Penalty fare Appeal and conditions of carriage question

[some bloke]

When a train company exaggerates the amount a passenger owes, how bad or how many times repeated does this have to be before asking for compensation for inconvenience is worthwhile/likely to succeed (bearing in mind that the company may have wrongly taken other passengers' money)?

 

[furlong]

When a train company exaggerates the amount a passenger owes, how bad or how many times repeated does this have to be before asking for compensation for inconvenience is worthwhile/likely to succeed (bearing in mind that the company may have wrongly taken other passengers' money)?

Please focus on the individual case (or start a new thread).

 

[ten7]

Are there any further channels of escalation available if all 3 appeals fail?

 

[some bloke]

When a train company exaggerates the amount a passenger owes, how bad or how many times repeated does this have to be before asking for compensation for inconvenience is worthwhile/likely to succeed (bearing in mind that the company may have wrongly taken other passengers' money)?

Please focus on the individual case (or start a new thread).

I asked believing the answer might be helpful in this case.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Are there any further channels of escalation available if all 3 appeals fail?

Yes. Since you have paid the Penalty Fare, your recourse would be to make a civil claim for its repayment in the County Court. It's not as daunting as it might seem, though it isn't something that should be taken quite as lightly as a Penalty Fare appeal.

You would not need a solicitor as a claim of this value would be allocated to the Small Claims Track, where solicitors are not expected and their cost is almost invariably irrecoverable anyway.

This being said, I would like to hope it doesn't come to this stage, and indeed we have previously seen appeals succeed in homogenous circumstances.

 

[ten7]

Yes. Since you have paid the Penalty Fare, your recourse would be to make a civil claim for its repayment in the County Court. It's not as daunting as it might seem, though it isn't something that should be taken quite as lightly as a Penalty Fare appeal.

You would not need a solicitor as a claim of this value would be allocated to the Small Claims Track, where solicitors are not expected and their cost is almost invariably irrecoverable anyway.

This being said, I would like to hope it doesn't come to this stage, and indeed we have previously seen appeals succeed in homogenous circumstances.

Can London travel watch also help? Their website seems to suggest they have helped in overturning incorrect appeals before. Wouldn’t going down the county court route just result in court fees which could end up being more?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Can London travel watch also help? Their website seems to suggest they have helped in overturning incorrect appeals before. Wouldn’t going down the county court route just result in court fees which could end up being more?

London Travelwatch wouldn't usually get involved if it is at the stage of you appealing it with the Appeals Body. Besides, they have more or less been supplanted by the Rail Ombudsman in their role as arbitrator for disputes - and neither really take on cases that have proceeded to an appealed Penalty Fare.

Court fees are added onto your claim amount. So if you claimed for your Penalty Fare back (£30.20) the claim issue fee would be £25, and this, on top of interest at 8%, would be added onto the amount owed. If it came to a hearing you would also be entitled to recover your direct costs of attending the hearing (transport, time off work etc.).

 

[furlong]

In respect of the word "full", the O.E.D. opts for:

full price n. and adj. (a) n. the normal or stated price at which something is offered for sale, as opposed to a reduced or discounted price;

and it cites a rail example comparing it against a reduction by using a discount card. Or in other words, the current wording excludes railcards and other discount schemes.
I struggle to see how they could maintain that the "normal" price at which a ticket for that journey is offered for sale on a Sunday is that of the anytime fare.

 

[ten7]

London Travelwatch wouldn't usually get involved if it is at the stage of you appealing it with the Appeals Body. Besides, they have more or less been supplanted by the Rail Ombudsman in their role as arbitrator for disputes - and neither really take on cases that have proceeded to an appealed Penalty Fare.

Court fees are added onto your claim amount. So if you claimed for your Penalty Fare back (£30.20) the claim issue fee would be £25, and this, on top of interest at 8%, would be added onto the amount owed. If it came to a hearing you would also be entitled to recover your direct costs of attending the hearing (transport, time off work etc.).

Thats assuming I win. The national rail conditions of carriage still seems to claim that it’s twice the anytime single fare. So it seems the conditions of carriage contradict the regulations.

 

[ten7]

Also if I were to make a claim would it be against GTR or against the penalty appeals body.

 

[furlong]

The national rail conditions of carriage still seems to claim that it’s twice the anytime single fare. So it seems the conditions of carriage contradict the regulations.

Where did you find that? I don't see it.

 

[ten7]

I have a bad feeling they’ll just reject it again saying no further evidence over and beyond the first appeal was provided so there will be no change in outcome.

 

[ten7]

Where did you find that? I don't see it.

9.2.2

https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/National Rail Conditions of Travel.pdf

 

[swt_passenger]

9.2.2

https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/National Rail Conditions of Travel.pdf

That sub paragraph is not referring to penalty fare areas though, as I read it.

 

[ten7]

That sub paragraph is not referring to penalty fare areas though, as I read it.

Actually you’re right. It’s saying the anytime fare. Not twice it.

 

[furlong]

That's a 3-way choice they have - note the word "or" in between each - and in your case they already chose 1 so the other two are no longer relevant.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Also if I were to make a claim would it be against GTR or against the penalty appeals body.

It would be against GTR. They are the ones who have unlawfully charged you.

The Conditions of Travel set out that the undiscounted Anytime single may be sold as one method of resolving a ticketing irregularity. But if that option is not taken up there and then - as was the case for you - then they forgo that right, and are restricted to prosecuting (also now impossible due to the appeal having been processed), or recovering a Penalty Fare. Penalty Fares are not a charge made under the Conditions of Travel - they are a statutory charge whose amount is defined in Regulations laid down by the Government.

It is quite clear that GTR are in the wrong here. If the appeals body does not allow your appeals, it is disappointing and unfortunate, but certainly not the end of the story.

 

[ten7]

It would be against GTR. They are the ones who have unlawfully charged you.

The Conditions of Travel set out that the undiscounted Anytime single may be sold as one method of resolving a ticketing irregularity. But if that option is not taken up there and then - as was the case for you - then they forgo that right, and are restricted to prosecuting (also now impossible due to the appeal having been processed), or recovering a Penalty Fare. Penalty Fares are not a charge made under the Conditions of Travel - they are a statutory charge whose amount is defined in Regulations laid down by the Government.

It is quite clear that GTR are in the wrong here. If the appeals body does not allow your appeals, it is disappointing and unfortunate, but certainly not the end of the story.

I suspect the appeals body is GTR.

 

[ten7]

I’m sure my next appeal will just be rejected as well on the same grounds. They clearly didn’t read my appeal where I outlined step by step quoting each section of the regulations logically to explain why my appeal should be upheld.

The appeals body’s website even states that if you just provide the same evidence they will most likely reject it.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I’m sure my next appeal will just be rejected as well on the same grounds. They clearly didn’t read my appeal where I outlined step by step quoting each section of the regulations logically to explain why my appeal should be upheld.

The appeals body’s website even states that if you just provide the same evidence they will most likely reject it.

Well, it's worth going through the motions even if it ends up being unsuccessful. If it does have to go to Court, going through the appeals procedures in full will make you look more reasonable.

 

[ten7]

Well, it's worth going through the motions even if it ends up being unsuccessful. If it does have to go to Court, going through the appeals procedures in full will make you look more reasonable.

I think it’s probably worth writing to GTR directly or using a mediation or complaint resolution service first before going to court, if the appeals fail? I’m sure GTR wouldn’t want something to end up in court if they know they don’t have a leg to stand on and risk having to pay out more than the refund of the penalty fare.

 

[furlong]

Don't get ahead of yourself! If the 2nd appeal is rejected, then the third-level appeal goes to a body that is supposed to be independent and to be seen to be independent - a cynic might say the first two appeals exist only to deter people and to avoid the extra expense incurred by third-level appeals. Also, if you win an appeal there is a short deadline for them to refund you in full - they are not permitted to make any deductions from the refund - and that's then the end of the process.

 

[furlong]

Also you should be checking if there are other possible grounds for appeal (such as signage, which is often not compliant) and include them all. On signage, the new rules seem stricter than the old ones in that it appears now to be treated as a single matter of fact whether or not the entire station complies. (In an appeal, your statements are taken to be correct unless the train company shows otherwise.)

 

[ten7]

Apparently both london travel watch and transport focus will look into complaints against incorrectly rejected appeals.

Although I don’t know which one I would send my complaint to.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I think it’s probably worth writing to GTR directly or using a mediation or complaint resolution service first before going to court, if the appeals fail? I’m sure GTR wouldn’t want something to end up in court if they know they don’t have a leg to stand on and risk having to pay out more than the refund of the penalty fare.

This sort of sensible logic rarely applies to big companies. If they settle a matter out of Court it is likely to be as a matter of their customer services policy, not because they have evaluated it as the least expensive option overall.

If your second stage appeal is rejected we can come back with further arguments. Starting your journey at King's Cross is a goldmine in and of itself - the Penalty Fare signage there is about as awful as it gets, with them attempting to get away with putting small print on the barrier text that normally says "children and dogs must be carried" or something like that, and with the full sign overhead, well out of sight. It's just not on, quite apart from the wording being non Regulations compliant. But we'll cross that bridge if or when we get to it.

 

[ten7]

As I thought appeal unsuccessful by final independent appeals panel - justification as follows.

“Enquiries by the panel have found the calculation to be correct. The Regulations quoted by you in your third appeal refer to the "full single fare applicable". This is an undiscounted fare. Section 1.3 of the acompanying Penalty Fares Guidelines 2018 go further and state The amount of any Penalty Fare is £20.00 or twice the cost of an undiscounted full Single, applicable to the person travelling, from the station you started your train journey to the next station served by the train, whichever is greater. Although your comments about the penalty fare calculation have been noted, the value of a National Rail penalty fare is set by the government, not by the rail operator.”

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

As I thought appeal unsuccessful by final independent appeals panel - justification as follows.

“Enquiries by the panel have found the calculation to be correct. The Regulations quoted by you in your third appeal refer to the "full single fare applicable". This is an undiscounted fare. Section 1.3 of the acompanying Penalty Fares Guidelines 2018 go further and state The amount of any Penalty Fare is £20.00 or twice the cost of an undiscounted full Single, applicable to the person travelling, from the station you started your train journey to the next station served by the train, whichever is greater. Although your comments about the penalty fare calculation have been noted, the value of a National Rail penalty fare is set by the government, not by the rail operator.”

Unbelievable show of incompetence and they have seemingly totally ignored your other point of appeal.

As you have already paid the Penalty Fare this puts you in somewhat of a more complex situation, since you can't just wait for them to sue you. To recover the Penalty Fare you would have to proceed down the route of making a County Court claim. I'd be more than happy to guide you through the procedure for this but I can appreciate you may not want to do so.

This is a damning indictment on the supposedly improved Penalty Fares system.

 

[furlong]

(I think we missed the jump in this thread from 2nd appeal to 3rd appeal? Perhaps you'd share the actual wording of the 3rd appeal, as that response suggests the relevant point was not argued, or was ignored. The argument was that an incorrect "undiscounted fare" was used.)

 

[furlong]

The direct reference to the Guidelines is also extremely concerning, because the Panel should be making its decisions by reference to the Regulations themselves, not an unapproved summary:

This is not a legally binding document and should only be used as an accessible summary of some of the key principles of the Regulations.

 

[ten7]

The direct reference to the Guidelines is also extremely concerning, because the Panel should be making its decisions by reference to the Regulations themselves, not an unapproved summary:

I have referred the matter to London Travelwatch.