2nd Appeal , in need of some helpful advise please

[AlterEgo]

Was the London Underground (LU) member of staff at Farringdon not just trying to be helpful by advising the OP that there is a direct service from there to their destination? And it seems a little unreasonable for LU staff to be aware of ticketing and restrictions applying to other operators, which do not even run from their location!

That may be the case, but as was pointed out upthread, the OP falls into a very helpful lacuna - when it comes to the Penalty Fares Regulations, it's a "representative of the operator of the station" not "an authorised person (as per NRCoT)" which comes into play here.

I think the OP will have difficulty, still, establishing this ground on appeal. Regardless of the way Penalty Fares are supposed to work, in practice the appellant still really has to demonstrate they were authorised to travel without a valid ticket. I have made the point elsewhere without consensus that authority to travel has to be positive and based in reason "yes, I can see this is the wrong ticket, but you can board this train anyway (for X reason)", and not passive, by omission or mistake.

It's not good enough to just say "a person on the gateline told me so" else this is a catch all defence for everyone. What is going to happen? They ask the member of staff for details, it was weeks ago, they deal with hundreds of people a day, it'll be a pretty honest "I don't remember speaking to this person".

I think a much stronger defence lies in signage and the way the PF was filled out and the appeal will succeed on either of these bases with much less resistance.

 

[sheff1]

Without questioning that it conflicts with their itinerary?

Why would an infrequent traveller question advice from a person staffing a gateline who has examined their ticket ? The perfectly reasonable assumption would be that someone working in such a position would give correct information. We, of course, know that many such staff have not got the first clue about the tickets they are dealing with.

Was the London Underground (LU) member of staff at Farringdon not just trying to be helpful by advising the OP that there is a direct service from there to their destination? And it seems a little unreasonable for LU staff to be aware of ticketing and restrictions applying to other operators, which do not even run from their location!

The OP asked which platform they needed to get to Kings Cross. There was no need for the gateline person to do anything other than direct them to the approrpriate platform, telling them to use contactless to open the gate (as the OP had done from Heathrow).

Again, it is perfectly reasonable to expect someone working a gateline at a LU station with frequent National Rail services to know at least basic conditions pertaining to National Rail tickets.

As the OP said

What is annoying me is I intended to travel via Kings cross and would have done just that if giving the platform number. But having then been told confidently I don't need to do this, what would anyone do in such a situation.

 

[Dean Bond]

**UPDATE** " Read latest correspondence on the 2nd Appeal "

Thank you for your correspondence, received at our offices on Friday, 29 March, 2024.
To ensure fairness and consistency in the decision-making process, appeals are considered in conjunction with the Appeal Procedure defined in The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 as amended from time to time (The Regulations). The statements submitted on behalf of the passenger and the train company will both be taken into account by an experienced Appeals Assessor to determine the appeal outcome. More information about how appeals are decided is available on our website at www.penaltyservices.co.uk.
When contesting a penalty fare, the appellant is required to supply all the information necessary to allow a fair assessment to take place within the time allowed by The Regulations.
Where information that is necessary for a fair appeal assessment is missing or unclear, rather than not allowing the appeal, the appeals body will request that further information to be supplied. At this time, the appeal is marked as incomplete and temporarily closed but is not rejected at this time.
Though you have given a description of the staff member as an "FTL Staff member was female, dark haired and approximately standing 5`9" in height", in order that the train operating company can inquire of this staff member as to the nature of the conversation, which is a reasonable request, could you please confirm if they were a staff member of London Underground or Thameslink. Any further description of the staff member would also be helpful, particularly their approximate age and ethnicity. On the provision of such a description to enable us to make further enquiries with the train operating company, we are happy to consider this mitigation on appeal.
Unfortunately, without this further information, we are unable to take your appeal any further at the present time.
Should you wish us to move your case forward to the assessment stage, please supply a name, staff ID or reasonable description of the staff member within 14 days from the date this letter was received

Any thoughts on whether or not to expand the details on the FLT worker???

 

[Watershed]

Providing more details can't exactly harm your case, but at the end of the day the appeals body is (unsurprisingly) going about this incorrectly.

Firstly, they must make a decision on any appeal within 21 days of you submitting it (otherwise you are no longer liable for the Penalty Fare). Presumably more than 21 days have passed?

Secondly, Regulation 16(4) of the Penalty Fares Regulations makes clear that any allegation made by the passenger must be accepted as true unless the train company can 'reasonably demonstrate' otherwise. Whilst the train company or appeals body can of course ask for additional information from the passenger, the duty to disprove any allegation remains on the train company.

 

[furlong]

And of course they don't need any more details because you gave the time and location so they only need to check the gateline roster to narrow it down to a tiny number of staff.

If marking an appeal as 'incomplete' and 'temporarily closed' is a deliberate means of not deciding it within 21 days and forms part of their procedures, then it might also be worth asking whether or not the appeals procedure itself complies with the regulations as if it does not, none of the Penalty Fares they have issued will have been enforceable.

 

[AlterEgo]

It also seems like they don’t know what “FTL” means.

The OP must have written that in their appeal, for them to have been quoted it back at them, and the OP then describes them differently as a “FLT” worker in the post.

I’d recommend the OP reply saying they were a TfL employee working for London Underground, but as @Watershed notes they are bound to accept your assertion as true unless they find any evidence from the train company they contradicts it. I fear that the employee will not recall the interaction, having spoken to 10,000 people since then, and they will take this, and the company’s advice that they would not advise the customer about ticket validity on the “big railway”, as evidence. The worst outcome is “I would never say that to a customer. Didn’t happen.”

I hold a dissenting view on the forum in that “(d)the operator of the train or the station, or a person acting or purporting to act on behalf of the operator, indicated that the passenger was, or persons generally were, permitted to travel by or be present on the train without having a travel ticket”

- can only be read as “the employee knows you do not have a valid ticket, but allows and authorises travel anyway, for X reasons” (real life examples include clearing a dangerous crowd outside a station after an event, or a failure of Ticket on Departure, or a goodwill gesture following being over carried)

In any case I am sceptical that “this employee said it was fine” until conclusively disproven is, in practice, the catch-all get out clause it might look at first glance.

However I do hope the OP keeps us posted as it could well be that the Penalty Fare appeal has been “fouled” by the train company in respect of timescales. An option to consider for a third appeal.

 

[furlong]

So to try to understand this based on what happened:

Appeals – stage two
17.—(1) Where an Appeal Panel has notified an appellant that it has not allowed an appeal made
under regulation 16, the appellant may appeal to the relevant Appeal Panel against that decision—
(a) before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the notice of such
decision is received; or
(b) within such longer period as the relevant Appeal Panel may allow.
(2) An appeal under this regulation must be made—
(a) in accordance with the Appeal Procedure; and
(b) on one or more of the grounds specified in regulation 16(3).

17(1)(b) allows them to grant an extended period.
Violation of 17(2)(a) or 17(2)(b) would allow that an appeal has not been made.

So I think their claim must be that the second appeal was not made in accordance with one of those two and that they are allowing a defined amount of extra time for a compliant one to be made.

They state:
"When contesting a penalty fare, the appellant is required to supply all the information necessary to allow a fair assessment to take place"
What is the source of this assertion and how is it made compatible with the regulations?

All we have in the regulations is a 'may':

10. An appeal under regulation 17 may contain any other relevant information.

Have they somehow found a way to use that 'may' to add some 'musts'?


I'd be tempted to respond that the description together with the roster should be more than sufficient to track down the individual should the train company wish to do so and then make the legalistic points, that as the operator didn't dispute it at the first appeal (and if they weren't asked for any reason that's to their detriment not yours), the appeal has to be considered on the basis that it is what happened (and there's no provision for the operator to have its own appeal - it's too late now) etc. and then as the appeal was submitted in accordance with 17(2), assuming it was, that there is anyway no longer any liability to pay the penalty - though you could hold back that argument for later, hoping for a more favourable outcome from their process.

 

[bakerstreet]

Unfortunately I suspect this is one you will have to chalk up to experience.

I don't think you can claim a defence of "an authorised person gave me authority to travel". London Underground staff aren't "authorised persons" as per the National Rail Conditions of Travel; they can't be, as they don't work for a Train Operating Company, aren't bound by the Conditions, and for all the good it may do you may as well have taken the advice of someone working in Tesco. They haven't a clue about how the big railway's ticketing works I'm afraid, as you've found to your cost.

You can also appeal under "compelling reasons", separate to the above. It's up to you to substantiate your evidence here and you appear unable to do so. CCTV would be of little assistance, as it doesn't record conversations. There is no need for them to discredit what you say, as this would imply they are trying to undermine your honesty. Merely, that whatever you say has to be substantiated, and I fear you will find this difficult.

Just a question re this, given that – from my memory so I may be wrong – Farringdon is almost entirely staffed by TfL staff, except for (I think) the Thameslink ticket office outside of the gateline, who else could one consult about train services from Farringdon other than TfL staff when one is inside the gate line?
Could that be some sort of mitigating factor here?

 

[Dean Bond]

Hi all,

I have read, and tried to absorb all the information with-in these kind reply`s given.
This has been a real thorn in my side to be frank, I`m not one for sympathy and I`ve always fought my own battles. However I have said it before, that is, I had a feeling that I would need help with this one.
I`m so very glad I made that decision and found this site.
Its been more helpful than I could have imagined, so I just wanted to say a big thank you, to you guys, you really do make a big positive difference.

So @AlterEgo. Yes indeed your right I re-read the statement i`d sent , and sure enough "FLT" has been written. Of course this is a typo, and before this its been written twice correctly as "TFL"...
I think with this in mind its fair to say, they may want me to repeat this claim "FLT" and then have me right there.
Or the chance to just add information, either way it really needs to be them, that finds the employee.
And its been said already that given they do have the time ,date, area, and description it shouldn`t be to difficult to narrow down that female personnel "TFL" worker.

Also in 2019 the TFL gender gap was something around 76% men to 23% women and it probably hasn`t changed a big degree since then.
Which would or should increase finding who it was, but having said all that, it is their word against mine.
I really cant see them remembering, or wanting to remember, especially if they feel it could get them reprimanded.

So I have the travelling to the station, using my credit card as payment to access entry and exit.
No satisfactory signage, and their own regulations not met at this time.
I also have the re-entry into the station [Elizabeth Line] with what was now we know , to be a ticket that was not valid for entry.
I do remember a guard on the other gate line, but I cant remember if the gate was open already, or he let me through. [I was travelling with luggage]
Lets say the latter happened, wouldn`t they ask to see a ticket? If not why? and if they did see it, that means yet again, I have been given a green light to proceed on a journey with an invalid ticket.
Leading me back to my original direction of travel, which was of course Kings cross, and would have worked just fine for me. But the fact I was given direction and then free pass to travel through an area without valid ticket [unbeknown to me], shows how the system is not fit for purpose.
Having been able to travel without these checks in place has left me in this undesirable position unfortunately.

Apologies if the above is a little sporadic, i`m having to write this in rather a rush....hopefully you can decern the needed info to understand what i`m trying to convey.


Any more thoughts or suggestions would be most welcome, and I will of course be keeping you up to date and informed in due course.

Cheers again,
Dean.