What does: "an explanation of why the person is being charged a penalty fare" mean in the PF Regulations?

[ainsworth74]

I'm aware of someone (not me! ) who has been issued a Penalty Fare and the PF itself gives the reason as being: "Other" which has rather intrigued me as the Regulation 5(2)(b) of the PF Regs 2018 requires that:

5.—(1) [...]

(2) Where a collector charges a penalty fare to a person under paragraph (1), the collector must provide that person with the following information in writing at the time the penalty fare is charged—

(a)[...]

(b) an explanation of why the person is being charged a penalty fare;

[...]

Now on its face I suppose "Other" is a reason why someone is being charged a Penalty Fare but it doesn't really feel satisfactory. Imagine a conversation in person along the lines of:

"Hello, that ticket is not valid and I will have to issue you a Penalty Fare"

"Oh, why am I being issued a Penalty Fare?"

"The reason I'm issuing you a Penalty Fare is Other"

Obviously it can be tricky to come up with a suitable list of every single reason why a PF may need to be issued but this doesn't feel like, at the very least, it's compliant with the spirit of the Regulations!

Anyone with any thoughts on whether a PF issued with reason simply being "Other" is actually compliant with the Regulations?

 

[island]

Something with just "other" would seem to me to struggle to be compliant, though the Penalty Fare notices I've seen with "other" selected have also had an explanation of the reason in free text.

 

[Watershed]

Something with just "other" would seem to me to struggle to be compliant, though the Penalty Fare notices I've seen with "other" selected have also had an explanation of the reason in free text.

Yes, if a (valid) freetext explanation is provided then this would clearly suffice.

 

[ainsworth74]

Something with just "other" would seem to me to struggle to be compliant, though the Penalty Fare notices I've seen with "other" selected have also had an explanation of the reason in free text.

Yes, if a (valid) freetext explanation is provided then this would clearly suffice.

No free text literally just "Other" as seen below:

 

[KirkstallOne]

I don’t see how Other could be construed as a ‘[written] explanation of why a person in being charged a penalty fare’.

Any such explanation must surely let the traveller know specifically what they have done wrong so they can avoid repeating it in future or challenge it at appeal.

 

[furlong]

You need to show the bit above what's shown in the photograph. Obviously an appeal can focus on 'Other' but the train company might try to counter that the text missing from the photograph is sufficient to meet the requirement i.e. that you weren't able to produce a valid ticket or other authority to travel. Sometimes that might suffice - other times it might not - would depend on the full circumstances. (Not presenting any ticket at all, it might well suffice; some technical matter about validity of a ticket produced, less likely it would.)

 

[ainsworth74]

Obviously an appeal can focus on 'Other' but the train company might try to counter that the text missing from the photograph is sufficient to meet the requirement i.e. that you weren't able to produce a valid ticket or other authority to travel.

There are a few other grounds being explored for an appeal but I was more interested in the specific requirement of Regulation 5(2)(b) (hence not starting a whole thread to discuss this specific PF and its wider merits or dismerits, but using it as an example). However, the paragraph above states:


(Image shows paragraph that states: "This is because you either made a journey or entered a Compulsory Ticket Area and you were unable to produce a valid ticket or other authority to travel.")

I can see you point that they could argue it but then why a) have a separate reason field at all if that wide ranging statement is sufficient, b) why have the regulations specifically call out the requirement that a written explanation must be given, and c) surely that statement alone isn't a sufficient explanation for why your ticket isn't valid and knowing that is surely a key part of the process? If the company is alleging a valid ticket is not held they must surely need to say why it isn't valid in order for the potential appellant to know if they have grounds to appeal under Regulation 16(3)(a):

(3) The grounds on which an appeal under this regulation may be made are that—

(a) the penalty fare was not charged in accordance with the requirements of these Regulations;

If a valid ticket is held then the PF was not charged in accordance with the regulations and so you need to know why the company think your ticket wasn't valid for you to then be able to evidence to the contrary.

Seems to me therefore that "Other" even with the context of the paragraph above surely cannot meet the requirements of Regulation 5(2)(b)?

 

[furlong]

As I said, it all depends on the precise circumstances. Sometimes I reckon the generic statement would be considered sufficient - other times not. Can't really generalise.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

There are a few other grounds being explored for an appeal but I was more interested in the specific requirement of Regulation 5(2)(b) (hence not starting a whole thread to discuss this specific PF and its wider merits or dismerits, but using it as an example). However, the paragraph above states:

(Image shows paragraph that states: "This is because you either made a journey or entered a Compulsory Ticket Area and you were unable to produce a valid ticket or other authority to travel.")

My approach (which I appreciate isn't the majority view around here) is to appeal on all sensible grounds. That being the case, I would appeal on the basis that there wasn't a good enough explanation to meet Regulation 5(2)(b) - but I wouldn't be surprised to find it rejected on the grounds that the general wording quoted above is good enough to form 'an explanation of why the person is being charged a penalty fare': I don't think it is good enough but I can imagine someone taking the contrary view in good faith.