Failure to Pay Penalty Charge

island · 28 May 2019

ForTheLoveOf said:
Byelaw 18(2) of the Railway Byelaws makes it an offence to fail to hand over a ticket for inspection. It does not require that the ticket be valid, merely that you hand it over so its validity (or lack thereof) can be ascertained. This offence is not made out, provided you proceeded to proffer your bank card when asked for a ticket.

I am less confident about this. The definition of a ticket in the NRCOT seems to me to only include a contactless card described as being valid for travel on their services. There is at least an argument that a contactless card ceases to be “a ticket” when you leave the zones. Though that could go either way. Indeed, whether the OP was asked for a ticket or not is not made clear.

ForTheLoveOf said:
Section 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 makes it an offence to travel on the railway without previously having paid the fare, if you intend to avoid payment thereof. There is no way this offence can be made out, since not only would you (as indeed occurred) be charged a maximum fare if you didn't tap out at a TfL reader, but there are barriers at Hatfield and accordingly there is no way you could have 'gotten away' with trying to use contactless. There is no strategy of fare evasion where using contactless beyond the boundary works.
.

I am even less confident about this. Once the OP chose to travel past the validity of contactless cards and was challenged, the fare for his journey became the Penalty Fare. Declining to pay a Penalty Fare or any part thereof is prima facie evidence of intent to avoid payment.

The specifics of whether an offence has been committed will, however, depend heavily on what was said and done at the time the OP was challenged. There is every chance of a successful defence by raising reasonable doubt.

RailUK Forums

ForTheLoveOf · 28 May 2019

some bloke said:
It's not unknown for people to be wrongly convicted. If an argument is untested, then it may not go as smoothly as hoped.

Which part of an contactless card being a valid ticket to board at New Southgate is an untested argument? Let's stop taking devil's advocate to the extreme. The OP is not guilty of a Byelaw 18(1) offence and I can see no way even the most incompetent or biased Magistrate could possibly get that very, very simple point of law wrong.

some bloke said:
Is it best to tell the company, in effect, that they have the law wrong, or to suggest it might be interpreted a different way?

They are plain wrong, and there is no question of interpretation. I really don't get why you're labouring the point - in which way did the OP not hold a valid ticket when they entered the train (which is the proposed charge)?

ForTheLoveOf · 28 May 2019

island said:
Once the OP chose to travel past the validity of contactless cards and was challenged, the fare for his journey became the Penalty Fare. Declining to pay a Penalty Fare or any part thereof is prima facie evidence of intent to avoid payment.

No, a Penalty Fare would never be the appropriate fare for the purposes of RoRA. It is a separate fare defined by law. Refusing to pay your fare would be if you refused to pay the Anytime Day Single. Besides which, GTR should not be charging any Penalty Fares given their non-Regulations-compliant signage...

But this is all quite apart from the point. If the OP doesn't let on what they intend to do, they can let it proceed to Court under Byelaw 18(1) and then effectively 'ambush' GTR when they're expecting a straightforward case.

furlong · 28 May 2019

A Penalty Fare is either imposed by the company, or it isn't - the passenger has no choice in the matter, so I doubt you can draw evidence of intent from a trick question which amounts to: "If I were to decide to impose a PF on you which you would be required by law to pay, would you resist paying it?" Almost as bad as asking if the passenger would appeal against a PF, if issued, and if they say 'yes', then deciding not to issue one! (Properly, I don't think any questions similar to those should ever be asked.)

some bloke · 28 May 2019

island said:
The definition of a ticket in the NRCOT seems to me to only include a contactless card described as being valid for travel on their services. There is at least an argument that a contactless card ceases to be “a ticket” when you leave the zones. Though that could go either way. Indeed, whether the OP was asked for a ticket or not is not made clear.

It's possibly an odd wording - it refers to a "Card bearing the symbol described...as being valid...".

Does the text restrict contactless cards more than other invalid "tickets"?

A byelaw that lets an invalid ticket be presented might seem to allow a variety of ridiculously inappropriate, invalid tickets, but perhaps there are precedents.

National Rail Conditions of Travel said:
"Ticket" means 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 by one or more of the Train Companies. An electronic document or record may consist of (but not be limited to): ...a database, in conjunction with an authorised Contactless Bank Card bearing the symbol described in the notices and publications of the Train Company as being valid for travel on their services.

some bloke · 28 May 2019

ForTheLoveOf said:
Which part of an contactless card being a valid ticket to board at New Southgate is an untested argument? Let's stop taking devil's advocate to the extreme. The OP is not guilty of a Byelaw 18(1) offence and I can see no way even the most incompetent or biased Magistrate could possibly get that very, very simple point of law wrong.

They are plain wrong, and there is no question of interpretation. I really don't get why you're labouring the point - in which way did the OP not hold a valid ticket when they entered the train (which is the proposed charge)?

The comments were not restricted to 18 (1).

We may have established above that a RoRA offence could in fact be made out, after it was suggested that it couldn't. Suggested reasons included that there were barriers, and that there was not the chance of successful evasion; the problem is that intent might (in theory at least) still be inferred.

In this case there are other factors, as discussed. But that is an illustration that we can think we have a watertight case or argument when there's something else to consider.

saltthrow · 28 May 2019

I forgot to mention, I was given a slip off the bottom of the form. It has the form number, time, no date, although there is a space for it and the email address of the GTR prosecutions department.

Should I email that address with the form ID number and offer to pay the penalty fare?

Kite159 · 28 May 2019

ForTheLoveOf said:
No, a Penalty Fare would never be the appropriate fare for the purposes of RoRA. It is a separate fare defined by law. Refusing to pay your fare would be if you refused to pay the Anytime Day Single. Besides which, GTR should not be charging any Penalty Fares given their non-Regulations-compliant signage...

But this is all quite apart from the point. If the OP doesn't let on what they intend to do, they can let it proceed to Court under Byelaw 18(1) and then effectively 'ambush' GTR when they're expecting a straightforward case.

So in your eyes, it is no different to someone buying a ticket to Vauxhall from the machines at Waterloo in order to get through the barriers, then travel to say Hersham [or another barrier-less station on the SWR network served by the suburban stock, London Road (Guildford)]

After-all that person had a 'valid' ticket when they boarded the train so a Byelaw 18(1) charge won't stick whatsoever in your eyes... :rolleyes:

furlong · 28 May 2019

Kite159 said:
After-all that person had a 'valid' ticket when they boarded the train so a Byelaw 18(1) charge won't stick whatsoever in your eyes...

We're discussing train travel not time travel. How can an offence already committed at the point in time a train is entered be conditional upon on a future event (viz. where the passenger actually leaves the train)?

ForTheLoveOf · 28 May 2019

Kite159 said:
So in your eyes, it is no different to someone buying a ticket to Vauxhall from the machines at Waterloo in order to get through the barriers, then travel to say Hersham [or another barrier-less station on the SWR network served by the suburban stock, London Road (Guildford)]

After-all that person had a 'valid' ticket when they boarded the train so a Byelaw 18(1) charge won't stick whatsoever in your eyes...

Roll your eyes all you like, but if the train stops at Vauxhall then a Byelaw 18(1) charge is simply not the appropriate way to deal with it. Byelaw 18(1) deals with the moment at which you board the train. It doesn't apply to anything beyond that split second. What happens afterwards is of no relevance for the purposes of that specific law.

It is a fact that is perhaps unfortunate from the perspective of the TOCs' Prosecutions department that there is no modern law that makes it a strict liability offence to board a train with a valid ticket, but then to overstay the ticket's validity, if you don't intend to avoid payment of the fare. This might occur if you are under a mistaken understanding, as here, that your ticket is accepted further than it is, or as in another similar-ish recent case if your intended destination changes, for whatever reason, once you are already onboard.

If you board with a valid ticket, show this when asked (even if beyond the point of validity), and have no intention of avoiding payment of the correct fare, then the only offence under which you could be prosecuted is RCCA. But this is an obscure and old law which is not often used for prosecutions, and one that cannot really be applied to a system of ticketing such as Oyster, let alone the even more legally complex contactless system. (With Oyster, at least everything is calculated as one-off disparate transactions; with contactless, no fare at all is paid until well after travel at the end of the day).

If the DfT wanted to change the Byelaws to make them have fewer "holes", they have had every opportunity to do so over the last 14 years. The fact that they have not done so would suggest they are perfectly happy for innocent mistakes such as this to be dealt with by means of alternative resolutions, such as a (properly implemented) Penalty Fares scheme - or alternatively that this simply isn't as big of a problem as some people might imagine it to be.

some bloke · 28 May 2019

saltthrow said:
Should I email that address with the form ID number and offer to pay the penalty fare?

I'll let more experienced people answer that.

Perhaps the issue with 18 (1) is best described not as about the future, but about the meaning of "valid ticket" in the context of entering the train.

I'm not saying the position is clear, but that it may not be clear.

Perhaps Byelaw 18 (1) might need a separate thread, but a previous advice thread, also about contactless outside the Zones, may be relevant to this case.

some bloke said:
The Byelaws state,

"“valid ticket” means a ticket...entitling that person to use the particular railway service he is using or attempting to use."

How certain can we be that a higher court would not interpret "service" as implying transport as far as Epsom, since the OP did not deny that was his intention?

Consumer law favours the consumer's interpretation of ambiguity in a contract. But is that enough of a guarantee for the OP here?
Or does "service" clearly mean service to any station, rather than specifically to Epsom?

ForTheLoveOf said:
I don't think it is supportable to claim that service can be interpreted to mean journey, by any means - many people's journeys involve taking more than one service; it would be perfectly legal for the purposes of the Byelaws to board your first train on a multi-leg journey, with a ticket that only covered you to your first interchange station, and then to buy a ticket onboard this first train to cover the rest of your journey. In other words, you do not need to have a ticket that covers your entire journey merely to start it.

I'm not sure I agree with that particular argument.

The OPs in the Epsom and Hatfield cases were each only taking one service. The interpretation of "service" to mean "journey" in that context (ie as far as the passenger is going or attempting to go on that particular service) doesn't, I think, imply that "service" could mean a multi-leg journey.

Yes, you might intend to go on a multi-leg journey, but that isn't one train service. It's less of a leap, in my view, to say that

"entitling that person to use the particular railway service he is using or attempting to use"

means a ticket which entitles you to travel as far as you go or intend to go on one service - such as Hatfield.

(There's another interpretation which someone might say is strictly speaking allowed - that you could have a ticket between stations in some later part of the service and be lawfully entering the train with that valid ticket.)

Also, in the example of a multi-leg journey the person would buy a ticket while still travelling lawfully on the first ticket.

Again, I'm not saying the court would throw out the main argument. I think that in isolation at least, the interpretation that says "using or attempting to use" a "service" refers to any part of the train's journey makes sense (provided it starts with a ticket valid at the start).

I'm saying that the argument about the multi-leg journey might not hold, that the other interpretation of "service" isn't completely bonkers, and it might not be inconceivable that a court would say, "The lawmakers surely wouldn't mean a person could travel the length of the country on a £2 ticket and not be guilty of a strict-liability offence".

Yes, the drafters might have been sloppy. But would the court necessarily conclude that - or that they could not interpret the sloppiness any other way?

najaB · 29 May 2019

ForTheLoveOf said:
...and have no intention of avoiding payment...

I'm yet to hear of a fare evader who didn't have every intention of paying - after they got caught.

Intent is inferred from action, and refusing a penalty fare is pretty clear action.

some bloke · 29 May 2019

ForTheLoveOf said:
If you board with a valid ticket, show this when asked (even if beyond the point of validity), and have no intention of avoiding payment of the correct fare, then the only offence under which you could be prosecuted is RCCA.

I think it's helpful in advice threads to refrain from statements like that, as with similar statements about no magistrate in the land.

Where a company has threatened prosecution under a byelaw (as in the Epsom case), it may not be inconceivable that

- it has been used to prosecute in similar circumstances; or that
- a conviction under it has taken place in similar circumstances; or that
- the same or another company would misunderstand or not immediately accept even an argument that would be later unquestionably be accepted as valid.

Similarly, as reasons given above that a RoRA offence is not made out may not be as solid as they seemed, wording could be used such as "in my opinion".

It is easy to label arguments as arguments, rather than as facts that will inevitably be accepted at any particular stage of the process.

"In my view, it would be highly likely that the company would accept this argument and so not proceed to prosecution"

is perhaps one appropriate form of words. It might give the person being advised a clear idea of the situation without the need to go back and clarify later.

If the idea is expressed in that kind of form, the message is clear even if the writer is more confident about the argument than the wording communicates.

some bloke · 29 May 2019

island said:
Declining to pay a Penalty Fare or any part thereof is prima facie evidence of intent to avoid payment.

ForTheLoveOf said:
No, a Penalty Fare would never be the appropriate fare for the purposes of RoRA.

najaB said:
refusing a penalty fare is pretty clear action.

Penalty Fare Guidelines 2018 Second Edition said:
When issuing a Penalty Fare, the Collector may request that the customer make a minimum payment towards the Penalty Fare that is equal to what they would paid for their journey, if they had purchased a ticket before traveling. You may still be liable to pay the remaining fare later.

INFO BOX 6
You should be aware that failure to provide the minimum fare towards a Penalty Fare may be viewed as a deliberate attempt to evade the fare owed.

https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/Penalty Fares Guidelines 2018 Second Edition.pdf

saltthrow · 29 May 2019

I only refused the penalty fare as I was sure I had paid, I wasn't trying to evade paying the fare. It was not explained why I had to pay the penalty fare, or that refusing to do so could land me in such hot water

some bloke · 29 May 2019

saltthrow said:
I only refused the penalty fare as I was sure I had paid, I wasn't trying to evade paying the fare. It was not explained why I had to pay the penalty fare, or that refusing to do so could land me in such hot water

Yes, the situation seems to have been confused.

Do you mean it wasn't explained that you owed a fare to GN rather than TfL?

When you say that you were sure you had paid, after you couldn't touch out, are you referring to the max. fare? If you were aware that the max. fare was likely to be more than the national rail fare, then it would seem highly unlikely you would try and evade!

Did they ask you to make a minimum payment?

These messages might be worth mentioning to GTR:

https://twitter.com/Joey__Le/status/1132624222315061248

https://twitter.com/Jonnyh85/status/1132908337199243264

ForTheLoveOf · 29 May 2019

najaB said:
I'm yet to hear of a fare evader who didn't have every intention of paying - after they got caught.

Intent is inferred from action, and refusing a penalty fare is pretty clear action.

@furlong has already dealt with this. GTR are not authorised to be issuing PFs due to their non-compliant signage, so refusing to pay an unlawful charge is not intent to avoid payment. That's quite besides the fact that a PF is discretionary and so on.

some bloke said:
I think it's helpful in advice threads to refrain from statements like that, as with similar statements about no magistrate in the land.

Where a company has threatened prosecution under a byelaw (as in the Epsom case), it may not be inconceivable that

- it has been used to prosecute in similar circumstances; or that
- a conviction under it has taken place in similar circumstances; or that
- the same or another company would misunderstand or not immediately accept even an argument that would be later unquestionably be accepted as valid.

Similarly, as reasons given above that a RoRA offence is not made out may not be as solid as they seemed, wording could be used such as "in my opinion".

It is easy to label arguments as arguments, rather than as facts that will inevitably be accepted at any particular stage of the process.

"In my view, it would be highly likely that the company would accept this argument and so not proceed to prosecution"

is perhaps one appropriate form of words. It might give the person being advised a clear idea of the situation without the need to go back and clarify later.

If the idea is expressed in that kind of form, the message is clear even if the writer is more confident about the argument than the wording communicates.

I think you may be getting really tied up in knots. As @furlong says, it is the moment of boarding that counts. Byelaw 18(1) is effectively asking whether you would be seen to have an invalid ticket if you got on a train and there was a check right that moment. There would have been no problem if this had been what happened, and accordingly 18(1) is simply GTR barking up the wrong tree.

some bloke said:
https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/Penalty Fares Guidelines 2018 Second Edition.pdf

Their views have no impact on the legal position. As stated, @furlong has explained why it cannot be intent to avoid payment to refuse to pay a Penalty Fare, let alone a PF that is not lawfully issued.

If you disagree with what @furlong, a respected member here, has said, I suggest you reply to him stating what your objections are. But as it stands, it is highly detrimental to the OP to present an alternative narrative that is an extreme version of being the devil's advocate, and they could quite easily be getting confused at this point.

saltthrow · 29 May 2019

some bloke said:
Yes, the situation seems to have been confused.

Do you mean it wasn't explained that you owed a fare to GN rather than TfL?

When you say that you were sure you had paid, after you couldn't touch out, are you referring to the max. fare? If you were aware that the max. fare was likely to be more than the national rail fare, then it would seem highly unlikely you would try and evade!

Did they ask you to make a minimum payment?

These messages might be worth mentioning to GTR:

https://twitter.com/Joey__Le/status/1132624222315061248

https://twitter.com/Jonnyh85/status/1132908337199243264

It wasn't explained who I owed the fare to. The staff were trying to talk to about 20 people at once, and were getting flack from everyone, but didn't mention it.

I wasn't aware of the cost of the fare, I was just assuming it was less than the days TfL charge. They asked for £20 or to go and see the people processing the Refusal to Pay forms.

Is GTR = The Great Northern? Could I use those links in any letter response? Or email the prosecutions department that was on the slip from the form they gave me?

some bloke · 29 May 2019

Great Northern is a trading name of Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd.

I would think you could give the links as evidence that other people had similar problems (though they paid).

As this is an unusual situation affecting more people, I'm wondering if emailing early/explaining to them on Twitter/calling the company etc might be more appropriate than in more usual cases.

saltthrow · 29 May 2019

some bloke said:
Great Northern is a trading name of Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd.

I would think you could give the links as evidence that other people had similar problems (though they paid).

As this is an unusual situation affecting more people, I'm wondering if emailing early/explaining to them on Twitter/calling the company etc might be more appropriate than in more usual cases.

This is the email / letter I have drafted. @mikeg do you have any ideas whether I should email? You said not to earlier in this thread. I'm so anxious it's making me unwell.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing in repsonse to receiving a Refusal to Pay Penalty Fare slip on the 26/05/2019. Form ID number: WS0000000000.

On 26/05/2019, I travelled from New Southgate (NSG) to Hatfield on the 10:52 service. On reaching the platform at New Southgate, I used my contactless card to start the journey. In Hatfield that day, there was a day festival occurring (Slam Dunk Festival). Upon reaching Hatfield, the station was very busy as lots of festival-goers arrived to attend said festival. I did not exit the station at the open gate, as I needed to complete my journey on the contactless machines. Upon doing so at the Hatfield barriers, the gate did not open and I was informed that I must pay £20 to exit through the gate. Upon questioning why, no clear answer was given. The member of staff was dealing with multiple people in the same situation as I was, and the information was not relayed. I now understand that Hatfield is outside of the Oyster zones, and was therefore unable to use my contactless card to complete my journey. If this would have been explained, I would have paid the Penalty Fare. However, in the large crowds of people being denied access through the gates, raised noise levels and commotion, communication broke down and this information was not presented to me. I was told to speak to another member of staff about exiting the gate without paying the Penalty Fare. I was also charged the full day fare from Transport for London on this date from starting my journey at New Southgate and never terminating my journey.

I did not understand the consequences of refusing to pay the Penalty Fare has. The member of staff read the Right to Silence, and worked with me through the form. I was not told the consequences of this were potential prosecution. Again, if I was told this, I would have happily paid the Penalty Fare. Upon completing the form, I was given a slip of paper and let through the barriers. Moments after I had completed this form, another train full of festival-goers arrived, and the barriers were opened permanently (presumably as a crowd-control measure, as there were a lot of people on the platform), and passengers were allowed to exit the station without their tickets being checked.

I have never evaded my fare before, travelled without a ticket or tried to deceive anyone and I am truly sorry for my actions and can assure you there will never be a repeat. This was a clear error of judgement on my behalf and refusing to pay the Penalty Fare was a regrettable course of events that I am extremely remorseful for. As an IT contractor, I would need to disclose a criminal record to my employer and this may result in me losing my job.

It was never my intention to deny The Great Northern any fare, I firmly believed I had paid for my fare when I used my contactless card at New Southgate station, and again at Hatfield. I understand now that this was not the case, and that contactless/Oyster does not work that far from London. I am an infrequent traveller to London, and I had never travelled on that line or between those stations before and believed that due to it's proximity to London, I would be able to use my contactless card to complete my journey when I arrived in Hatfield. When I attempted to complete my journey at the Hatfield barriers (rather than leave from the open gate to the side of the station for crowd control), the gates did not open. I regrettably refused to pay the Penalty Fare, as I genuinely believed I had paid for my journey, for which I send my sincerest apologies. This was a genuine misunderstanding and I will endeavor to fully research the rules and regulations regarding travel between my destinations in the future.

I would like to apologise unreservedly, and settle this matter if I may. I am prepared to offer you the full single fare for my journey from New Southgate to Hatfield, the Penalty Fare, plus any reasonable costs incurred in pursuing your claim against me.

Since this incident, I have moved address. My mail is being forwarded, but please send further correspondence to:

New Address

Yours faithfully,

talltim · 29 May 2019

I get the concept that you can’t read minds so intent can only be shown by actions. However I don’t see how the action of refusing a Penalty Fare can show intent to refuse all fares.
(Why didn’t they use a better word than intent when writing the law/s)

Fawkes Cat · 29 May 2019

saltthrow said:
I forgot to mention, I was given a slip off the bottom of the form. It has the form number, time, no date, although there is a space for it and the email address of the GTR prosecutions department.

Should I email that address with the form ID number and offer to pay the penalty fare?

I think I am going to change the advice I gave.

As I understand it, the position is this:
- due to a misunderstanding on your part, you tried to use Oyster/a contactless credit card to pay for travel from London out to Hatfield
- at Hatfield, you were challenged on this, and issued a penalty fare of £20
- you refused to pay this, and provided your name and address. In exchange, you received a slip including an email address for GTR's prosecution office and with a reference. (N.B. - GTR is 'the railway'. Among other things, they operate trains branded as 'Great Northern'.)
- you are now very concerned that you will get a criminal record.

I previously suggested waiting until the railway got back to you. But if I have interpreted your comments correctly, you are still very worried about the matter. I also think that I misunderstood matters a little about quite what notice had been given to you - my current understanding is as I have spelt it out above.

If I have now understood things properly, then the only material point at stake at the moment is the £20 penalty fare. And there's also your peace of mind, which we can't put a price on.

There's been much discussion here as to whether you could challenge the penalty fare. But given that the penalty fare is £20, and challenging it will be stressful, my suggestion is to pay the penalty fare.

If I have understood what you have been issued with correctly, you can do this online at http://epfn.penaltyfares.co.uk/.

It will cost you £20, but it will let you put this matter behind you, and you will not have a criminal record.

saltthrow · 29 May 2019

Fawkes Cat said:
I think I am going to change the advice I gave.

As I understand it, the position is this:
- due to a misunderstanding on your part, you tried to use Oyster/a contactless credit card to pay for travel from London out to Hatfield
- at Hatfield, you were challenged on this, and issued a penalty fare of £20
- you refused to pay this, and provided your name and address. In exchange, you received a slip including an email address for GTR's prosecution office and with a reference. (N.B. - GTR is 'the railway'. Among other things, they operate trains branded as 'Great Northern'.)
- you are now very concerned that you will get a criminal record.

I previously suggested waiting until the railway got back to you. But if I have interpreted your comments correctly, you are still very worried about the matter. I also think that I misunderstood matters a little about quite what notice had been given to you - my current understanding is as I have spelt it out above.

If I have now understood things properly, then the only material point at stake at the moment is the £20 penalty fare. And there's also your peace of mind, which we can't put a price on.

There's been much discussion here as to whether you could challenge the penalty fare. But given that the penalty fare is £20, and challenging it will be stressful, my suggestion is to pay the penalty fare.

If I have understood what you have been issued with correctly, you can do this online at http://epfn.penaltyfares.co.uk/.

It will cost you £20, but it will let you put this matter behind you, and you will not have a criminal record.

Many thanks for the link @Fawkes Cat, I've entered my name and slip number but it produces "The penalty WS0000XXXXXX issued to <NAME> could not be found", where <NAME> is my surname. I will keep trying, maybe they haven't entered it into the system yet.

The email address / postal address is for the Prosecution Dept at Kings Cross Station, and the email is [email protected]

some bloke · 29 May 2019

Unfortunately there has been some confusion - you aren't now being offered the chance to pay a penalty fare.

saltthrow · 29 May 2019

some bloke said:
Unfortunately there has been some confusion - you aren't now being offered the chance to pay a penalty fare.

So should I send an email to the prosecutions email address do you think?

some bloke · 29 May 2019

If it were me that was being made unwell - not being experienced in these things - I think I would immediately try various avenues including emailing and calling the company, maybe Twitter. However, you might like to wait for others more experienced than me to explain if there are strong reasons not to. Since you appear to have a very good case it might be that it would do no harm.

I think what you have written about the circumstances is excellent. Again, others more experienced than me will advise on legal aspects.

A couple of points:

"I firmly believed I had paid for my fare when I used my contactless card at New Southgate station, and again at Hatfield."

I'm not clear what you mean about using it at Hatfield. It might be worth clarifying this.

Also - I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong - you can omit the offer to pay a penalty fare as it's not applicable.

To alleviate anxiety I might read more, for example on the Unlock website mentioned above. They have a helpline, but anyway hopefully this case won't cause problems at all in the future.

saltthrow · 29 May 2019

some bloke said:
If it were me that was being made unwell - not being experienced in these things - I think I would immediately try various avenues including emailing and calling the company, maybe Twitter. However, you might like to wait for others more experienced than me to explain if there are strong reasons not to. Since you appear to have a very good case it might be that it would do no harm.

I think what you have written about the circumstances is excellent. Again, others more experienced than me will advise on legal aspects.

A couple of points:

"I firmly believed I had paid for my fare when I used my contactless card at New Southgate station, and again at Hatfield."

I'm not clear what you mean about using it at Hatfield. It might be worth clarifying this.

Also - I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong - you can omit the offer to pay a penalty fare as it's not applicable.

To alleviate anxiety I might read more, for example on the Unlock website mentioned above. They have a helpline, but anyway hopefully this case won't cause problems at all in the future.

Thanks,

I've updated it to read: "I firmly believed I had paid for my fare when I used my contactless card at New Southgate station to start my journey, and again at the Hatfield barriers to terminate my journey".

Really worrying about this, thinking about emailing the prosecutions department just so I know what's happening. I know I don't want to seem desperate to them, but I am desperate!

AlterEgo · 29 May 2019

saltthrow said:
Thanks,

I've updated it to read: "I firmly believed I had paid for my fare when I used my contactless card at New Southgate station to start my journey, and again at the Hatfield barriers to terminate my journey".

Really worrying about this, thinking about emailing the prosecutions department just so I know what's happening. I know I don't want to seem desperate to them, but I am desperate!

How can you have firmly believed you paid at the Hatfield barriers? Did you even get as far as the barrier? There is no Oyster/contactless facility there.

I'm just helping you tidy up the semantics of your letter so it's accurate.

some bloke · 29 May 2019

They may expect two explanations: why you thought the barrier looked like it would register a "touch", and why, after it didn't open (or presumably show a green light or make a noise) you thought it had registered one.

It would be worth mentioning circumstances that were relevant such as if you were distracted by the crowding.

Were there by any chance "easy to spot" readers with a yellow disk?

Great Northern Rail said:
Where will I find Key Smartcard readers at stations?
Smartcard readers are located either at the ticket gates or near the entrance/exit to those stations with freestanding validators. Either way, they are easy to spot with a yellow disk.

https://www.greatnorthernrail.com/help-and-support/contact-us/faq/the-key-smartcard

some bloke · 29 May 2019

Every case is different, but this may be of interest.

It's from someone who also refused a penalty fare for overtravel on contactless.

[Edit: It seems that in this case - where GTR threatened prosecution - staff had withdrawn the offer of a penalty fare, rather than the passenger refusing it.]

Southern is another trading name of GTR.

ConcernedTok said:
I was stopped at Epsom Station last week for not having a valid ticket. ...this was my first time travelling the route (Victoria to Epsom).

I had tapped in with my credit card as I normally do, then was stopped as I went to tap out.

ConcernedTok said:
I am relieved to say that I called the prosecutions team this morning to check the status of my case and was told that they agreed to settle out of court for less than £60.

Failure to Pay Penalty Charge

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member