Expired railcard

[ssan]

Hello,

I travelled on Northern from Manchester Airport to Manchester Piccadilly with an expired 26-30 railcard. I was not aware of this until the inspector pointed it out. As soon as I got off the international flight, I bought a train ticket to travel from the airport to the city centre without noticing that my railcard had expired two weeks earlier when I was away from the UK. I renewed my railcard immediately on the spot and presented the updated and valid railcard to the staff member on the spot. The staff member took my details and assured me with a smile that it would not result in a fine.

Then I got a letter and communicated with DRPU to explain my situation. Unfortunately, I ended up with a fixed penalty notice, with a fine of £106.50. I found it unfair and wanted to appeal. However, the Penalty Services website states that TIR or MG notices cannot be accepted. My case is a TIR.

Do you have any idea how I can appeal in this case?

Thank you.

 

[Gloster]

I suggest that you obscure the reference number in both images.

 

[ssan]

I suggest that you obscure the reference number in both images.

Many thanks. The reference number was covered, only showing the prefix that indicates the type of case.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

@ssan. Welcome to the forum. On what basis do you consider that you have a valid reason for appealing? You had allowed your railcard to expire, hadn't you? This might just be one to chalk up to experience and to pay up. Technically, it's not a "fine", although it might seem like one.

 

[antharro]

Agree with MCR here. If it was a case that you'd left it at home and it was valid, then most TOCs (train operating companies) will let you have a "once a year" exception, although it's not guaranteed. In your case, you bought a ticket using a discount that (at that time) you were not eligible for, and travelled using that ticket. I'm sure one of the other forum folks will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure that you're being given the easy way out - a penalty that is strong enough to hopefully incentivise you to not do it again, which you pay and the matter goes away. The alternative is that they can take you to court where they will win, and you will be made to pay a considerable amount more along with getting a record. Pay the penalty, set a reminder on your phone / Google / Apple calendar to renew the railcard before it's due, and put it donw to experience.

 

[ssan]

@ssan. Welcome to the forum. On what basis do you consider that you have a valid reason for appealing? You had allowed your railcard to expire, hadn't you? This might just be one to chalk up to experience and to pay up. Technically, it's not a "fine", although it might seem like one.

During the time my railcard was expired, I was not in the UK and was completely unaware of it. As soon as I arrived in the UK and the inspector noticed the expired card, I renewed it on the spot and showed it to the inspector. The inspector told me that I wouldn't be fined. Was the inspector lying to me?

The train ticket from Manchester Airport to Manchester Piccadilly only cost £1.70, and even if I hadn't bought a ticket, the fine would only have been £50. I renewed my railcard on the spot and purchased a train ticket. I didn't gain any advantage, yet I am being fined £106.50.

This rule seems to suggest that fare evasion might be more cost-effective in this case.

Agree with MCR here. If it was a case that you'd left it at home and it was valid, then most TOCs (train operating companies) will let you have a "once a year" exception, although it's not guaranteed. In your case, you bought a ticket using a discount that (at that time) you were not eligible for, and travelled using that ticket. I'm sure one of the other forum folks will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure that you're being given the easy way out - a penalty that is strong enough to hopefully incentivise you to not do it again, which you pay and the matter goes away. The alternative is that they can take you to court where they will win, and you will be made to pay a considerable amount more along with getting a record. Pay the penalty, set a reminder on your phone / Google / Apple calendar to renew the railcard before it's due, and put it donw to experience.

The inspector told me that I wouldn't be fined. Was the inspector lying to me?

 

[John R]

During the time my railcard was expired, I was not in the UK and was completely unaware of it. As soon as I arrived in the UK and the inspector noticed the expired card, I renewed it on the spot and showed it to the inspector. The inspector told me that I wouldn't be fined. Was the inspector lying to me?

The train ticket from Manchester Airport to Manchester Piccadilly only cost £1.70, and even if I hadn't bought a ticket, the fine would only have been £50. I renewed my railcard on the spot and purchased a train ticket. I didn't gain any advantage, yet I am being fined £106.50.

This rule seems to suggest that fare evasion might be more cost-effective in this case.

I’m afraid I agree with the previous two posters. No matter how unjust you feel it is (and I feel your pain) your best bet is to pay the amount due and write it off to experience.

If you don’t, there is no doubt that you will find a notice of prosecution winging its way to you, which will end up being more expensive and leaving you with a criminal record. Travelling without a valid ticket is a “strict liability” offence. Ie the fact that it was a mistake and you didn’t intend to do it is irrelevant. So a conviction would unfortunately be the outcome.

 

[antharro]

The inspector told me that I wouldn't be fined. Was the inspector lying to me?

In the most technical sense of the term, no. Without going into the definition of a fine (which is a subject that is somewhat contentious on here), it could be said that only a court can issue a fine. So *technically*, no, he was not lying. However, we've seen a pattern on here where inspectors / revenue staff have been somewhat economical with the truth in attempt to prevent a situation from escalating. Take from that what you will.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

The inspector told me that I wouldn't be fined. Was the inspector lying to me?

You'd only be "fined" if taken to court and found guilty, which, from what you've told us, likely you would be, if you were to allow the matter to go that far.

What you're being asked to do here is to pay a sum of money to Northern so that they don't take the matter to court (and thus you won't have a court conviction against your name, and you won't have been "fined").

Rinsed, financially speaking, maybe, but not "fined". The lesser of the two most likely outcomes that you're facing.

 

[Hadders]

Legally your ticket was invalid because your railcard had expired. Travelling with an invalid ticket is a criminal offence and Northern could prosecute you in the Magistrates Court if they wanted to where you would be found guilty.

They have offered you an out of court settlement which means you pay them a sum of money in return for them not prosecuting you. I would pay this to avoid the matter escalating.

It is unfortunate that you hadn't realised your railcard had expired but think of it like getting a parking ticket. Frustrating, feels unfair but best pay it and chalk it up to experience.

 

[ssan]

You'd only be "fined" if taken to court and found guilty, which, from what you've told us, likely you would be, if you were to allow the matter to go that far.

What you're being asked to do here is to pay a sum of money to Northern so that they don't take the matter to court (and thus you won't have a court conviction against your name, and you won't have been "fined").

Rinsed, financially speaking, maybe, but not "fined". The lesser of the two most likely outcomes that you're facing.

Excuse my English. To be exact, the inspector said "no charge, just a report." Do you think this is lying? Do you think this is reasonable in the working process?

Legally your ticket was invalid because your railcard had expired. Travelling with an invalid ticket is a criminal offence and Northern could prosecute you in the Magistrates Court if they wanted to where you would be found guilty.

They have offered you an out of court settlement which means you pay them a sum of money in return for them not prosecuting you. I would pay this to avoid the matter escalating.

It is unfortunate that you hadn't realised your railcard had expired but think of it like getting a parking ticket. Frustrating, feels unfair but best pay it and chalk it up to experience.

Don’t I have any right to appeal this at all?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

@ssan. Looks like you have been reported by the inspector, to Northern Trains' Debt Recovery & Prosecutions Unit, and the outcome is that the matter is very possibly going to be taken to the magistrates court, unless you pay the £106.50 settlement amount that's now been requested.

Not much of a choice, but we are where we are.

BTW, did you respond to the initial letter (dated 9th July) within the 14 days timescale mentioned therein?

 

[ssan]

@ssan. Looks like you have been reported by the inspector, to Northern Trains' Debt Recovery & Prosecutions Unit, and the outcome is that the matter is very possibly going to be taken to the magistrates court, unless you pay the £106.50 settlement amount requested.

Not much of a choice, but we are where we are.

BTW, did you respond to the initial letter (dated 9th July) within the 14 days timescale mentioned therein?

Yes, I did, I explained the situation in my reply.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Yes, I did, I explained the situation in my reply.

What did you say, exactly?

 

[Haywain]

To be exact, the inspector said "no charge, just a report." Do you think this is lying? Do you think this is reasonable in the working process?

Did the inspector ask you for any payment? If not, he didn't charge you. He did, however, report you. Which is what he said.

 

[ssan]

Did the inspector ask you for any payment? If not, he didn't charge you. He did, however, report you. Which is what he said

Such a perfect explanation. My English is too poor to understand such implications immediately. I just feel that this might be racial discrimination. I can’t help but wonder if a white person in my situation would have been treated the same way.

 

[John R]

Such a perfect explanation. My English is too poor to understand such implications immediately. I just feel that this might be racial discrimination. I can’t help but wonder if a white person in my situation would have been treated the same way.

We see lots of such cases, so I doubt very much there is any racial element. You were caught without a valid ticket, and had your details taken. That was in no way improper.

You now have two choices, and it has been explained to you which we advise you to take.

 

[ssan]

What did you say, exactly?

'Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to explain my situation regarding the case Ref (letter attached).

On June 28, 2024, I had been away from the UK for a while and had just returned on that day. As soon as I got off the international flight, I bought a train ticket to travel from the airport to the city centre, without noticing that my railcard had expired on June 9, 2024. Moreover, I bought the cheapest train ticket for this trip, which was only £1.70 on its own, so I believe I did not take advantage of the railcard discount (receipt attached). When the staff member pointed this out, I immediately renewed my railcard on site at the train station (current railcard attached).

I apologize for this oversight, as I was not aware my railcard was invalid at that time. Thank you for your consideration.'

 

[Hadders]

Don’t I have any right to appeal this at all?

You can take the matter to court but based on what you have told us so far you would lose and the amount you'd have to pay fine fines and court costs would be far more than what you're being asked to pay to settle the matter now.

However inadvertent, you travelled without a valid ticket and that is a criminal offence and Northern are entitled to prosecute you in the Magistrates Court. It is your responsibility to make sure you have a valid ticket before boarding the train, unfortunately on this occasion you didn't have one.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Moreover, I bought the cheapest train ticket for this trip, which was only £1.70 on its own, so I believe I did not take advantage of the railcard discount (receipt attached).

A £1.70 fare for a journey from Manchester Airport to Manchester is an Advance Single, route "AP Northern Only" after applying a 26-30 railcard discount. Without any discount, it would actually have been £2.60. There isn't any undiscounted advance tier priced at £1.70.

 

[island]

Don’t I have any right to appeal this at all?

You don’t have a right to “appeal”, no. Your choices are:

1. Pay the requested sum and that will be the end of the matter
2. Wait for Northern to take you to court, where you can make your case to the magistrates why you feel you should not have to pay anything.

For the reasons given by others, I’d highly recommend 1.

 

[Titfield]

As you self evidently feel somewhat aggrieved I would pay the requested sum (as advised by others above) and then make a complaint to Northern about the practice you encountered namely that you consider that you were misled as to what the outcome of the interaction with the Inspector would be or that you consider that the Inspector did not make you sufficiently aware of what the possible outcomes were.

I would phrase the complaint very carefully. The English language is full of nuances - two words whilst appearing to have a similar meaning often have a subtle difference. In the context of rail fares for example "fine" and "penalty" are taken by many to have the same meaning but they are very different.

 

[Haywain]

I can’t help but wonder if a white person in my situation would have been treated the same way.

Our experience is that there is every chance that they would receive the same treatment.

 

[Deafdoggie]

As you self evidently feel somewhat aggrieved I would pay the requested sum (as advised by others above) and then make a complaint to Northern about the practice you encountered namely that you consider that you were misled as to what the outcome of the interaction with the Inspector would be or that you consider that the Inspector did not make you sufficiently aware of what the possible outcomes were.

I would phrase the complaint very carefully. The English language is full of nuances - two words whilst appearing to have a similar meaning often have a subtle difference. In the context of rail fares for example "fine" and "penalty" are taken by many to have the same meaning but they are very different.

I'd suggest posting a draft of any such letter here as the word "penslty" might make the reader think of penalty fare, whilst "fine" might make them think it's gone to court, or even possibly that's all okay!

Members here will then help to clarify any unintended meaning.

 

[Titfield]

Our experience is that there is every chance that they would receive the same treatment.

Reporting for Investigation is arguably the fairest methodology as it removes "visual bias" and allows the passenger to state their case with the benefit of having been allowed time to gather their thoughts and present their case methodologically.

 

[rs101]

As you self evidently feel somewhat aggrieved I would pay the requested sum (as advised by others above) and then make a complaint to Northern about the practice you encountered namely that you consider that you were misled as to what the outcome of the interaction with the Inspector would be or that you consider that the Inspector did not make you sufficiently aware of what the possible outcomes were.

I would phrase the complaint very carefully. The English language is full of nuances - two words whilst appearing to have a similar meaning often have a subtle difference. In the context of rail fares for example "fine" and "penalty" are taken by many to have the same meaning but they are very different.

I'd agree with paying the sum requested and making a complaint. The staff member should have clearly explained that there was no fee due at the time, but that he was submitting a report which may lead to a fee being due later. Saying something like "no charge, just reporting it" can be understood as meaning there's no risk of any further costs being due at all.

 

[Titfield]

I'd agree with paying the sum requested and making a complaint. The staff member should have clearly explained that there was no fee due at the time, but that he was submitting a report which may lead to a fee being due later. Saying something like "no charge, just reporting it" can be understood as meaning there's no risk of any further costs being due at all.

One of the issues here (and in many similar cases reported) we do not know for sure what was actually said. We only have the OPs recollection of what was said.

Perhaps I am too atuned to what goes on but if someone said "no charge / fine / fee, just reporting it" to me I would then be asking "why are you reporting it then?". If someone ever makes a report, common sense suggests to me that there would be some consequences arising out of it.

We then get back to the reasons why Inspectors say what they say. They say it to defuse potentially difficult encounters. Having to explain why the report was being issued may inflame the situation. If they temper their response by saying / suggesting "it is unlikely that something much will come of it" then we back to them misleading the passenger.

Ultimately we need to get to the situation where the potential for honest mistakes is reduced to virtually zero.

 

[rs101]

One of the issues here (and in many similar cases reported) we do not know for sure what was actually said. We only have the OPs recollection of what was said.

Perhaps I am too atuned to what goes on but if someone said "no charge / fine / fee, just reporting it" to me I would then be asking "why are you reporting it then?". If someone ever makes a report, common sense suggests to me that there would be some consequences arising out of it.

We then get back to the reasons why Inspectors say what they say. They say it to defuse potentially difficult encounters. Having to explain why the report was being issued may inflame the situation. If they temper their response by saying / suggesting "it is unlikely that something much will come of it" then we back to them misleading the passenger.

Ultimately we need to get to the situation where the potential for honest mistakes is reduced to virtually zero.

I'd assume it meant it went on file, so if I did it again, I might get penalised, but that no further action would happen for this incident.

Defusing the situation by making vague and unclear statements doesn't help though, just shifts the problem from the inspector to the back office.

 

[Gloster]

As the amount requested for investigation costs is below what the railway normally ask for, it is possible that the Inspector did you a favour by putting in a report that hinted (or more) that he was satisfied that it was a genuine mistake, rather than deliberate evasion or gross carelessness. This has inclined the railway to relative leniency. This is my opinion only.

 

[Titfield]

I'd assume it meant it went on file, so if I did it again, I might get penalised, but that no further action would happen for this incident.

Defusing the situation by making vague and unclear statements doesn't help though, just shifts the problem from the inspector to the back office.

Perhaps I am too cynical in my assumption ie there would be consequences. However if their purpose was putting it on file, no further action at this time then I do not think it unreasonable for the Inspector to say that. Though of course the Inspector might not know this has happened previously.

The more I think about it the more I see why the Inspectors do what they do and why they do it. I come back to an earlier point that the rail fares system needs simplifying to reduce the incidence of honest mistakes.