Penalty Services - penalty fares appeal company who acts incorrectly and spreads misinformation

[yorkie]

It has been brought to my attention that the following company is providing misinformation regarding Penalty Fares:

Home - Penalty Services

www.penaltyservices.co.uk

12 Deben Mill Business Centre
Old Maltngs Approach
Woodbridge
IP12 1BL

PENALTY SERVICES LIMITED overview - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

PENALTY SERVICES LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk

The following train companies are listed as clients of this company:

East Midlands Railway (EMR)
Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR - operating GN, GX, SN & TL brands)
Merseyrail
Northern
Southeastern
South Western Railway (SWR)
Transport for Wales (TfW)
TransPennine Express (TPE)

I have no confidence that Penalty Fares appeals, for PFs issued by the above train companies, are being asessed correctly.

The company claims that:

Penalty Services operates with:

• A clear criteria for hearing appeals
• A consistent approach by appropriately trained staff
• Access to all the information needed to assess each appeal
• A keen eye on data protection and human rights

But this is clearly untrue as their staff are not trained appropriately and the relevant information is not being accessed.

Here is a part of a letter which is causing concern (with my emphasis)

...It remains the passenger’s responsibility to confirm that their ticket is valid for their entire journey they intend making before boarding the train. This also involves checking the date of travel, that the proposed route between the stations recorded on the ticket is valid, and any other restrictions which may apply to the use of that ticket on the rail network.

As the ticket produced for inspection was not valid for the journey recorded on the penalty fare, regrettably it has been concluded by Penalty Services that the penalty fare should stand.

The first part of Section 16 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT) clearly states: "Please note that "advance" Tickets do not permit a break of journey. The special conditions for "advance" Tickets can be found at www.nationalrail.co.uk/advancetickets.

You were therefore not permitted to begin your journey at an intermediate station.

Having taken into consideration all the points raised to date, we regret to advise that your appeal has been unsuccessful...

This is completely wrong; this company erroneously believes that if a ticket is "not valid", a Penalty Fare can be applied, however in the case of a passenger travelling via an invalid route, or at an invalid time on a time restricted ticket, or - as in this case - breaking/starting/finishing their journey when not allowed by the conditions, an excess fare should be charged, not a Penalty Fare.

The relevant parts of the NRCoT, which state an excess fare will be charged under these circumstances, are as follows:

9.5 Where you:
9.5.1 are using a time-restricted Ticket (such as an “off-peak” or “super-off-peak”
Ticket) that is correctly dated but invalid for the service on which you are
travelling; or
9.5.2 are using a route for which your Ticket is not valid; or
9.5.3 break your journey when you are not permitted to do so;
you will be charged the difference between the fare that you have paid and
the lowest price Ticket that is valid for the train you are using

16.2 Generally, you may start, or break and resume, a journey (in either direction in the
case of a return Ticket) at any intermediate station, as long as the Ticket you hold is
valid for the trains you want to use. However, this may not be the case with some
through services that take an indirect route. You may also end your journey (in either
direction in the case of a return Ticket) before the destination shown on the Ticket.

16.3 If you start, break or resume your journey at an intermediate station where you are
not entitled to do so, you will be liable to pay an excess fare. The price for this will be
the difference between the amount paid for the Ticket you hold and the lowest price
Ticket available for immediate travel that would have entitled you to start, break or
resume your journey at the station concerned.

So, they can charge the difference, but no more than that, i.e. they can not charge a whole new ticket, nor can they issue a Penalty Fare.

It appears that independent appeals companies, such as Penalty Services do not understand the rules regarding Penalty Fares and do not understand the National Rail Conditions of Travel. And yet they are apparently accreddited to fulfil this role.

Clearly, the system is very broken.

Questions:

1) Who assesses this company?
2) What safeguards are in place to ensure Penalty Fares are correctly issued by train companies?
2) What safeguards are in place to ensure Penalty Fares which are wrongly issued are correctly cancelled upon appeal?
3) What training does this company provide its staff?
4) Is the Rail Ombudsman aware of what's going on; if not, why not? If so, what are they doing about it?
5) Is Transport Focus aware of what's going on; if not, why not? If so, what are they doing about it?
6) Is the Transport Select Committee aware of what's going on; if not, why not? If so, what are they doing about it?
7) Should DfT and/or ORR be regulating this, or is it completely unregulated? If they should be regulating this, why aren't they?
8) Does anyone know how to prevent companies behaving this way in future?

 

[Mawkie]

In their FAQ they claim opening someone else mail is illegal. So it appears they have little grasp of the law.

(Screenshot showing FAQ of website)

 

[tspaul26]

If you want things to change then you would need to litigate successfully in order to obtain definitive interpretations of the NRCOT.

It would be a foolish TOC that allowed a matter to reach that stage.

 

[Pushpit]

The only suggestion I would have in respect of your Point 8 would be to pay whatever results from the Appeal "under protest to minimise costs" and then use the Small Claims channel at the County Court process to recover any losses. This does not set precedent but a carefully documented exposition in this forum would have nearly the same effect over time. Or at least that has been my experience with airlines in this respect.

Moreover a few such cases with publicity will then allow you to run backwards through points 1 to 7.

 

[yorkie]

In their FAQ they claim opening someone else mail is illegal. So it appears they have little grasp of the law.
View attachment 153312
(Screenshot showing FAQ of website)

Interesting, but not surprising, given what I've heard about this company.

If you want things to change then you would need to litigate successfully in order to obtain definitive interpretations of the NRCOT.

It would be a foolish TOC that allowed a matter to reach that stage.

I am aware of a couple of people who are being persued for PFs under incorrect circumstances; if any solicitors are able to assist on a pro-bono basis, please do let me know...

The only suggestion I would have in respect of your Point 8 would be to pay whatever results from the Appeal "under protest to minimise costs" and then use the Small Claims channel at the County Court process to recover any losses...

Is this better than refusing to pay the PF? Also would a claim be against the train company, or the appeals body, or both as dual defendants?

This does not set precedent but a carefully documented exposition in this forum would have nearly the same effect over time. Or at least that has been my experience with airlines in this respect.

Moreover a few such cases with publicity will then allow you to run backwards through points 1 to 7.

On the topic of publicity, if any journalists reading this are willing to help cover this story, please do contact me; I can put you in touch with some of the victims.

 

[Pushpit]

Is this better than refusing to pay the PF? Also would a claim be against the train company, or the appeals body, or both as dual defendants?

I would certainly pursue both the Train Operating Company and Penalty Services Ltd, since it's not clear to me who is setting the rules here. The slight risk is that of course one, or both, defenders would simply pay off the claim before a hearing, for a long list of pragmatic reasons (lowest cost outcome for example) and thus leave the underlying issues unresolved.

But the advantage of doing it this way is that so long as it's a legitimate, carefully considered, carefully documented case the claimant is in the driving seat for most of the way, and if the claim is specifically on NRCoT then a district judge would have to see how Penalty Services adhered to that, or the compelling reason why it doesn't apply. In other words it does something quite specific - focus on a set of words - which seems not to be done via their own appeal system. I also suspect that unless Penalty Services uses the same level of due diligence as the legal professionals, said professional will be quite willing to point to any analytical shortfall. Whereas if you you refused to pay the PF then the table is turned and the TOC/PS is driving the show, and a range of tedious debt recovery processes will get invoked.

A properly constructed, non mischievous claim on the Small Claim channel will greatly restrict the legal costs for the claimant, though it should be said they will potentially get a £100 to £150 additional bill if the judge sides with the TOC. It would be important to pay the penalty at the point of the lowest cost to the claimant, "under protest", and immediately give the TOC/PS the fair option to repay it before filling in the legal forms. The process is cumbersome, and requires a good attention to detail. And it's slow, most County Courts have a one year (plus) backlog at the moment. However there are some tight timelines involved in the production of the defence - this has to be done in (let's say) 3 to 8 weeks from the first formal court submission, well ahead of a potential hearing, and that defence may well flesh out why the TOC/PS thinks its version is correct.

 

[185]

But... at least they're not TIL.

Edit: is this the firm that replaced one that disappeared? I see a chap at the bottom of the director list "insolvency practitioner".

 

[KirkstallOne]

Completely agree, particularly as this seems quite a common reason for issuing penalty fares on the Leeds - Harrogate line (I know of one instance this was done to a personal acquaintance so simple statistics suggests a large number of these are issued which don't make it onto the forum). A further question is why the issuers of these penalty fares persist in doing so. The companies involved must have had representations made to them on this matter on many occasions.

In answer to your questions, I reckon some permutation of No, None, Nothing and Nobody would answer most of them.

 

[yorkie]

There is some good news, from another thread:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/northern-rail-penalty-fare-notice.259503/page-2#post-6659935

Third Appeal Outcome...an interesting response, however, I'm glad to have been successful.

Thank you to everyone who contributed in helping me win the case

I am also aware of at least two other cases and have passed this information onto the people who have been incorrectly issued PFs under similar circumstances.

I wonder how many PFs are incorrectly issued that we don't know about? Probably thousands.

 

[Fermiboson]

Theoretically if one were to write to something like Transport Focus, they would have some degree of influence on matters. I don’t think this forum has much confidence in TF either, though.

 

[fandroid]

I think we should bear in mind that PFs tend to be the lesser of the evils available to rail companies when they fancy getting some extra cash out of a passenger. At least there is a multistage appeals process. The problem arises from them having a choice as to whether a PF is issued or a TIR, even when NRCoT states that neither is appropriate.

In no way am I proposing that those who are fighting incorrect PFNs should not be doing so, with us supporting them. However, in the current climate of fare income maximisation, we might need to be ready for them shifting away from PFs to threats of prosecution, when only the magistrates court is available for appeals.

 

[KirkstallOne]

I think the best hope for change is to generate some media and political interest in the whole area of railway penalties and prosecutions - that includes byelaws, unlawful prosecution policies, unlawfully issued penalty fares, appeals panels that are not fit for purpose etc. After the Post Office scandal the door is ajar and now it needs a good kick. We have seen many stories recently on the flawed systems for issuing ULEZ fines, on use of the Single Justice Procedure with respect to vulnerable people etc.

My complaint with Northern rumbles on, after getting my MP involved they have deigned to acknowledge my complaint, apologising for the (6 month!) delay and accepting the serious nature of the issues I raised. I await a substantial response. I have contacted some media organisations but have had no interest in covering the story but I will pursue this again once Northern do respond fully. I would have thought the administrators / owners of this forum, with its substantial ticket sales and thousands of members, could get a more sympathetic hearing for a general 'something rotten in the state of Denmark' complaint to the media. Such a source would lend credibility to the accusations and help put them in touch with people directly impacted by this.

 

[Fermiboson]

I think the best hope for change is to generate some media and political interest in the whole area of railway penalties and prosecutions - that includes byelaws, unlawful prosecution policies, unlawfully issued penalty fares, appeals panels that are not fit for purpose etc. After the Post Office scandal the door is ajar and now it needs a good kick. We have seen many stories recently on the flawed systems for issuing ULEZ fines, on use of the Single Justice Procedure with respect to vulnerable people etc.

My complaint with Northern rumbles on, after getting my MP involved they have deigned to acknowledge my complaint, apologising for the (6 month!) delay and accepting the serious nature of the issues I raised. I await a substantial response. I have contacted some media organisations but have had no interest in covering the story but I will pursue this again once Northern do respond fully. I would have thought the administrators / owners of this forum, with its substantial ticket sales and thousands of members, could get a more sympathetic hearing for a general 'something rotten in the state of Denmark' complaint to the media. Such a source would lend credibility to the accusations and help put them in touch with people directly impacted by this.

There has been some degree of academic interest in the problem. Cambridge law professor JR Spencer has written several texts on the subject; I highly recommend for example Professional private prosecutors and trouble on the trains. (2018, Archbold Review 4). There are also several papers and dissertations that mention broader issues with abuse of private prosecution, for example:

https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/22544/1/Private%20Prosecution-1.pdf

Prof Spencer has also given evidence to Parliament on the matter:

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/8680/pdf/

Unfortunately, in the modern 24-hour news cycle, a topic as mundane as railway bylaws and excesses and types of penalties are unlikely to garner any mass media attention, and even if it did the average person’s reaction would be something like “well you got the wrong ticket, so you’ll get shafted”.

It has been brought to my attention that the following company is providing misinformation regarding Penalty Fares:

Home - Penalty Services

www.penaltyservices.co.uk

12 Deben Mill Business Centre
Old Maltngs Approach
Woodbridge
IP12 1BL

PENALTY SERVICES LIMITED overview - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

PENALTY SERVICES LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk

The following train companies are listed as clients of this company:

I have no confidence that Penalty Fares appeals, for PFs issued by the above train companies, are being asessed correctly.

The company claims that:

But this is clearly untrue as their staff are not trained appropriately and the relevant information is not being accessed.

Here is a part of a letter which is causing concern (with my emphasis)

This is completely wrong; this company erroneously believes that if a ticket is "not valid", a Penalty Fare can be applied, however in the case of a passenger travelling via an invalid route, or at an invalid time on a time restricted ticket, or - as in this case - breaking/starting/finishing their journey when not allowed by the conditions, an excess fare should be charged, not a Penalty Fare.

The relevant parts of the NRCoT, which state an excess fare will be charged under these circumstances, are as follows:


So, they can charge the difference, but no more than that, i.e. they can not charge a whole new ticket, nor can they issue a Penalty Fare.

It appears that independent appeals companies, such as Penalty Services do not understand the rules regarding Penalty Fares and do not understand the National Rail Conditions of Travel. And yet they are apparently accreddited to fulfil this role.

Clearly, the system is very broken.

Questions:

1) Who assesses this company?
2) What safeguards are in place to ensure Penalty Fares are correctly issued by train companies?
2) What safeguards are in place to ensure Penalty Fares which are wrongly issued are correctly cancelled upon appeal?
3) What training does this company provide its staff?
4) Is the Rail Ombudsman aware of what's going on; if not, why not? If so, what are they doing about it?
5) Is Transport Focus aware of what's going on; if not, why not? If so, what are they doing about it?
6) Is the Transport Select Committee aware of what's going on; if not, why not? If so, what are they doing about it?
7) Should DfT and/or ORR be regulating this, or is it completely unregulated? If they should be regulating this, why aren't they?
8) Does anyone know how to prevent companies behaving this way in future?

Has any attempt been made to contact the company regarding this and if so, what is their response? I would be curious to see how they justify it. Alternatively, would an FOI to DfT be productive?

 

[KirkstallOne]

There has been some degree of academic interest in the problem. Cambridge law professor JR Spencer has written several texts on the subject; I highly recommend for example Professional private prosecutors and trouble on the trains. (2018, Archbold Review 4). There are also several papers and dissertations that mention broader issues with abuse of private prosecution, for example:

https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/22544/1/Private%20Prosecution-1.pdf

Prof Spencer has also given evidence to Parliament on the matter:

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/8680/pdf/

Unfortunately, in the modern 24-hour news cycle, a topic as mundane as railway bylaws and excesses and types of penalties are unlikely to garner any mass media attention, and even if it did the average person’s reaction would be something like “well you got the wrong ticket, so you’ll get shafted”.


Has any attempt been made to contact the company regarding this and if so, what is their response? I would be curious to see how they justify it. Alternatively, would an FOI to DfT be productive?

Thanks for the links, do you know why JR Spencer was making a submission? I would be interested in the wider parliamentary discussions that this contributed to.

I would say that my understanding is that TOCs are not really private prosecutors though, they are a 'relevant prosecutor' with powers under S.29 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, having being granted this status in 2016 and given the power to commence prosecutions via a written charge and Single Justice Procedure Notice. Thus they are in a privileged position compared to a member of the public. I guarantee if I turned up at the magistrates court attempting to launch various private prosecutions my allegations would be subject to greater scrutiny than Single Justice Procedure Notices get.

There was a thread here recently where someone gave some figures on the number of private prosecutions from the CPS. It was very low and clearly wasn't regarding the TOCs as private prosecutors.

 

[Fermiboson]

Thanks for the links, do you know why JR Spencer was making a submission? I would be interested in the wider parliamentary discussions that this contributed to.

I believe, based on the content of the text, that it was a part of the wider Post Office investigations, though I can't seem to find the exact topic it pertained to (that said, I have very little idea how parliamentary inquisitions work).

 

[ainsworth74]

It feels like the sort of thing that Private Eye would be interested in but I suspect it needs careful, and brief, presentation to them for them to get hooked in and want to have a look into it. But it does seem like exactly the sort of thing that they'd like.

 

[RJ]

Stuff like this will always be dismissed as niche cases in a system designed to counter a slack approach to buying a valid ticket before travel. Nothing will change unless a significant amount of people who are wronged are affected.

That said, I have fully undermined the process in the past by writing directly to a Prosecutions Manager to tell them their colleagues who were involved and partners dealing with the paperwork were not serious. And that I would no longer entertain the process so they should expect to see the garbage cases created by their colleagues to land on their desk.

I really don’t know how people manage to get done but I doubt solicitors are required to get out of sloppy cases. If staff acting on behalf of the railway are disregarding the NRCoT then surely a breach of contract will be straightforward to demonstrate and a claim can be put in for the damages arising from that. If that keeps happening then that sort of thing will ruffle feathers and maybe get the practice stopped.

 

[KirkstallOne]

I noticed this article today which says Tristan Kirk at the Evening Standard has been taking a particular interest in SJP prosecutions. Might be a good person to flag this with:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...candal-1000-people-week-casually-criminalised

 

[Pushpit]

I noticed this article today which says Tristan Kirk at the Evening Standard has been taking a particular interest in SJP prosecutions. Might be a good person to flag this with:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...candal-1000-people-week-casually-criminalised

A very interesting article - so for TV licences, there is a very heavy bias to various excluded and disadvantaged groups.

We don't, in this forum, know that much about those being held under the threat of prosecution, but subjectively there seems to be rather a lot of non-native English speakers, students, late teenagers, people with mental health conditions, people short of money, newly arrived in the UK, people who seem to struggle with technology or complexity, people who have to use AI to write a simple letter. And not so much of the assertive middle aged, middle classes who know how to get out of trouble.

 

[AlterEgo]

And not so much of the assertive middle aged, middle classes who know how to get out of trouble.

Quite.

 

[SteveM70]

We don't, in this forum, know that much about those being held under the threat of prosecution, but subjectively there seems to be rather a lot of non-native English speakers, students, late teenagers, people with mental health conditions, people short of money, newly arrived in the UK, people who seem to struggle with technology or complexity, people who have to use AI to write a simple letter. And not so much of the assertive middle aged, middle classes who know how to get out of trouble

Agree with that apart from the AI comment - I suspect most of the AI-generated letters we see are because the OP concerned is either lazy or thinks an AI letter will be better, not because they have to use it

 

[AlterEgo]

Agree with that apart from the AI comment - I suspect most of the AI-generated letters we see are because the OP concerned is either lazy or thinks an AI letter will be better, not because they have to use it

A lot of people really are unable to write a letter, I think. it is a shocking state of affairs, really.

 

[Pushpit]

A lot of people really are unable to write a letter, I think. it is a shocking state of affairs, really.

I hope this finds you well. There was a time when writing letters, including a letter of complaint, was very much part of the school curriculum. From the younger cohort that are entering into the workforce, I am sure it still happens at the better schools but I've had any number of teenage apprentices state that their school has never, ever taught them how to write a letter. They generally are taught - sort of - to write a CV with cover note, so I guess that is better than nothing. But it does mean a lot of youngsters lack the self confidence to write up an effective but straightforward business letter. And we certainly see evidence of that in this forum, and to that extent they are disadvantaged.

 

[Richardr]

Thanks for the links, do you know why JR Spencer was making a submission? I would be interested in the wider parliamentary discussions that this contributed to.

I would say that my understanding is that TOCs are not really private prosecutors though, they are a 'relevant prosecutor' with powers under S.29 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, having being granted this status in 2016 and given the power to commence prosecutions via a written charge and Single Justice Procedure Notice. Thus they are in a privileged position compared to a member of the public. I guarantee if I turned up at the magistrates court attempting to launch various private prosecutions my allegations would be subject to greater scrutiny than Single Justice Procedure Notices get.

There was a thread here recently where someone gave some figures on the number of private prosecutions from the CPS. It was very low and clearly wasn't regarding the TOCs as private prosecutors.

https://committees.parliament.uk/work/401/private-prosecutions-safeguards/

The links from there will give you oral evidence and (a lot of) written submissions, plus the report and response to it.

 

[Alex C.]

I hope this finds you well. There was a time when writing letters, including a letter of complaint, was very much part of the school curriculum. From the younger cohort that are entering into the workforce, I am sure it still happens at the better schools but I've had any number of teenage apprentices state that their school has never, ever taught them how to write a letter. They generally are taught - sort of - to write a CV with cover note, so I guess that is better than nothing. But it does mean a lot of youngsters lack the self confidence to write up an effective but straightforward business letter. And we certainly see evidence of that in this forum, and to that extent they are disadvantaged.

I'm not convinced this is a recent phenomenon - I managed a team of people who had to write final decision letters on finance complaints but it wasn't their main job (speaking on the phone was). At least 75% of people, across a wide age range (but mainly in the 40-60 range) struggled with writing concise, simple, clear letters. The majority of letters and emails I've seen in this section of the forum from TOCs and their agents have clearly not been checked by anyone before being sent. I also made sure if we were making any negative decision we addressed every point that was raised by the complainant and referenced our decision to either legislation or policy wording so it was clear how we had reached our conclusions.

It's a shame the Railway Ombudsman wasn't set up in the same way as the Financial Ombudsman - financial companies pay the costs of administration if a case is taken to the ombudsman (approx £600) and they employ a two tier set of staff, with a generally capable first point of contact (Adjudicators), but a very well resourced second tier (Ombudsman) who are barristers or industry experts. Their judgements are generally based on fairness to the consumer rather than the strict legal position and they certainly wouldn't put up with the attitudes we often see from TOCs on this forum. They're also required to publish all their decisions which reach an Ombudsman which helps in understanding how they approach issues.

 

[Kev_B]

It has been brought to my attention that the following company is providing misinformation regarding Penalty Fares:

Home - Penalty Services

www.penaltyservices.co.uk

12 Deben Mill Business Centre
Old Maltngs Approach
Woodbridge
IP12 1BL

PENALTY SERVICES LIMITED overview - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

PENALTY SERVICES LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk

The following train companies are listed as clients of this company:

I have no confidence that Penalty Fares appeals, for PFs issued by the above train companies, are being asessed correctly.

The company claims that:

But this is clearly untrue as their staff are not trained appropriately and the relevant information is not being accessed.

Here is a part of a letter which is causing concern (with my emphasis)

This is completely wrong; this company erroneously believes that if a ticket is "not valid", a Penalty Fare can be applied, however in the case of a passenger travelling via an invalid route, or at an invalid time on a time restricted ticket, or - as in this case - breaking/starting/finishing their journey when not allowed by the conditions, an excess fare should be charged, not a Penalty Fare.

The relevant parts of the NRCoT, which state an excess fare will be charged under these circumstances, are as follows:


So, they can charge the difference, but no more than that, i.e. they can not charge a whole new ticket, nor can they issue a Penalty Fare.

It appears that independent appeals companies, such as Penalty Services do not understand the rules regarding Penalty Fares and do not understand the National Rail Conditions of Travel. And yet they are apparently accreddited to fulfil this role.

Clearly, the system is very broken.

Questions:

1) Who assesses this company?
2) What safeguards are in place to ensure Penalty Fares are correctly issued by train companies?
2) What safeguards are in place to ensure Penalty Fares which are wrongly issued are correctly cancelled upon appeal?
3) What training does this company provide its staff?
4) Is the Rail Ombudsman aware of what's going on; if not, why not? If so, what are they doing about it?
5) Is Transport Focus aware of what's going on; if not, why not? If so, what are they doing about it?
6) Is the Transport Select Committee aware of what's going on; if not, why not? If so, what are they doing about it?
7) Should DfT and/or ORR be regulating this, or is it completely unregulated? If they should be regulating this, why aren't they?
8) Does anyone know how to prevent companies behaving this way in future?

It is very, very clear to me - after using Penalty Services recently for an appeal, that their independence is "questionable" at best.

They didn't investigate my case in any way nor did they check the CCTV footage as I requested ( I could tell by their response.)

I am not wasting my time with a 2nd or 3rd appeal, I've simply told Merseyrail I am prepared to defend my position in court.

I'm sure I've read somewhere that some of the Directors on the board of Penalty Services Limited, are also on the board one of the TOCs.
Further, the head offices of one of these Independent assessment companies, (although this may not be penalty services ltd) - are located in the SAME building as the Head Office of a TOC.
It speaks volumes.

These companies exist to create the illusion that you have a fair chance, when in fact you don't. (unless you proceed to court.)

I think answers can always be found, when you follow the Cash flow.

Penalty Services needs to be funded from somewhere. It is certainly not a government funded entity, and passengers do not pay them to assess their case.

However, their operating costs need to be met from somewhere. In my opinion - the TOCs are funding Penalty Services.
In return, Penalty Services more often than not, will rule in favour of the TOC. Its a very simple equation to work out when you ask the question "how are they funded ?"

I wouldn't even waste any time on them - your best bet (if you know you are right legally) - is to proceed to court.
That's my plan. I don't care if it costs me a lot more than paying the fine, somebody needs to stand up to these bullies.

 

[Hadders]

I am not wasting my time with a 2nd or 3rd appeal, I've simply told Merseyrail I am prepared to defend my position in court.

Please do start a thread about your case, there are some real experts in this section of the forum who would be happy to provide advice. If you have appealed a Penalty Fare then it's likely that they're barred from prosecuting anyway.

 

[Watershed]

It is very, very clear to me - after using Penalty Services recently for an appeal, that their independence is "questionable" at best.

They didn't investigate my case in any way nor did they check the CCTV footage as I requested ( I could tell by their response.)

I am not wasting my time with a 2nd or 3rd appeal, I've simply told Merseyrail I am prepared to defend my position in court.

I'm sure I've read somewhere that some of the Directors on the board of Penalty Services Limited, are also on the board one of the TOCs.
Further, the head offices of one of these Independent assessment companies, (although this may not be penalty services ltd) - are located in the SAME building as the Head Office of a TOC.
It speaks volumes.

These companies exist to create the illusion that you have a fair chance, when in fact you don't. (unless you proceed to court.)

I think answers can always be found, when you follow the Cash flow.

Penalty Services needs to be funded from somewhere. It is certainly not a government funded entity, and passengers do not pay them to assess their case.

However, their operating costs need to be met from somewhere. In my opinion - the TOCs are funding Penalty Services.
In return, Penalty Services more often than not, will rule in favour of the TOC. Its a very simple equation to work out when you ask the question "how are they funded ?"

I wouldn't even waste any time on them - your best bet (if you know you are right legally) - is to proceed to court.
That's my plan. I don't care if it costs me a lot more than paying the fine, somebody needs to stand up to these bullies.

Appealing a Penalty Fare does have one benefit even if it appears completely pointless: it means the TOC becomes legally barred from prosecuting you in relation to that offence, under most of the legislation that could apply to a ticketing irregularity.

That being said, we have seen TOCs either ignore this bar entirely or prosecute for offences which aren't covered by the bar (e.g. section 5(1) of RoRA) but which by their own evidence (e.g. the fact a Penalty Fare was issued in someone's name and address) cannot have been committed.

In short, I agree that the entire system is highly problematic but it would certainly be interesting to hear of your experiences if you'd be willing to create a new thread detailing everything. We may be able to advise you on the best course of action.

 

[fandroid]

Please do start a thread about your case, there are some real experts in this section of the forum who would be happy to provide advice. If you have appealed a Penalty Fare then it's likely that they're barred from prosecuting anyway.

Kev_B is up against Merseyrail, and from previous threads on here I got the impression that they are capable of ignoring the requirements of the Penalty Fare Regulations and threaten customers with the magistrates court anyway.

@KirkstallOne has taken on a TOC in a similar case (with Northern IIRC) and would be interested in Kev_B's case.

Perhaps Kev_B should start a new thread. There's a general principle being discussed here and, although his case is very interesting, it may deflect others from relating their experiences with Penalty Services

 

[Royston Vasey]

In their FAQ they claim opening someone else mail is illegal. So it appears they have little grasp of the law.
View attachment 153312
(Screenshot showing FAQ of website)

I expect they'll issue a PF for that as well