Northern Rail Penalty Fare Notice

[robbeech]

I’m glad you’re not all the same! It does make me wonder if they work on commission.

It’s unlikely any of these people would admit to it, but it has been known historically and various documents over the years have proven that there are targets required on certain operators. You could argue that if you have a target of 100 penalty fares a week and you’re on your last shift and you’ve only done 90 then there’s an incentive to be a little bit creative. Again, nobody would admit it.

 

[Yinyang25]

Hi everyone,

I’ve just had the appeal back and unfortunately it’s been unsuccessful.

Is there anything I could add to a second appeal and try again with?

 

[Brissle Girl]

Can we see the response, as usual with any personal details redacted?

 

[johnjdc]

This is a really interesting thread and - apologies for not offering specific help other than "you are obviouslly morally in the right here" to the OP - makes me a bit worried.

It had never in a million years occured to me that taking a shorter journey which is entirely encompassed by the original route could result in anyone believing anything wrong had been done. My understanding of the prohibition on breaking journeys (outbound when a return) was that you couldn't use the one ticket for two separate journeys, more understandable.

This is somewhat relevant to me. In practice it doesn't come up as I try to get a return, though if starting from London these are not available. I work at an office which is broadly equidistant between Redhill, Reigate, and Earlswood. My usual Airbnb is close to Earlswood, and that is the most distant station, so I buy a return to there. On my final evening there however, it is often the case that there is the offer of a lift to Redhill.

Is it really the rule - another nail in the coffin of public transport as the rational choice I suppose - that (should I have booked ahead) if I accept the lift, I then have to get myself back out to Earlswood before I am legally entitled to board the train which is coming from Earlswood, via Redhill, to London? This adds to the already annoying position that I think I can't get the Reigate to London train with an Earlswood ticket if there are after-work drinks, since the lines diverge at Redhill.

 

[Yinyang25]

Can we see the response, as usual with any personal details redacted?

Hi, thank you, here it is:

 

[Fawkes Cat]

This is a really interesting thread and - apologies for not offering specific help other than "you are obviouslly morally in the right here" to the OP - makes me a bit worried.

It had never in a million years occured to me that taking a shorter journey which is entirely encompassed by the original route could result in anyone believing anything wrong had been done. My understanding of the prohibition on breaking journeys (outbound when a return) was that you couldn't use the one ticket for two separate journeys, more understandable.

This is somewhat relevant to me. In practice it doesn't come up as I try to get a return, though if starting from London these are not available. I work at an office which is broadly equidistant between Redhill, Reigate, and Earlswood. My usual Airbnb is close to Earlswood, and that is the most distant station, so I buy a return to there. On my final evening there however, it is often the case that there is the offer of a lift to Redhill.

Is it really the rule - another nail in the coffin of public transport as the rational choice I suppose - that (should I have booked ahead) if I accept the lift, I then have to get myself back out to Earlswood before I am legally entitled to board the train which is coming from Earlswood, via Redhill, to London? This adds to the already annoying position that I think I can't get the Reigate to London train with an Earlswood ticket if there are after-work drinks, since the lines diverge at Redhill.

Hi @johnjdc - welcome to the forum!

This is probably one to take off to a separate thread as we may not be helping the OP very much with their problem. But in brief they've run into problems because they were using an Advance ticket: that type of ticket has good prices but at the expense of very restrictive conditions: in particular you are not meant to start or end short. So if you've got a ticket from A to C (with your train running through B) then in general there's nothing to stop you getting off at B (and for most tickets getting back on at B for a later train which will take you to C). But if you have an Advance ticket from A to C that's the only journey you're allowed to make - and you will also be limited to the particular train you booked for, so an Advance ticket for the 10.00 train from A to C won't be valid if you want to (i) get off at B or (ii) want to travel on the 11.00 train.

 

[KirkstallOne]

There are three stages of appeal, I can’t see anything wrong with your original appeal and their reply is nonsensical (you were NOT permitted to break your journey, therefore the Condition governing what happens if you break your journey when not permitted does not apply) so I would just re-appeal with basically the same information.

Clarify that you accept your ticket did not permit you to break your journey at Poppleton, and so NRCoT 16.3 applies (quote relevant section again). Also quote 9.5.3 that says the same thing, pointing out that is say you will be, not you may be:

"Where you:
(...)
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."

Finally, quote paragraph 6 of the introduction of the NRCoT:

"Please note that neither a Train Company’s staff, nor a Licensed Retailer’s staff has the authority to waive or change the Conditions unless they are specifically allowed to do so within the Conditions."

And point out that no such authority in the NRCoT is given to change condition 16.3 or 9.5.3.

Unfortunately, you may find this is rejected again and it is often on the 3rd appeal that someone actually looks at the full facts of a case. It really is a most unsatisfactory system and one that your average passenger will have very little hope of navigating.

Good luck and do let us know the response.

 

[Hadders]

I agree that you should submit a second stage appeal. I expect the 2 appeal will be unsuccessful as well as it's only at stage 3 that it is dealt with by an independent panel.

 

[Yinyang25]

Thank you for your replies.

Does anyone know if on the second appeal, the assessor can see the information on your previous appeal?

I agree that you should submit a second stage appeal. I expect the 2 appeal will be unsuccessful as well as it's only at stage 3 that it is dealt with by an independent panel.

There are three stages of appeal, I can’t see anything wrong with your original appeal and their reply is nonsensical (you were NOT permitted to break your journey, therefore the Condition governing what happens if you break your journey when not permitted does not apply) so I would just re-appeal with basically the same information.

Clarify that you accept your ticket did not permit you to break your journey at Poppleton, and so NRCoT 16.3 applies (quote relevant section again). Also quote 9.5.3 that says the same thing, pointing out that is say you will be, not you may be:

"Where you:
(...)
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."

Finally, quote paragraph 6 of the introduction of the NRCoT:

"Please note that neither a Train Company’s staff, nor a Licensed Retailer’s staff has the authority to waive or change the Conditions unless they are specifically allowed to do so within the Conditions."

And point out that no such authority in the NRCoT is given to change condition 16.3 or 9.5.3.

Unfortunately, you may find this is rejected again and it is often on the 3rd appeal that someone actually looks at the full facts of a case. It really is a most unsatisfactory system and one that your average passenger will have very little hope of navigating.

Good luck and do let us know the response.

 

[KirkstallOne]

Does anyone know if on the second appeal, the assessor can see the information on your previous appeal?

I think they can but best to make your 2nd appeal self-contained.

 

[gray1404]

I too would definitely appeal on the same basis. I rather think it will only be at the third appeal you have any joy. Again, make the second appeal self contained.

 

[Yinyang25]

Received another rejection today, seems like they’re not understanding that I accept that it was unacceptable to board at the incorrect station, however that a penalty fare in this circumstance was the incorrect sanction. Does anyone have any advice for the final appeal?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Received another rejection today, seems like they’re not understanding that I accept that it was unacceptable to board at the incorrect station, however that a penalty fare in this circumstance was the incorrect sanction. Does anyone have any advice for the final appeal?

That's disappointing but from the comments above, not that surprising. My suggestion would be to make much the same appeal again, making sure that
- you quote precise chapter and verse of the legislation, National Rail Conditions of Travel etc. that you are relying on
- you address their point about 'Advance Tickets having separate rules': I'm not convinced there's as much mileage in that point as the railway seem to think (I don't remember there being separate Advance Ticket rules on what happens if your ticket is not valid on the train you used, or any rider saying that the general rules don't come into play if there isn't an Advance Ticket rule - but you will want to check this) but you need to show why their argument doesn't apply.

 

[KirkstallOne]

A very disappointing reply but as said, not entirely unexpected.

The only evidence they have provided that Advance tickets are subject to separate rules is to quote from a box labelled ‘Information’ at the start of section 16. This does not form part of the conditions of travel as far as I can see (it has no section number for a start), and in no way restricts the applicability of the sections that follow to ‘standard’ tickets only. If it was only applicable to a certain type of ticket it would state this clearly in a numbered section.

Please do appeal again with substantially the same text. The 3rd and final stage is often when you get an answer beyond the typical robo-rejection.

 

[Yinyang25]

How does this sound as a final appeal? Any other suggestions?

As previously stated whilst I appreciate I did inadvertently start my journey at an intermediate station when not entitled to do so, the correct course of action in such circumstances would have been to issue an excess fare. The price for this would be the difference between the amount paid for the Ticket l held and the lowest price Ticket available for immediate travel that would have entitled me to start my journey at the station concerned. This is clearly stated in
"The National Rail Conditions of Travel",page 13, 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." Whilst at the beginning of paragraph 16 it does state "INFORMATION: Most Tickets allow you to break your journey. This means that you do not have to make the whole of your journey at the same time or, where allowed, on the same day.
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
Other national Ticket types normally allow break of journey with the exception of the outward portion of some longer distance “off-peak” returns.
Where this is the case, it is made clear in the restrictions applying to those Tickets." Nowhere does it state advanced tickets will be treated any differently to any other ticket that does not entitle you to start, break or resume your journey at the intermediate station concerned. There is no authority given for a train company's staff to change these conditions as stated on page 4 Part B: Introduction
Paragraph 6 of said "The National Rail Conditions of Travel", "Please note that neither a Train Company’s staff, nor a Licensed Retailer’s staff has the authority to waive or change the Conditions unless they are specifically allowed to do so
within the Conditions." and no such authority is give within The National Rail Conditions of Travel to change conditions 16.3.
If it is disputed that The National Rail Conditions of Travel can be read differently, then section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act would be invoked "Contract terms that may have different meanings
(1)If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.
I trust you will now cancel the penalty fare and allow me to pay the excess of a new ticket as the correct sanction stated by The National Rail Conditions of Travel.

 

[KirkstallOne]

I think it is ok but it could probably be tightened up. You are not really arguing with them as this is a fresh appeal to an independent panel who should re-appraise all the relevant facts so I would include references to both sections 16.3 and 9.5.3 and make it more self-contained.

Include the part where you are answering their previous rejection as a clearly separate section at the end.

Also I assume some of the formatting has been lost pasting this into the forums as it needs breaking up into paragraphs more clearly.

Good luck, the settled opinion of the forum is that an excess fare is the appropriate sanction here but to my knowledge, despite several similar cases being posted, we have not seen a reply from a 3rd stage appeal dealing with this specific point (there was one case where the 3rd stage was upheld on an unrelated technicality and several others where it either didn’t go to a 3rd stage, or we weren’t informed of the outcome). As such we are very interested in the final response and this will help other posters in the same situation.

 

[ikcdab]

I agree with the previous post. Your appeal could be structured much better.
This will be read by people new to the issue and, as such, needs to be self contained.
I would lay it out as:
Para 1: explain concisely what you did
Para 2: explain what happened.. Ie you were issued with a penalty fare.
Para 3. Explain why this was the wrong decision.
Para 4: say what you want to happen now.. ie the penalty fare dismissed.

 

[furlong]

And always throw in the kitchen sink on a final appeal like this
- argue that the signage wasn't compliant at the station where you boarded (even if you didn't check, it nearly always isn't and when you raise this point they are the ones that have to prove it is to the appeals panel)
- assuming that you didn't specifically ask for it to be issued all the way to Harrogate instead of just the next station as the regulations require, argue that it is also invalid on those grounds

Reading those responses, they do seem to have a blindspot in thinking that the only remedy for a ticket used other than in accordance with its conditions is a Penalty Fare! This needs escalating outside the appeals process - I think it's Transport Focus that's the body that's meant to deal with this sort of thing.

 

[Yinyang25]

Thank you very much everyone for the feedback. I’ve revised the original copy to this below. Any further feedback would be greatly appreciated.


As previously stated, whilst I appreciate that I did inadvertently start my journey at an intermediate station when not entitled to do so, the correct course of action in such circumstances would have been to issue an excess fare. The price for this will be the difference between the amount paid for the Ticket l held and the lowest price Ticket available for immediate travel that would have entitled me to start my journey at the station concerned.

This is clearly stated in "The "National Rail Conditions of Travel", which states on page 9 9.5.3 "Where you 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." and page 13, 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."
Paragraph 6 of said "The National Rail Conditions of Travel", also states "Please note that neither a Train Company’s staff, nor a Licensed Retailer’s staff has the authority to waive or change the Conditions unless they are specifically allowed to do so within the Conditions." and no such authority is given within The National Rail Conditions of Travel to change conditions 9.5.3 and/or 16.3.

Whilst the information box at the start of paragraph 16 does state: “INFORMATION: Most Tickets allow you to break your journey. This means that you do not have to make the whole of your journey at the same time or, where allowed, on the same day. 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. Other national Ticket types normally allow break of journey with the exception of the outward portion of some longer distance “off-peak” returns. Where this is the case, it is made clear in the restrictions applying to those Tickets.”
Nowhere does it state that "advanced tickets" will be treated any differently to any other ticket that does not entitle you to start, break or resume your journey at the intermediate station concerned and again, no authority is given for a train company's staff to change these terms.

If it is disputed that The National Rail Conditions of Travel can be read differently, then section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act would be invoked: "Contract terms that may have different meanings (1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

I trust you will now cancel the penalty fare as issuing a penalty fare notice in such circumstances is clearly in breach of "The National Rail Conditions of Travel" and the Consumer Rights Act and issue an excess fare as the correct sanction.

 

[furlong]

No - this is your last chance. Which of the valid grounds for an appeal are you invoking? Write this in formal terms and start from the beginning. Read the regulations if you haven't already and quote from them. There are examples, let's find one...

here https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/stansted-airport-fines.253779/page-3#post-6451904 or here https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/penalty-fare-appeal.254705/page-2#post-6458503

another example - https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/stansted-airport-fines.253779/page-3#post-6421189

 

[ikcdab]

If it was me I would not start like this. The third appeal panel are people new to this and you need to start from scratch.
You need to tell the story from the start - but do it concisely.
Look at my previous post for my suggested layout.

 

[Yinyang25]

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

 

[AlterEgo]

Not a valid reason for a penalty fare. The correct resolution is to excess the ticket to one which allows break of journey.

And the appeal was allowed on this reason.

@yorkie you may be interested in this one given your recent post about Penalty Services!

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

Good result. Well done for perservering.

 

[KirkstallOne]

Well done @Yinyang25 for persisting and thank you for updating us. A very useful reply as to my knowledge this is the first official statement we have seen that an excess fare is the correct remedy for a break of journey that is not allowed.

This has somewhat set a precedent which will no doubt be filtered down to the 1st and 2nd stage appeals and we will never see another rejected appeal, or penalty such as this issued on the Leeds to Harrogate line. And in other news, the pope has renounced his Catholicism.

 

[spag23]

I am confused. The panel "do not agree with the reasons" given by the OP. But then allow the Appeal, agreeing that only the excess is due. But didn't that point constitute the OP's core reason; ie the one that they rejected in the preceding sentence??

 

[yorkie]

Good result, although the letter hasn't been properly proofread as it still makes erroneous references to "the full single fare applicable", despite admitting that only the difference is due.

Also, is the difference correct, taking into account the time of day (i.e. Off Peak if applicable) and any Railcards held? Without knowing the amount paid and the exact journey undertaken I wouldn't be able to calculate it, though if all the details are known, we can of course check this.

I am confused. The panel "do not agree with the reasons" given by the OP. But then allow the Appeal, agreeing that only the excess is due. But didn't that point constitute the OP's core reason; ie the one that they rejected in the preceding sentence??

I think these letters are put together by people on a very low wage who don't have the time to properly proof-read and/or understand what they are writing. It could also be a case of combining multiple standard worded sentences and paragraphs and mashing them together, without consideration of whether the end result makes sense.

 

[Yinyang25]

I am confused. The panel "do not agree with the reasons" given by the OP. But then allow the Appeal, agreeing that only the excess is due. But didn't that point constitute the OP's core reason; ie the one that they rejected in the preceding sentence??

It does seem like they want to say I'm right but don't admit to them being wrong.

Also, is the difference correct, taking into account the time of day (i.e. Off Peak if applicable) and any Railcards held? Without knowing the amount paid and the exact journey undertaken I wouldn't be able to calculate it, though if all the details are known, we can of course check this.

From what I can see the difference seems to be correct.

It boarded the 8.17 from Poppleton. I paid £3.40, with a 16-25 railcard, for the original York - Harrogate ticket. £3.40 + £5.90 = £9.30, which I believe is now the correct fare without inclusion of a railcard.

 

[yorkie]

It does seem like they want to say I'm right but don't admit to them being wrong.

Maybe so!

Or it could just be general sloppiness and/or incompetence and/or rushing the letter.

These penalty fare appeal bodies are renowened for poor workmanship, poor knowledge and poor quality generally, so this inconsistent letter is entirely consistent with the quality standards we have come to expect from companies such as this.

 

[Haywain]

I paid £3.40, with a 16-25 railcard, for the original York - Harrogate ticket. £3.40 + £5.90 = £9.30, which I believe is now the correct fare without inclusion of a railcard.

If anything, you have been undercharged, as the fare that allows break of journey at Poppleton is the fare from York at £10.50 and an excess fare has to relate to the origin and destination on the original ticket.

 

[yorkie]

If anything, you have been undercharged, as the fare that allows break of journey at Poppleton is the fare from York at £10.50 and an excess fare has to relate to the origin and destination on the original ticket.

The Conditions state:

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.

The lowest priced Ticket available for immediate travel that would have entitled the passenger to start the journey at Poppleton may well be a ticket from Poppleton, in which case it is correct to calculate the excess from Poppleton.

If any industry systems are incapable of issuing that, and are tied to the original origin/destination, then that is a flaw with those systems. If they cannot be overridden, then the only remaining option would be to allow the customer to make the shorter journey without additional payment (which is arguably the common sense approach).