£250 contribution towards admin fee?

[Mihai B]

I work night shifts in Charlton and I pay a pass from Dartford every week. About a week ago, I went to work with a valid pass, which expired during the night. I realised that in Dartford, the next morning, when I tried to use the expired ticket to get out of Dartford Station. I asked the Southeastern Railways staff member what can I do in this case, and he told me I have to pay a fare of £20 on the spot. I told him I have no money on me to pay it, and he immediately issued a Witness Statement saying I will receive a further letter with more details. I received the letter a few days later. I was supposed to make my case there and send it back. I stated in it that I did not refuse to pay the fare or fine, but that I did not have money on me. Today, I received another letter in which they graciously let me go with paying only the £4.90 fare, but also a ‘contribution’ of £250 towards admin fee.

I thought about it and I was thinking of going to court with them. I never had the intention of not paying the fare or the fine. I can prove I am traveling on this route for 6 months now with valid tickets. I am willing to call them and pay my £4.90 ticket. But when it comes to the £250 admin fee, I am seriously questioning who checks this absurd corporation and their outrageous fines. I was almost decided to go to court with them, as I think I have a case I can definitely win. Problem is if I don’t. I trust a court of the United Kingdom can do justice for me, and I am also willing to pay the whole sum in case they prove me wrong. Problem is I could lose. In this case, will I get a criminal record? And is there someone in this country who could actually check why sending a letter costs them £250 pounds? Or the corporations in this country can be as abusive as the ex-communist country from where I am coming from? Because to be honest, is not such a big difference between a country ruled by corporations and one ruled by a totalitarian government.

 

[MikeWh]

The £20 penalty fare was in recognition that you had made an honest mistake. You should have been told that you only had to pay the fare due at that moment, with the rest to be paid within the next 14 days. Would you have been able to pay £4.90?

I must admit that £250 does seem a little high for a simple admin fee. The problem is that by not paying the fare due at the time you have committed an offence. Someone else may be along shortly to help with the likelihood of what charges might be levied by the court.

Going forward, what times of day do you usually travel? The £32.40 weekly season ticket is only worthwhile if you travel at peak times. If not you might be better off using a contactless card to pay-as-you-go. This also means you won't be caught out by the season expiring while you are at work.

 

[Mihai B]

I travel at 7 PM Dartford to Charlton and at 8-8.30 AM back. I was not told I can pay £4.90 on the spot and the difference later. Yes, I would have had that money. And the problem of why they can set outrageous admin fees still remain.

 

[MikeWh]

OK, currently the PAYG single fares are £4.80 peak and £2.80 off-peak. If you can touch in at Dartford at 1900 or later then that is off-peak. It's also off-peak regardless at weekends. Your return journey is going to be peak on weekdays.

I was not told I can pay £4.90 on the spot and the difference later. Yes, I would have had that money. And the problem of why they can set outrageous admin fees still remain.

I'm not a lawyer, but hopefully someone will be along soon to advise.

The admin fee is down to the company. It supposedly compensates them for the costs of investigating your issue. You don't have to pay it, but if you don't they will take it to court. I'm not sure what the scale of fines could be, but it is dependant on income.

 

[Mihai B]

Do I get a criminal record if I lose in court? I want to pay the £4.90 as I admit my mistake. As of the £250 admin fee, I would go for court for that, as it is totally unfair. But I can’t take the chance in case there is a rosk to have a criminal record.

 

[Qwerty133]

I travel at 7 PM Dartford to Charlton and at 8-8.30 AM back. I was not told I can pay £4.90 on the spot and the difference later. Yes, I would have had that money. And the problem of why they can set outrageous admin fees still remain.

They can set whatever admin fee they want because you were in breach of a strict liability offence which means they could quite easily have you prosecuted meaning they are the party with power. Your choice is to either pay the admin fee or risk ending up with a higher fine in court (which is extremely likely once the various elements are considered).

 

[Qwerty133]

Do I get a criminal record if I lose in court? I want to pay the £4.90 as I admit my mistake. As of the £250 admin fee, I would go for court for that, as it is totally unfair. But I can’t take the chance in case there is a rosk to have a criminal record.

If its a bylaw 18 offence it is not recordable but if its a section 5 it most definitely does carry a criminal record although I suspect unless you are lying they'd find the latter impossible to prove). Whichever offence it will be tried in a criminal court and you'd be extremely lucky to walk away paying less than £250 unless your income is very low as your fine would consist of a fine, victim surcharge, damages and costs.

 

[furlong]

The explicit ability for an Authorised Collector to require someone to pay a defined minimum contribution towards a Penalty Fare on the spot disappeared earlier this year when the regulations were replaced. The amount requested for administration now does sound to be excessive, and I would suggest you request a detailed breakdown of that sum. This particular train company has been known to request excessive amounts before but to agree to more reasonable lower amounts when challenged. If it doesn't do so and the company uses the courts, your solicitor might try to use the situation to your advantage (i.e. suggesting the court is only involved now because the company acted well outside the parameters reasonably expected of a rail franchise holder and therefore should bear all the costs).

 

[furlong]

To be quite clear, the regulations now say:

(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—
...
(h) a statement that the person must either pay, or appeal against, the penalty fare within 21 days beginning with the day following the day on which the penalty fare is charged;

So there appears no longer to be any expectation that any payment will be made towards a Penalty Fare on the spot, and as such, I would suggest that the inability to pay it on the spot should not have been a consideration in a decision not to impose one.

 

[furlong]

In challenging the level of admin fee, you might argue it should be no higher than a Penalty Fare would have been (as an outside observer might have considered that to have been a proportionate response, just as the company's employee did initially) and suggest that if they disagree the new Rail Ombudsman should be invited to adjudicate.

 

[najaB]

I was almost decided to go to court with them, as I think I have a case I can definitely win.

If they go for a Byelaws prosecution then you have a case that you will definitely lose. That said, £250 does seem high - typical contributions are around £80-100.

 

[furlong]

If they go for a Byelaws prosecution then you have a case that you will definitely lose.

Depends - if they can't justify and don't budge on the £250, an abuse of process argument might be entertained.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If they go for a Byelaws prosecution then you have a case that you will definitely lose. That said, £250 does seem high - typical contributions are around £80-100.

I agree that that is very high - a more usual "Penalty Fake" is as you say. Perhaps there is a suspicion of repeated offences?

 

[najaB]

Depends - if they can't justify and don't budge on the £250, an abuse of process argument might be entertained.

As a guess, they may be passing on the full costs as opposed to part-costs as is more typically done.

 

[robbeech]

To be quite clear, the regulations now say:



So there appears no longer to be any expectation that any payment will be made towards a Penalty Fare on the spot, and as such, I would suggest that the inability to pay it on the spot should not have been a consideration in a decision not to impose one.

In the regulations themselves you are quite right. However the ‘guidelines’ do still mention that you ‘may’ be asked to pay part of the fare equivalent to that of the normal fare. It also suggests that failure to do so may be taken as an attempt to evade the fare.

 

[furlong]

It also suggests that failure to do so may be taken as an attempt to evade the fare.

Unlikely in the present context, where the person concerned hadn't realised their ticket had just expired until the end of their journey. Parts of the guidelines might even be found to be inconsistent with the new regulations i.e. wrong. (I'm pretty disappointed with the new regulations - I think they introduce new problems for both train companies and passengers which could have been easily avoided if they'd been open about what they were intending to change and what they weren't and opened the drafts to public review.)

 

[gray1404]

Is the OPs account is true though it appears they were told they had to pay the £20 PF in full. They were not asked to pay the part fare and the OP has said they would have been able to pay the £4.90

 

[GusB]

I don't travel in the London area, and know nothing about ticketing irregularities or penalty fares, so forgive me if I come across as being somewhat naive. From what I gather, the OP had a season ticket (or other pass) that expired overnight while they were at work, and that the fact that the pass had expired only came to light when they tried to alight at the end of their journey. At this point, the RPI says that the fare payable is £20 - I'm assuming was the amount of a "penalty fare" - but because the OP didn't have that amount of money on them at the time, the RPI has since escalated this to a prosecution.

My questions are:
- If someone is to be issued with a penalty fare, does the amount in question have to be settled there and then without question?
- If that person has had a valid season ticket that has only just expired and didn't realise (perhaps because they're shattered after a night shift), is there no leeway at all given that it was a genuine error?
- Had the OP had the means to pay a penalty fare on the spot, would we be discussing this now?

I will re-iterate that I have little experience of travelling in the area in question, and don't really know the ins and outs of it, but it seems to me that there's a bit of power-trippery going on here. I know (only from reading these forums) about the strictly liability etc., but assuming it was a genuine error, the demand of the fare due plus £250 seems grossly out of proportion.

 

[najaB]

If someone is to be issued with a penalty fare, does the amount in question have to be settled there and then without question?

No, it does not.

If that person has had a valid season ticket that has only just expired and didn't realise (perhaps because they're shattered after a night shift), is there no leeway at all given that it was a genuine error?

The Penalty Fare is that leeway. The passenger is in breach of the law, but they are asked to pay a higher than normal fare in lieu of a prosecution - while the eye is naturally drawn to the word 'Penalty' the important word is actually 'Fare' as opposed to it being a fine.

Had the OP had the means to pay a penalty fare on the spot, would we be discussing this now?

No.

...assuming it was a genuine error, the demand of the fare due plus £250 seems grossly out of proportion.

The principle of fare+costs is well-established and generally seen as equitable. What you, I and many forumites are surprised at is not that the offer has been made, but that the costs are about 2.5x what is typical in this sort of case.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is this perhaps not the OP's first offence?

 

[najaB]

Is this perhaps not the OP's first offence?

I was wondering the same thing...

 

[robbeech]

You say you would have been able to pay the fare due on the spot of £4.90 but not the £20 penalty fare. In your original post though you claim you told the member of staff you had ‘no money’.

I think if you had had the £4.90 for the journey that you had just made (ie you’d been able to pay the fare) then there’s a good chance that you’d have been given the opportunity to pay the remaining £15.10 within 21 days as the rules state.
This whilst annoying would be in line with the rules. Penalty fares are a way of dealing with honest mistakes.

You’ve said you don’t think the £250 fee is fair, and many of us myself included agree with this. However.
You also seem to want to take this further to avoid paying it and teach them a lesson so to speak, and whilst I don’t think you’ll get anywhere and may end up paying several times that figure the decision to do so is yours and there will be people here willing and able to look through documentation and letters to try to help you with this.

 

[furlong]

Is this perhaps not the OP's first offence?

Makes no difference - there should be no basis for charging any 'fee' but merely reimbursement of costs reasonably and properly incurred in a specific investigation. Once the situation is sorted out, and unless some reasonable justification emerges, I'd suggest the matter is reported to the DfT (and select committee?), possibly through an M.P., requesting an investigation into the practice.

 

[najaB]

Makes no difference - there should be no basis for charging any 'fee' but merely reimbursement of costs reasonably and properly incurred in a specific investigation.

However, it's not unreasonable that the costs involved in processing a second offence might be higher than for a first (additional time spent checking records), and also not unreasonable that for a first offence the TOC might bear some of the cost but pass on the entire cost for a repeat offender.

As you said above, the question is whether they can justify the amount requested.

 

[furlong]

It would be interesting to see a copy of the letter to see what form of words they have found to ask for £250 without any (possibly criminal) misrepresentation. The only penalty their franchise allows them to impose is a Penalty Fare. They are allowed to keep the whole Penalty Fare and make profit from it, whereas in any settlement or prosecution they can only be reimbursed for their direct costs, so - in theory at least - a Penalty Fare should always be the most financially advantageous outcome to the company (for a single offence).

 

[RPI]

The amount of the Penalty Fare is not payable on the spot, it can be paid within 21 days ( I'm an authorised collector for Penalty Fares) so the approach by the TOC saying that the OP has to pay on the spot is naughty.
The fare payable for the purpose of a bylaw 18 prosecution is the price of the single fare for the journey made and not £20

 

[najaB]

They are allowed to keep the whole Penalty Fare and make profit from it, whereas in any settlement or prosecution they can only be reimbursed for their direct costs, so - in theory at least - a Penalty Fare should always be the most financially advantageous outcome to the company (for a single offence).

True, if the penalty fare is (a) paid promptly without being appealed or requiring follow-up; and (b) is sufficiently above the minimum level. It could easily cost more than £20 to deal with a penalty fare that gets challenged meaning that they would be worse off than if they had received fare+costs as a settlement.

 

[Bletchleyite]

True, if the penalty fare is (a) paid promptly without being appealed or requiring follow-up; and (b) is sufficiently above the minimum level. It could easily cost more than £20 to deal with a penalty fare that gets challenged meaning that they would be worse off than if they had received fare+costs as a settlement.

Yes, but most PFs won't be challenged, so it will even out. If it doesn't, the PF should increase.

 

[Haywain]

Yes, but most PFs won't be challenged, so it will even out. If it doesn't, the PF should increase.

The Penalty Fare has been set at £20 for almost 25* years, and should increase regardless.

*Edit: incorrect, as pointed out below.

 

[Mojo]

The Penalty Fare has been set at £20 for almost 25 years, and should increase regardless.

I understand the point you are making regarding the minimum Penalty fare[1] not having increased in a while, however I feel I should point out that it has not been "almost 25 years," the Penalty fare amount was increased from a £10 minimum as per the original 1994 implementation to a £20 minimum in 2005.

[1] on franchised Tocs, Merseyrail and Tyne/Wear Metro