2nd Appeal , in need of some helpful advise please

[Dean Bond]

Ok so as mentioned 2nd appeal, this for a rail fine.....I'll be as brief but detailed as possible.
After returning from Heathrow to Farringdon, my next leg intended was Kings cross to Peterborough. However on getting to Farringdon station from the Elizabeth line I was really not sure which platform to take. Standing on the circle line side (in no mans land ) of the station road side of the gates, I ask a female fair gate guard which platform do I need for Kings cross .
She ask where I was going , I showed her my online ticket booked through the trainline.com , after looking at the phone with said ticket and seeing I was heading to Peterborough.
I was told you don't need to go to Kings cross, you can travel from platform 4 next train to Peterborough on the opposite side (Elizabeth line) on this ticket.
Fast forward to St Neots and ticket guard boards asking me for ticket, and sure enough I have an invalid ticket to travel. 140£ fine.

I guess my question is if a member of public is unsure as to where they are going or should be, is it not the job of staff representing the rail services to give correct advise?.
I would say there are so many people who can physically travel but may well be unsure as to the layout of a station, unsure how to read service boards, maybe with dyslexia, learning difficulties etc ...
That as a result may want to speak to a member of staff, is it unreasonable to assume a staff member manning the fair gates should and would give correct information. Even to say have a duty to make sure that information was correct. Otherwise what would be the point of giving information.

What is annoying me is I intended to travel via Kings cross and would have done just that if giving the platform number. But having then been told confidently I don't need to do this, what would anyone do in such a situation. This now after hindsight is obviously a question I know better of. But there is a first time for everything in life.
Is it my mistake for believing in her and what she was telling me, or the person giving in the information??

How do I go about stating this contravention, as they have charged me with?
Help would be most appreciated.
Cheers.

 

[mikeg]

What ticket did you have precisely?

 

[furlong]

If the person said the ticket was valid on that service then that should indeed make it valid (with certain qualifications). The problem is of course anyone could say what you just said so even though the system envisaged they would check claims like yours as a matter of routine, in practice they seem very reluctant to do so and you end up getting a penalty and having to work very hard to make them check (basically by quoting the relevant regulations back at them so they can't feign ignorance). What date was this conversation? If you know the approximate time it should be possible for the train company to identify the person concerned from your description, perhaps with the help of CCTV if it hasn't already been overwritten.

As mikeg indicates, if you want specific help here, you'll need to upload full details of the ticket and all the paperwork (cover up names & reference numbers etc.). (The second appeal can depend on the first appeal having raised this particular point correctly.)

 

[Dean Bond]

To ensure fairness and consistency in the decision-making process, appeals are considered in conjunction with a code of practice. The statements submitted on behalf of the passenger and the train company will both be taken into account by an experienced assessor to determine the appeal outcome. More information about how appeals are decided is available on our homepage at www.penaltyservices.co.uk.

Many rail users consider penalty fares to be an accusation of fare avoidance but this is not the case at all. A Penalty Fare is simply a higher fare which may be issued under The Penalty Fares Rules and Regulations by a member of staff who is licensed to act on behalf of a train operating company which issues penalty fares. Penalty fare warning posters are on display at every penalty fares station (as required under Regulation 8) advising customers of the consequences for boarding a penalty fares train without a valid ticket or other authority to travel in their possession.

The National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT) advise that where the facility to buy a ticket exists prior to boarding, passengers should pay the correct fare for their entire journey before they travel and produce for inspection a valid ticket as evidence of their right to make a journey on the relevant train, otherwise they may be liable to pay a Penalty Fare Notice. I understand the ticket produced for inspection was not valid on the services of the relevant train operator.

Restrictions apply to the use of some tickets such as the dates, days and times of travel, and the trains in which they can be used. Train operators compete for business and may encourage passengers onto their services by offering fares at a reduced price, however, restrictions will always apply. As the revenue from the sale of this type of ticket is not shared with any other train company, where a "train company specific" ticket has been bought, it will only be deemed valid for use on the services of the named operator. As long as the ticket restrictions are observed, passengers can benefit from saving money on their fare.

However, using the ticket on any other operator's services may result in a penalty fare being charged. The terms and conditions of use and any restrictions associated with the ticket would have been made clear at the point of sale. Unfortunately, it remains the passenger's responsibility to join the correct train and use the right operator's services.

As the journey was not made with the correct train operator and there were no mitigating circumstances (such as severe service disruptions) to take into consideration,
I'm afraid it has been concluded by Penalty services. Date: 15 March 2024 that the Penalty Fare Notice should stand.

A passenger's right to a refund on any unused tickets is explained in the National Rail Conditions of Travel. Having taken into consideration all the points raised to date, we regret to advise that your appeal has been unsuccessful.
It is your right to re-appeal this decision. Any further appeal will be considered by a different appeal assessor. If re-appealing, please give the reason(s) why you are appealing against this decision and also mention any additional circumstances you would like taken into account.

A further appeal should be submitted by post to: Penalty Services, PO Box 1258, KING'S LYNN, PE30 9GJ. or through our website at www.penaltyservices.co.uk/make-an-appeal/ within 14 days of the date this letter was received.
Where this reply came by post to your address, the date received is assumed to be the second working day after the letter/post date as defined in paragraph 3 of schedule 2 of The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 as amended from time to time. Where you have been informed by email reply, the date received is the letter date.
If you choose not to re-appeal and have not already paid your Penalty Fare Notice, you should pay any outstanding debt. Failure to pay can mean that the time allowed to pay the reduced amount for the Penalty Fare can run out making the amount of the Penalty Fare £100 plus the price of the full single fare applicable and further delays in payment may result in administration fees being added by the train company or its debt recovery agency. The train company will also be entitled to commence court proceedings to recover the outstanding debt.

What ticket did you have precisely?

Hi Mike

Thank you for the reply , please see below? for post detailing last letter and ticket type...plus my first statement sent on first appeal.
cheers.

 

[Haywain]

The reality of this situation is that you held a ticket that was only valid to travel on your booked train, and that was an LNER service from Kings Cross. It appears likely that the advice was given by London Underground staff at Farringdon, but I think you would struggle to have that seen as a compelling grounds for appeal. It appears in general terms that if a Penalty Fare was issued it was the appropriate action to have been taken.

 

[Dean Bond]

If the person said the ticket was valid on that service then that should indeed make it valid (with certain qualifications). The problem is of course anyone could say what you just said so even though the system envisaged they would check claims like yours as a matter of routine, in practice they seem very reluctant to do so and you end up getting a penalty and having to work very hard to make them check (basically by quoting the relevant regulations back at them so they can't feign ignorance). What date was this conversation? If you know the approximate time it should be possible for the train company to identify the person concerned from your description, perhaps with the help of CCTV if it hasn't already been overwritten.

As mikeg indicates, if you want specific help here, you'll need to upload full details of the ticket and all the paperwork (cover up names & reference numbers etc.). (The second appeal can depend on the first appeal having raised this particular point correctly.)

Hi Furlong,

Thank you for the detailed reply , I've posted a reply letter from the Penalty services, ticket type and my first appeal letter.

I appreciate both you and Mikes interest.
Normally I fight these kind of battles alone, but I think this time round it may well be wise to get some input and advise from people who have seen and dealt with this subject before.

Re; Your mention of CCTV is interesting as I was contemplating adding this into my next appeal. That and the whole spiel about persons who may find it hard to understand certain aspects of travelling alone in a confident way. hence relying on information given out by train service staff within the station or otherwise.

btw...the 14th FEB was the travel date,

**I found this**
The Metropolitan Police Service has provided the following data on retention times for CCTV across the Transport for London network: On buses: between four and ten days depending on the type of bus and hard drive installed Bus stations: up to 28 days London train stations: up to 14 days.

With this info its safe to say they wont have it now, so its their word against mine. I was thinking to mention the fact that on their reply letter, they have stated they take mine and the train companies statement into consideration. I want to see this statement that the train company have apparently provided in there defence.
If they discredit me then they need to prove it, its my belief !!!
I know what happened and it wasn't fair, now if I had not bought a ticket and boarded a train, I've knowingly committed a contravention.
However this was a genuine occurrence after being directed in a way, which as a result has put me into a unnecessary position.

I think I just need to word it in such a way, but either factual and cold.....or with feeling and warmth.
This will go to the third appeal I'm sure, and I'm prepared for that to happen. But I want the foundations to be as strong as possible first, the third will be what I would call humans rather than robot minds. So maybe the feelings can wait until needed.
Any thoughts ??

Cheers...
DB

**NOTE**

The ticket on my phone...I just found a screen shot of this, I had a feeling I'd at some point taken one, but at the time of the appeal I couldn't locate it.
I need glasses, but for the young woman at Farringdon I'm pretty sure she could see all the details on the phone. But still gave me the wrong information??

 

[Haywain]

but for the young woman at Farringdon I'm pretty sure she could see all the details on the phone. But still gave me the wrong advise??

From the description you've given the person who you spoke to was someone working for London Underground, who would have little idea of the details of main line railway ticketing.

 

[Dean Bond]

From the description you've given the person who you spoke to was someone working for London Underground, who would have little idea of the details of main line railway ticketing.

And this is the other half of the argument, .....if you don't know you shouldn't be giving out information, the implications of people travelling in the wrong manner are countless. Giving out information not correct is irresponsible, even dangerous to do so.

 

[AlterEgo]

Unfortunately I suspect this is one you will have to chalk up to experience.

I don't think you can claim a defence of "an authorised person gave me authority to travel". London Underground staff aren't "authorised persons" as per the National Rail Conditions of Travel; they can't be, as they don't work for a Train Operating Company, aren't bound by the Conditions, and for all the good it may do you may as well have taken the advice of someone working in Tesco. They haven't a clue about how the big railway's ticketing works I'm afraid, as you've found to your cost.

You can also appeal under "compelling reasons", separate to the above. It's up to you to substantiate your evidence here and you appear unable to do so. CCTV would be of little assistance, as it doesn't record conversations. There is no need for them to discredit what you say, as this would imply they are trying to undermine your honesty. Merely, that whatever you say has to be substantiated, and I fear you will find this difficult.

 

[30907]

Unfortunately, gateline staff anywhere (let alone at Farringdon working for London Underground) are unlikely to know about the details on National Rail ticketing.
You were misled as a result - but you might have asked yourself whether they were right, given that you had chosen a discounted ticket with clearly stated conditions.

Sadly, I can't see a valid ground for an appeal to succeed. It's not really different from you seeing "train to Peterborough" on an indicator and assuming it was OK to get on it.

 

[fandroid]

The irony is that the LNER train might have got you to Peterborough faster than the Thameslink train you caught. The best advice with Advance tickets is to stick rigidly to the itinerary given when you buy the tickets. If there's disruption, ask the Train Staff before boarding any train that's not on your itinerary and tell them you have an Advance ticket. Advice from staff on gates is really not guaranteed to help avoid a Penalty Fare.

 

[sheff1]

Bit late now, but for future reference, if you had shown your ticket from Heathrow to Kings Cross (rather than a ticket from Kings Cross) this sorry saga would probably have been avoided.

 

[furlong]

All that matters is that the person you asked gave you an answer that they led you to believe was authoritative. Their employer is irrelevant. As I said, the appeals bodies don't like this get-out clause so you will have to quote chapter and verse to have any chance of winning this one.

Penalty fares – train passenger exclusions
6.—(1) Subject to paragraph (6), a person travelling by, present on, or leaving a train (in this regulation “the passenger”) must not be charged a penalty fare where either paragraph (2) or (3) applies.
(2) This paragraph applies if, at the time when, and at the station where, the passenger boarded the train—
...
(d) the operator of the train or the station, or a person acting or purporting to act on behalf of the operator, indicated that the passenger was, or persons generally were, permitted to travel by or be present on the train without having a travel ticket.

You haven't shown us the Penalty Fare yet (there could be other grounds for appeal too), but if it was issued on the train that you boarded at Farringdon, then it looks like 6(1) applies, 6(2) applies, and (d) applies - the person acting or purporting to act on behalf of the operator of the station indicated you were permitted to travel on that train and it's a fact that you didn't have a [valid] travel ticket. I'd set that out under 16(3)(a). Additionally I'd repeat the argument under 16(3)(d) - compelling reasons - and extend it arguing that in the circumstances you describe where they volunteered the alternative train to you after you had shown them the ticket, they must have taken the ticket's validity into account: it seems implausible to suggest that a competent professional employed (you assumed) in a role that controls access to a station served by National Rail trains by checking ticket validity did not understand the meaning of the screenshot or would give incorrect advice: you were entitled to assume their competence and rely upon the information they provided and that following it would not be to your detriment. etc. (Alternatively an abuse for company to impose a civil penalty directly caused by its own [agent's] mistake etc.) You need to set out the two arguments so they work together. If they try to argue the person believed the ticket to be valid and think they can interpret that situation in a way that excludes (d) then that would demonstrate gross incompetence and invoke the abuse argument as an indisputably compelling reason.

As you raised this at the first appeal, it was up to the train company to provide evidence to dispute your account of the conversation if they wished to - not for you to prove it. The appeal response seems to have ignored this crucial ground for appeal. See 16(4) with 16(5)(a)(iii). If the train company provided no such evidence under 16(4), the appeals body should have accepted the truth of your statements. (Under a strict interpretation of the regulations, I think the train company has now lost the opportunity to make representations to challenge your account of the conversation if it did not already do so, as this was a matter only for the first appeal. For that reason I would suggest only quoting the words you used in your first appeal to describe what happened in that particular interaction - don't add anything or rephrase which might provide an excuse for the train company to provide new input. Of course you can still set out the regulatory framework you believe they are supposed to follow and add commentary and reflections on where you think they have erred.)

You'll need to set all this out for them in detail. If you hit a word limit in the system they ask you to use, summarise your appeal within that limit and refer to an attachment in which you can fill in the gaps and set out your complete argument. There are several examples of how to write appeals on the forum now.

You could throw in the non-compliant signage at Farringdon as a separate ground too.

Unfortunately, gateline staff anywhere (let alone at Farringdon working for London Underground) are unlikely to know about the details on National Rail ticketing.

I strongly disagree. This is really basic stuff about Advance tickets, that the rail industry tries hard even to explain to the general public (refer even to the text of the response to the appeal)! National Rail trains stop at that station. This is not some obscure detail.

No, this is really about what words were actually spoken and we only have one side's account here. The other side should have been obtained via the train company in response to the first appeal, so the appeals body could make a determination in line with the regulations. The collector issuing the PF should have provided a heads-up that this account might be required to challenge a potential appeal (taking both a description of the passenger and the passenger's description of the agent), so it could be obtained rapidly to reduce the risk of the person concerned forgetting what happened if only asked about it weeks later (which could have the effect of making the passenger's account impossible to challenge).

 

[Watershed]

An appeal on the basis of non-compliant signage would also likely seem in order. I've done the change between the Elizabeth line and Thameslink many times at Farringdon and not once have I ever noticed any Penalty Fare signage. Of course it's possible that it exists in some obscure corner, but in that case it would likely fail the requirement to be "readily visible" when changing trains. There is also every possibility of the wording being non-compliant - see this post which summarises the issues and has a draft appeal the OP could copy from.

 

[AlterEgo]

, but if it was issued on the train that you boarded at Farringdon, then it looks like 6(1) applies, 6(2) applies, and (d) applies - the person acting or purporting to act on behalf of the operator of the station indicated you were permitted to travel on that train and it's a fact that you didn't have a [valid] travel ticket.

London Underground staff do not act or purport to act on behalf of the operator here. I don’t see how setting out this line of argument will bear fruit here.

I'd set that out under 16(3)(a). Additionally I'd repeat the argument under 16(3)(d) - compelling reasons - and extend it arguing that in the circumstances you describe where they volunteered the alternative train to you after you had shown them the ticket, they must have taken the ticket's validity into account: it seems implausible to suggest that a competent professional employed (you assumed) in a role that controls access to a station served by National Rail trains by checking ticket validity did not understand the meaning of the screenshot or would give incorrect advice: you were entitled to assume their competence and rely upon the information they provided and that following it would not be to your detriment.

Assume here is the key word; if you now rely on a defence of assumption rather than fact you are into the compelling reasons territory. By accepting and admitting it was an assumption you are implying (correctly in my view) that London Underground gateline staff cannot authorise travel.

I suspect a technical appeal on the grounds of signage would be more fruitful, if it is as obviously non compliant as you say.

 

[island]

London Underground staff do not act or purport to act on behalf of the operator here.

They do act on behalf of the operator of Farringdon station, which is London Underground.

 

[furlong]

Assume here is the key word; if you now rely on a defence of assumption rather than fact you are into the compelling reasons territory. By accepting and admitting it was an assumption you are implying (correctly in my view) that London Underground gateline staff cannot authorise travel.

In terms of the Penalty Fares Regulations (which is what this thread is about), there can be no dispute that London Underground gateline staff at Farringdon CAN authorise travel on trains departing from that station. The dispute is over whether or not one of them actually DID so in terms of the regulations.

Assuming that the OP told the collector what they have told us, then in order for the collector to issue the PF, they must have had a reason not to believe the story (or else they would have breached 6(2)(d)) and that justification, whatever it was, ought to have been passed by the company to the appeals body along with a statement from the person working at Farringdon providing their account of the conversation.

 

[Dean Bond]

All that matters is that the person you asked gave you an answer that they led you to believe was authoritative. Their employer is irrelevant. As I said, the appeals bodies don't like this get-out clause so you will have to quote chapter and verse to have any chance of winning this one.



You haven't shown us the Penalty Fare yet (there could be other grounds for appeal too), but if it was issued on the train that you boarded at Farringdon, then it looks like 6(1) applies, 6(2) applies, and (d) applies - the person acting or purporting to act on behalf of the operator of the station indicated you were permitted to travel on that train and it's a fact that you didn't have a [valid] travel ticket. I'd set that out under 16(3)(a). Additionally I'd repeat the argument under 16(3)(d) - compelling reasons - and extend it arguing that in the circumstances you describe where they volunteered the alternative train to you after you had shown them the ticket, they must have taken the ticket's validity into account: it seems implausible to suggest that a competent professional employed (you assumed) in a role that controls access to a station served by National Rail trains by checking ticket validity did not understand the meaning of the screenshot or would give incorrect advice: you were entitled to assume their competence and rely upon the information they provided and that following it would not be to your detriment. etc. (Alternatively an abuse for company to impose a civil penalty directly caused by its own [agent's] mistake etc.) You need to set out the two arguments so they work together. If they try to argue the person believed the ticket to be valid and think they can interpret that situation in a way that excludes (d) then that would demonstrate gross incompetence and invoke the abuse argument as an indisputably compelling reason.

As you raised this at the first appeal, it was up to the train company to provide evidence to dispute your account of the conversation if they wished to - not for you to prove it. The appeal response seems to have ignored this crucial ground for appeal. See 16(4) with 16(5)(a)(iii). If the train company provided no such evidence under 16(4), the appeals body should have accepted the truth of your statements. (Under a strict interpretation of the regulations, I think the train company has now lost the opportunity to make representations to challenge your account of the conversation if it did not already do so, as this was a matter only for the first appeal. For that reason I would suggest only quoting the words you used in your first appeal to describe what happened in that particular interaction - don't add anything or rephrase which might provide an excuse for the train company to provide new input. Of course you can still set out the regulatory framework you believe they are supposed to follow and add commentary and reflections on where you think they have erred.)

You'll need to set all this out for them in detail. If you hit a word limit in the system they ask you to use, summarise your appeal within that limit and refer to an attachment in which you can fill in the gaps and set out your complete argument. There are several examples of how to write appeals on the forum now.

You could throw in the non-compliant signage at Farringdon as a separate ground too.


I strongly disagree. This is really basic stuff about Advance tickets, that the rail industry tries hard even to explain to the general public (refer even to the text of the response to the appeal)! National Rail trains stop at that station. This is not some obscure detail.

No, this is really about what words were actually spoken and we only have one side's account here. The other side should have been obtained via the train company in response to the first appeal, so the appeals body could make a determination in line with the regulations. The collector issuing the PF should have provided a heads-up that this account might be required to challenge a potential appeal (taking both a description of the passenger and the passenger's description of the agent), so it could be obtained rapidly to reduce the risk of the person concerned forgetting what happened if only asked about it weeks later (which could have the effect of making the passenger's account impossible to challenge).

Hi Furlong,

Thank you so much for taking the time out, and detailing the helpful information, its very insightful. I've also had a read through on a pervious thread, outlining a members 2nd appeal, which was won.
Gives me some hope at least, even though a different situation. I believe Watershed gave reference to this , that was very helpful indeed.

As requested* See attached
I`m starting to compose the reply, I`ll post a draft and tweak as necessary.
Cheers.

All that matters is that the person you asked gave you an answer that they led you to believe was authoritative. Their employer is irrelevant. As I said, the appeals bodies don't like this get-out clause so you will have to quote chapter and verse to have any chance of winning this one.



You haven't shown us the Penalty Fare yet (there could be other grounds for appeal too), but if it was issued on the train that you boarded at Farringdon, then it looks like 6(1) applies, 6(2) applies, and (d) applies - the person acting or purporting to act on behalf of the operator of the station indicated you were permitted to travel on that train and it's a fact that you didn't have a [valid] travel ticket. I'd set that out under 16(3)(a). Additionally I'd repeat the argument under 16(3)(d) - compelling reasons - and extend it arguing that in the circumstances you describe where they volunteered the alternative train to you after you had shown them the ticket, they must have taken the ticket's validity into account: it seems implausible to suggest that a competent professional employed (you assumed) in a role that controls access to a station served by National Rail trains by checking ticket validity did not understand the meaning of the screenshot or would give incorrect advice: you were entitled to assume their competence and rely upon the information they provided and that following it would not be to your detriment. etc. (Alternatively an abuse for company to impose a civil penalty directly caused by its own [agent's] mistake etc.) You need to set out the two arguments so they work together. If they try to argue the person believed the ticket to be valid and think they can interpret that situation in a way that excludes (d) then that would demonstrate gross incompetence and invoke the abuse argument as an indisputably compelling reason.

As you raised this at the first appeal, it was up to the train company to provide evidence to dispute your account of the conversation if they wished to - not for you to prove it. The appeal response seems to have ignored this crucial ground for appeal. See 16(4) with 16(5)(a)(iii). If the train company provided no such evidence under 16(4), the appeals body should have accepted the truth of your statements. (Under a strict interpretation of the regulations, I think the train company has now lost the opportunity to make representations to challenge your account of the conversation if it did not already do so, as this was a matter only for the first appeal. For that reason I would suggest only quoting the words you used in your first appeal to describe what happened in that particular interaction - don't add anything or rephrase which might provide an excuse for the train company to provide new input. Of course you can still set out the regulatory framework you believe they are supposed to follow and add commentary and reflections on where you think they have erred.)

You'll need to set all this out for them in detail. If you hit a word limit in the system they ask you to use, summarise your appeal within that limit and refer to an attachment in which you can fill in the gaps and set out your complete argument. There are several examples of how to write appeals on the forum now.

You could throw in the non-compliant signage at Farringdon as a separate ground too.


I strongly disagree. This is really basic stuff about Advance tickets, that the rail industry tries hard even to explain to the general public (refer even to the text of the response to the appeal)! National Rail trains stop at that station. This is not some obscure detail.

No, this is really about what words were actually spoken and we only have one side's account here. The other side should have been obtained via the train company in response to the first appeal, so the appeals body could make a determination in line with the regulations. The collector issuing the PF should have provided a heads-up that this account might be required to challenge a potential appeal (taking both a description of the passenger and the passenger's description of the agent), so it could be obtained rapidly to reduce the risk of the person concerned forgetting what happened if only asked about it weeks later (which could have the effect of making the passenger's account impossible to challenge).

 

[AlastairFraser]

If there's disruption, ask the Train Staff before boarding any train that's not on your itinerary and tell them you have an Advance ticket

The rest is great advice - I would highlight one small point though? How do you identify a member of Train Staff on a DOO service (such as Thameslink, the one that was boarded by the OP)?

 

[furlong]

One more question then. It says 'St Neots'. Did you ask for the penalty to be issued all the way to Peterborough? The default position is to issue it to the next station (so St. Neots or Huntingdon) and then for you either to leave the train at that point or to buy a new ticket from the inspector from that station to Peterborough. The Penalty Fare can ONLY be issued beyond the next stop if YOU ask the inspector to consider doing that. If there was no discussion about this, then that's another ground for appeal. Even if this would save you money, they can only do it if you ask them, but of course nothing stops them suggesting that you might like to ask them to consider it.

 

[Dean Bond]

Hi Furlong,

Thank you so much for taking the time out, and detailing the helpful information, its very insightful. I've also had a read through on a pervious thread, outlining a members 2nd appeal, which was won.
Gives me some hope at least, even though a different situation. I believe Watershed gave reference to this , that was very helpful indeed.

As requested* See attached
I`m starting to compose the reply, I`ll post a draft and tweak as necessary.
Cheers.

View attachment 155094View attachment 155095

Further to my reply, I've just realised something which may be of importance , adding to the argument of travelling with incorrect information from the TFL representee member of staff..... and that's how the hell I was able to enter back into the station ( Elizabeth line/ Farringdon ) without a valid ticket. I should not have been able to pass the Fair gates with my bar code. And I didn't use my credit card to enter, this would have shown up on my credit card transactions, like the Heathrow to Farringdon
(Elizabeth line) did £13.30.....
So this is another element in the mix !!!! The only way, would have been, another member of staff manually opening them for me, without checking my ticket, or perhaps they did look at my ticket, either way again they have failed to identify it as incorrect. I just can not remember how I got through, but I know for sure it was not using payment, so this leaves the aforementioned . Unless the gates were already open (unlikely) or the bar code worked ??? again unlikely, as this was a Kings cross to Peterborough ticket.
What do you think?

One more question then. It says 'St Neots'. Did you ask for the penalty to be issued all the way to Peterborough? The default position is to issue it to the next station (so St. Neots or Huntingdon) and then for you either to leave the train at that point or to buy a new ticket from the inspector from that station to Peterborough. The Penalty Fare can ONLY be issued beyond the next stop if YOU ask the inspector to consider doing that. If there was no discussion about this, then that's another ground for appeal. Even if this would save you money, they can only do it if you ask them, but of course nothing stops them suggesting that you might like to ask them to consider it.

Ok.
Right, good point, answer is no, I didn't ask for any station.

Let me see if I can get this down... Joined at Farringdon, hit St. Neots, guard entered right at the coach door I was sitting near (empty coach, bar me)...ask to see ticket, scans phone, says invalid, I'm surprised, he explains the train I'm travelling on and my tickets train service, obviously wrong, its now apparent. I explain to him everything that just happened from me getting off the Heathrow to Farringdon service Elizabeth Line, and needing to travel to Kings cross. Asking the female guard (one guard present) stationed at the fare gates which platform I need for Kings cross , and that the TFL guard has asked me where I'm going, showing my ticket on phone and replying Peterborough. She then proceeded to tell me I don't need to go to Kings Cross I can head to platform 4 and catch the next Peterborough train from there , this being back to the Elizabeth line side of the station.
He ask where did I get on..(Farringdon as already stated)..and said the fare was going to be from Farringdon to Peterborough at a price of £40 plus pounds, approx. The fine would be the cost of ticket plus X added.
The train Conductor asked my name, address, DOB.... ID....then explained how to pay for the fine, how long to pay (21days) and appeal process. After all that , he didn't ask for payment of any kind, or ask if i wanted to pay the fine. He handed me the PFN receipt, and walked away.
I don't think if missed anything...

An appeal on the basis of non-compliant signage would also likely seem in order. I've done the change between the Elizabeth line and Thameslink many times at Farringdon and not once have I ever noticed any Penalty Fare signage. Of course it's possible that it exists in some obscure corner, but in that case it would likely fail the requirement to be "readily visible" when changing trains. There is also every possibility of the wording being non-compliant - see this post which summarises the issues and has a draft appeal the OP could copy from.

Thanks watershed,

Appreciate the link, and info....I did a quick search online for Farringdon station pictures. I found most were about a year old, however there seemed to be discrepancies with poster boards. This being they are there on some days missing on others.....however on all the ones that do show them, they are far left of the entrance and only one board. So on entering from the far right you would just walk on by absolutely none the wiser, given a couple of souls standing in the way too, you really have no chance of realistically viewing them. And from the other pictures of the internal parts of the station, its clear to me, nothing else is in the slightest way looking like a warning sign. Its all very clean and poster free compared to other stations I feel.
I would like to know if the wording that was in question , Re; your link from the other appeal that won on the 2nd round, about warning posters is still relevant?
This may help me as suggested, but I feel only if the regs (in writing) have stayed the same. If they've been updated then I guess that's a lost cause.
What do you think?

 

[sheff1]

London Underground staff do not act or purport to act on behalf of the operator here. I don’t see how setting out this line of argument will bear fruit here.

Farringdon station is operated by London Underground. How can London Underground staff working at Farringdon not be acting on behalf of London Underground ?

 

[MotCO]

Farringdon station is operated by London Underground. How can London Underground staff working at Farringdon not be acting on behalf of London Underground ?

I thought the issue was a London Underground member of staff was advising on Thameslink ticket acceptability.

 

[island]

I thought the issue was a London Underground member of staff was advising on Thameslink ticket acceptability.

Reread post 13.

The point is that a Penalty Fare can't be issued if a person appearing to act on behalf of the operator of the station where the journey commenced allowed the person to travel without a ticket.

In terms of the Penalty Fares Regulations (which is what this thread is about), there can be no dispute that London Underground gateline staff at Farringdon CAN authorise travel on trains departing from that station. The dispute is over whether or not one of them actually DID so in terms of the regulations.

Assuming that the OP told the collector what they have told us, then in order for the collector to issue the PF, they must have had a reason not to believe the story (or else they would have breached 6(2)(d)) and that justification, whatever it was, ought to have been passed by the company to the appeals body along with a statement from the person working at Farringdon providing their account of the conversation.

On further review, I think there is a problem with this line of argument.

6 (2) (d) refers to authorising travel without a travel ticket.

The LU staff member did not authorise travel without a travel ticket, as the OP did have a travel ticket.

 

[AlterEgo]

On further review, I think there is a problem with this line of argument.

6 (2) (d) refers to authorising travel without a travel ticket.

The LU staff member did not authorise travel without a travel ticket, as the OP did have a travel ticket.

Doesn’t “without a ticket” in these circumstances also encompass people who happen to have a ticket but for whatever reason is unsatisfactory?

 

[furlong]

The LU staff member did not authorise travel without a travel ticket, as the OP did have a travel ticket.

“travel ticket” means a ticket or other authority which authorises a person to make a journey on a railway passenger service to which these Regulations apply;

The journey to which the regulations applied was Farringdon to St Neots (and potentially beyond).
The "travel ticket" in question did not authorise the passenger to make a journey on that service.
The passenger did not hold a "travel ticket" within the meaning of the regulations.

(I did consider the point you make before my original post - why the word 'valid' is missing throughout that paragraph - but concluded that attempts at a broader interpretation result in nonsense, and it has to be interpreted narrowly. What if someone has a ticket for a different journey that they are going to make in the future in their pocket when they arrive at a station to make a completely different journey and encounter a notice under 6(2)(c) which they wish to rely upon? They'd have to dispose of all their other tickets in order to avail themselves of the granted permission!)

 

[Haywain]

I have to say that regardless of discussion about who did or didn't give advice and whether a Penalty Fare was issued correctly, there is surely a responsibility on the part of the traveller to travel in accordance with the ticket they have purchased, and to be aware of what the itinerary they have booked and the restrictions pertaining to both.

 

[sheff1]

I have to say that regardless of discussion about who did or didn't give advice and whether a Penalty Fare was issued correctly, there is surely a responsibility on the part of the traveller to travel in accordance with the ticket they have purchased, and to be aware of what the itinerary they have booked and the restrictions pertaining to both.

There is, but if I understand correctly the OP showed the ticket to the person at the gateline and asked how to get to Kings Cross (to use the ticket they held) and was told there was no need to go to Kings Cross and could travel on the direct train from Farringdon using the ticket they had shown (i.e. were given permission as per 6 2(d)).

The gateline person could just have easily said the OP needed to use contactless to get to KX (as the OP had done to travel from Heathrow to Farringdon) but chose not to say that. If a passenger seeks advice from a staff member about their journey, and shows the ticket held, then following the advice given is the obvious thing for them to do.

 

[Falcon1200]

Was the London Underground (LU) member of staff at Farringdon not just trying to be helpful by advising the OP that there is a direct service from there to their destination? And it seems a little unreasonable for LU staff to be aware of ticketing and restrictions applying to other operators, which do not even run from their location!

 

[Haywain]

then following the advice given is the obvious thing for them to do.

Without questioning that it conflicts with their itinerary?