Yes, here we are: https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co...-of-franchise-over-new-fines-policy-1-8871387
I suggest you get in touch!
I suggest you get in touch!
-
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!
Penalty fare dispute
- Thread starter Eric
- 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
As was recently discussed on another thread, you were in the wrong (you didn't take advantage of the available facilities to pay your fare), but Northern did wrong by issuing a Penalty Fare in the circumstances you describe.
najaB - are you saying you know that the machine was working and took cash or Eric was going to pay by card? The photos don't even show any of their 'buy before you board' posters or even a little "a ticket machine is available at..." sign
Eric
Member
No yellow penalty fare posters to be seen. Those images are from all the poster holders on the wall leading up to the bridge and the platform itself and I ask again how can Northern enforce penalty fares when they are not advertised.
I’m reluctant to involve the T&A until Northern reply to my email with supporting evidence.
Fawkes Cat
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 May 2017
- Messages
- 2,987
One practical point which I don't think has been mentioned: when the forum's advice is sought in penalty fare cases, we usually advise paying the penalty fare and then appealing. This has the drawback of meaning that there's the issue of getting your money back if you win the case, but against that there's the substantial benefit of making it near to impossible for the railway to escalate the case beyond the penalty fare.
ForTheLoveOf
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 6,416
It is far from clear that the OP broke any law, and in any case Northern's Penalty Fares are, as is actually the clearest here, entirely unlawfully implemented (and hence unenforceable).
If Northern wants passengers to be aware that there is a TVM they should sign the station appropriately - a task which is eminently not difficult as it is done at every station in Scotland. Until such time as they do this, there is no way a hidden TVM without signage indicating it's presence can be taken as a reasonable opportunity to pay.
The fact that the OP did not go traipsing through the train to search for a conductor (who probably would have told the OP to go away if he'd knocked on the cab door, where the conductor probably was) is no impediment to his innocence.
What you have said seems to be the awful kind of anti-passenger aattitude - punishing them for allegedly breaching an arcane railway law - that "the railway" has laboured under for many years. If it wants to properly compete with other methods of transport for more journeys it needs to drop this attitude immediately, and it must stop attempting to penalise passengers unfairly, such as here.
ForTheLoveOf
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 6,416
In this case I would absolutely not pay any Penalty Fare owed. If Northern are stupid enough to take the matter further (e.g. prosecution) I'm sure we will assist the OP in mounting a robust defence, and possibly taking further action against Northern.
Personally I would be considering the angle of a breach of EU Regulation 2016/679 (i.e. the GDPR). Article 5(1)(a) requires that data processing (which includes obtaining) be lawful. Article 6(1) sets out that processing will only be considered lawful if at least one of the six grounds for processing set out there are fulfilled. Where a passenger has boarded at a station where there is no Penalty Fares scheme in effect (due to the lack of signage, and even if there were signage, the non-Regulations-compliant signage), the Penalty Fares Regulations do not apply and hence there is no power to require details under this enactment. As previously stated, if paying with cash the TVM is no opportunity to pay, and so there can be no suspicion of a breach of either the Byelaws (notwithstanding the unlawfulness/unenforceability of Byelaw 18) or RoRA. So there is no statutory basis for requiring the OP's details, and it is pretty evident none of the other grounds apply.
Breach of Article 5(1)(a) is a serious matter and it would entitle the OP to require that Northern delete, or at least block access to, his personal data. Failure to do so in response to a lawful request is a further criminal offence by Northern and so significant damages may be available to the OP if Northern take any action other than dropping the matter. Note that damages for distress (as will inevitably be present in a case such as this) are explicitly available in such matters, as per Section 168(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018 and Article 81 of the GDPR.
I don't know how anyone can defend Northern's behaviour in relation to Penalty Fares (not that you have!) after a saga like this.
Last edited:
True, we don't know that the machine was working but equally we don't have any specific reason to believe that it wasn't so that's neither here nor there. As to if it took cash, I'm of the opinion that a 'Promise to Pay' is a ticket entitling the passenger to travel and boarding a train having failed to obtain one is a Byelaw 18 breach.
Byelaw 18 doesn't require there to be clear and obvious signage, nor does it speak to the ease of using the facilities.
That said, given the circumstances as described and the lack of Penalty Fare notices, Northern should not have issued this more than likely invalid Penalty Fare.
ForTheLoveOf
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 6,416
A very interesting, and shall I say controversial, view! I have not seen this come up but I very much doubt a machine issuing a free Promise to Pay is an opportunity to buy a ticket. After all, a Promise to Pay is not a ticket in and of itself - it is some weird thing that Northern have made up, which has no statutory or NRCoT basis.
In any case, as I have said previously, Northern and other TOCs are on shaky ground using Byelaw 18. Hopefully they will be appropriately challenged - such as in a case like this where there is no hint of dishonesty or wrongdoing on the part of the passenger - and Northern and all the other TOCs will be forced to repay all historic settlements, prosecution costs etc.
Eric
Member
I feel I must repeat myself here. It was the first time since the mid 90s that I have used the station on Wednesday (not passing through on a train).
I didn't know there was a ticket machine on platform one until I was told at Forster Square.
I walked down Frizinghall Road up and over the bridge and onto platform two, where I looked for a ticket machine.
There wasn't one and there was no sign saying their was one on platform one, so I waited for the train and got on it to Bradford, knowing there are facilities to purchase tickets from the conductor on the train.
How can Byelaw 18 apply in this instance when I didn't know there were ticket facilities at Frizinghall?
Do Northern want me to magic a promise to pay ticket out of the air?
My local MP is Susan Hinchcliffe and the email we have just sent to Northern has been copied to her.
thejuggler
Member
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 1,186
Susan Hinchcliffe is leader of Bradford Council, not an MP.
It's PERTIS in another guise.
Byelaw 18 is strict liability. It doesn't matter if you knew or not.
Loop & Link
Member
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2015
- Messages
- 515
Not knowing the station myself, and layout of what machine is where is, I can’t say the rights and wrongs of this, even though the situation does seem a little unfair.
But surely the OP can’t be surprised he was issued with a PF? The OP has been in a similar situation before and knowing it’s a Penalty Fare Zone, having travelled on the line before and frequently with Northern. He boarded the train in a penalty fare zone without a ticket, so while this situation is not black and white, and I do sympathise especially if the signage is far from clear, the OP can’t be shocked that PF has applied in this situation?
But surely the OP can’t be surprised he was issued with a PF? The OP has been in a similar situation before and knowing it’s a Penalty Fare Zone, having travelled on the line before and frequently with Northern. He boarded the train in a penalty fare zone without a ticket, so while this situation is not black and white, and I do sympathise especially if the signage is far from clear, the OP can’t be shocked that PF has applied in this situation?
Silverdale
Member
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2018
- Messages
- 522
What matters is whether no working ticket issuing facility existed at the station, in which case there is no breach of the Byelaw. Once that is shown to be the case, the lack of need to prove intent of boarding the train (i.e. strict liability) is irrelevant.
So what constitutes a working ticket issuing facility? If there is a machine, is there any limit to the extent that it can be hidden or disguised or simply not made obvious, yet still be considered to be a working facility?
I guess it's the old what would the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' think situation.
Last edited:
Silverdale
Member
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2018
- Messages
- 522
Would a reasonable person, arriving at Frizinghall station knowing that they needed to look for it, reasonably believe that there was no ticket issuing facility at the station?
Fawkes Cat
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 May 2017
- Messages
- 2,987
The difficulty here is that on a simple interpretation of the law - that the OP boarded a train without a ticket at a station where he could have bought a ticket - the OP is at fault and the railway is in the right. Of course, the consensus here (and which I agree with) is that the law is not as simple as that: there are various conditions that the railway has to meet, and in the view of this forum several of those conditions haven't been met.
But the consensus is just our opinion. I can imagine that whoever considers the OP's case could have a different opinion. We don't think that the location of the ticket machine was properly explained. What if the reviewer/Transport Focus/magistrate thinks otherwise? What if they think a machine almost seven minutes away is near enough? And so on.
So I continue to suggest paying (under protest) the penalty fare. We naturally think our assumptions are good (and again, I agree). But we have to allow for the possibility that we are wrong.
But the consensus is just our opinion. I can imagine that whoever considers the OP's case could have a different opinion. We don't think that the location of the ticket machine was properly explained. What if the reviewer/Transport Focus/magistrate thinks otherwise? What if they think a machine almost seven minutes away is near enough? And so on.
So I continue to suggest paying (under protest) the penalty fare. We naturally think our assumptions are good (and again, I agree). But we have to allow for the possibility that we are wrong.
If we were discussing a Byelaw 18 prosecution, then the first statement would be correct. However, where a Penalty Fare is concerned there are additional considerations, and it is these that don't appear to have been met (clear signage being the key one).
Eric
Member
Apologies. She is my local councillor not MP.
She has replied saying this will be brought up at the next council meeting on the 11th September.
Silverdale
Member
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2018
- Messages
- 522
If the recipient accepts that the penalty fare was issued correctly, of course they should pay. If not they should appeal within 21 days. They may lose the appeal, but the mere possibility of that isn't sufficient reason not to appeal. There is no additional penalty to be paid if the appeal is lost. The only downside for an appellant to consider is the time and effort of pursuing it.
Of course, paying the penalty fare does not prevent the recipient subsequently appealing within the 21 days, but unless that's what you're suggesting, I don't really understand what is meant by "paying (under protest)".
Eric
Member
I looked for it in the car park and on the platform to find it wasn’t there. It’s true I travel regularly on the railway and many times when I’ve not been able to find a ticket machine in the absence of a ticket office, I’ve always either purchased a ticket from the conductor or at the destination station.
I don’t think my actions are unreasonable. You board a train after being unable to purchase a ticket and either get one from the conductor or the gate line staff at the destination station.
This has happened at the Interchange and Forster Square on many occasions, sometimes the gate line attendants at both stations have escorted myself and others wanting to pay for a ticket into the ticket office and make sure they pay in view of the ticket office window.
Why wasn’t I and others giving penalty fares on those occasions?
I’m not bending the rules, if I arrive at a train station with no signage saying penalty fares are in operation or no ticket machine, what are my options? Not to get on the train?
Fawkes Cat
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 May 2017
- Messages
- 2,987
My bad. That was precisely what I was suggesting i.e. pay the penalty to avoid the matter escalating, but also appeal.
1. I think you can take it that the descriptions given by the OP and others are accurate.
2. I see nothing in the thread to justify this comment. Revenue protection - to which Eric refers - has been in place for several years longer than Northern PFs.
I am not sure how useful our very talkative MP is in terms of resolving complaints, but I am prepared to be proved wrong.
ForTheLoveOf
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 6,416
The fact that no money changes hands must surely have significance. For PERTIS a token amount at least is paid - a Promise to Pay is merely an indication of intent. I don't see how a Promise to Pay "Notice" can be taken as a ticket. It has none of the usual qualities of a ticket - something being paid for it, an area/line of validity, etc.
If Northern have to rely on this then they are really clutching at straws.
I admire your understanding of the legalities (even though I am not always convinced).
However, I thought a PtP was station-specific? And I have in my collection a number of X passes (free, but with O and D specified) - so I am not at all sure that your distinction is valid.
I get £0 tickets for the Symphony Orchestra concerts. Still a ticket, valid for entrance to a specific concert. Price doesn't matter.
The NRCoT defines a ticket as "any physical or electronic document or record which entitles a passenger to make a journey on the National Rail Network between the stations or within the zones indicated .... ".
The Northern Promise to Pay, in its' current form, does not indicate a destination station or any zones.
The Northern Promise to Pay, in its' current form, does not indicate a destination station or any zones.
It does seem odd that they require you to select a station but then don't record it on the PtP. Do you have an example that you can upload to the forum?
- Status