Penalty Fare Notice - Feel it is unjust

[crehld]

I am pretty confused as to what your position is at the moment. So in your opinion you have paid whichever organisation the £3.20 you think you owe, and you consider that you have done everything right. Is that a fair summary?

Ignoring all the other side-discussions, if that were indeed the case, then surely you have nothing to fear. You can very confidently allow them to take you to court, should they decide to do that, and after presenting your side of the arguments, you believe the judge will find in your favour. From what I can see, a large number of posters also appear to agree with you.

So in essence, nothing else needs to be done from your part, apart from preparing a pack for the court for when/if needed. You can confidently get on with life and ignore all future communication from whoever, until the day of the hearing.

I am not as confident as some other posters, but largely because I am not sure where you stand legally, but if it were indeed so clear-cut as some others have suggested, there is no more you need to do except what I outlined above.

I cannot see myself agreeing with it, for the simple fact that there is no guarantee you will definitely win should it go to court, and by your actions trying to sort it all out, I get the impression that you are not 100% sure either. All of the above would have only made sense had you been absolutely confident that you were correct, but if that were the case, there surely would be no need to have any further involvement with either SET and IPFAS. In the event that you are taken to court, you can grab them by their goolies comprehensively.

All of this means that it would have made much more sense to have simply sent £3.20 to the registered address or relevant personnel as DaveNewcastle pointed out, or, since you requested assistance from Transport Focus, to have followed what they agreed with SouthEastern. I find it unfortunate that you did neither.

Obviously I wish you luck in your endeavours, and am sure this will be resolved one way or another, but I have big questions over whether all this hassle for the effort you invested in it is all worth it. That, I suspect, only you can answer. I hope that expands on my post four upthread, and explains my take on this whole matter.

I don't think the OP wants to go to court. They have, of course, done nothing wrong, but the OP seems quite worried about the threat of court action so to suggest the OP is confident that they can have their day in court seems a little unfair.

Regarding simply sending a cheque with a covering letter to a nameless financial director based at the company's registered address in Newcastle: I remain sceptical that this would have resolved the matter in the quick and resolute way some would have us believe. Perhaps it would have? But it is equally (if not more) likely that the nameless financial director, who has many more important things to worry about, would have simply passed the information down to the customer service team to deal with, which I fear only would have exacerbated and delayed matters further. I further suspect that had the OP followed this advice they would still find themselves chastised by some quarters on here. Whether or not payment should have been sent to the nameless financial director is moot - the OP actively sought clarification about who to send payment to, was given an answer (which may or may not have been correct, but was nevertheless accepted as correct as any reasonable person would have done) and duly paid the body they were led to believe they should. So this is not a case of the OP having simply paid whichever organization they think they owe. Such a belief is not self manufactured but based on clear correspondence with the parties involved in the dispute.

Secondly, regarding Transport Focus's offer to pay the penalty on the vague promise of a refund. This was clearly an unsatisfactory offer. The OP's trust in the railway industry had already been significantly eroded by the incorrect imposition of a penalty fare and the failure to cancel it upon what should have been a clear cut successful appeal. I also posed the question further upthread of what the OP's legal position would be had they agreed to pay the penalty, thereby accepting full liability for an offence they did not actually commit; a question which seems to have been overlooked by those who profess to have the legal knowledge. All of this aside it remains the case that the OP has paid who they were led to believe should have been paid. The OP was quite conscientious in clarifying who payment of the fare should be sent to was was given a clear answer.

Given payment has been made I reiterate to the OP that my advice is now to engage in conversation with the relevant parties to determine whether payment has been received and that the matter has been resolved. In this case I would strongly recommend telephoning so you can engage in a conversation.

In all cases, the righteous indignation (which is sometimes direct and sometimes indirect, and which may or may not be intentional) that the OP is somehow at fault in this whole sorry affair must stop. The incontrovertible fact remains that this dispute is wholly of the railway industry's making - it is a shame that the onus and responsibility is being placed on the OP to resolve this matter and not the railway industry.

 

[najaB]

Regarding simply sending a cheque with a covering letter to a nameless financial director based at the company's registered address in Newcastle: I remain sceptical that this would have resolved the matter in the quick and resolute way some would have us believe.

It might have, or it might not. But one thing it would have done is remove any semblance of doubt that the OP had discharged his obligation to pay the fare due.

Had he done so then Southeastern Trains, IPFAS and RPSS could all be told to **** off in no uncertain terms.

 

[bb21]

I don't think the OP wants to go to court. They have, of course, done nothing wrong, but the OP seems quite worried about the threat of court action so to suggest the OP is confident that they can have their day in court seems a little unfair.

I am in no way defending SouthEastern, just looking at it from a more realistic perspective. The whole things is ridiculous the way it panned out, but it also seems incredulous to me that despite being unsure, the OP took possibly the worst course of action I can see, despite many people warning him against doing things this way. It is, after all, his decision, but it isn't one I can see much sense in, at all.

Regarding simply sending a cheque with a covering letter to a nameless financial director based at the company's registered address in Newcastle: I remain sceptical that this would have resolved the matter in the quick and resolute way some would have us believe. Perhaps it would have? But it is equally (if not more) likely that the nameless financial director, who has many more important things to worry about, would have simply passed the information down to the customer service team to deal with, which I fear only would have exacerbated and delayed matters further.

Possible, but unlikely. In these cases, what is more likely is that the finance director would have his secretary look at the matter, and as long as the letter is clear about the core matter, it would in all likelihood be passed to relevant personnel in the correct department, in this case, prosecutions, to handle. One may not always get a more favourable outcome taking this route, but it can be effective at getting the complaint to the correct personnel, as long as it is not abused all the time.

Yes it is possible that they may simply push it back to customer service, but very very unlikely ime, because this one is not a customer service matter.

I further suspect that had the OP followed this advice they would still find themselves chastised by some quarters on here.

That is neither here nor there. There will always be cases like this which cause a difference in opinion. If people are simply here to stick the boot in then they should be reported in line with forum procedure.

Whether or not payment should have been sent to the nameless financial director is moot - the OP actively sought clarification about who to send payment to, was given an answer (which may or may not have been correct, but was nevertheless accepted as correct as any reasonable person would have done) and duly paid the body they were led to believe they should. So this is not a case of the OP having simply paid whichever organization they think they owe. Such a belief is not self manufactured but based on clear correspondence with the parties involved in the dispute.

That is not what the arrangement said, as several people have pointed out. While the net effect to the customer at the end may appear to be the same, that is not what Transport Focus managed to negotiate with SouthEastern.

I don't think people sitting on opposite sides regarding this point will ever agree, so may be time to call it a day and focus on more important ways forward.

Secondly, regarding Transport Focus's offer to pay the penalty on the vague promise of a refund. This was clearly an unsatisfactory offer. The OP's trust in the railway industry had already been significantly eroded by the incorrect imposition of a penalty fare and the failure to cancel it upon what should have been a clear cut successful appeal. I also posed the question further upthread of what the OP's legal position would be had they agreed to pay the penalty, thereby accepting full liability for an offence they did not actually commit; a question which seems to have been overlooked by those who profess to have the legal knowledge.

That is unfortunate. All I can say is that the TOC is highly unlikely to renegade on an offer agreed through Transport Focus.

On the point about confidence already being eroded, if that is the approach one takes in life every time confidence is eroded with respect to a system, then that must make life incredibly difficult, because life is full of little disappointments, which I think the OP is probably just finding out in this case.

All of this aside it remains the case that the OP has paid who they were led to believe should have been paid. The OP was quite conscientious in clarifying who payment of the fare should be sent to was was given a clear answer.

We are going around in circles so I am not going to repeat myself. Suffice to say that I disagree.

In all cases, the righteous indignation (which is sometimes direct and sometimes indirect, and which may or may not be intentional) that the OP is somehow at fault in this whole sorry affair must stop. The incontrovertible fact remains that this dispute is wholly of the railway industry's making - it is a shame that the onus and responsibility is being placed on the OP to resolve this matter and not the railway industry.

It is entirely SouthEastern's fault. I have never disputed this point. As I said upthread, what I am more interested in is how to handle these situations such that they take the least amount of effort to resolve. Prioritise your objectives, which in this case is to avoid the matter proceeding further and causing further undue stress.

The customer has already been inconvenienced, it is in his own interests that the customer takes an approach which is likely to make his own life easier in the aftermath. It does not mean allowing the offending party off the hook. Once this is all resolved, then consideration can be given to the question as to whether appropriate compensation should be negotiated with the company and whether further complaint would be neecssary.

Even if we take into account the minimal risk of SouthEastern taking that £20, being a little prat and not returning that £17.60, all this unnecessary hassle the OP is now experiencing is surely not worth it. Maybe the OP has other ideas. I cannot possibly know, but his mind had been made up and all he can do now is just focus on trying to get IPFAS and SouthEastern to talk to each other, which I suspect may take a little while longer yet.

I hope I have explained myself fully. Sometimes I get the feeling on this board that some contributors focus way too much on what is right and what is wrong (perhaps out of sticking to their principles) and end up getting carried away and losing sight of what the most important thing is in a dispute, but not what works best and most effective in getting matters resolved. This isn't aimed at you or the OP, although this is certainly not what I had envisaged when I set out to try and assist people in these parts of the forum. There is often a right way and a "right" way.

 

[najaB]

In all cases, the righteous indignation (which is sometimes direct and sometimes indirect, and which may or may not be intentional) that the OP is somehow at fault in this whole sorry affair must stop. The incontrovertible fact remains that this dispute is wholly of the railway industry's making - it is a shame that the onus and responsibility is being placed on the OP to resolve this matter and not the railway industry.

I can only speak for myself: I have attempted to be consistent in my contributions to say that the OP was not in the wrong, that the PF was incorrectly issued and that the fare (and only the fare) is actually due to Southeastern - whether by the pay the PF and receive a refund route or the pay directly to Southeastern route. If anyone has read my posts differently then I hope this clarifies any misunderstanding.

 

[crehld]

I don't think people sitting on opposite sides regarding this point will ever agree, so may be time to call it a day and focus on more important ways forward.

I couldn't agree more. Hence my advice to the OP to do some ringing around and start engaging in conversation.

I will simply clarify that my aim is to draw attention to why the OP felt it was appropriate to pay IPFAS, and that such a perception was not at all held unreasonably given the communication they received. I appreciate there are different ways of reading the same situation and the inevitable confusion this causes.

All of this aside, I hope the OP doesn't take my defence of their actions as a call for complacency - the matter still needs resolving!

 

[ukkid]

Crehld - I personally think you couldn't have put it better.

I have read this thread with interest and joined to comment because I was somewhat disturbed by what was said.

Mayby I got it wrong. As I understood it AndyGb was told he hadn't paid Southeastern and was still liable for prosecution because he followed Southeastern's advice (?) and paid IPFAS, who were dealing with the matter for Southeastern (and are essentially a department of southeastern). He should instead have sent it to Southeastern's registered address and hope that they would filter down to the relevant department (IPFAS?)?

I am not a lawyer but I would be highly interested in a successful prosecution in which the penalty fare was invalid (?) and the alleged offender (on advice of the toc?) paid its trading name IPFAS. He is however prosecuted because he listened to the toc and sent it to the department dealing with the matter rather than sending it to toc's registered address.
AndyGB if you are very worried, maybe speak to some solicitors which deal with rail prosecutions. I think you can find some on an internet search and apparently you get 30 mins free advice.
35B - I wouldn't either. But Southeastern should account for it since he sent it to the relevant department.

 

[bb21]

It may be a good time to involve the MP imo.

It may also be a good time to consider involving the MD of SouthEastern, although there is no guarantee that it will be a quick fix, but as I mentioned earlier, should get through to the correct person more easily.

Without scrolling back all the way, have you spoken to SouthEastern prosecutions on the phone? If you can't get through, ring them again and again until you get through. Ring customer services and other numbers, and eventually you should be able to get through to speak to someone.

The only thing I can think of is that SouthEastern are probably not aware that you made a £3.20 payment to IPFAS, as IPFAS were supposed to tell them once you have made a full payment. They won't have access to IPFAS's database so cannot therefore know this until told. As far as IPFAS are concerned, you have made a partial payment (well, nominal), and as far as SET are concerned, you have not upheld your side of the agreement, hence no change in the proposed course of action for them so far.

 

[ukkid]

Did an internet search found "legal entities" pdf on gov.uk and did a search for trading name in the document. Here is an extract

Business Names
24. Many individuals and many companies use trading names, these have no legal status ....


Nonetheless as I said and others are also saying, contact the CEO and ask them to clarify if they have payment for the fare and what you have gone through.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

There are so many posts on this thread, offering such a wide range of views, often developing side-arguments, that it is difficult to see what points are being challenged in some of the criticisms.

But in recognition and appreciation that some of the criticisms are directed at my own advice to andygb, I will just make some points for clarification in respect of that advice.

I see two adverse outcomes which are of great concern to andygb:

A conviction following a prosecution.
I am very happy to accept that we have all the relevant facts on here now, and based on these, I see negligible prospect of success in any prosecution against andygb .

The pursuit of a debt.
It's never possible to be certain that a poorly informed investigations unit will not continue to pursue recovery action when it is no longer due, and it is often exactly what debt collection agencies do often get wrong. Unpaid debts are also passed on for prosecution even when thay have little prospect of success. This can be distressing and is well worth avoiding.​

There is a third outcome which seems to be of less concern to andygb:

receiving compensation for the inconvenience, distress, and actual work in dealing with the matter.​

My advice has been given with the following objectives:
- minimising the prospect of both of the adverse outcomes;
- to allow andygb to continue to achieve these objectives without the need to instruct a lawyer (I believe that the matter is adequately straightforward to be managed himself);
- to offer an opinion on the prospects of recovering compensation for time while the fare remained unpaid.

My advice has been based on the pragmatics of prior successes in every incident where I have terminated an action with the payment of the actual charge due to the principal Company (including railway passenger fares and their collection agencies).

Much has been said on the choice of which Company andygb pays the fare to. I gave my opinion and also said that I'm not sure that anything significant turns on the choice of which company ; but, it is my opinion that, if it is paid to the train company, then it will accellerate a conclusion, it will increase the prospects of receiving compensation, it will reduce the prospects of a debt collection agency wrongly pursuing a debt which has been paid, it will simplify any argument that does arise in the future over a possible prosecution.
The Common Law of Agency is complex, and in such a simple matter, that complexity is unnecessary and well worth avoiding. I advise making payment by cheque to Southeastern's Financial Director by tracked delivery, but in reality, the amount is so small that it is only to act as a pre-emptive strike against any ongoing action and to avoid that unnecessary complexity of arguments about Agency. - it does nothing to help andygb, and introduces a complexity and risk which should be dealt with by professional assistance, assistance which otherwise, we can avoid.

I have made no comment on the advice or opinions of Transport Focus nor on the unattributed comments made to Transport Focus by Southeastern, as I place little weight on them in achieving the objectives I've mentioned above, helpful as they certainly have been in confirming that at least someone within the Company acknowledged that the Penalty Fare was wrongly issued.

I will be very happy to change my opinion on any of these points if andygb, or anyone else, introduces any material grounds which affects my reasoning, but since the initial clarifications in the first 20 posts which did influence my thoughts, I have to say that the criticisms and their justifications haven't influenced my conclusions since then.

In conclusion, the prospects of adverse outcomes are small, and if andygb continues to communicate / respond clearly and promptly to any further communication, then I'm sure any action taken against him, if there is any at all, will be terminated.
I advise making payment to Southeastern, as a pre-emptive strike against any ongoing action and to avoid the unnecessary complexity of arguments about Agency.

By contrast, the prospects of receiving any compensation are far from clear.

 

[rs101]

I think part of the difficulty andygb has is that he's had no contact whatsoever with Southeastern, only IPFAS. Were I to be in his situation, I can understand why he's sent payment where he did.

Probably sending payment now to Southeastern might be safest but, given the way SET/IPFAS have handled this so far, both parties would probably both cash the cheque then he'd have a fight getting his money back from one or other of them.

 

[andygb]

I think part of the difficulty andygb has is that he's had no contact whatsoever with Southeastern, only IPFAS. Were I to be in his situation, I can understand why he's sent payment where he did.

Probably sending payment now to Southeastern might be safest but, given the way SET/IPFAS have handled this so far, both parties would probably both cash the cheque then he'd have a fight getting his money back from one or other of them.

I was instructed to send payment to IPFAS in the email to me by Transport Focus - which I duly did.
Yes, I am reluctant to send another cheque for £3.20 to a different party for the reasons which you have stated.
I have phoned Southeastern today, and I have a couple of names to contact tomorrow (after midday).
The person who I spoke to at Southeastern seemed very surprised that RPSS gave out a penalty fare notice, considering that my station has no ticket machine or permit to travel machine - apparently they are "trained" not to do that unless the person is an obvious fare doger (I presume that means not having any method to pay for their journey).

 

[jumble]

That is unfortunate. All I can say is that the TOC is highly unlikely to renegade on an offer agreed through Transport Focus.

I don't get why why would any one be in the slightest bit surprised that any organisation who behaves in this frankly imbecilic fashion might be incompetant or disorganised enough not to return the money ?

I have personally had a member of VTEC CS promise a goodwill credit to my wifes on line account which was not logged and later I found that there was apparently no one of that name in their CS dept.

Why shouldn't the OP suggest to them to send him the refund first and then he can send back the £20.00.
Oh no they wouldn't do that in case he doesn't keep to his side of the bargain !

 

[bb21]

I don't get why why would any one be in the slightest bit surprised that any organisation who behaves in this frankly imbecilic fashion might be incompetant or disorganised enough not to return the money ?

Because while Transport Focus do not have much real regulatory power, TOCs do take these promises through them seriously, for a large number of reasons.

I don't always have good things to say about Transport Focus, because they are a pretty weak organisation and lack expertise in many areas, but if they managed to negotiate a deal, they are good at sticking with it and chasing the TOC up should this not be realised.

 

[cjmillsnun]

More to the point, there is a distinction between a company being a wholly owned subsidiary and a different division. Shell owns British Gas, but if I sent my payment for the gas bill to Shell, I wouldn't expect British Gas to be able to account for it.

And here you make a mistake.

Shell owns BG, the exploration arm of what was British Gas.

The consumer arm has British Gas as a trading name of Centrica, and are very definitely not owned by Shell.

Now IPFAS may be a department within Southeastern, however they operate in a Chinese wall. Think BT and Openreach. Openreach look after the exchanges and the final mile. They must not give BT (a company they are a department of) any favours and effectively are a separate entity within BT.

 

[cuccir]

I do wonder if this discussion is getting anywhere....

Andy is, as far as I know, awaiting further communication from Southeastern. My suggestion is that until he returns with an update on this, we've probably all made the case both for and against sending payments to Southeastern, IPFAS, David Cameron, Sir Topham Hat, or anyone else. I suggest we also sit and await further updates.

 

[andygb]

A long phonecall yesterday to Southeastern - largely holding on for 16 minutes, where I was asked to phone back today - which I did twice.
Both times I was told someone would call me back - which they did not - what a surprise.
Today, I was holding on for 39 minutes - words fail me!

 

[Flamingo]

I can't help feeling that the whole thing is going to cost you more than the £20 PF in terms of time, stamps, and antacids for the stomach ulcer you are getting from fighting it.

I think I'd have paid it and moved on a long time ago...

 

[rs101]

I think he's concerned about paying it (given that everyone agrees it shouldn't have been issued) as he doesn't want a 'strike' against his name, especially when there's a chance of another one being issued in equally suspect circumstances.

 

[andygb]

I can't help feeling that the whole thing is going to cost you more than the £20 PF in terms of time, stamps, and antacids for the stomach ulcer you are getting from fighting it.

I think I'd have paid it and moved on a long time ago...

thanks for that less than helpful comment.:roll:
I assume that you always pay for things which you should't, and let people walk all over you?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think he's concerned about paying it (given that everyone agrees it shouldn't have been issued) as he doesn't want a 'strike' against his nsme, especially when there's a chance of another one being issued in equally suspect circumstances.

Exactly.

 

[DaleCooper]

There were two possible courses of action available to the OP.

a) That which has been followed which looks likely to lead to a long drawn out and possibly stressful process. If that is what the OP wants so be it.

b) Follow the payment instructions suggested by TF and get a refund, result a happy ending. However if no refund is received there could be a long drawn out and possibly stressful process to recover the money.

In my opinion option b) at least had the possibilty of a quick and stress free outcome, if not it would be no worse than option a) except for the temporary loss of £16.

 

[jon0844]

I'd say go with b and afterwards issue a strong complaint, with a claim for the actual costs in dealing with the matter. By that I mean the cost of postage and a reasonable claim for the time (not £50 an hour!). I would then ask for an assurance that the record of the PF is removed and that it will not happen again, perhaps asking for paperwork to show staff or a contact name/number for a quicker resolution if it did.

The OP would hopefully come away with a satisfactory solution, rather than an ongoing situation like now where the 'costs' are rising in terms of financial outlay and stress, and there's still no sign of a resolution.

 

[andygb]

There were two possible courses of action available to the OP.

a) That which has been followed which looks likely to lead to a long drawn out and possibly stressful process. If that is what the OP wants so be it.

b) Follow the payment instructions suggested by TF and get a refund, result a happy ending. However if no refund is received there could be a long drawn out and possibly stressful process to recover the money.

In my opinion option b) at least had the possibilty of a quick and stress free outcome, if not it would be no worse than option a) except for the temporary loss of £16.

It would be the "temporary loss" of £60 which is the PFN [plus admin charges.

However, there has been a development.
I have just spoken with Southeastern, but I have not been able to speak directly to either of the two people who should have phoned me yesterday. The person on reception passed on a message that I will have to send £63.20 in order to be refunded £60, which I have refused to do.
The cheque which I sent to IPFAS for £3.20 has been cashed and appeared on my bank statement yesterday, so I consider the matter closed.

They - Southeastern, Ipfas, RPSS, Old Uncle Tom Cobbly and all, can take me to court and prosecute me if they wish.

 

[jon0844]

If they've banked the money then yes it should be. But do you think it will stop at this point?

 

[crehld]

It would be the "temporary loss" of £60 which is the PFN [plus admin charges.

However, there has been a development.
I have just spoken with Southeastern, but I have not been able to speak directly to either of the two people who should have phoned me yesterday. The person on reception passed on a message that I will have to send £63.20 in order to be refunded £60, which I have refused to do.
The cheque which I sent to IPFAS for £3.20 has been cashed and appeared on my bank statement yesterday, so I consider the matter closed.

They - Southeastern, Ipfas, RPSS, Old Uncle Tom Cobbly and all, can take me to court and prosecute me if they wish.

Did you notice the withdrawal of the £3.20 before after your conversation with Southeastern? If before, did you bring up the fact that payment has been taken?

In either case think it is very important to speak to the case officer (or whoever) dealing with your case, rather than a receptionist.

 

[najaB]

The person on reception passed on a message that I will have to send £63.20 in order to be refunded £60, which I have refused to do.

And rightly so as only £2.30 is due to Southeastern.

 

[andygb]

And rightly so as only £2.30 is due to Southeastern.

Why do you keep printing £2.30?
As they have waived the fine/admin costs and IPFAS have banked the money, then I do not owe them £60.
What would they prosecute me for - not paying admin charges/penalty fare that they were going to refund me anyway?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Did you notice the withdrawal of the £3.20 before after your conversation with Southeastern? If before, did you bring up the fact that payment has been taken?

In either case think it is very important to speak to the case officer (or whoever) dealing with your case, rather than a receptionist.

I only noticed the £3.20 debit about an hour after the call, as I normally check my account around midday.

 

[crehld]

I only noticed the £3.20 debit about an hour after the call, as I normally check my account around midday.

Call them back to update them with this information. Try to speak directly with the person responsible for your case, not the receptionist. It us not at all unreasonable to insist upon this. Messages back and forth aren't really going to get you anywhere.

 

[najaB]

Why do you keep printing £2.30?

Sorry, I transposed the '2' and '3'.

I'm not sure what the rest of that post was about as I never said anything about the £60?

 

[andygb]

Sorry, I transposed the '2' and '3'.

I'm not sure what the rest of that post was about as I never said anything about the £60?

They are after the penalty fare plus two lots of admin charges as well.

I cannot get through to the two people I have been trying to contact, whether that is because of deliberate blocking or they really are not there I do not know. I will try later on, or tomorrow.

 

[najaB]

They are after the penalty fare plus two lots of admin charges as well.

If by they you mean Southeastern, then they might be after it, but there is no basis for it. Though I would be more comfortable in that assessment if the cheque had been made payable to Southeastern Trains rather than IPFAS.