Complex Penalty Fare

[RJ]

So last week, I had my first Penalty Fare from EMT.

I held two tickets - a +Any Permitted Off Peak Return to Bedford and an Anytime Return that covered the remainder of the distance between Bedford and my destination. However, I was starting short with that second ticket. I travelled on the 05:45 from St Pancras, which stops at Bedford. The TM thought the first ticket was not valid at that time and that the second ticket was not valid from Bedford northwards and so arranged for revenue protection to meet the train at Leicester.

In the event, I was issued with a Penalty Fare for twice the Anytime Day Return from London to Bedford and the RPO gave the "benefit of the doubt" for the second ticket but took my details and said she'd be forwarding them to the prosecution department, who will be in touch with me with regards to the routing of the second ticket. I suspect they will attempt to prosecute if they find it to be invalid, which they are more than welcome to try.

The ticket to Bedford was withdrawn without any paperwork given (other than the PFN) and I was not allowed to have it back. The reason given for the PF was "no ticket." The RPO spun some BS excuse about "no ticket" meaning "ticket held but not valid for travel," as if I was stupid or something, but I directly accused her of foul play so she decided to write down "Off Peak" in the reason field next to "other," but did not alter the reason for issue.

Initially, she attempted to issue a PF for over £140 through from London to my destination. I told her I don't think so and asked her to justify doing it for the whole journey when the only disputed ticket was the one from London to Bedford. She came up with some excuse about the first ticket not being valid, so the second couldn't have been either. I was not appeased so she changed her mind and issued it as far as Bedford.

The RPO was a nice lady - unlike quite a few of the TMs I have been up against, she was lovely in her demeanor. However, she was completely out of her depth dealing with me and didn't inspire any confidence within me that revenue protection is actually taken seriously. The correct thing for her to have done would be to stamp my tickets and move on.

Now, the Off Peak Return to Bedford was valid on that train. But for argument's sake, say it wasn't. What would be the correct thing for the member of revenue protection staff to do? How do Penalty Fares work where split ticketing under Condition 19b is involved? I reckon the worst that should have been done was a UFN be issued for an Anytime Single from London to Bedford, but this was not done.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Penalty fares can be issued if Condition 19 is not adhered to (this is written in NRCoC Condition 19). This would presumably be from where your tickets were last valid (if at all) to the next stop.

 

[RJ]

Penalty fares can be issued if Condition 19 is not adhered to (this is written in NRCoC Condition 19). This would presumably be from where your tickets were last valid (if at all) to the next stop.

The RPO met the train at Leicester. The disputed part of the journey was London to Bedford. How would this work with the wording of that condition and does it not only pertain to Condition 10 (TOC specific tickets?) Technically speaking, the undisputed ticket was valid from Bedford northwards.

 

[LexyBoy]

Surely whether you're travelling on one ticket or several tickets doesn't matter here, as a PF shouldn't be issued for falling foul of time restrictions. The correct procedure would be an excess fare, or if that cannot be paid then an UFN for the Anytime (Day) Single as you suggest.

I can see the question applying more in 19c combinations- here it's made slightly more complex by the fact that the dispute occurred after Bedford. I'd expect any PFs to be issued only for the stretch not covered- compare overriding for instance, where only the overridden part is charged, not a new ticket for the whole journey despite the tickets held not covering the full distance (though not sure how PF rules deal with overriding).

 

[hairyhandedfool]

If the train did not stop at Luton or Luton Airport Parkway then presumably it would be issued as London to Bedford, but being as I don't issue them, I couldn't really say for definite.

 

[barrykas]

Assuming the second ticket you held was indeed valid from Bedford to your destination, I'd suggest it was a simple case of an invalid PF, as their argument was that it wasn't valid due to a time restriction, but of course they've withdrawn your evidence and failed to give you a receipt as required by Condition 20.

I would definitely be kicking up a stink if it had happened to me, but then I don't tend to play "hunt the loophole"

If the PF had been issued correctly, it should only have been for London - Bedford to my mind (or Luton Airport Parkway or Luton, as hhf points out, from where a fresh ticket to Bedford would need to be purchased), given your other ticket was valid from Bedford.

 

[RJ]

Assuming the second ticket you held was indeed valid from Bedford to your destination, I'd suggest it was a simple case of an invalid PF, as their argument was that it wasn't valid due to a time restriction, but of course they've withdrawn your evidence and failed to give you a receipt as required by Condition 20.

I would definitely be kicking up a stink if it had happened to me, but then I don't tend to play "hunt the loophole"

If the PF had been issued correctly, it should only have been for London - Bedford to my mind (or Luton Airport Parkway or Luton, as hhf points out, from where a fresh ticket to Bedford would need to be purchased), given your other ticket was valid from Bedford.

Don't worry - I'm kicking up a major stink over this one. I've had several UFNs for a full priced SOS from London to Leicester and vice versa for using Not Via London tickets on their express trains. Running under the assumption that the combinations I used were not valid, they should have charged a single to/from the point of deviance, which is West Hampstead. At the very, very worst they should excess to the +Via London/Any Permitted fares with railcard discount, but the non negotiable, kneejerk reaction is a brand new ticket from London to Leicester. I'm sick of the malpractice I'm being subjected to and worse still, back office staff who haven't got the foggiest either! My perfectly legitimate explanations keep being trash canned in favour of the opinions of their time served colleagues who are apparently averse to opening the rulebook when deciding whether or their colleagues were correct to sting me for these inordinate sums of money!

I have asked for a copy of the rights and responsibilities I am subject to when travelling on their trains, still awaiting a response.

 

[island]

The correct action if a ticket is invalid due to a time of day or geographical route restriction not being adhered to would be an excess to the route or ticket type that is valid, or a UPFN for the SDS/SOS if the customer refuses to pay the excess.

 

[bakerstreet]

I'm sick of the malpractice I'm being subjected to and worse still, back office staff who haven't got the foggiest either! My perfectly legitimate explanations keep being trash canned

Hi RJ

Please give a few of us the chance to travel with you one day. I'd be genuinely really interested to see how some of these differences of opinion play out.

If your tickets are valid, which I can only assume they are, I'm right behind you, but I'm amazed at how much stress those tickets seem to cause.

Do you blind them with science bombarding them with facts or are these encounters quite calm affairs?

And given you always get refunded / letter of apology / TOC eats humble pie how does it keep happening?

Are you constantly travelling new routes or do the staff simply not remember.

I know SOME staff are genuinely troubled by ticketing issues. This morning I bought a SVR in advance but in error the seller reversed the direction I asked for. I made them aware of the error but they said - and I quote - 'it doesnt matter just use it the other way round'. If they can't grasp this how will they ever cope with your combinations.

 

[craigwilson]

they said - and I quote - 'it doesnt matter just use it the other way round'.

Dear me....and these people are supposed to know about tickets as part of their job!! :roll:

(No offence intended to the many ticket sellers and guards who are very good at their job, but you just despair when you hear stories like that!!)

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I can think of someone I used to work with who would say that and it is not because he doesn't know the job, but simply that he wouldn't want to do the paperwork associated with changing it.

 

[RPI]

The PF is invalid, you cannot be PF'd for being on a restricted ticket, if the customer does not have the means to pay the excess or refuses to pay the excess then a UFN should be issued for the difference in fare if a UFN is deemed appropriate or an MG11 completed. I would appeal via IPFAS and point this out. The RPO has issued the PF thinking that you won't be appealing and has dropped a major clanger!

 

[RJ]

The PF is invalid, you cannot be PF'd for being on a restricted ticket, if the customer does not have the means to pay the excess or refuses to pay the excess then a UFN should be issued for the difference in fare if a UFN is deemed appropriate or an MG11 completed. I would appeal via IPFAS and point this out. The RPO has issued the PF thinking that you won't be appealing and has dropped a major clanger!

I spotted at least 10 mistakes on the notice itself - she didn't fill in the destination field for a start. Falsified time record, falsified reason, address almost completely wrongly filled out which I can't be held responsible for, because there is also an IRCAS reference on there proving that she phoned them to verify the correct name and address. Failure to tick boxes and score out words as required. Oh and the minor point of it being issued for using an Off Peak ticket. The list goes on.

I didn't bother to highlight the illegal amount charged (£73.00 which is not 2x SDS London to Bedford.) Past experience with IRCAS shows that they will cancel a notice on this basis, but only refund the difference between the amount paid and what they think should have been paid. They have shown in the past that they aren't exactly up on the rules either so I don't trust them as far as I can throw them.

I have appealed. I didn't even go into what tickets I held etc. Her failure to fill in the destination mean I had no idea what she was charging me for. After she gave me the PFN, I pointed out to her that she didn't fill in the destination. She asked for my copy back so she could amend it, but I politely told her that I was not in a position to be able to do that. Even if I did, it would have been academic given the several other mistakes on the notice. I didn't have time to train her on how to fill out a notice properly either.

Hi RJ

Please give a few of us the chance to travel with you one day. I'd be genuinely really interested to see how some of these differences of opinion play out.

If your tickets are valid, which I can only assume they are, I'm right behind you, but I'm amazed at how much stress those tickets seem to cause.

Do you blind them with science bombarding them with facts or are these encounters quite calm affairs?

And given you always get refunded / letter of apology / TOC eats humble pie how does it keep happening?

Are you constantly travelling new routes or do the staff simply not remember.

I know SOME staff are genuinely troubled by ticketing issues. This morning I bought a SVR in advance but in error the seller reversed the direction I asked for. I made them aware of the error but they said - and I quote - 'it doesnt matter just use it the other way round'. If they can't grasp this how will they ever cope with your combinations.

Feel free. Tomorrow I'll be on the 11:55 Leicester to St Pancras with an Off Peak Return routed Not Via London with no other paper tickets. No idea what time I'm returning. The ticket will be valid and the correct thing for the member of staff to do would be to clip it and move on.

They are invariably very calm affairs. Despite whatever it is I'm (in)famous for, it's well known that I am always polite to staff. The first thing I do is verbally explain why my tickets are valid. Often, the staff will talk over me or say something naive like "How can a Not Via London ticket be valid when this train has come from/is going to London" and/or "this train has to stop at those stations in order for that combination to be valid" These are often their key lines of defence and sufficient for them to subsequently rubbish anything else I have to say. So these days I only explain once then when they say they want to issue a UFN/MG11 or whatever, I simply say "ok." That said, quite a few times when I've travelled recently, I haven't had any issues at all.

It really would be quite boring to watch these days. Quite a few of the staff have clocked on to (or have been told by their bosses) who I am and what I do and leave me to it. It would have been best to have been a fly on the wall when I was too naive to recognise a brick wall when I saw one. I'm told the one where I was kicked out of First Class and issued with a free SOR from London to Leicester worth £139.50 would have been a good one to watch.

As for humble pie, it is often an uphill struggle in the past to get these injustices by the front line staff righted. Even if I explain everything, in the past, people quite high up within the organisation have wrongly stated that I'm wrong. This means that any UFNs I have paid have not been refunded and others I didn't pay were upheld, suggesting they would be confident enough to prosecute if I didn't pay up. However, I am not fazed by anyone's seniority. If they're wrong then I'll tell them, being a customer doesn't take away my ability to read a rule book. They have been quite lucky in the past as I've had to go to ATOC so that someone they're prepared to listen to can tell them that I'm right. If this didn't happen then it would have to go to court.

When they do finally accept that I'm right, they do put things right and the standard reaction seems to be to shut whatever "loophole" it is I have used. When this happens, I move onto the next one then the process repeats itself. Personally I think it would have been more cost effective for them to leave me to it, because I'm probably the only person in the country who makes use of such arrangements regularly and I was using EMT priced tickets. If anyone else was doing it then they would have been made aware of it.

As for the combinations I use, I like to keep them on their toes. My MO is to never buy the same ticket twice - meaning that each time I buy a ticket on the basis of a particular set of principles, I pick the stations randomly from the fares clusters at either end. Sometimes the arrangements only utilise Condition 19c. I've been known to make use of Rovers, Flexi Rovers, paper 7DS/7TS' or a season ticket on Oyster. Sometimes just 19b with no season ticket. Other times I used all three parts of Condition 19, like when I had a Gold Zone 1-2 Travelcard with Priv SORs splitting at Boundary Zone 2, Luton Airport and Market Harborough.

It is necessary for me to use different arrangements because the nature of my journey varies. Sometimes I need to travel in the morning peak. Sometimes I don't. Sometimes I travel on the last train of the day. Sometimes I need a Travelcard to get around London, other times I don't so I choose whichever tickets are the best for what I want to do.

 

[kieron]

I have appealed. I didn't even go into what tickets I held etc. Her failure to fill in the destination mean I had no idea what she was charging me for. After she gave me the PFN, I pointed out to her that she didn't fill in the destination. She asked for my copy back so she could amend it, but I politely told her that I was not in a position to be able to do that.

Is there a polite way to tell someone that she's made a mistake, but that you won't let her try to issue a correct PFN? If it was already too late to put anything right, it's probably better to say nothing about it at all.

Incidentally, I wouldn't worry too much about them fixing loopholes for now. They haven't updated the routeing guide for a few months, so this may be it until they've got the replacement system up and running. The loopholes are bound to be different then anyway.

 

[yorkie]

Incidentally, I wouldn't worry too much about them fixing loopholes for now. They haven't updated the routeing guide for a few months, so this may be it until they've got the replacement system up and running. The loopholes are bound to be different then anyway.

There are a lot of other types of loopholes, such as tickets with more favourable time restrictions, and ticket issuing systems issuing tickets for routes that would not normally be valid (such as London to London via Windsor) and also pricing errors (e.g. the tickets priced at 10p that should have been nearer £10).

 

[Tibbs]

Is there a polite way to tell someone that she's made a mistake, but that you won't let her try to issue a correct PFN? If it was already too late to put anything right, it's probably better to say nothing about it at all.

Incidentally, I wouldn't worry too much about them fixing loopholes for now. They haven't updated the routeing guide for a few months, so this may be it until they've got the replacement system up and running. The loopholes are bound to be different then anyway.

Legal cases stand (and fall) by the accuracy of the supporting paperwork. Just watch Hot Fuzz - one of the things my Policeman friends loved about that film was the glamourising of the paperwork side of the job!

RJ has absolutely nothing to gain by giving back incorrectly completed paperwork. And yes, of course there's a polite way to do it. Smile, and apologise, but be firm.

Both the Police and TOCs rely on people to say the 'wrong' thing and incrimminate themselves. (qf. If I weren't here, would you have left the station without paying etc etc) and they don't give second chances, so neither should travellers when TOCs screw up.

 

[W230]

Personally, I find myself more and more interested in RJ's exploits. It's regularly said that the rail ticketing area is unbelivably complicated and since i've started reading some of the posts here I now definitely believe it! On the penalty fare side of things I see no excuse for sloppy paperwork by staff though. Even if the RPI/TM believe their reasoning sound, surely they're also aware that any document should be filled in accurately? (This is not a dig at those who i'm sure do complete the paperwork correctly and know their jobs inside out!)

Anyway, keep up the good work!

 

[barrykas]

Both the Police and TOCs rely on people to say the 'wrong' thing and incrimminate themselves. (qf. If I weren't here, would you have left the station without paying etc etc) and they don't give second chances, so neither should travellers when TOCs screw up.

TOCs don't need to rely on "tricking" (for want of a better word) people into self-incrimination, they're quite good at doing so themselves.

Like when you give someone the option of buying a new ticket and that'll be the end of the matter, but they dig themselves deeper and deeper into a hole by, say, admitting to having done "it" (whatever "it" may be) several times before.

 

[RJ]

Is there a polite way to tell someone that she's made a mistake, but that you won't let her try to issue a correct PFN? If it was already too late to put anything right, it's probably better to say nothing about it at all.

Incidentally, I wouldn't worry too much about them fixing loopholes for now. They haven't updated the routeing guide for a few months, so this may be it until they've got the replacement system up and running. The loopholes are bound to be different then anyway.

You're right - it probably was better to say nothing. When I politely declined to hand back my copy, she said she'd be telling her manager and also forwarding details of the second ticket to the prosecution department. I look forward to receiving the letter she said I'd be receiving from them. Tibbs is right - I had nothing to gain by handing it back - it would have been mean of me to play along any further with a Penalty Fare I knew was illegally issued from the outset. I did try to help her by telling her it was specifically forbidden to issue a PF for (suspected) breach of a time restriction, but she said that if she had made a mistake, it would be fed back to her by her employers.

As for the loopholes, experience teaches otherwise. Take one of my (former) favourites for example - Off Peak restriction BT. The text in the box at the bottom was only added in September of this year after I started using Off Peak tickets with this restriction out of St Pancras at any time I pleased after 04:30 from April of this year. It might just be a coincidence, but correspondence with EMT and ATOC who informed me the loophole was going to be shut suggests otherwise. I didn't see it as a loophole at all - I just input the stations into NRE and the site suggested I could travel at any time.

Yorkie is correct - there are many different kinds of loophole taken from various sources, not just the National Routeing Guide. I find the loopholes (of varying levels of abstruseness) entirely by myself then ask certain people to assess whether or not they can be considered as valid. I then perform the acid test which is seeing if the NRE journey planner agrees, which it usually does. When this base maps thing comes in, I'm sure there will be people who will scour for anomalies then rinse them as appropriate
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Personally, I find myself more and more interested in RJ's exploits. It's regularly said that the rail ticketing area is unbelivably complicated and since i've started reading some of the posts here I now definitely believe it! On the penalty fare side of things I see no excuse for sloppy paperwork by staff though. Even if the RPI/TM believe their reasoning sound, surely they're also aware that any document should be filled in accurately? (This is not a dig at those who i'm sure do complete the paperwork correctly and know their jobs inside out!)

Anyway, keep up the good work!

To be honest, I've had several notices from EMT and I don't think a single one has been filled out correctly. IRCAS don't give a damn either - they will reject appeals even when the mistakes have been clearly pointed out. I have on more than one occasion questioned the competence of their appeals assessment staff and had a personalised reply from a senior member of staff apologising for their shortcomings.

These organisations need to realise that I don't ramp. They're forever defending their staff who make mistakes, but from my perspective as a passenger, I don't get justice unless I play as dirty as they do. I won't speculate on how many passengers have been ripped off as a result of this cowboy approach to revenue protection but suffice to say these companies need to be careful when it comes to demanding extra money from people as they might just start on the wrong person one day.

 

[RPI]

It annoys me when Pf collectors just issue the PF and tell you to appeal, personally (and I issue a lot of PF's!) If I think that I shouldn't be issuing the notice for whatever reason then I won't issue it! An example is someone saying that the TVM was right money only, if 3 or 4 people say it then its obviously true so why would I spend 5 minutes arguing with them to issue a PF when they will win their appeal anyway? wheras some people will still issue the notice and say "appeal".

 

[furryfeet]

Why is it so difficult for the guards / ticket collectors to check the restriction code on a ticket ?
All it would take is a simple phone call to the control centre OR a lookup on their ticket machine.

I am being too logical in stating this ? i.e. is arrogance, coupled with bad / non-existent training responsible for these situations.

 

[RochdalePioneers]

It can't help when we have nonsense such as a ticket marked off-peak being valid in the peak, or not-London being OK for via London. My trip from Darlo to Wolves tomorrow is in the morning peak and uses a combination of off-peak tickets both valid to and from certain stations for travel before 9:30. Travel between other stations passed through isn't valid on off peak tickets, nor is travel on slightly different splits when its a different operator setting the rules.

I am not surprised that rail staff can't keep up with validity,but has been suggested the ability to quickly check would help - both for passengers and for their own revenue protection purposes. The fact that many operators seem to make it up as they go along and encourage an environment where certain grippers can arrogantly (wrongly) state nonsense like conditions of carriage don't apply suggests to me that the people setting these insane illogical fare restrictions don't understand them either.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[RJ]

It annoys me when Pf collectors just issue the PF and tell you to appeal, personally (and I issue a lot of PF's!) If I think that I shouldn't be issuing the notice for whatever reason then I won't issue it! An example is someone saying that the TVM was right money only, if 3 or 4 people say it then its obviously true so why would I spend 5 minutes arguing with them to issue a PF when they will win their appeal anyway? wheras some people will still issue the notice and say "appeal".

When I was a PF officer, I used to be honest and tell people it would be a waste of time and money to appeal and they should see it as a lesson learned. Of course, I told them they had the right to appeal, but would be honest if they asked what their chances of success would be. I never issued notices if there was a shadow of doubt in my mind they would hold up.

I don't like this mentality of "sting the passenger, just in case they're in the wrong" and I intend to stand up for the little man - in this case me - against these organisations who encourage and refuse to punish this behaviour.

Why is it so difficult for the guards / ticket collectors to check the restriction code on a ticket ?
All it would take is a simple phone call to the control centre OR a lookup on their ticket machine.

I am being too logical in stating this ? i.e. is arrogance, coupled with bad / non-existent training responsible for these situations.

To be honest, I've discovered the problem starts a bit higher up than that. Managers high up in retail/revenue have been consulted regarding my complaints. They've then said that I was wrong and correctly charged a full priced SOS for the whole journey, which means they neither have a good knowledge of the rules, nor seen fit to consult the rule book when dishing out advice. I'm not fazed by anyone's seniority - if I know and can prove that they're wrong, then I will keep on at them until I get all of my money back and all outstanding actions cancelled.

However, it is a mentality that does filter downwards unfortunately. What's the passenger to do when so many TOC employees don't bother to read or adhere to the rules that they and the passenger are all supposed to?

It can't help when we have nonsense such as a ticket marked off-peak being valid in the peak, or not-London being OK for via London. My trip from Darlo to Wolves tomorrow is in the morning peak and uses a combination of off-peak tickets both valid to and from certain stations for travel before 9:30. Travel between other stations passed through isn't valid on off peak tickets, nor is travel on slightly different splits when its a different operator setting the rules.

I am not surprised that rail staff can't keep up with validity,but has been suggested the ability to quickly check would help - both for passengers and for their own revenue protection purposes. The fact that many operators seem to make it up as they go along and encourage an environment where certain grippers can arrogantly (wrongly) state nonsense like conditions of carriage don't apply suggests to me that the people setting these insane illogical fare restrictions don't understand them either.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

You've hit the nail on the head there. Some staff don't have a clue what the rules are, yet see fit to penalise passengers, or condone the penalising of passengers under the presumption that they don't know anything and won't fight back. It's a poor, counter productive mentality which probably does work on many passengers. However, instead of holding their hands up when a passenger who has read the rulebook speaks up, they'd rather take the brick wall stance. If they want to play it like that then fine. Will be interesting to see where this leads.

 

[jon0844]

wheras some people will still issue the notice and say "appeal".

A lot will do that, sadly. I guess even the TOC is tolerating this, knowing that no matter how angry someone might be to get a PF and have every intention of appealing, going to the papers and writing letters of complaint - most will just pay up as the easiest solution.

I can honestly say that if my wife got a penalty fare unfairly, she'd almost certainly pay and I'd have to argue with her not to let them get away with it. She'd then argue that £20 isn't worth the hassle, even though I'd disagree - if only because it endorses their actions.

I'd have thought RPIs have plenty of genuine PFs to issue, or indeed prosecutions, so they hardly need to waste time taking gambles.

Keep at it RJ! Good luck.

 

[richw]

I note you mentioned in an earlier post that the staff member falsified records on the fare, would this not be gross misconduct if found out by her employer. Every employer I've worked for in the employee handbook etc it has always stated falsifying records is gross misconduct.

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tibbs]

TOCs don't need to rely on "tricking" (for want of a better word) people into self-incrimination, they're quite good at doing so themselves.

Like when you give someone the option of buying a new ticket and that'll be the end of the matter, but they dig themselves deeper and deeper into a hole by, say, admitting to having done "it" (whatever "it" may be) several times before.

They don't need to, but they do.

An RPI caught me in breach of Byelaw 18, bang to rights. I'd obviously travelled on a train without a ticket, though with the clear intention (and prior tickets to demonstrate that I had before) of buying a ticket at the final stop.

She then lied to try to get me to admit that I had bought my previous tickets at a different station, in effect to get me to cop to a RRoA offence, but I stood my ground. In the end she let me buy the ticket I'd always bought at the station.

There's nothing to stop RPIs (or the Police) from lying to get information out of you. It's not illegal. You could argue it's immoral, but I don't think many people (aside from 34D who seemd to think TOCs are moral because they don't make their employees commit perjury :roll: ) think that TOCs are especially moral organisations. What they can't do is use those lies in court. It'll be interesting to see what happens in this case if it goes that far.

Good luck RJ, don't let the buggers get you down.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A lot will do that, sadly. I guess even the TOC is tolerating this, knowing that no matter how angry someone might be to get a PF and have every intention of appealing, going to the papers and writing letters of complaint - most will just pay up as the easiest solution.

I can honestly say that if my wife got a penalty fare unfairly, she'd almost certainly pay and I'd have to argue with her not to let them get away with it. She'd then argue that £20 isn't worth the hassle, even though I'd disagree - if only because it endorses their actions.

I'd have thought RPIs have plenty of genuine PFs to issue, or indeed prosecutions, so they hardly need to waste time taking gambles.

Keep at it RJ! Good luck.

And that's why there needs to be some kind of compensation for when PFs are issued in error. The TOCs have no incentive to get it right first time.

 

[jon0844]

There's nothing to stop RPIs (or the Police) from lying to get information out of you. It's not illegal. You could argue it's immoral, but I don't think many people (aside from 34D who seemd to think TOCs are moral because they don't make their employees commit perjury :roll: ) think that TOCs are especially moral organisations. What they can't do is use those lies in court. It'll be interesting to see what happens in this case if it goes that far.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. They can twist the truth, or withhold information, and blag their way - just as a ticket evader could. They would then know that if it had to go to court, they'd drop the case. Companies can (and obviously do) take a gamble that people will settle long before. It seems to be working - which is probably why FCC is training more RPIs to be able to do prosecutions and give out less PFs.

Much as we are quick to say 'let them take you to court' when you know you're right, nobody really wants a day in court, especially as there's always a risk that you might still lose on the day - perhaps from being tricked into saying something incriminating or the judge/magistrate simply not believing you.

I totally agree that when a PF appeal is successful, there should be some form of compensation. Not a life changing amount or anything silly like that, but something to cover your costs and time - perhaps the same amount as the PF (£20). I am not thinking anyone should profit out of a successful appeal, but it would mean that the RPIs would all of a sudden be told NOT to give out PFs they are not sure are valid.

I am convinced management are fully aware of staff doing just that, as it makes perfect business sense to do so. Yes, there will be an admin cost to them as it is - but far outweighed by all the people who pay for invalid/unjust PFs.

 

[jkdd77]

I totally agree that when a PF appeal is successful, there should be some form of compensation. Not a life changing amount or anything silly like that, but something to cover your costs and time - perhaps the same amount as the PF (£20). I am not thinking anyone should profit out of a successful appeal, but it would mean that the RPIs would all of a sudden be told NOT to give out PFs they are not sure are valid.

I am convinced management are fully aware of staff doing just that, as it makes perfect business sense to do so. Yes, there will be an admin cost to them as it is - but far outweighed by all the people who pay for invalid/unjust PFs.

How about:
1) Increasing the PF to £80, reducing to £40 if paid within 21 days (or twice the single fare if greater);

2) Expressly providing for certain existing 'gray areas' to be interpreted in favour of the passenger both in the PF Regulations and Byelaws (for example, if a passenger is genuinely unable to buy a ticket from a TVM due to a disability, or boards with cash only at a station where the only payment method is a 'card only' TVM, or if a passenger with no previous opportunity to pay interchanges at a station where to buy a ticket means missing a connecting train);

3) Providing in PF Regulations that, if a PF is successfully appealed, the passenger may not be prosecuted for that specific incident of ticketless travel (but could still be prosecuted, if, for example, they were abusive, or gave false details), and furthermore shall cease to be liable to pay any of the single fare that would otherwise have been due (and, if the PF was already paid in part or in full, is entitled to a full refund of the entire amount).

For example, if the single fare would have been £5, but instead a PF was incorrectly issued for £80 and successfully appealed, the passenger would not be liable to pay either the £80 PF or the £5 (and if already paid, would be entitled to a refund). The 'lost' fare could be seen as a quasi-penalty to the TOC for issuing an incorrect PF (providing a clear deterrent to TOCs from wrongly issuing PFs), and also as quasi-compensation to the passenger for the time and hassle involved in appealing it.

4) If, in connection with the issuing of a PF, a wholly unused portion of a return ticket is confiscated as "evidence", and the PF is successfully appealed, then the TOC shall additionally be liable to reimburse the passenger for the value of the confiscated ticket (since the passenger presumably had to buy a new single ticket to get back home).

I think the TOCs would accept the above idea due to the increased revenue from £80 PFs, and Passenger Focus would accept it due to the increased safeguards.

 

[jon0844]

I definitely agree the PF probably needs to rise, as it's too low (especially compared to London) and that is clearly the reason that some TOCs are trying to skip PFs and go for Byelaw 18 instead - they must make a load more money. They still have no intention of taking things to court, as they actively seek a settlement in advance.

The problem with the increased PF is that it is now less suitable for the 'simple' offences or mistakes. Your ideas are good - but like my own - are probably too complicated and would be difficult to implement.

 

[yorkie]

2) Expressly providing for certain existing 'gray areas' to be interpreted in favour of the passenger both in the PF Regulations and Byelaws (for example, if a passenger is genuinely unable to buy a ticket from a TVM due to a disability, or boards with cash only at a station where the only payment method is a 'card only' TVM, or if a passenger with no previous opportunity to pay interchanges at a station where to buy a ticket means missing a connecting train);

I agree, but these areas are deliberately left grey.

The only way to make that change is to get the DfT on the side of passengers (not a chance! their priorities are to reduce subsidies and if that means scaring people into overpaying sometimes, so be it!). The DfT doesn't agree to all the demands of the TOCs but it gives in to far more than it should.

4) If, in connection with the issuing of a PF, a wholly unused portion of a return ticket is confiscated as "evidence", and the PF is successfully appealed, then the TOC shall additionally be liable to reimburse the passenger for the value of the confiscated ticket (since the passenger presumably had to buy a new single ticket to get back home)..

If a ticket is confiscated they are required to issue a receipt and a replacement ticket/documentation to allow that passenger to complete their journey.

But is that rule always adhered to? Err, nope, it isn't!