Complex Penalty Fare

[island]

None other than badgering you into submission or threatening court action "which may affect your credit rating or employment".

 

[Flamingo]

My understanding is that the signature on a UFN is simply to confirm that the person issuing it has explained that it must be paid or appealed within ten day and the recipient understands this. Refusal to sign does not negate the UFN, or mean the recipient of it is agreeing to pay or not.

 

[WillPS]

My understanding is that the signature on a UFN is simply to confirm that the person issuing it has explained that it must be paid or appealed within ten day and the recipient understands this. Refusal to sign does not negate the UFN, or mean the recipient of it is agreeing to pay or not.

I don't see how that can be so. There's no facility for UPFNs in law so they're surely just a contract. A contract which one party has refused to agree to is not a contract at all.

Of course, there's nothing to stop the TOC proceeding to attempt to gain payment, and if that's not forthcoming the TOC could then sue for nonpayment/ticketless travel/whatever. The name and address given is sufficient to launch such action - so in essence the legitimacy of the contract is academic.

I am not a lawyer.

 

[RJ]

My understanding is that the signature on a UFN is simply to confirm that the person issuing it has explained that it must be paid or appealed within ten day and the recipient understands this. Refusal to sign does not negate the UFN, or mean the recipient of it is agreeing to pay or not.

Your UFNs are different to the ones I've had then. The paragraph preceding the signature box on the many I've had says "I confirm that the personal and journey details given are correct. I understand that I have 21 days to pay the amount requested on this notice and that should I fail to do so I may be liable for further costs and/or prosecution for non payment."

 

[Flamingo]

Sounds like it. I don't have one to hand, I'll check over the next few days.

 

[SussexMan]

A contract which one party has refused to agree to is not a contract at all.

Isn't the agreement made at the point they stepped on the train?

 

[Ferret]

The wording on my UFN is precisely the same as what RJ has quoted.

As I said, the wording of my training from a very knowledgeable man was that a UFN is evidence of a civil debt. Nothing more.

 

[Flamingo]

Isn't the agreement made at the point they stepped on the train?

I would have thought so. Maybe one of our legal bods can give an opinion?

 

[michael769]

Isn't the agreement made at the point they stepped on the train?

Yes.

The UPFN is simply an invoice for payment. The liability to make the payment arises from the contract that has already been entered into when the passenger accepted the ToC's offer of transportation for payment of a consideration by stepping onto a train.

 

[Flamingo]

Thanks

 

[Ferret]

Yes.

The UPFN is simply an invoice for payment. The liability to make the payment arises from the contract that has already been entered into when the passenger accepted the ToC's offer of transportation for payment of a consideration by stepping onto a train.

But in RJ's case of holding a valid ticket and therefore having satisfied his contractual obligations........?! Which is after all what we are talking about in the first instance!

 

[Flamingo]

But in RJ's case of holding a valid ticket and therefore having satisfied his contractual obligations........?! Which is after all what we are talking about in the first instance!

WillPS was saying that if you refuse to sign a UFN that you are not accepting the contract and it can't be enforced. We were just making the point that the contract is entered into by getting on the train.

 

[Ferret]

WillPS was saying that if you refuse to sign a UFN that you are not accepting the contract and it can't be enforced. We were just making the point that the contract is entered into by getting on the train.

In my semi-educated opinion, all a UFN is in that case is evidence of a civil debt arising from that contract. The box for a signature is there for a reason!

 

[Flamingo]

Oh yea, a signature is a good thing (and makes it more difficult for somebody to argue), but lack of a signature does not negate the UFN.

 

[Ferret]

Oh yea, a signature is a good thing (and makes it more difficult for somebody to argue), but lack of a signature does not negate the UFN.

To me it should make it a matter for immediate Prosecution! After all, by not signing, you are saying that you don't accept that you need to pay within 21 days!

 

[John @ home]

by not signing, you are saying that you don't accept that you need to pay within 21 days!

No. In RJ's case, by not signing he is saying that he does not accept that the ticket(s) he has presented for inspection are not valid for the journey he is undertaking.

 

[Ferret]

No. In RJ's case, by not signing he is saying that he does not accept that the ticket(s) he has presented for inspection are not valid for the journey he is undertaking.

One and the same thing surely!!!

 

[michael769]

One and the same thing surely!!!

Prosecuting someone with a valid ticket will not endear you to the local magistrates. Get a reputation for that sort of thing and they will not see you as a credible witness in future cases. They have surprisingly long memories.

 

[Ferret]

Prosecuting someone with a valid ticket will not endear you to the local magistrates. Get a reputation for that sort of thing and they will not see you as a credible witness in future cases. They have surprisingly long memories.

Which is precisely what I'm saying about RJ's case. Although, in fairness to EMT, their Prosecution Manager is clearly way more clued up than his underlings and does seem to have told RJ what he knows already; that he isn't doing anything wrong!

 

[sheff1]

To me it should make it a matter for immediate Prosecution! After all, by not signing, you are saying that you don't accept that you need to pay within 21 days!

I don't understand this argument. Why should you accept that you need to pay within 21 days when you hold a perfectly valid ticket and therefore have no debt to pay ?

 

[Ferret]

I don't understand this argument. Why should you accept that you need to pay within 21 days when you hold a perfectly valid ticket and therefore have no debt to pay ?

Right, the thread is becoming quite confused now. Put simply, I suggested that RJ should decline to sign a UFN because he held a valid ticket and therefore has no debt to pay within 21 days. Therefore the train company could, if they so desired go to prosecution mode. Michael769 correctly argues that prosecuting somebody with a valid ticket would not be clever - and to be fair to EMT, they won't do so in RJ's case.

Others have suggested that the signing is irrelevant where a UFN is concerned. Well, fine - it matters not to me, but I disagree with them! Why is the box there in the first place?!

John at home then chips in because he likes to pick up on all sorts of things I say to argue about semantics - quite why I don't know or care.

 

[sheff1]

Right - I get it now. As you say, the thread is rather confused now.

 

[Flamingo]

Right - I get it now. As you say, the thread is rather confused now.

A bit like RJ's tickets

 

[Ferret]

A bit like RJ's tickets

I reckon he'd have me stumped with some of these combinations! Thankfully he doesn't seem to use my services so I've been safe so far!

 

[AndyLandy]

Why is the box there in the first place?!

I've often speculated over that question in a wide variety of cases. It seems to me that people who design forms often just decide that "it should probably have...", without always putting in sufficient thought as to why. It may just be that someone thought it was a good idea.

 

[Flamingo]

I've often speculated over that question in a wide variety of cases. It seems to me that people who design forms often just decide that "it should probably have...", without always putting in sufficient thought as to why. It may just be that someone thought it was a good idea.

Probably right
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I reckon he'd have me stumped with some of these combinations! Thankfully he doesn't seem to use my services so I've been safe so far!

I'm glad he's not on my patch either (and have told him so in the past) ...

 

[Lewisham2221]

I've often speculated over that question in a wide variety of cases. It seems to me that people who design forms often just decide that "it should probably have...", without always putting in sufficient thought as to why. It may just be that someone thought it was a good idea.

When my mother purchased a laptop from Comet, they had a bizarre policy of requiring a signature to say confirm that they'd offered you an extended warranty and you'd turned it down! Anyway, back on topic...

 

[Flamingo]

When my mother purchased a laptop from Comet, they had a bizarre policy of requiring a signature to say confirm that they'd offered you an extended warranty and you'd turned it down! Anyway, back on topic...

Given my experience of Comet, I'm surprised they didn't put her in an armlock until she bought the extended warranty. Last time I went there to buy a household appliance, the salesman didn't care which I bought, once I bought the warranty with it...

 

[Ferret]

I've often speculated over that question in a wide variety of cases. It seems to me that people who design forms often just decide that "it should probably have...", without always putting in sufficient thought as to why. It may just be that someone thought it was a good idea.

I know what you mean, but go back to RJ's post about what it says above the signature box. That was written by a lawyer, it reeks of it!

 

[AndyLandy]

I know what you mean, but go back to RJ's post about what it says above the signature box. That was written by a lawyer, it reeks of it!

Lawyers? They're strange creatures indeed! I'm not sure I'd dare to speculate as to the reasoning behind what they'd mean by doing something such as this!