Penalty Fare After Approaching Collector

Hello,

Southeastern issues a penalty fare of £20 to a friend of mine under circumstances that in my opinion are at least extremely unfair. When researching the issue I came across this very knowledgeable community.

She forgot to touch in. After getting off the train at the destination station and before the ticket gates, she immediately approached some staff for help and asked what she should do under these circumstances, specifically whether she can touch out.

They responded that she can't do this as the bank contactless card would be blocked. (In fact, it is not true!)

Furthermore they immediately issued a Penalty Fare Notice "to help her" and told her that she doesn't need to touch out now as "this is your ticket".

They put an issue reason of "Others" in there, for the reason that she didn't touch in.

She paid the PF immediately after the staff indicated that she could possibly get the money less single fare back through an online appeal.

Should she appeal on grounds that the Southeast staff did not request her to show a ticket (she volunteered that information in the beginning)? Or on grounds that she very obviously did not deliberately evade fares? Or something else?

Should she complain about the staff because of the clear misinformation they provided?

Is there a risk if she appeals that they may withdraw the PF and prosecute instead, considering that in the appeal she would have to effectively admit that she travelled without ticket?

Thank you very much for your help!

E Robson said:

They responded that she can't do this as the bank contactless card would be blocked. (In fact, it is not true!)

Click to expand...

It wouldn't be blocked immediately, however after repeated (three I think?) instances a card does get blocked. So they weren't necessarily completely wrong.

E Robson said:

Should she complain about the staff because of the clear misinformation they provided?

Click to expand...

While it's possible that they weren't as clear as they could be, the information they gave appears to (basically) be correct.

E Robson said:

Should she appeal on grounds that the Southeast staff did not request her to show a ticket (she volunteered that information in the beginning)? Or on grounds that she very obviously did not deliberately evade fares? Or something else?

Click to expand...

Did she have a ticket to show? Penalty fares aren't issued if the inspector believes that there's a deliberate attempt to evade the fare due. What other grounds do you suggest she has for an appeal?

I *thought* Contactless wouldn't open the gates if it hadn't been touched in on mainline services, unlike on LU where you'd get an unresolved journey?

But the PF seems to have been correctly issued. She went up to the inspector and declared that she had unintentionally not paid for her journey. The inspector believed her. This is, unfair as it sounds, precisely the kind of circumstance for which a PF is intended.

Bletchleyite said:

I *thought* Contactless wouldn't open the gates if it hadn't been touched in on mainline services, unlike on LU where you'd get an unresolved journey?

Click to expand...

That's possible - Oyster is a bit of a mystery to me as I use it so infrequently.

Bletchleyite said:

I *thought* Contactless wouldn't open the gates if it hadn't been touched in on mainline services, unlike on LU where you'd get an unresolved journey?

Click to expand...

Readers on gates/validators have no way of knowing whether the card has been touched in or not with contactless. Even with Oyster the worst that will happen is an incomplete journey, unless you have a negative balance at the time you try to touch out.

E Robson said:

Is there a risk if she appeals that they may withdraw the PF and prosecute instead, considering that in the appeal she would have to effectively admit that she travelled without ticket?

Click to expand...

It would appear that, if a Penalty Fare is appealed at the first instance, then, either once the appeals body has issued their response, or if 21 days pass (i.e. if as in this case they string it out), the TOC is statute barred from prosecuting. The only exception is if they cancel the notice before either of the above (decision or 21 days) happen.

Note that, however, that is only in reference to Penalty Fares issued on non-TfL National Rail services. TfL ran services (whether London Underground or National Rail) fall under a different scheme of Penalty Fares, which don't, as far as I'm aware, bar prosecution in the same way. This isn't relevant in the case of your friend's case in particular, but it might well be for other journeys, e.g. on the London Overground.

It's cases like these where you might pay up then appeal on multiple grounds - firstly the real reason you think the treatment was unfair, followed by some technicalities. (E.g. were there correct Penalty Fares notices at the station of origin? The rules changed earlier this year and many stations still do not comply.) If the first part of your appeal makes the people assessing your case sympathetic, then the technicalities give them a mechanism to allow it.

Why should it be appealed? The OP's friend travelled without a ticket and was PF'd as the RPIs believed it to be a genuine mistake, and issued a PF as intended by the scheme. Surely the correct answer is to pay the £20 and chalk it up to experience, and try not to forget to touch in next time.

There is a veritable army of posters here who do stand up for passengers when they are incorrectly charged, fined, PF'd etc, but a minority of the same come here and post wibble about appealing on technicalities when the fine/charge/PF etc is entirely reasonable. Which, in my opinion, devalues their advice when it's being offered correctly.

The OP’s friend didn’t have a ticket when she joined a train, and therefore committed a criminal offence. She was not reported for the offence but dealt with by the issuance of a Penalty Fare, the usual outcome where someone makes an inadvertent mistake.

The Penalty Fare was correctly issued and appears to have been paid. That is the end of the matter. I can see no grounds on which an appeal would be successful.

tiptoptaff said:

Why should it be appealed? The OP's friend travelled without a ticket and was PF'd as the RPIs believed it to be a genuine mistake, and issued a PF as intended by the scheme. Surely the correct answer is to pay the £20 and chalk it up to experience, and try not to forget to touch in next time.

There is a veritable army of posters here who do stand up for passengers when they are incorrectly charged, fined, PF'd etc, but a minority of the same come here and post wibble about appealing on technicalities when the fine/charge/PF etc is entirely reasonable. Which, in my opinion, devalues their advice when it's being offered correctly.

Click to expand...

This is a very good post.

furlong said:

It's cases like these where you might pay up then appeal on multiple grounds - firstly the real reason you think the treatment was unfair...

Click to expand...

But it wasn't unfair - the OP's friend didn't touch in.

tiptoptaff said:

was PF'd as the RPIs believed it to be a genuine mistake

Click to expand...

If the RPIs believed it to be a "genuine mistake" (whatever that ambiguous terminology really means) such that the passenger did not behave dishonestly then they should have just charged the normal fare due. A valid Penalty Fare requires an element of dishonesty (normally evidenced by ignoring signage) but shifts the burden of proof to the passenger (to show they did not behave dishonestly) i.e. dishonesty may be assumed unless shown otherwise.

island said:

This is a very good post.

Click to expand...

Thanks! It was bound to happen eventually!

If someone can provide me a valid, justified reason that it should not have been issued and therefore, should be appealed, I will happily retract my statement that this was fair. And I want a real, genuine reason. Not the customer was told her card would be blocked (as, the staff were right, it may have been in some circumstances) or that the signage wasn't correct, or that she felt it was unfair to be charged after offering to pay. A solid, real reason that PF was not appropriate in this situation.

furlong said:

If the RPIs believed it to be a "genuine mistake" (whatever that ambiguous terminology really means) such that the passenger did not behave dishonestly then they should have just charged the normal fare due. A valid Penalty Fare requires an element of dishonesty (normally evidenced by ignoring signage) but shifts the burden of proof to the passenger (to show they did not behave dishonestly) i.e. dishonesty may be assumed unless shown otherwise.

Click to expand...

But that is not correct in a PF area. In a PF area, the correct thing to do when they believe it to be a mistake, is to issue a PF. It has been trotted out several times that the point of PFs are to give a warning to passengers who make a genuine, innocent ticketing mistake. Such as here. It is advice like this, that devalues what you say when your advice is reasonable and correct.

furlong said:

It's cases like these where you might pay up then appeal on multiple grounds - firstly the real reason you think the treatment was unfair, followed by some technicalities. (E.g. were there correct Penalty Fares notices at the station of origin? The rules changed earlier this year and many stations still do not comply.) If the first part of your appeal makes the people assessing your case sympathetic, then the technicalities give them a mechanism to allow it.

Click to expand...

I see no reason not to pay and appeal. After all, the company has suffered no loss whatsoever, and yet they are content with recovering a penalty fare greater than even any potential loss. If they wish to do this, all they must do is fulfil the statutory criteria. Where they are too lazy or incompetent to do this (e.g. by having non-Regulations compliant posters), that is their own issue.

Morality leaves the equation entirely once you start charging the passenger anything more than the undiscounted ordinary fare.

furlong said:

A valid Penalty Fare requires an element of dishonesty (normally evidenced by ignoring signage) but shifts the burden of proof to the passenger (to show they did not behave dishonestly) i.e. dishonesty may be assumed unless shown otherwise.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that is the case. A Penalty Fare is charged for not holding a ticket (or equivalent) where one could have been obtained. If there is evidence of dishonesty, that's when it moves to prosecution instead.

ForTheLoveOf said:

I see no reason not to pay and appeal. After all, the company has suffered no loss whatsoever, and yet they are content with recovering a penalty fare greater than even any potential loss. If they wish to do this, all they must do is fulfil the statutory criteria. Where they are too lazy or incompetent to do this (e.g. by having non-Regulations compliant posters), that is their own issue.

Morality leaves the equation entirely once you start charging the passenger anything more than the undiscounted ordinary fare.

Click to expand...

I genuinely believe in this case your post should stop there.

Bletchleyite said:

I don't believe that is the case. A Penalty Fare is charged for not holding a ticket (or equivalent) where one could have been obtained. If there is evidence of dishonesty, that's when it moves to prosecution instead.

Click to expand...

I fully agree. And I do not see there's anything more to be said about it other than encouraging someone to pay less than they should, which, as a minimum, is dishonest, and as I have said, very much devalues the good advice you both post

Bletchleyite said:

If there is evidence of dishonesty, that's when it moves to prosecution instead.

Click to expand...

Both cases require dishonesty - any difference may be a matter of degree, but that's a choice the company makes.

furlong said:

Both cases require dishonesty - any difference may be a matter of degree, but that's a choice the company makes.

Click to expand...

Do you have a reference to confirm that? I do not believe you are correct that a PF requires anything other than not having a ticket or other authority to travel when you could have obtained one at your origin using the intended payment method.

furlong said:

Both cases require dishonesty - any difference may be a matter of degree, but that's a choice the company makes.

Click to expand...

That's not my understanding of the situation, could you elaborate please?

If it's not clear, the dishonesty leading to a Penalty Fare is that of ignoring the clear warning signs stating that a ticket (or other authority) must be obtained before travelling - authorised collectors are allowed to assume that no honest person would ignore the instructions on the signs.

najaB said:

That's not my understanding of the situation, could you elaborate please?

Click to expand...

Remind yourself of the Parliamentary debates:

There have been arguments that the penalty fare will make criminals of honest passengers. This is just not so.

Click to expand...

The innocent are protected by the Bill, but it is only fair that the dishonest traveller should be caught. However, even when he is caught he is not a criminal

Click to expand...

One of the social benefits of this Bill is that it will take most ticketless travel outside the scope of the criminal law and will free the hard-pressed magistrates' courts to deal with other serious business.

Click to expand...

If, however, a passenger on a train is not in possession of a ticket, he is not to be treated as a criminal under this Bill. He is simply asked to pay a penalty fare, which is a civil penalty and not a criminal one. If there are good reasons why he has not been able to obtain a ticket before travelling, not even this civil penalty will be due.

Click to expand...

The objective is that no passenger should have to queue for more than three minutes to purchase a ticket at normal times.

Click to expand...

Where there are inordinate delays a deferred fare authority [Permit to Travel] can be purchased to avoid the penalty fare, and from unstaffed stations no penalty fare will be payable provided the passenger proffers his fare to the ticket examiner or guard as soon as possible after joining the train. For example, let us suppose that there was an unusually long queue at a ticket office at a small station where no deferred fare authority machine [PERTIS] was provided. In this case a passenger could certainly challenge any request for a penalty fare. If it were not possible to resolve the issue on the train the passenger would be issued with a penalty fare notice requiring payment within 21 days. He would have ample time to set out his case to the designated railway manager who, if he agreed, after checking with the station concerned, would thereupon withdraw the penalty fare notice.

Click to expand...

And then we have the way the SRA interpreted this:

A penalty fares scheme reverses the normal ‘burden of proof ’ which would apply if a person was prosecuted for not paying their fare.
...
For this reason, we [SRA, 2002] see our main role as making sure that the interests of honest passengers are protected

Click to expand...

The DfT has taken over that role, and seems to have focussed on introducing a more robust and independent appeals system, where the final level of appeal is free to take into account whatever factors it believes are relevant, including ones not raised by either party.

furlong said:

And then we have the way the SRA interpreted this:



The DfT has taken over that role, and seems to have focussed on introducing a more robust and independent appeals system, where the final level of appeal is free to take into account whatever factors it believes are relevant, including ones not raised by either party.

Click to expand...

About time

So to go back to the case here, the underlying question is - how, despite all the signage present at the station of origin (assuming it was compliant), did the OP's friend manage to "forget" to touch in? The burden of proof is reversed so it would be for the OP's friend to prove that whatever caused that was not dishonest - and the RPI was not persuaded of that at the time, otherwise the PF shouldn't have been issued.

tiptoptaff said:

If someone can provide me a valid, justified reason that it should not have been issued and therefore, should be appealed, I will happily retract my statement that this was fair. And I want a real, genuine reason. Not the customer was told her card would be blocked (as, the staff were right, it may have been in some circumstances) or that the signage wasn't correct, or that she felt it was unfair to be charged after offering to pay. A solid, real reason that PF was not appropriate in this situation.

Click to expand...

If you're looking for a "moral" reason that the OP's friend did nothing wrong, I don't think we have any of those. But it may well be that the signage was not compliant, as certainly the Southeastern signage which I have seen recently at other stations has not been compliant. That may not be a "moral" defence to what the OP's friend did, but if it is the case then it is legally speaking just as much of a valid argument - if not more so - than the Penalty Fare 'feeling' injust.

I don't see why people harp on about which arguments are morally justified and which aren't though. There is a set procedure in law; the TOC wishes to use that procedure; therefore they should comply with the procedure in full. They expect the passenger to do so, and indeed they have tried to penalise the passenger for breaking the rules, but it is hypocritical to do so if the TOC are also engaged in breaking the rules.

It might well be said that, in a situation where both the TOC and the passenger are innocently breaking the rules - the TOC by not displaying the correct signage, but not having any intent to cause detriment to passengers in this, and the passenger by not having a valid ticket, but not having any intent to avoid the fare - it is morally justified for the whole matter to be dropped.

But at the end of the day, the rules are in place for a reason. It is no different, in this respect, to a Notice of Intended Prosecution having to be received by the registered keeper of a vehicle within 14 days of an alleged offence. If it arrives 15 days later, the original offence (speeding etc.) cannot be prosecuted. Some people may see it as a "loophole"; other people (such as myself) may think that it is entirely right and correct, since the rules are in place for a reason. If you allow a notice that arrives 15 days later, why wouldn't you allow one that is 16 days later? And why not 17 if you allow 16? It is a slippery slope.

The same applies to Penalty Fare signage wording. If you allow wording that is "approximately" (whatever that means in this context) the same as the proscribed wording, then why don't you just let the operators choose their own random wording, and let passengers be penalised whenever the TOC feels like raking in a bit of extra cash to shore up the shareholders' dividends, even if the sign is very unclear as to when it applies? The rules are the rules; they are not difficult to comply with, and if the TOCs cannot even manage that, then frankly speaking they are far from on the moral high ground.

tiptoptaff said:

Why should it be appealed? The OP's friend travelled without a ticket and was PF'd as the RPIs believed it to be a genuine mistake, and issued a PF as intended by the scheme. Surely the correct answer is to pay the £20 and chalk it up to experience, and try not to forget to touch in next time.

There is a veritable army of posters here who do stand up for passengers when they are incorrectly charged, fined, PF'd etc, but a minority of the same come here and post wibble about appealing on technicalities when the fine/charge/PF etc is entirely reasonable. Which, in my opinion, devalues their advice when it's being offered correctly.

Click to expand...

And after "chalking it up to experience" decide not to risk the experience again and stop using the train. Is that what PFs are intended for?

furlong said:

If the RPIs believed it to be a "genuine mistake" (whatever that ambiguous terminology really means) such that the passenger did not behave dishonestly then they should have just charged the normal fare due. A valid Penalty Fare requires an element of dishonesty (normally evidenced by ignoring signage) but shifts the burden of proof to the passenger (to show they did not behave dishonestly) i.e. dishonesty may be assumed unless shown otherwise.

Click to expand...

An assumption of guilt. The very basis of our legal system. Not. No one should be penalised for making an honest mistake which they attempt to correct.

And your friend is lucky that the PF is only £20. On some routes (for longer journeys outside the zone it could be twice what the single fare should have been).

dcbwhaley said:

And after "chalking it up to experience" decide not to risk the experience again and stop using the train. Is that what PFs are intended for?

Click to expand...

If they can't be so sure of themselves to tap in next time they travel then should they really be using contactless to travel?

dcbwhaley said:

An assumption of guilt. The very basis of our legal system. Not. No one should be penalised for making an honest mistake which they attempt to correct.

Click to expand...

Not really. It's effectively that the fare paid before travel is £X, but if paid after travel it's 2 x £X or £20 whichever is greater.

From the facts as described in the opening post, the Penalty Fare appears to have been correctly issued.

I would only appeal if you know that the Penalty Fare signage is not correct at the origin station.