Fixed penalty notice

[D4nnyd123]

Hi, I got sent a fixed penalty notice for £10.40 (my fare) plus a £90 extra charge because I didn't reply to the first letter but it never arrived as I live in shared housing. I gave a fake name but my girlfriend didn't so we have 2 letters for the same amount.

It was for 20th February and I received the 2nd letter today with the extra £90 charge. Is there a way out of paying the £90 charge and just paying both the £10.40 charges for the original fares?

 

[D4nnyd123]

It was also from Doncaster to Wakefield and we got caught at Wakefield. We couldn't get a ticket as we were rushing for the train and no conductor came while on the train.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Providing false details is an offence which could likely end up in court if they find out, which they probably will if you challenge the fare evasion payment demand. You would be well advised to pay the £100.40.

 

[Hadders]

Welcome to the forum.

Boarding a train without a ticket is a criminal offence so is giving false details.

I’d pay up to make the matter go away. If it comes to light that you have false details then the consequences are far greater.

Chalk it up as one of life’s experiences and move on.

 

[some bloke]

Perhaps I'm missing something. If he simply pays, wouldn't that be under, or continuing to give the wrong impression about, a fake name? I don't see how it would be appropriate to advise him to do that.

 

[30907]

Morally you have a point. Legally, the OP has no need to self incriminate as this is not court proceedings. Practically, this is the most sensible step.
Girlfriend might have been in a better position to challenge if she had done so in reply to the first letter.

 

[some bloke]

Legally, the OP has no need to self incriminate as this is not court proceedings.

Isn't there a difference between advising someone not to incriminate themselves for a past offence, and advising them not to incriminate themselves for an ongoing offence (failure to give name and address under Regulation 13 of the Penalty Fare Regulations)? Doesn't the second amount to "I advise you to continue to fail....", and so "continue to commit the offence"?

 

[Bertie the bus]

I don't see anything wrong morally or legally with what I have written. The TOC wants its money and obtaining correct details is part of the process of obtaining that money. Obtaining personal details aren't an end in itself. Therefore, saying pay up gives the TOC what it wants - the £100.40. It isn't trying to allow him to get away with it.

 

[some bloke]

Looking at the amounts charged, I think it looks like an unpaid fare notice rather than a penalty fare notice, so unless a penalty fare collector "proposed" to charge a penalty fare, what I wrote about regulation 13 isn't relevant.

Obtaining personal details aren't an end in itself. Therefore, saying pay up gives the TOC what it wants - the £100.40.

Isn't it arguable that companies have a legitimate interest in having correct details of people given unpaid fare notices? Someone could give a different name 100 times, masking a pattern.

Providing false details is an offence which could likely end up in court if they find out

Could you please clarify which offence you have in mind?

 

[Saperstein]

Isn't it arguable that companies have a legitimate interest in having correct details of people given unpaid fare notices? Someone could give a different name 100 times, masking a pattern.

Agreed.

Could you please clarify which offence you have in mind?

I’m not casting aspersions here but one wonders why incorrect details were given?

If someone gives false details to avoid paying their fare I would think deception or fraud by false representation may have been committed but I’m no expert.

 

[Haywain]

Agreed.



I’m not casting aspersions here but one wonders why incorrect details were given?

If someone gives false details to avoid paying their fare I would think deception or fraud by false representation may have been committed but I’m no expert.

There seems to be a suggestion that if that person subsequently pays the fare (and some costs) without revealing the fact that a false name was given they are somehow compounding the offence and that the train company will take further action. I find it difficult to believe that a train company who have accepted a settlement will then invest any time or effort in dealing with the matter any further.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Isn't it arguable that companies have a legitimate interest in having correct details of people given unpaid fare notices? Someone could give a different name 100 times, masking a pattern.

Then they should make more of an effort to check them when given. Reminding a dishonest person that their dishonesty could have consequences, if anything, reduces the chances of them giving false details in the future.

At least the OP in this case admits they lied. On many threads they are obviously lying, don't admit it, and people fall over themselves to help them get away with it. That is not what has happened on this thread.

 

[some bloke]

Is it plausible that in order to pay, the passenger's name has to be given, so that advice to pay up would in effect be advice to give the fake name again?

 

[Haywain]

Is it plausible that in order to pay, the passenger's name has to be given, so that advice to pay up would in effect be advice to give the fake name again?

Why? I could pay on behalf of someone else - the name of the cardholder would be required but it's not evidence of anything at all.

 

[reb0118]

Pay up & the matter goes away. Contest the administration charge and there may be, upon further investigation, a chance that the giving of false details is also discovered. That increases the risk of prosecution - and on a much more serious charge.

 

[D4nnyd123]

Okay so I called up and spoke on behalf of the fake name I gave and my girlfriend and they deducted both the £90 on the fines so I had to pay £10.40 X2. I stated that the first letters never came so we didn't know about paying the £10.40. The woman spoke to her manager and it was all sorted Thank you all for your advice!

 

[D4nnyd123]

I also paid through my card and stated I was speaking on behalf of the fake name I gave and my girlfriend. She asked to speak to my girlfriend to confirm she's happy with me speaking on behalf but because I already paid the £100.40 for my fake name with my card she didn't need to speak to the fake named person and just refunded me the £90. I've learnt a lesson from this so I won't give a fake name out of panic again to the rail companies.

 

[Haywain]

Please appreciate that you got quite lucky here with that result. Thanks for letting us know the outcome.

 

[mikeg]

This was a very good result. Don't do it again or it may not even be a £90 admin fee but a criminal conviction!