Lost third appeal - Greater Anglia/Stansted Express fines

[apps_x]

I was issued a penalty fare after tapping in at Liverpool Street station to travel on the Stansted Express to Stansted Airport. I am a visitor to London and I was under the impression that Stansted Airport was within the London travel network due to its name "London Stansted Airport". I work in the legal profession and I would never intentionally attempt to evade a fare. The first two appeals were rejected with template responses stating that the contactless payment restriction is clearly signposted. My third appeal, based on the template kindly provided by the user @scm (https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/stansted-airport-fines.253779/page-3#post-6451904), asserted that Liverpool Street station does not contain the appropriate notice regarding the contactless payment restriction and I provided photographs to evidence this. My third appeal has now been rejected and the rejection did not provide any specific reason, merely stating that a panel of three members approved by Transport Focus and London TravelWatch had fully considered the appeal. I would be grateful for any advice on what to do next.

 

[kacper]

Paying it would be your best choice. Also how did you miss the various signs and announcements at the station and on the train?

 

[Crithylum]

asserted that Liverpool Street station does not contain the appropriate notice regarding the contactless payment restriction and I provided photographs to evidence this.

Was it Penalty Fare signage, or contactless payment restriction signage that you used as reasoning for your appeal? The reasoning that the previous appeal was upheld was that the PF signage was not prominent, and/or had the incorrect wording. If your appeal was focused on the lack of contactless signage, it was correctly rejected, as there is no requirement for this signage (although Liverpool Street probably has the most no contactless signage of any station). A penalty fare is not a conviction so should not have an impact on your profession.

 

[AlterEgo]

As you have exhausted your appeals, you must now pay the Penalty Fare. The train company may launch a civil action to recover the money, and, while they are statute barred from prosecuting you, they may threaten to do so.

 

[WesternLancer]

The signage about Penalty Fares is, I believe, set out in the legislation that allows train companies to operate a Penalty Fares system, so if I understand it correctly, if this signage is not correct then the legislation is breached and the chances are the Penalty Fare is not validly issued. I think that is the logic behind appeals relating to that.

But I suspect there is no legal requirement to have signage about where you can and can't use contactless (although it's an obviously useful thing to do to help passengers) - thus an appeal based on that signage or what it says or how much of it there is probably has no real chance, since there is at least some signage AFAIK - seen pictures of it posted on the forum in the past though can't find a picture after a very brief search now.

I've not actually checked what the legislation says about contactless payment areas (if there is even any legislation on it as I'm not sure that there would need to be) so I'll stand corrected if I have this wrong.

So I guess this is why advice being given is to pay the Penalty Fare now in order to benefit from the 50% prompt payment discount.

I think the intention is to bring Stansted Airport station into the contactless area in the foreseeable future as they have done with Gatwick airport not so long ago, but obviously that is not going to help you with this.

 

[furlong]

Perhaps you would post the contents of your appeals and the responses? They are REQUIRED to provide reasons for their decisions (similar to the way that a judge gives reasons for a judgement) so if they didn't you can argue that the appeals process is not one compliant with the regulations and thus the PF itself was not valid for that reason too.

If you don't now pay, they can pursue you through the civil courts, and there you can try to make the case again. (If you take this approach, ideally you want to try to stretch things out so you pass the 6 month mark before there's a final decision.)

 

[jon0844]

For reference, here's a photo of Liverpool Street. Not sure how Tottenham Hale looks.

 

[furlong]

while they are statute barred from prosecuting you, they may threaten to do so.

We can be pretty sure Greater Anglia will NOT do that now. Due to its direct involvement in the SJPN proceedings, that it won't is on the record.

 

[island]

(If you take this approach, ideally you want to try to stretch things out so you pass the 6 month mark before there's a final decision.)

What is the relevance of the 6 month mark?

 

[furlong]

What is the relevance of the 6 month mark?

If the courts decide there is no bar to prosecution (e.g. the Penalty Fare, and everything that followed as a consequence, was a nullity, and the company is entitled to a second bite of the cherry - there'd still be an argument that the bar on prosecution holds true and transcends that, but the whole thing turns into a quagmire where frankly anything could be the result)

 

[kacper]

For reference, here's a photo of Liverpool Street. Not sure how Tottenham Hale looks.

View attachment 163259

Tottenham Hale has labels on the gates, giant posters and people shouting that you can’t tap in

 

[jon0844]

Tottenham Hale has labels on the gates, giant posters and people shouting that you can’t tap in

Fromthe the photo, the CIS also says it and I see a poster inviting people to seek assistance to check before passing the gates.

 

[MotCO]

Are there two separate issues here?

1. Contactless Oyster was used which clearly is not valid, and the photos clearly advise this.

2. However, if as a consequence the OP was given a Penalty Fare, then the wording on the posters at Liverpool Street need to be compliant. Has it been determined whether or not this is the case?

 

[Haywain]

Are there two separate issues here?

1. Contactless Oyster was used which clearly is not valid, and the photos clearly advise this.

2. However, if as a consequence the OP was given a Penalty Fare, then the wording on the posters at Liverpool Street need to be compliant. Has it been determined whether or not this is the case?

The OP seems to have appealed on the basis of there being no signage at Liverpool Street to say that contactless cannot be used to Stansted. Those signs look very clear.

 

[AlterEgo]

Are there two separate issues here?

1. Contactless Oyster was used which clearly is not valid, and the photos clearly advise this.

2. However, if as a consequence the OP was given a Penalty Fare, then the wording on the posters at Liverpool Street need to be compliant. Has it been determined whether or not this is the case?

It doesn’t matter on the second point, because they did not raise an appeal on that basis over the course of three appeals and the appeal failed.

They raised an appeal on the first and as you agree, it is very clear that contactless can’t be used.

 

[Class 800]

So the CIS is saying that oyster and contactless are not valid after Tottenham Hale. But can you actually take the stansted express from Liverpool Street to Tottenham Hale?
or is it pick up only at Tottenham Hale?

 

[skyhigh]

or is it pick up only at Tottenham Hale?

No, not as far as I can see.

 

[island]

Are there two separate issues here?

1. Contactless Oyster was used which clearly is not valid, and the photos clearly advise this.

2. However, if as a consequence the OP was given a Penalty Fare, then the wording on the posters at Liverpool Street need to be compliant. Has it been determined whether or not this is the case?

At this point the matter is moot as the appeal process has been exhausted.

 

[kacper]

But can you actually take the stansted express from Liverpool Street to Tottenham Hale?

Yes i do it loads

 

[apps_x]

Was it Penalty Fare signage, or contactless payment restriction signage that you used as reasoning for your appeal? The reasoning that the previous appeal was upheld was that the PF signage was not prominent, and/or had the incorrect wording. If your appeal was focused on the lack of contactless signage, it was correctly rejected, as there is no requirement for this signage (although Liverpool Street probably has the most no contactless signage of any station). A penalty fare is not a conviction so should not have an impact on your profession.

It was Penalty Fare signage I used as reasoning. The previous appeal was upheld, yet mine rejected despite the exact same PF signage notice at Liverpool Street.

For reference, here's a photo of Liverpool Street. Not sure how Tottenham Hale looks.

View attachment 163259

The contactless payment restriction signage is irrelevant for the purposes of my appeal, as it is not in the form required by the Penalty Fare Regulations. The PF notice (as seen in yellow) does not use the form of wording required by sub-paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1. The required form of wording is “Please buy your ticket before you travel otherwise you may be charged a Penalty Fare”. The notice states “Please buy your ticket before you travel, otherwise you may have to pay a Penalty Fare of at least £100”.

This is the response I received from AS to my third appeal, no reasoning was given. Do you know if there is a mechanism whereby I can ask them to provide me with a reason?

Perhaps you would post the contents of your appeals and the responses? They are REQUIRED to provide reasons for their decisions (similar to the way that a judge gives reasons for a judgement) so if they didn't you can argue that the appeals process is not one compliant with the regulations and thus the PF itself was not valid for that reason too.

If you don't now pay, they can pursue you through the civil courts, and there you can try to make the case again. (If you take this approach, ideally you want to try to stretch things out so you pass the 6 month mark before there's a final decision.)

 

[WesternLancer]

It was Penalty Fare signage I used as reasoning. The previous appeal was upheld, yet mine rejected despite the exact same PF signage notice at Liverpool Street.


The contactless payment restriction signage is irrelevant for the purposes of my appeal, as it is not in the form required by the Penalty Fare Regulations. The PF notice (as seen in yellow) does not use the form of wording required by sub-paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1. The required form of wording is “Please buy your ticket before you travel otherwise you may be charged a Penalty Fare”. The notice states “Please buy your ticket before you travel, otherwise you may have to pay a Penalty Fare of at least £100”.

This is the response I received from AS to my third appeal, no reasoning was given. Do you know if there is a mechanism whereby I can ask them to provide me with a reason?

Sorry I can't help with advice on further mechanisms here.

However, I would say that given you state you are in the legal profession, and presumably don't want any action against you for c£75 to have an impact on your professional status (if that is the right phrase) or career - I think I'd be tempted to pay the sum asked for now and work on the basis that you could get it back as a refund if you did find a route to over turn this.

 

[furlong]

Up to you, but if still asked to pay under 12(i)(d) or now, I might respond by attempting to invoke 14(2):

14(2) Where a penalty fare is charged to a person on behalf of an operator and paragraph (4) applies, the person is not liable to pay the penalty fare.
...
(4) This paragraph applies if—
...
(b) there is a time at which the person could appeal under regulation 16, 17 or 18, and at that time the operator does not satisfy the appeals requirements.
...
(5) An operator “satisfies the appeals requirements” for the purposes of this regulation if the operator has—
(a) made arrangements for—
...
(ii) a Final Appeal Panel to consider any appeal under regulation 18 against a penalty fare charged on its behalf;
...
18 (3) The relevant Final Appeal Panel must consider an appeal under this regulation in accordance with the Appeal Procedure.
...
SCHEDULE 2
Appeal Procedure
...
17. When a Final Appeal Panel notifies its decision to allow or not allow an appeal, it must—
(a) do so in writing to both the operator concerned and the appellant;
(b) give reasons for its decision;

As no reasons were given for the decision of the Final Appeal Panel, as evidenced by the letter received and as required by 17(b) of the Appeal Procedure set out in Schedule 2, regulation 18(3) was not followed as required under 14(4)(b) taken with 14(5)(ii) and consequently under 14(2) the person is not liable to pay the penalty fare.

The underlying point to make is that, when they don't provide reasons, it gives the impression that they didn't even read your appeal let alone consider its contents, as the regulations require them to do.

 

[AlterEgo]

It was Penalty Fare signage I used as reasoning. The previous appeal was upheld, yet mine rejected despite the exact same PF signage notice at Liverpool Street.

That isn't what you said at the beginning to be fair:

The first two appeals were rejected with template responses stating that the contactless payment restriction is clearly signposted. My third appeal, based on the template kindly provided by the user @scm (https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/stansted-airport-fines.253779/page-3#post-6451904), asserted that Liverpool Street station does not contain the appropriate notice regarding the contactless payment restriction and I provided photographs to evidence this.

The PF notice (as seen in yellow) does not use the form of wording required by sub-paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1. The required form of wording is “Please buy your ticket before you travel otherwise you may be charged a Penalty Fare”. The notice states “Please buy your ticket before you travel, otherwise you may have to pay a Penalty Fare of at least £100”.

This is at best a Hail Mary. The panel may have concluded that this is dancing on the head of a pin - the actual wording exceeds what the Regulation says and even gives the amount - and you were appropriately warned. We have seen multiple appeals based on PF signage to fail. Technicalities which do tend to succeed are the wrong fare being charged in the notice, for example, or the wrong reason given, which causes material harm (or could cause such) to the recipient.

A downside of discussing PF appeals in this area of the forum is that the independent adjudicators are clearly aware their decisions are being made public knowledge and are wary of setting anything which would be seen as precedent. Indeed, you did not even think to appeal based on non-compliant signage until the internet made you aware of this and it was not this reason which made you feel hard done by at the outset - it was the fact you felt you weren't warned contactless was available to Stansted.

 

[John R]

Up to you, but if still asked to pay under 12(i)(d) or now, I might respond by attempting to invoke 14(2):



As no reasons were given for the decision of the Final Appeal Panel, as evidenced by the letter received and as required by 17(b) of the Appeal Procedure set out in Schedule 2, regulation 18(3) was not followed as required under 14(4)(b) taken with 14(5)(ii) and consequently under 14(2) the person is not liable to pay the penalty fare.

The underlying point to make is that, when they don't provide reasons, it gives the impression that they didn't even read your appeal let alone consider its contents, as the regulations require them to do.

That’s a very good spot.

So what happens if GA asks the Appeals Panel to provide reasons? Can they legally do that, or having not provided any, that’s the end of it, and no PF is payable.

 

[furlong]

So what happens if GA asks the Appeals Panel to provide reasons? Can they legally do that, or having not provided any, that’s the end of it, and no PF is payable.

When it notifies it must give reasons.
It has already notified.
It has not given reasons.

There looks to be very little wriggle-room here. I think even "has made arrangements" fails as the arrangements were not actually made even if they believed they were.

 

[island]

As no reasons were given for the decision of the Final Appeal Panel, as evidenced by the letter received and as required by 17(b) of the Appeal Procedure set out in Schedule 2, regulation 18(3) was not followed as required under 14(4)(b) taken with 14(5)(ii) and consequently under 14(2) the person is not liable to pay the penalty fare.

The underlying point to make is that, when they don't provide reasons, it gives the impression that they didn't even read your appeal let alone consider its contents, as the regulations require them to do.

This isn't a get out of jail free I'm afraid.

The regulations require the TOCs to make arrangements. If they made arrangements for people to be given reasons but the humans involved haven't given reasons, that does not mean the arrangements weren't made.

That being said it won't cost a lot to run that as a defence in county court in the unlikely event AGA decides to pursue the PF there.

 

[John Palmer]

Unless there is other relevant material from the Final Appeals Panel that hasn't been uploaded, that Panel's notification of the appeal's outcome clearly fails to meet the requirements of Regulation 18(3) and Paragraph 7(b) in Schedule 2 of the Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018. I am doubtful whether the failure to give reasons amounts to a failure by the operator to satisfy the appeals requirements. I would be inclined to approach the matter on the different basis that if the Final Appeals Panel fails to give reasons for its decision as required by Paragraph 7(b) then it must have failed to arrive at a proper decision upon the appeal's outcome. If that state of affairs persists to "the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the appeal is received" (Sched. 2 Para.15(d) of the 2018 Regulations) then the Panel has failed to adhere to the time period specified in that paragraph for arriving at a decision on the appeal with the consequence, under Regulation 18(8), that the appellant ceases to be liable to pay the penalty fare in question.

The closest civil law parallel I can find to this situation is recent attempts to challenge arbitrators' decisions by reference to shortcomings in or lack of reasons given for such decisions. The tendency seems to be for the courts to be reluctant to quash the arbitrators' decisions themselves, but to exhibit instead a greater readiness to decline to enforce the award the arbitrator has made. That tendency might be followed by a county court hearing a case defended along the lines @island suggests.

This case appears to me to be another that reveals the deficiencies in the regulations setting up a penalty fares appeals process that is left to private operators to establish. Just saying "No" clearly isn't good enough, but nobody involved in the framing of the regulations thought to deal with the case where "No" was all that was said.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Someone in the legal profession must have a clear value put on their time (gov.uk suggests paralegal and trainees charge £134 per hour nationally, more in London).

Unless this appeal is being done for sheer bloody mindedness or the enjoyment of it all, I expect the value of £73 was reached a very long time ago in this whole process. It's commendable that their skills are being put towards challenging a valid penalty fare on a very minor and dubious technicality. I would, however, be concerned that they make such rash assumptions as "London" Stansted Airport being anywhere near London or that that name has any implication to railway ticketing procedures, and even more concerned that they lack the attention to detail to read the enormous red banner warnings on entry to the platforms, above and on the barriers, on the floor, and repeated on the train before and after departure.

If there was ever a case of "just admit your mistake and pay up", I feel that it is this. Then again, ahem, IANAL

 

[furlong]

What date did you submit the Final Appeal? What date was the PF imposed?

You've now got a few layers of arguments available of varying merit. Do nothing till after 21 days from final appeal submission for John Palmer's argument (in essence that the decision is currently incomplete and might time out). My argument that the appeals process itself isn't compliant. Your original argument, that the PF wasn't issued in accordance with the regulations so is a nullity (but winning that one potentially brings prosecution back into play until 6 months after the PF was imposed, though there are arguments against that).

challenging a valid penalty fare on a very minor and dubious technicality.

1) The train companies have made pursuing people over minor and dubious fare technicalities into an art so they don't really have a leg to stand on there.

2) We've debated the wording at length before, so let's not repeat this all here, but in summary the regulations are very specific about the precise words, and the replacement words provide "misinformation" by exaggerating the minimum penalty - they should say £50 not £100. (Side note: London Victoria has lots of notices with the old minimum of £20, but at least that is not wrong - £50 is still more than £20.) On the other side, people like the OP don't read the notices when they travel, or if they do, they ignore them, so what difference does it make?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Like most of the people here, I am not a lawyer, but my work involves me reading reports of cases from one of the specialist tribunals that exist parallel to the courts. And while it would be risky to draw too much of a parallel, I can't help but notice that in that tribunal, when an argument is raised on a technicality, the judges' thought process tends to go something like

- has there been an injustice done here?
- if 'yes' then how can the law be interpreted to right this injustice?
- if 'no' then do I need to look beyond the common-sense interpretation of the words of the law in deciding this case?

If a parallel can be drawn here (and as I say, that's a bit of a risk) then I would say that the answer to the first question is 'no' - the OP used contactless on a journey where (on the basis of what we've been shown in previous threads) the railway make it very obvious indeed that contactless is not valid. So in the absence of any injustice, why should any authority (be that court, railway or appeals panel) stretch themselves to interpret the law in a way that doesn't offer a penalty in line with the failure to comply?

TL/DR: it's £73. Pay up, learn your lesson and move on with your life.