Wrong railcard used by mistake

[SaxonShore]

I have seen a few posts along these lines but not quite the same as an issue my step-son had.

He booked a ticket from Hatfield to Guildford - off peak return - but he put down is his railcard as a 16-25 when he actually has a Network Railcard.

He was stopped at Kings Cross and issued with a penalty.

The cost of the ticket was identical using either type of card and he appealed but the appeal was turned down as "technically he did not have a valid ticket" and he is expected to pay the £67 penalty by 5th December.

Given it was a mistake and there was no financial gain from using the card he had vs. the card he selected to buy the ticket, this seems to me to be unduly harsh. Is there any further recourse here?

 

[methecooldude]

I have seen a few posts along these lines but not quite the same as an issue my step-son had.

He booked a ticket from Hatfield to Guildford - off peak return - but he put down is his railcard as a 16-25 when he actually has a Network Railcard.

He was stopped at Kings Cross and issued with a penalty.

The cost of the ticket was identical using either type of card and he appealed but the appeal was turned down as "technically he did not have a valid ticket" and he is expected to pay the £67 penalty by 5th December.

Given it was a mistake and there was no financial gain from using the card he had vs. the card he selected to buy the ticket, this seems to me to be unduly harsh. Is there any further recourse here?

There's different restrictions on the different railcards. If it was before 10AM, the Network Railcard is not valid, the 16-25 is, it's a common ruse for Network Railcard users to get the discount. Could you confirm which train is was traveling on? When did he leave Hatfield?

Also, the Network Railcard is a good few selections down from the 16-25, so I think 'mistake' is stretching it a bit

 

[skyhigh]

What day and time did he travel? There are time restrictions on the Network Railcard that wouldn't apply with a 16-25 Railcard for this journey.

 

[z444z]

Please could you upload image(s) of the entire penalty fare notice (redact personal details and the reference number, but we need to see the rest) so we can check that it has been issued correctly?

 

[SaxonShore]

There's different restrictions on the different railcards. If it was before 10AM, the Network Railcard is not valid, the 16-25 is, it's a common ruse for Network Railcard users to get the discount. Could you confirm which train is was traveling on? When did he leave Hatfield?

He was travelling from Hatfield around 11 AM, definitely not before 10AM.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Nov 2025 ==

What day and time did he travel? There are time restrictions on the Network Railcard that wouldn't apply with a 16-25 Railcard for this journey.

11 AM approx so no restrictions I am aware of.

 

[methecooldude]

He was travelling from Hatfield around 11 AM, definitely not before 10AM.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Nov 2025 ==


11 AM approx so no restrictions I am aware of.

Alright, as per z444z, we really need to see the notice he would have been given, in full, with suitable redaction for personal info, in order to assist further

 

[SaxonShore]

Please could you upload image(s) of the entire penalty fare notice (redact personal details and the reference number, but we need to see the rest) so we can check that it has been issued correctly?

Attached the redacted notice

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Nov 2025 ==

There's different restrictions on the different railcards. If it was before 10AM, the Network Railcard is not valid, the 16-25 is, it's a common ruse for Network Railcard users to get the discount. Could you confirm which train is was traveling on? When did he leave Hatfield?

Also, the Network Railcard is a good few selections down from the 16-25, so I think 'mistake' is stretching it a bit

Round about 1100 ish. I think he saw the 16-25 railcard near the top of the list and selected that one without looking at exactly what he had. Agreed the network railcard option is way down the list so he probably did not scroll that far. I did compare the fares and they are the same with either network rail card or 16-25.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Nov 2025 ==

Alright, as per z444z, we really need to see the notice he would have been given, in full, with suitable redaction for personal info, in order to assist further

attached below

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Nov 2025 ==

What day and time did he travel? There are time restrictions on the Network Railcard that wouldn't apply with a 16-25 Railcard for this journey.

It was a Friday - I think it was an open return which he intended to use for the Monday but of course that was cancelled so he never got to use it anyway.

 

[WirralLine]

Im presuming by the time on the notice issued at Kings Cross, they would have travelled on the 1124 Hatfield to Kings Cross service which arrived around 1150?Notice issued at 1158.

 

[fandroid]

Did he continue to Guildford, and how much did he pay for the additional ticket, if he did buy one (including the cross-London element).

 

[SaxonShore]

Im presuming by the time on the notice issued at Kings Cross, they would have travelled on the 1124 Hatfield to Kings Cross service which arrived around 1150?Notice issued at 1158.

Yes that sounds about right.

 

[AlterEgo]

Where are they getting the £13.30 fare from?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Nov 2025 ==

Did he continue to Guildford, and how much did he pay for the additional ticket, if he did buy one (including the cross-London element).

Not relevant to the issue of the Penalty Fare.

 

[SaxonShore]

Did he continue to Guildford, and how much did he pay for the additional ticket, if he did buy one (including the cross-London element).

That bit I am not too sure on. I assume he must have bought a new one as the current was presumably cancelled and invalid for rest of journey.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Nov 2025 ==

Where are they getting the £13.30 fare from?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Nov 2025 ==


Not relevant to the issue of the Penalty Fare.

The 113.30? I have absolutely no idea

 

[AlterEgo]

The 113.30? I have absolutely no idea

£13.30, as this is the fare element. It doesn't represent any fare between Hatfield and King's Cross.

 

[z444z]

Where are they getting the £13.30 fare from?

That’s the anytime day single fare from Hatfield to London Terminals according to BRFares?

And that’s the only fare available except weekends and public holidays so that element of the PF appears to be correct.

 

[SaxonShore]

£13.30, as this is the fare element. It doesn't represent any fare between Hatfield and King's Cross.

Oh, I see. I really do not know. So the 113.30 is 100 penalty and a 13,30 fare - did not realise that.

 

[methecooldude]

£13.30, as this is the fare element. It doesn't represent any fare between Hatfield and King's Cross.

Look up fares for any train journey in Britain

Full details of all British rail Single, Return & Season tickets and Travelcards. Built-in Season Ticket Calculator.

www.brfares.com

 

[AlterEgo]

That’s the anytime day single fare from Hatfield to London Terminals according to BRFares?

So it is I had a railcard discount applied, which is obviously not the correct fare for a PF.

 

[fandroid]

Did he continue to Guildford, and how much did he pay for the additional ticket, if he did buy one (including the cross-London element).

Not relevant to the issue of the Penalty Fare.

I was thinking in terms of an appeal on the basis of Compelling Reasons. If he had to pay to continue his journey beyond Kings Cross and then return, he will not only have caused the railway no loss from his original ticket purchase and would be having to pay at least £63.30 on top for this mistake. It's a disproportionate penalty. Another of these cases where the passenger might have been better off not purchasing a ticket at all

 

[AlterEgo]

I think the compelling reason here is sufficient that no loss in fare was suffered. Pathetic to PF someone for this imo.

 

[z444z]

I think the compelling reason here is sufficient that no loss in fare was suffered. Pathetic to PF someone for this imo.

Agreed. I can’t see any technical issues with the PF so that’s probably the best appeal route!

 

[SaxonShore]

I was thinking in terms of an appeal on the basis of Compelling Reasons. If he had to pay to continue his journey beyond Kings Cross and then return, he will not only have caused the railway no loss from his original ticket purchase and would be having to pay at least £63.30 on top for this mistake. It's a disproportionate penalty. Another of these cases where the passenger might have been better off not purchasing a ticket at all

Thanks, is that grounds for appeal? I am not sure what he put down on his original appeal that he lodged as soon as he got to Guildford but makes sense considering he had paid the right fare in the first place (albeit with the wrong card although same discount) then paid ongoing fare plus return.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Nov 2025 ==

I think the compelling reason here is sufficient that no loss in fare was suffered. Pathetic to PF someone for this imo.

I agree, I know he did put that down on his appeal - that fare was same with either card - but that was rejected.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Nov 2025 ==

All a bit frustrating for him TBH as the fare he paid was actually correct - had he selected the right card. But a trip that should have cost about 40 ended up as -
40 approx - original fare paid
13.30 fare (not yet paid)
50 PF (noy yet paid)
15-20? approx - ongoing fare to guildford
22 approx fare back from guildford

I assume there is no way of claiming back the original cost of the ticket from trainline that they cancelled - as technically i suppose none of it was used

 

[fandroid]

The outward portion may have been scanned at Hatfield, and even by the RPI at Kings Cross, so I would guess that he could only apply for a refund of the return portion

 

[Kite159]

..

I think the compelling reason here is sufficient that no loss in fare was suffered. Pathetic to PF someone for this imo.

Completely agreed, the fare Saxon Shore would have paid would have been exactly the same had they selected "Network" instead of "16-25". Had the OP been attempting to bypass the £13 minimum fare or travelling before the railcard became valid, then things would be different. Just shows how trigger-happy some revenue protection people can be, all they should have done is said "make sure you select the right railcard in the future".

It's a bit like Northern attempting to take someone to court for over-travelling when the fare avoided was zero due to fare clustering.

 

[ChilliSauce]

..

Completely agreed, the fare Saxon Shore would have paid would have been exactly the same had they selected "Network" instead of "16-25". Had the OP been attempting to bypass the £13 minimum fare or travelling before the railcard became valid, then things would be different. Just shows how trigger-happy some revenue protection people can be, all they should have done is said "make sure you select the right railcard in the future".

It's a bit like Northern attempting to take someone to court for over-travelling when the fare avoided was zero due to fare clustering.

I agree this penalty fare is completely inappropriate, as the fare being avoided is actually Zero.

This TOC might do better to spend it's time going through it trains checking for those that haven't got a ticket in the first place, targetting those sitting in 1st with a Std ticket and those that are short faring / donutting.

 

[KirkstallOne]

There was quite a bit of media attention about cases like this (no revenue loss) last year, this is referenced in the Office of Rail and Road report that was commissioned.

3. During 2024, the media reported on a number of cases of train operators appearing to take disproportionate action against passengers who, on the face of it, had made genuine errors with their tickets. This led, in some cases, to prosecution.

4. These cases involved individuals being penalised for seemingly unintentional or minor transgressions of fares and ticketing rules, including where:

• there was no possible revenue loss to the industry; and
• a rule had technically been broken, but the circumstances were such that the passenger’s error appeared to have been made innocently and without them realising. For example, where the terms and conditions (T&Cs) of a railcard may not have been clear to a passenger when purchasing their ticket.

6. In response, on 13 November 2024 the then Secretary of State for Transport commissioned the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) to conduct an independent review of train operators’ revenue protection practices. Her overriding priority in doing so was to ensure that fare evasion was being addressed, but in a way that was fair to passengers and in line with the correct procedures.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/defaul...rain-company-revenue-protection-practices.pdf

If the Penalty Fare appeals are unsuccessful I would take it up directly with South Eastern as it is hard to find anyone who will defend penalties in these sort of circumstances.

 

[SaxonShore]

There was quite a bit of media attention about cases like this (no revenue loss) last year, this is referenced in the Office of Rail and Road report that was commissioned.


https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/defaul...rain-company-revenue-protection-practices.pdf

If the Penalty Fare appeals are unsuccessful I would take it up directly with South Eastern as it is hard to find anyone who will defend penalties in these sort of circumstances.

Thank you, I have included in re-appeal.