-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Is an incorrectly filled out PF a ground for appeal?
- Thread starter gray1404
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Puffing Devil
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Apr 2013
- Messages
- 2,766
And lay themselves open to a slam-dunk byelaw prosecution and provide Thameslink with their name and address after being caught without a ticket? Yes, I'm sure they could give it a go.
Are you really suggesting this?
They didnt follow correct procedure and rightly deserve the pf yet you are askin if they could appeal?
Im stunned, i truly am.
Got to agree with clip here. Also, by not recording the name and address there will be no way of the TOC knowing that they've been caught before, so effectively they have already got off lightly. Not that I would recommend making the same mistake again.
gray1404
Established Member
Sorry my point earlier got misunderstood. I accept that PF was due in this situation as they failed to buy a ticket before starting their journey. But my question is, technically is there a requirement for the notice to be filled out in full for it to be valid i.e. could an incorrectly filled out PF notice render it invalid. Of course, the rules could also permit a PF to be taken without a name and address if it is paid in full and a receipt issued? Is the latter true.
My uncle recently boarded a train with his season ticket and went a couple of extra stops on Merseyrail. He was caught and issued with a PF. He didn't have any cash on him but he did have a bank card. He said he was happy to pay the PF in full and as they couldn't accept a card payment they agreed to stay on the train with him to his destination. They then came out the station to the bank a couple of doors down from the station and he got the £20 out of the ATM. He said he would rather not give his name and address and they were fine with that. They issued him with a receipt which was basically a PF notice without the name and address filled out. I appealed it on his behalf saying I was acting on his behalf (so I never gave them his address) and won. The reason was that there was no poster advertising the PF scheme at the station he started his journey. The poster situation has since been corrected.
My uncle recently boarded a train with his season ticket and went a couple of extra stops on Merseyrail. He was caught and issued with a PF. He didn't have any cash on him but he did have a bank card. He said he was happy to pay the PF in full and as they couldn't accept a card payment they agreed to stay on the train with him to his destination. They then came out the station to the bank a couple of doors down from the station and he got the £20 out of the ATM. He said he would rather not give his name and address and they were fine with that. They issued him with a receipt which was basically a PF notice without the name and address filled out. I appealed it on his behalf saying I was acting on his behalf (so I never gave them his address) and won. The reason was that there was no poster advertising the PF scheme at the station he started his journey. The poster situation has since been corrected.
Last edited:
They could, but it wouldn't be smart.
I'm quite disappointed that you pursued an appeal of the PF on an alleged technicality of the poster and missing name and address and then to ensure that they didn't have his details on file you then took it up on his behalf only you using your address so they would have even less on file about him.
Your uncle deserved that PF and the railway deserved the money from his PF and this behaviour from someone who likes to give out advice on this section of the forum is wholly unacceptable IMO
gray1404
Established Member
There was no mention of the lack of name and address in the appeal, just the point there was no posters or signs at the station.
gray1404
Established Member
I would also say that its a 2 way street. If the railway want to be able to PF a customer for not adhering to the rules, they need to get it 100% right too in their application of the rules. Their authorised collector also failed to inform him there was an appeals procedure orally.
On the notice they gave out it said about the appeals process. They said, we did, we won.
On the notice they gave out it said about the appeals process. They said, we did, we won.
MichaelAMW
Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2010
- Messages
- 1,012
The deal is that the TOC needs to put up the poster, that's all, if they wish to collect £20 notes off people without tickets. It was wasn't an "alleged technicality" as the poster was missing and, indeed, they have put one up since. I'm not sure why you are making a moral judgement that the uncle "deserved the PF" because it was never a valid outcome of the situation and, similarly, the TOC didn't "deserve" the money because they hadn't implemented the PF scheme. Yes, the uncle should have bought a ticket but that's about it.
gray1404
Established Member
The outcome was they refunded the £20 less the fare that he should have paid on the day (as it happened the Standard Day Singe is the cheapest fare on offer) so, in the end, the correct amount was paid. As stated in MichaelAMW's post, they had no valid claim for £20.
The poster situation I think arose as a result of there being one up, but then it was taken down to advise of service changes and then replaced with the PF notice again once these had happened. Nevertheless, there was no poster up on the day of travel nor the following day when I went to gather evidence (and for some weeks after that too) and that is what matters.
The poster situation I think arose as a result of there being one up, but then it was taken down to advise of service changes and then replaced with the PF notice again once these had happened. Nevertheless, there was no poster up on the day of travel nor the following day when I went to gather evidence (and for some weeks after that too) and that is what matters.
Was this actually a season ticket, i.e; longer than a seven day / weekly ticket? If it was, it was pretty simple for the inspector to retrieve the details of the holder in most cases anyway.
Secondly, as others have said, they could have simply cancelled the PF and gone for a prosecution.
gray1404
Established Member
It was a PTE issued product what was not issued by the TOC. No details of that ticket were taken. It would have been difficult for them to cancel a PF and go for a prosecution without full details of the person.
I have to admit that would be really bad practice if any TOC was to make a habit of, having incorrectly issued a PF, to go for a prosecution only because a customer has valid ground for appeal that are upheld.
I have to admit that would be really bad practice if any TOC was to make a habit of, having incorrectly issued a PF, to go for a prosecution only because a customer has valid ground for appeal that are upheld.
Well it is an alleged technicality as grey was not there so could not confirm with their hand on their heart that a poster was there when their uncle passed through.
And how did the uncle know a poster was or wasn't there if they were not aware of such a requirement until grey stepped in to help him?
plannerman
Member
I once had a conversation with Nick Freeman, the 'loophole lawyer' who gets footballers off their speeding charges. When asked how he could justify what he does, his response was "the authorities expect you to follow the letter of the law, it's entirely justified for you to expect the same of them". Hence he has no problem getting people off because PCN's are filled out incorrectly etc etc. That approach seems relevant to some of the shoddy practices carried out by the railway companies.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Why?
Abellio have repeatedly shown that they are only too happy to slam-dunk £80 out of people on technicalities. It swings both ways. There's no place for mutual respect on the modern railway, passengers are there to be fleeced at every turn. It's no wonder people will use the same technicalities against them if they can.
Treat your passengers like scum, as Abellio have done for many many years, and they'll respond in kind.
When TOCs behave with morality and respect, my opinion will change.
This exactly
It's sad but it's true. There is a technical case to consider - and it's unclear if there would be a benefit in many cases - but from a moral standpoint there's never a way for the company to take the high ground. It's a bit like claiming delay repay, years ago I might not have always claimed it when I was due it if I felt the delays were handled well. Now I claim everything and anything because I'm fed up of being treated like rubbish.
I get the feeling that 'good practice' is frequently not something that there's a lot of interest in. In so many ways the train companies seem now more than ever to look instead at what they can get away with.
I take a different view, and see the two as fundamentally different.
I’m with those who take the view that if the railway are going to insist on absolute adherence to rules, then they should have to adhere with equal rigour. That includes cases like this where the defence is entirely technical, and a penalty fare should have been due.
I regard Delay Repay as a contractual entitlement to a partial refund if the service I’ve paid for isn’t delivered. The risk of payout is factored into my fare, and there is no value judgement implied by claiming it. In the same way, it is common for a supplier to pay a service credit if performance doesn’t reach a contracted level, but the fact of a service credit doesn’t itself imply anything about fault on the supplier.
- Status