giving letter-of-the-law correct advice that they don't read the thread properly. The UPFN hasn't actually been ripped up, it was just suggested that this would happen. As far as I can see there are several factors in the OPs favour.

1. The guard at Waterloo advising him that the UPFN he was issued with would be destroyed at Poole once the correct ticket was produced.
2. The ticket office clerk at Poole saying that he would win once he appealed.
3. The fact that the disruption to his earlier journey was sufficient to interest BBC News.
4. There must also be some log confirming that the TVM at Waterloo froze, presumably needing to be reset by someone.

Whilst 3 and 4 are not significant on their own, they influenced the guard in 1. Both 1 and 2 are extremely significant as you must be able to accept the advice given by staff unless the staff make it clear that they are not sure about the answers they are giving.

One thing I do wonder. If all else fails and the UPFN has to be paid, is there then a case for the company paying the expenses of the traveller to issue a claim against SWT without risking the traveller getting a criminal record. With suitable publicity is it not possible that SWT would refund rather than be taken through the courts by a company that could possibly afford it.

I doubt anyone would issue a PF or UFN if they genuinely believed that it would be ripped up, cancelled or refunded. Anyone can make a normative statement, whether or not it carries any weight is another matter.

I was in a similar situation to the OP, where I was technically in breach of the passenger/TOC contract through no fault of my own and an encountered an RPI who did not show discretion. I was able to yield a successful outcome without the assistance of any watchdogs. The TOC was ever resilient in their decision to uphold the PF, but that was completely irrelevant. I paid the Penalty Fare promptly, on the spot in fact. Quoting from the RPI in the appeal is ultimately pointless. I did not go through the media as it was against my best interests. I specifically requested for my appeal not to be considered on the grounds of sympathy or compassion. There were no trivialities in my appeal, information I attached was on a need to know basis. Tangible supporting evidence is taken more seriously than reliance on "X's word against Y's" quotes. And be polite.

Prior to appealing, you must consider whether your script shows that you know you were incorrectly charged, or whether you're just moaning about the injustice of it all, with a feeble hope of being let off.

It helps if your argument is cast iron solid, fortified with facts. I went and got indisputable evidence in addition to quoting clauses from relevant sources.

This is all in contrast to what everybody else is suggesting, but what happened? I got my money back and the notice cancelled, at zero risk to myself. Call me acrimonious but I haven't got time to mess around.

I'm quite happy to elucidate on the above to somebody who has a strong case but can't put it into words. In the OP's case, I can't see that there is. There were ample TVMs and ticket office windows available at Waterloo. Waterloo is fully gated so how did the OP get through the gates with no ticket? If there was time to locate and hold a discussion with the guard prior to boarding, why wasn't there time to try another machine? Why agree to be issued with a UFN? Don't mean to sound harsh but these questions need answering if I'm to provide further advice.

 

[ph1985]

I doubt anyone would issue a PF or UFN if they genuinely believed that it would be ripped up, cancelled or refunded. Anyone can make a normative statement, whether or not it carries any weight is another matter.

I was in a similar situation to the OP, where I was technically in breach of the passenger/TOC contract through no fault of my own and an encountered an RPI who did not show discretion. I was able to yield a successful outcome without the assistance of any watchdogs. The TOC was ever resilient in their decision to uphold the PF, but that was completely irrelevant. I paid the Penalty Fare promptly, on the spot in fact. Quoting from the RPI in the appeal is ultimately pointless. I did not go through the media as it was against my best interests. I specifically requested for my appeal not to be considered on the grounds of sympathy or compassion. There were no trivialities in my appeal, information I attached was on a need to know basis. Tangible supporting evidence is taken more seriously than reliance on "X's word against Y's" quotes. And be polite.

Prior to appealing, you must consider whether your script shows that you know you were incorrectly charged, or whether you're just moaning about the injustice of it all, with a feeble hope of being let off.

It helps if your argument is cast iron solid, fortified with facts. I went and got indisputable evidence in addition to quoting clauses from relevant sources.

This is all in contrast to what everybody else is suggesting, but what happened? I got my money back and the notice cancelled, at zero risk to myself. Call me acrimonious but I haven't got time to mess around.

I'm quite happy to elucidate on the above to somebody who has a strong case but can't put it into words. In the OP's case, I can't see that there is. There were ample TVMs and ticket office windows available at Waterloo. Waterloo is fully gated so how did the OP get through the gates with no ticket? If there was time to locate and hold a discussion with the guard prior to boarding, why wasn't there time to try another machine? Why agree to be issued with a UFN? Don't mean to sound harsh but these questions need answering if I'm to provide further advice.

In answer to your questions:

1. As explained the delays meant I arrived on the station concourse with very little time to spare. If you travel through Waterloo regularly you will know at 0930 on a weekday morning every ticket machine and window has huge queues.
2. I had a LU travelcard that would let me through the gates.
3. The guard was standing by the door waiting to close the doors and depart. I was the last passenger to board and boarded via the door he was standing at.
4. I agreed to be issued with the UPFN because he told me i had no choice and it didnt seem like a major thing as it was going to be cancelled by the ticket office at Poole.

I accept that by not printing a ticket off i was in contravention of the terms and conditions. However, my reason for appeal hinges on the fact i was given completely false advice by the SWT appointed train guard that led to me being issued with the UPFN. Had his advice been correct i would not have boarded the train.

Anyway, ive sent a letter off to SWT copying IRCAS and Passenger Focus as the latter instructed me to do. I've spoken to a solicitor and been advised to pay the fine to avoid admin fees and enclose a note making sure that payment is not an admission of guilt. From there i will attempt to recover the money from SWT.

 

[bicbasher]

How about the next time you make this journey, you pick up the tickets from Rotherhithe or Surrey Quays which are a short walk away from Canada Water and can be picked up from the TVM's which are on the system.

 

[MikeWh]

@ph1985: Good luck with your appeal.

 

[yorkie]

I've spoken to a solicitor and been advised to pay the fine to avoid admin fees

I'm not totally sure but I believe that, as long as you contact them within the set period of time, they can't add an admin fee - at least initially. After they have "rejected" your "appeal" (it is questionable whether there is any real "appeals" process) then this may no longer be the case, I'm not sure. But initially at least, a reply within 14 days is all that is required, not payment within 14 days.

and enclose a note making sure that payment is not an admission of guilt. From there i will attempt to recover the money from SWT.

Although the letter will sound quite threatening in tone in terms of what may happen if you don't pay, they are not actually indicating you are guilty of anything at this stage, are they? If they are, I'd like to know what they said. An unpaid fare notice, and even a penalty fare, is not an accusation of breaking the law (if someone makes it into such an accusation, they're wrong). It only becomes an offence if payment is not paid and it goes to court and the court then rules in the TOCs favour, as far as I know.

As for recovering money once you've paid, this will be extremely difficult. It's hard for them to get your money if you present a good case as the onus is on them, but once you hand over cash, the onus is on you to pursue them, and I wouldn't fancy pursuing SWT, one of the more anti-customer TOCs. Good luck - you'll need it

 

[Solent&Wessex]

I'm not totally sure but I believe that, as long as you contact them within the set period of time, they can't add an admin fee - at least initially. After they have "rejected" your "appeal" (it is questionable whether there is any real "appeals" process) then this may no longer be the case, I'm not sure. But initially at least, a reply within 14 days is all that is required, not payment within 14 days.
|

It sounds like SWT use IRCAS, but I have taken the following information from the RPSS website - a similar firm who deal with Unpaid Fare Notices for a number of TOCS including the one I work with:

If you travel in a train without a valid ticket, you will be liable to pay the full single fare or full return fare or, if appropriate, a Penalty Fare for your journey. You will not be entitled to any discounts or special terms unless there were no ticket purchasing facilities at the station where you started your journey.

Whilst you were not issued with a penalty fare, you have been issued with an unpaid fare notice when you travelled because you were unable to produce a valid ticket for inspection when requested. This has nothing to do with any intention you may have had and is not a fine. It is merely a notice to pay the amount due for the journey that you actually made when you could not present a valid ticket in accordance with NRCOC. The NRCOC explains the passenger's rights with regard to refunds on any unused or invalid tickets.

Appeals against unpaid fares must be submitted within the timescales and in writing to the appeals address shown on the front of the Unpaid Fares Notice. Any outstanding payment shown on the notice must be paid within the timescales and in accordance with the instructions on the notice.

The RPSS website also says the following about appeals:

Unpaid fares notices (UFN) are very different from penalty fares notices and make no extra charge, penalty or fine in the first instance. The amount outstanding shown on the UFN is only the correct fare for the actual journey that has been made. Simply, the passenger has completed their journey and now has a bill to pay because a valid ticket was not available for inspection when they travelled.

There are always mitigating circumstances for not having a valid ticket and while these may be compelling, they tend to be irrelevant to the facts of a UFN strict liabilty matter. Any appeal would therefore need to prove that the ticket shown when travelling was actually valid for the exact journey which was made. Even producing a valid ticket or railcard later does not negate liabilty to pay the UFN bill for not producing a valid ticket when requested at the time of travel.
....

Please be aware that making an appeal does not mean that payment of any amount outstanding is suspended. Debt recovery action is separate from any appeal and administration fees may be incurred if full payment is not made within the time specified.

I have highlighted an important bit!

I suspect, as far as IRCAS or whoever are concerned, you will be required to pay the fare. I suspect that any appeal based on the grounds of poor advice from staff, delays on the Underground, will need to be directed to SWT.

As an aside, I have had quite a few situations I have dealt with where I am having to deal with somebody who has been given duff information by another member of staff. I am never sure whether this is due to their ignorance of the rules / processes or procedures in place, a case of "I can't be bothered with the hassle I'll just fob them off and let someone else deal with it", or a case of the passenger telling me porkies - or a mixture of all 3.

Either way, good luck!

 

[ph1985]

I'm not totally sure but I believe that, as long as you contact them within the set period of time, they can't add an admin fee - at least initially. After they have "rejected" your "appeal" (it is questionable whether there is any real "appeals" process) then this may no longer be the case, I'm not sure. But initially at least, a reply within 14 days is all that is required, not payment within 14 days.

Although the letter will sound quite threatening in tone in terms of what may happen if you don't pay, they are not actually indicating you are guilty of anything at this stage, are they? If they are, I'd like to know what they said. An unpaid fare notice, and even a penalty fare, is not an accusation of breaking the law (if someone makes it into such an accusation, they're wrong). It only becomes an offence if payment is not paid and it goes to court and the court then rules in the TOCs favour, as far as I know.

As for recovering money once you've paid, this will be extremely difficult. It's hard for them to get your money if you present a good case as the onus is on them, but once you hand over cash, the onus is on you to pursue them, and I wouldn't fancy pursuing SWT, one of the more anti-customer TOCs. Good luck - you'll need it

I dont have to pay up for another week yet so will wait and see. Does anyone know how much these 'admin fees' turn out to be by the time the case arrives in court? I'd usually just roll-over and pay this kind of thing, but because the only reason i am in this situation is because of SWT's poor staff training/laziness/whatever the reason i am inclined to pursue it as far as possible.

I do have one final card if all else fails.

 

[ph1985]

Update:

Having emailed SWT and copied in IRCAS and Passenger Focus I am pleased to report that IRCAS have responded saying they are now able to uphold the appeal. They havent given a reason, but one point i have noted is that in their appeal rejection they referred only to the conditions of carriage, in this latest letter upholding the appeal they refer to both the conditions of carriage and the penalty fare rules.

Thanks for everyone's help. If anyone finds themselves in a similar situation im happy to send them a copy of the letter i wrote. yorkie has it also

 

[Ferret]

Well done, seems like a just outcome to me!

 

[MikeWh]

Well done Ph1985. Another victory for common sense over intransigent TOCs.

 

[Greenback]

Good news. It seemed pretty clear cut to me that the OP had a valid ticket that they just could not obtain due to circumstances outside their control.

 

[ph1985]

Another update....it's a good job IRCAS overturned their first decision as I just had two identical letters through from SWT with a short fob off that they are unable to get involved in penalty fares etc.

To me all that's apparent here now is the complete lack of organisation within SWT. Their staff are incompetent and so it seems are their processes.

 

[RJ]

Funnily enough in my case, IRCAS overturned their initial rejection with a refund cheque sent to me. Shortly after I received correspondence from the TOC involved who refused to have it cancelled. They went one step further and said I should contact Passenger Focus if I was dissatisfied, patronising to say the least.

Congratulations anyway. I suspect our second letters to IRCAS probably had some common fundamental principles.

 

[ph1985]

Funnily enough in my case, IRCAS overturned their initial rejection with a refund cheque sent to me. Shortly after I received correspondence from the TOC involved who refused to have it cancelled. They went one step further and said I should contact Passenger Focus if I was dissatisfied, patronising to say the least.

Congratulations anyway. I suspect our second letters to IRCAS probably had some common fundamental principles.

By the sounds of it they all use the same template! I had the Passenger Focus bit too.

I just find it ridiculous that they can completely ignore the complaint element of the letter and the incompetency of their on board staff, only commenting on a decision that has since been altered prior to the date of their letter, and then send it out twice.

 

[yorkie]

SWT are not particularly interested in complaints about staff being rude. This contrasts with East Coast, who are bothered.

SWT may well have a policy to refuse to cancel such notices and let IRCAS handle it, but TOCs can cancel them if they wish, and I know of cases where East Coast have done exactly that.

SWT will continue treating customers with contempt, because they know they can get away with it.

 

[Flamingo]

With FGW, we have been told to issue a UPFN for the full FGW journey (not just the next station) to passengers who are on-board with a story of having a reservation number but not having time/facilities to collect the ticket. We tell them when they collect the ticket and send it off with the UPFN it will be cancelled. If they refuse to accept this, then we have to treat it as ticket-less travel.

This is because we have had a rash of fare-dodging with a random number written on the back of a fag packet and a sob story about broken TVM machines or the wrong credit card with them.

 

[ph1985]

With FGW, we have been told to issue a UPFN for the full FGW journey (not just the next station) to passengers who are on-board with a story of having a reservation number but not having time/facilities to collect the ticket. We tell them when they collect the ticket and send it off with the UPFN it will be cancelled. If they refuse to accept this, then we have to treat it as ticket-less travel.

This is because we have had a rash of fare-dodging with a random number written on the back of a fag packet and a sob story about broken TVM machines or the wrong credit card with them.

But going by the experience i have had with SWT and IRCAS, what you are telling them is completely false. There are not many people who would pursue it beyond the first appeal dismissal by IRCAS and instead just roll over and pay. I dont know what their reasons for upholding the appeal in the second instance was, but following the letter of the law rather than the spirit i WAS in the wrong here and therefore the information the TOCs are issuing is false.

 

[Flamingo]

I'm saying what we've been told to do with FGW. Other TOC's may vary. That's the joy of having different private companies to deal with, they all can take a different approach.

If you want to complain to somebody, start with that nice Mr Major, he used to do Prime Minister impersonations in the early 90's

 

[Greenback]

The FGW instructions to staff make perfect sense for that organisation. They will get a numbe rof people paying up without question, those who don't and ask for it to be canceleld can be told 'no', so a few more will pay up. Only those who make a further fuss stand any chance of getting it cancelled!

££££'s for FGW, hassle and upset for the genuine passengers who have had trouble retrieving their ticket for any reason. And of course for the on train staff who have to follow these instructions and deal with the angry and frustrated customers as a result.

 

[sheff1]

With FGW, we have been told to issue a UPFN for the full FGW journey (not just the next station) to passengers who are on-board with a story of having a reservation number but not having time/facilities to collect the ticket. We tell them when they collect the ticket and send it off with the UPFN it will be cancelled.

What are you told to do if, when you tell them this, the passenger asks you to confirm that the UPFN will cancelled by endorsing the notice to that effect?

 

[Flamingo]

What are you told to do if, when you tell them this, the passenger asks you to confirm that the UPFN will cancelled by endorsing the notice to that effect?

In these cases, I always write on the notice why it has been issued, and the reference number that the passenger has given me.

The FGW instructions to staff make perfect sense for that organisation. They will get a numbe rof people paying up without question, those who don't and ask for it to be canceleld can be told 'no', so a few more will pay up. Only those who make a further fuss stand any chance of getting it cancelled!

££££'s for FGW, hassle and upset for the genuine passengers who have had trouble retrieving their ticket for any reason. And of course for the on train staff who have to follow these instructions and deal with the angry and frustrated customers as a result.

I think you are being a bit paranoid, Green. The company has got a duty to protect it's revenues I'm sure you would agree, and as I said, this is in response to a number of people claiming to have been unable to collect their ticket for whatever reason which on investigation turned out to be false, they had no ticket to collect.

IMHO it's a reasonable compromise by letting the genuine people travel and sort it out later, but deny the fare dodgers a free journey. Don't forget, the company could under railway by-laws just instruct us to charge everyone who has not collected their ticket a new ticket, as they are on-board without a ticket.

If there was cases of FGW refusing to cancel the UPFN in these circumstances, I'm sure that they would have been featured in the Daily Mail and in forums such as this by now. I don't remember any cases that involved FGW, do you?

As I'v said, I'm focusing on FGW here. Other TOC's may vary. (I think I might add this to my signature block! )

 

[RJ]

Once, I had purchased an Advance ticket for travel between LST and IPS but the TVMs at LST were all out of service so I was unable to collect it. I went and sat in FC as planned, gripper came and made a phonecall to verify the situation. He was made to feel silly as he had initially accused me of making up a code (it started with 555 or something).

 

[Greenback]

In these cases, I always write on the notice why it has been issued, and the reference number that the passenger has given me.

I think you are being a bit paranoid, Green. The company has got a duty to protect it's revenues I'm sure you would agree, and as I said, this is in response to a number of people claiming to have been unable to collect their ticket for whatever reason which on investigation turned out to be false, they had no ticket to collect.

IMHO it's a reasonable compromise by letting the genuine people travel and sort it out later, but deny the fare dodgers a free journey. Don't forget, the company could under railway by-laws just instruct us to charge everyone who has not collected their ticket a new ticket, as they are on-board without a ticket.

If there was cases of FGW refusing to cancel the UPFN in these circumstances, I'm sure that they would have been featured in the Daily Mail and in forums such as this by now. I don't remember any cases that involved FGW, do you?

As I'v said, I'm focusing on FGW here. Other TOC's may vary. (I think I might add this to my signature block! )

It's not the first time I;ve been called paranoid!

I put FGW because that is the company you mentioned (not surprising really if you nwork for them!). It applies to any company that gives such instructions in staff briefings though. I'm not saying I disagree with this approach, just pointing out that it could have extra finacial benefits for the TOC!

As for the DM et al, you're right, I've not heard of any UPFN not being cancelled. But then, if only 3 (genuine) people don't ask for it to be cancelled (perhaps because the sum involved is relatively small or simply not worth their time in sorting it out) and simply pay, then that is 3 extra lots of revenue! If, and it is hypothetical, a TOC refuses to cancel the UPFN on the first contact, and another 3 people give up, then that's 6 extra lots of revenue! That's all I was trying to point out!

 

[Flamingo]

It's not the first time I;ve been called paranoid!

I put FGW because that is the company you mentioned (not surprising really if you nwork for them!). It applies to any company that gives such instructions in staff briefings though. I'm not saying I disagree with this approach, just pointing out that it could have extra finacial benefits for the TOC!

As for the DM et al, you're right, I've not heard of any UPFN not being cancelled. But then, if only 3 (genuine) people don't ask for it to be cancelled (perhaps because the sum involved is relatively small or simply not worth their time in sorting it out) and simply pay, then that is 3 extra lots of revenue! If, and it is hypothetical, a TOC refuses to cancel the UPFN on the first contact, and another 3 people give up, then that's 6 extra lots of revenue! That's all I was trying to point out!

I've often been called paranoid, I prefer to call it experience!

It is not a matter of claiming back money, it's a question of paying a UPFN, if they ignore it they have got issues down the road (admin fees etc) which is explained to thm. I'd seriously doubt if anyone will pay a UPFN rather than collecting their ticket and sending it off. (After all, another poster on here has said he has pursued 15p before now, so it's swings and roundabouts.) What about the three who didn't buy a ticket at all, and have a number on the back of an envelope that claim is their reference number?

 

[Greenback]

I think the members of this forum are far more likely to dispute an UPFN! I'm thinking of people who value their time higher than the amount they paid, and can't face the hassle of writing to the TOC. I know that soemtimes I can't be bothered to make a fuss, particularly if I feel I have somehow contributed to the situation in the first place (as someone may feel they didn;t leave an hour earlier in order to try and sort things out when the TVM didn't work!).

Seriously though, it's a difficult situation for on board staff, and I can see the advantages as well as the disadvantages to issuing an UPFN. The difficulty really lies in the probability of not getting the tickets printed out in the first place. TVM's need better reliability and the whole procedure could be simplified to reduce the stress of the customer and the possibility of things going wrong.

As an example, I wrote down my booking ref the last time I went to collect a ticket. Unfortunately, due to the poor lighting by the TVM, I misread one digit and so the machine failed to produce the ticket. But why do I need to type in the booking ref on a screen that has great difficulty in working at the bst of times? I had only made one booking, and had put the card I used into the TVM, so in those circumstnces, surely that should be sufficient? Fortunately I wasn't ravelling for a few days so I didn't panic!

I suppose the argument would be that someone could have stolen the card, and they would just happen to know that I'd bought a rail ticket online, and then would go and get it before I realised my card was gone and reported it!

 

[Flamingo]

The passenger is going to have to write off anyway, to pay the UPFN. The other alternative is to take everyone's word for it. Now I know there are posters on here who think that the passengers word is sacrosanct and should never be doubted or questioned, but that's not going to happen.

I really don't think that the view of my TOC is that people will pay a UPFN rather than printing the ticket off. The thought behind it is simply to provide an alternative to the scenario where a passenger is on-board a train without a ticket and our only option is do either sell them a new ticket or if they are unable to pay, put them off as having no ticket.