Greater Anglia Unreasonableness

[TheJustice]

Hi there,

I'm a new user and I will try and keep this concise. Due to an Oyster card error I did not have £1.70 for my train journey and a Greater Anglia inspectors fined me £20. I had to pay £2 of it there and then. I tried explaining that I shouldn't be fined because Transport for London (TfL) owes me a refund of £7, because it had taken money off my Oyster card when it shouldn't have. The inspectors were not interested, insisted that Oyster is nothing to do with them and issued me with a fine. The following day TfL issued me my refund but I still had the problem of the £18 fine remaining from the inspectors.

I appealed the ticket but lost. I was going to make a further appeal but did not submit it within the 10 days. My fine then increased to £48. At this point I decided to just pay it. However as I am in receipt of Jobseekers Allowance I asked them if I could pay in installments. They said I could pay £16 a month so long as I made the first payment by the 14th October. I can't make it by then because my JSA isn't paid in until after this date. I asked them if they could wait a few extra days until I had my JSA paid in but they weren't interested, and now the fine is set to increase by another £30. It's not that I don't want to pay this fine, which I don't think I owe anyway, it's just that I can't afford it. And because of my current financial situation I am being penalised with the fine being increased. Is there anything I can do?

Any help gratefully appreciated.

TheJustice

 

[MikeWh]

II would be tempted to go to citizens advice and see if they can persude GA to see sense.

 

[34D]

Why was your oyster refund late? Can you get TfL to admit blame in writing?

 

[MikeWh]

Why was your oyster refund late? Can you get TfL to admit blame in writing?

That's a good point actually. If TfL can confirm that the system had deducted money in error earlier that day then that ought to be mitigating circumstances. If the deduction was a day or so previously then you would be expected to add more credit while waiting for the refund.

 

[TheJustice]

That's a good point actually. If TfL can confirm that the system had deducted money in error earlier that day then that ought to be mitigating circumstances. If the deduction was a day or so previously then you would be expected to add more credit while waiting for the refund.

Hi Mike,

The thing is I mentioned this in my appeal as I did to the inspectors on the day this happened and the response is simply that 'Oyster' is nothing to do with Greater Anglia trains. They are perfectly happy for you to spend money on their network using Oyster but when Oyster goes wrong they are not interested. It is plainly unfair and surely must be unlawful.

TheJustice

 

[ian959]

How can it be unfair and unlawful?

You never paid your fare on Greater Anglia and therefore you are liable to GA for that fare plus the balance of a penalty fare to the minimum vale of £20.00. As GA have said, Oyster is nothing to do with them. It is simply a method of payment accepted by them in the same way as they accept debit and credit cards.

Your dispute regarding non-refunding of the £7.00 by Oyster is another matter entirely, not connected other than through inconvenience with your issue with GA. What would have happened on the train had you tried to pay with a debit card with no available funds?

Note that you have not incurred a fine - you have incurred a penalty fare for not having a valid ticket. You incurred admin fees as a consequence of not paying the penalty fare by the due date and now it seems for not paying your first instalment as agreed by 14th October.

Since your instalment is due tomorrow, why not just pay it when you get your JSA and see what happens. There is not much else you can do unless you can borrow the £48 from someone...

 

[island]

I regret to say I am with ian959 on this. TfL has very little to do with Greater Anglia; GA just accepts that for some journeys, rather than being paid directly by the passenger directly, it will be paid by TfL through the Oyster system. Think of it this way: if your mate owed you £7 and you wanted to travel by train, do you think the staff would be OK with letting you travel on your word that he'd sort it out with them next week? And if you had been let through, how did you plan on paying for your journey after TfL issued your refund, anyway?

I strongly suggest you beg or borrow the money that you owe and pay it off as soon as possible to avoid the matter escalating out of control and into a potential criminal prosecution - travelling without the means to pay for your fare is an offence under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 and carries a criminal record. Once you are no longer at risk of this or further administrative fees, you can then contact Greater Anglia's customer service team to ask about a partial refund.

 

[VauxhallandI]

I think the OP might have been under the impression we had an integrated transport system.

 

[Flamingo]

I think the OP might have been under the impression we had an integrated transport system.

Well, he can blame that nice Mr Major (and the people that voted for him) for for the fact we don't, but I digress...

 

[MikeWh]

I regret to say I am with ian959 on this. TfL has very little to do with Greater Anglia; GA just accepts that for some journeys, rather than being paid directly by the passenger directly, it will be paid by TfL through the Oyster system. Think of it this way: if your mate owed you £7 and you wanted to travel by train, do you think the staff would be OK with letting you travel on your word that he'd sort it out with them next week? And if you had been let through, how did you plan on paying for your journey after TfL issued your refund, anyway?

If, and only if, the error with the Oyster system occurred that day then I think TfL are duty bound to minimise your exposure to additional fares. Imagine the furore that would errupt if an occasional error which causes credit card transactions to be processed twice was accompanied by the bank in question saying that any charges incurred were the customers responsibility. It wouldn't happen.

I'm with you if the Oyster card couldn't be topped up before travel started, but once you have paid TfL the money required for the day then any errors in the system should not impact the customer.

 

[island]

If, and only if, the error with the Oyster system occurred that day then I think TfL are duty bound to minimise your exposure to additional fares. Imagine the furore that would errupt if an occasional error which causes credit card transactions to be processed twice was accompanied by the bank in question saying that any charges incurred were the customers responsibility. It wouldn't happen.

I'm with you if the Oyster card couldn't be topped up before travel started, but once you have paid TfL the money required for the day then any errors in the system should not impact the customer.

I thought about that, but OP says that the refund was paid the day after the incident on GA, so it could not have been an error that same day. It takes 24-48 hours for the journey history to be fully synced with the TfL back-end and another day for refunds to become available once claimed/given.

 

[TheJustice]

Hi,

Much has been said about the criminal consequences of not paying a rail penalty notice. It seems that a successful prosecution would be unlikely. There is nothing in the Railways Act 1993 and the Penalty Fares Regulations 1994 establishing an offence and in fact the latter expressly states it is a civil matter. Even the old Regulation of Railways Act 1889 requires there to be an 'intent to avoid payment'. I'm pretty confident that the fact I was owed a refund at the time the penalty notice was issued coupled with the fact I was made to pay the fare anyway should hopefully counter any charges of intent to not pay.

Therefore this, to me, is purely a civil matter. Surely then this is simply a breach of contract and therefore as it is a penalty don't the common law principles surrounding penalties come in to play?

TheJustice

 

[ian959]

What you seem to be failing to grasp is that when you were caught you had failed to purchase a ticket and in accordance with the Bye Laws that is a strict liability offence - no intent needs to be established. As such, failure to produce a valid ticket when requested is a criminal offence.

The fact that you may have had a refund due to you from someone else does not in any way mitigate the above.

Since the matter is a criminal offence and I believe it would continue to be a criminal offence whilst the penalty fare in its entirety remains unpaid.

I don't deny that if TfL were delinquent in issuing a refund within an acceptable period per the appropriate regulations that perhaps they might have some moral responsibility to compensate you for your subsequent loss. However, that does not having any bearing on the issuance and payment of the penalty fare.

 

[maniacmartin]

I think it's unfair how you've ended up in this situation, however it will be safest and simplest to pay up. Unless you plan seek assistance of a legal profession and mount a defence based on technicalities, I would advise you to pay ASAP.

There is some legislation that you have overlooked, mainly a strict liability offence to have a ticket. Intent does not need to be proven

Please read section 18(1) of the Railway Byelaws, and sections 3.18 and 7 of the Oyster Conditions of Carriage for National Rail services

 

[island]

Hi,

Much has been said about the criminal consequences of not paying a rail penalty notice. It seems that a successful prosecution would be unlikely. There is nothing in the Railways Act 1993 and the Penalty Fares Regulations 1994 establishing an offence and in fact the latter expressly states it is a civil matter. Even the old Regulation of Railways Act 1889 requires there to be an 'intent to avoid payment'. I'm pretty confident that the fact I was owed a refund at the time the penalty notice was issued coupled with the fact I was made to pay the fare anyway should hopefully counter any charges of intent to not pay.

Therefore this, to me, is purely a civil matter. Surely then this is simply a breach of contract and therefore as it is a penalty don't the common law principles surrounding penalties come in to play?

TheJustice

I'm afraid you appear to be misinformed as to the legal meaning of intent. Additionally, even if you were not, to the extent common law principles on penalties might apply, they are ousted by the fact that Penalty Fares are established by secondary legislation, which supersedes common law.

Again, if Tesco owed you a refund for something you'd bought online and posted back, would it be OK to take something from Asda's without paying there and then?

 

[Panda]

How did you intend on paying for your fare using Oyster if the money just wasn't available (regardless of the reason it wasn't available). There is no way that you could pay the fare after the money was refunded into your Oyster.

If you tried to entering any tube station or board any bus with that Oyster, you would not be allowed on, regardless of the circumstances of why you don't have the funds available. Why do you expect GA not to do the same?

 

[cjmillsnun]

Hi there,

I'm a new user and I will try and keep this concise. Due to an Oyster card error I did not have £1.70 for my train journey and a Greater Anglia inspectors fined me £20. I had to pay £2 of it there and then. I tried explaining that I shouldn't be fined because Transport for London (TfL) owes me a refund of £7, because it had taken money off my Oyster card when it shouldn't have. The inspectors were not interested, insisted that Oyster is nothing to do with them and issued me with a fine. The following day TfL issued me my refund but I still had the problem of the £18 fine remaining from the inspectors.

I appealed the ticket but lost. I was going to make a further appeal but did not submit it within the 10 days. My fine then increased to £48. At this point I decided to just pay it. However as I am in receipt of Jobseekers Allowance I asked them if I could pay in installments. They said I could pay £16 a month so long as I made the first payment by the 14th October. I can't make it by then because my JSA isn't paid in until after this date. I asked them if they could wait a few extra days until I had my JSA paid in but they weren't interested, and now the fine is set to increase by another £30. It's not that I don't want to pay this fine, which I don't think I owe anyway, it's just that I can't afford it. And because of my current financial situation I am being penalised with the fine being increased. Is there anything I can do?

Any help gratefully appreciated.

TheJustice

Pay up and look big. If the oyster was declined you should've paid cash (you had £2 in your pocket so would've had some change from that for the original fare)

 

[Clip]

Pay up and look big. If the oyster was declined you should've paid cash (you had £2 in your pocket so would've had some change from that for the original fare)

Indeed. Did the OP not check the balance of his Oyster before boarding and when the reader at which ever station beeped red signalling they did not have enough credit on their card then why did they not purchase a ticket for the journey instead? Theres the intent straight away in my eyes. It is the passengers responsibility to ensure they have enough credit to travel on their Oyster whether they are waiting for a refund or not.

 

[Fare-Cop]

It may be unlikely at this stage, but the TOC could of course simply cancel the Penalty Fare Notice, refund the £2.00 and issue a summons alleging the Byelaw offence and as Clip points out, they might even consider charging the 'intent' issue.

I think the advice that you have had from others to pay as soon as you get your JSA is the best bet.

 

[furlong]

It may be unlikely at this stage, but the TOC could of course simply cancel the Penalty Fare Notice, refund the £2.00 and issue a summons alleging the Byelaw offence

But does DaveNewcastle's post on another thread suggest this might prove problematic?

The Railway Byelaws, in common with any other Byelaws, cannot create an offence where there is also a statutory offence which captures the incident.

 

[island]

No, I don't think so. It is not disputed that a TOC can do exactly as Fare-Cop says.

 

[TheJustice]

Hi,

It appears that much of the information I am receiving is angled in favour of the train companies. I have never wanted to not pay for anything and if the system worked better I would not be in this situation. All of the analogies about Tesco and the like do not help explain my situation. It's clear that to allow payment by Oyster to use the train is acceptable but that when Oyster does not perform in the manner it should the distancing of Oyster by the train companies is not acceptable. There may even be a potential breach of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 or the later Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

There also appears to be some confusion as to how the case would proceed as regards the criminal law, whether that be the main statutes or the bylaws. What is clear is that the journey was paid for before I walked through the barriers, I was also owed a refund at the time my Oyster balance was too low to pay for the journey. I was even prepared to phone Oyster and let them speak with inspectors to confirm this at the time, but they did not want to speak to Oyster. Furthermore as the station was closed, there was no personnel in the station, and the ticket machine was not on how on earth could I have checked this before commencing the journey?

In relation to cjmillnun's comment about 'paying up and looking big' I can only deduce this is some sort of appeal to my 'better nature'. My better nature is best served ensuring justice is achieved.

I believe this is a civil matter only. I will update you further once I have researched the matter further. Incidentally, secondary legislation does not always render common law void.

In the mean time can I please ask how many of the contributors to this thread either work for or have an interest in the train companies?

TheJustice

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The constraint on the creation of a Byelaw (which must not create an offence where a statutory offence is also in force covering the same circumstances) does indeed extend to the application of such a Byelaw, and in any attempt to apply the Byelaw to a prosecution, then it would be rightfully challenged.

However, this overlap or duplication must be contrasted with two distinct offences, one a statutory Offence and the other a Byelaw, each with their own distinct conditions to capture the incident, even where it is one and the same incident. The crucial distinguishing factor is the distinct conditions of each 'instrument'.

For example, we could not have an Offence of 'failing to produce a valid ticket on demand' which is both a statutory and a Byelaw Offence. But we can have 'travel without having previously paid their fare' and 'failing to produce a valid ticket on demand' as, respectively, a statutory Offence and a Beylaw Offence, and in reality, both will apply to the vast majority of incidents of fare evasion.

There is a case under our previous Railway Byelaws in which the Prosecution failed on Appeal, it is Bentham v Hoyle (1878) where the passenger was prosecuted under the Byelaws for travelling in 1st Class on a 2nd Class ticket, but where an effectively identical statutory Offence already exisited.
Today, there is still a duplication in both the statutory Offences and the current Railway Byelaws but it doesn't appear to have been noticed by the legislators (and I'm not going to help them on here!). If prosecuted under the Byelaw Offence, then it should rightfully fail.

 

[FGW_DID]

So what you are saying is that, when prosecuting, they should always go for the more serious statutory offence?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Yes, but only where the Byelaw and statutory Offences duplicate the same Offence, and that duplication DOES NOT apply to the usual tickeing irregularities we see since the Byelaws were revised in 2005.

 

[richw]

I can not comment on the byelaws issues, however reference the debt collection issue I'd suggest speaking to CAB, as from your first post they do not appear to be collecting correctly.

The owed money is a civil debt, and therefore debt collection regulations should be adhered to. This debt will be a low priority debt in the larger scheme of your expenditures and financial commitments.

One key points that seem applicable here from fair debt collection regulations;

-make sure any proposed repayment plan is realistic,(This should include appropriate dates and amounts)



CAB will be able to advise fully on the ins and outs of this and 9/10 times they will correspond with the company for you as well.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Yes, but only where the Byelaw and statutory Offences duplicate the same Offence, and that duplication DOES NOT apply to the usual tickeing irregularities we see since the Byelaws were revised in 2005.

Yes, if a PF or UPF notice is cancelled and the TOC intends to proceed to prosecution, personally I always believe that an allegation of the S.5 RoRA offence should be laid although I know that in some cases the Byelaw matter has been charged.

Perhaps I should have made that clear

 

[cjmillsnun]

Hi,

It appears that much of the information I am receiving is angled in favour of the train companies. I have never wanted to not pay for anything and if the system worked better I would not be in this situation. All of the analogies about Tesco and the like do not help explain my situation. It's clear that to allow payment by Oyster to use the train is acceptable but that when Oyster does not perform in the manner it should the distancing of Oyster by the train companies is not acceptable. There may even be a potential breach of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 or the later Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

There also appears to be some confusion as to how the case would proceed as regards the criminal law, whether that be the main statutes or the bylaws. What is clear is that the journey was paid for before I walked through the barriers, I was also owed a refund at the time my Oyster balance was too low to pay for the journey. I was even prepared to phone Oyster and let them speak with inspectors to confirm this at the time, but they did not want to speak to Oyster. Furthermore as the station was closed, there was no personnel in the station, and the ticket machine was not on how on earth could I have checked this before commencing the journey?

In relation to cjmillnun's comment about 'paying up and looking big' I can only deduce this is some sort of appeal to my 'better nature'. My better nature is best served ensuring justice is achieved.

I believe this is a civil matter only. I will update you further once I have researched the matter further. Incidentally, secondary legislation does not always render common law void.

In the mean time can I please ask how many of the contributors to this thread either work for or have an interest in the train companies?

TheJustice

I'm sorry you don't like my comment.

However if you had looked at the display on the oyster as you touched in you would've seen that it wouldn't have been accepted because there wasn't enough on it at the time.

The TOCs take payment from it much like a Visa Electron card. IE they can only deduct from it if the balance is available in the first place. If the money isn't there when you touch in (either through an error on TfL's part or through not topping it up) then the fare isn't paid.

You can quote the unfair contract terms act all you like, but as far as a TOC is concerned, oyster is just a payment card for a fare. The TOCs don't own or administrate Oyster, that's done by TfL who are run by the Mayor of London. Much like any other card, if it's declined (as yours effectively was) then they don't get their money. They aren't duty bound to carry any passenger that they have not received the correct fare from.

It's not the TOC's fault, and they could do you for a byelaw offence if you don't by a ticket by another means. They've elected for a PF. If you don't pay it, they could cancel it and go for the byelaw offence. It then becomes a criminal matter.

If the TVM wasn't working, then you MAY be able to get the PF cancelled. However as you have already lost one appeal, I wouldn't hold out much hope

 

[island]

What is clear is that the journey was paid for before I walked through the barriers

No it wasn't.

Your journey is paid for on Oyster when you touch out at your final destination and obtain a green light. Your situation is little different to someone having their debit card declined in M&S and walking out with their goods anyway. I know you don't seem to like these analogies, but I put it to you that this is because they are hitting home and you are uncomfortable having the criminal offence that you seem to have committed called to light.

Furthermore as the station was closed, there was no personnel in the station, and the ticket machine was not on how on earth could I have checked this before commencing the journey?

This is one matter that could save you. A person charged with an offence under Railway Byelaw 18 has a defence if there were no functioning ticketing facilities at the station where they started their journey.

I believe this is a civil matter only.

I believe you're wrong. Do you want to take the risk of a criminal prosecution, possible fine up to £1,000, possible prison sentence of up to 3 months, and possible criminal record?

Incidentally, secondary legislation does not always render common law void.

That's a very interesting assertion. Might I ask for a source please?

In the mean time can I please ask how many of the contributors to this thread either work for or have an interest in the train companies?

You can ask anything you like. Doesn't mean it'll get answered by the others, but I have no connection to or interest in any Train Operating Company.

I have one final question, which has been asked a number of times and which you seem to be ignoring. If you had not encountered an authorised collector at your destination station, how and when would you have paid for your journey?

 

[jkdd77]

to take the risk of a criminal prosecution, possible fine up to £1,000, possible prison sentence of up to 3 months, and possible criminal record?

To be pedantic, the OP cannot be jailed for a first offence, even if convicted under s. 5 RRA.