Northern Rail Fixed Penalty Notice

[becks1113]

Hi all, I was hoping that somebody could please offer me some advice.

I have recieved a Fixed Penalty Notice relating to events that started on 24/09/13.
I first attempted to purchase a ticket when travelling from Daisy Hill station. I was wanting to purchase a monthly pass as I normally do and have done for the last 8 months for my commute to work but unfortunately as I got to the manned booth another passenger was arguing with the attendant at the counter. After waiting for several minutes I had to leave to catch my train otherwise I would of been late for work. I then boarded the train and asked the conductor if I could purchase a ticket to which he replied he wasn't selling them on this journey and I could purchase it at Walkden when I got off the train. After getting of the train at Walkden inspectors where waiting to check tickets, I explained the events that had happened but was told I would been given a failure to purchase notice, and had to pay it within 21 days. He did say to wait till the following day until I paid as he would have to send the ticket off to be processed first. On 25/09/2013 I wrote a cheque to pay the £2.60 and sent it to ITAL, Po Box 212, Petersfield GU32 9BQ. I have been on holiday and when I returned on 20/10/2013 I have received a letter in the post to say I have been fined a fixed penalty notice of £80. I checked my bank account yesterday and no cheque has been cashed so I have now cancelled that cheque with my bank. I rang through to ITAL who told me I can appeal by email. I have proof of all the monthly passes I have purchased over the last 8 month and also that I wrote a cheque and that has now been cancelled by my bank to add to this I can also provide a letter from my employers to say my monthly travel pass is reimbursed to myself which shows I have no motivation to dodge a fair, I have no problem paying what is owed, £2.60, but I strongly object to the £80 fine for a series of events that I was powerless to alter.

I sent this as my appeal and have recieved a reply today stating;
With reference to your email.
Unfortunately it appears that we did not receive the cheque that you say you sent on 25 September 2013. It is the senders responsibility to ensure payment is received and without any proof of posting we are unable to waive the fixed penalty amount that has been applied.
The balance outstanding is £82.60 and must be paid by 31 October 2013. If you wish to discuss payment options please telephone the payments team on 0845 434 8272, lines are open Monday to Friday 9am to 4pm.

IRCAS Customer Services Team

I have replied to this reponse saying

In reply to your email I can provide sufficient proof that the cheque was written, proof that I had to cancel the cheque after the date of reciept of your letter regarding the penalty notice. I am a regular customer who purchases a monthly pass of £56.90 per month and have proof of all these that I have purchased since february this year. This clearly demonstrates I am a loyal customer and an honest customer and on this occasion I made every possible effort I could to pay the fare and the bulk of the failings are on the part of your company. Iam absolutely astounded by your decision to not uphold my appeal and would kindly ask you reconsider. I posted my cheque 1st class on 25/09/13 in good faith, there is nothing in your policy that says I have to post recorded or special delivery, so your going to penalise me for a failing by the postal service or possibly even one of your admin staff and this unfortunately was not something I could track as I was in Tunisia on a family holiday, so could not check my bank account, again I can also provide proof of my holiday.

Sorry this is long winded but not sure how they will reply to this, if they refuse has anyone any advice on what i can do?

Would greatly appreciate any help.

Thank You[/FONT]

 

[DaveNewcastle]

We get a lot of passengers on here who, after having been correctly detected as travelling wihtout a vaild ticket, suddenly find fault with the Railway Companies, but something about your post makes me believe you!

Your proposed reply is a bit on the aggressive side (for someone who still hasn't paid their fare), but it's not seriously flawed. What you must do, though, is enclose 1) evidence (such as a scan of your cheque book stub for the 'missing' cheque) to support your claim of having paid, and 2) a replacement cheque in payment of your £2.60 fare (you must not overlook an opportunity to pay that fare!) and an insistence that the Company refuses your settlement of that debt at their peril.

I'm sure they'll still want that £80.00, but you'll be on stronger ground to challenge them (if you can be botherd) if you've made 2 evidentially clear attempts to pay it, as well as the 2 unproven attempts on the day of travel.

 

[yorkie]

IRCAS are a debt collection agency who don't give a damn about customers, so you additionally need to write to Northern Rail, and I would also make a complaint to Passenger Focus. Make sure the fare itself is paid for ASAP, though.

The £80 charge is not legally a fine (only a Court can issue a fine) and is effectively a demand for payment to keep the matter out of the Courts. In this case, I am not quite so sure they would pursue this through the Courts if you don't pay it, providing you make every reasonable effort to pay the fare due.

 

[455driver]

I could write a cheque for a £1,000,000 and ask the bank to cancel it a few days later, it actually proves nothing because where is the proof that the recipient actually received it?
So unless you have proof that the cheque was received by them I cant see it helping at all.

 

[maniacmartin]

First of all, I believe your story and do not believe that you intended to avoid the fare.

However, you committed a criminal offence by boarding the train at a station where ticket purchasing facilities exist. You should have allowed more time to purchase the monthly ticket from the ticket office. Even if you were somehow unable to use the ticket office, according to the National Rail Conditions of Carriage, you should have bought a single or return from the ticket machine, and then gone to the hassle of part-exchanging it for the season you want later.

Therefore I think it quite probable that if Northern were to prosecute under the Railway Byelaws, you could be found guilty, as not boarding before boarding where facilities exist is a strict liability offence, so intent does not have to be proven. This could result in a real fine of more than 80GBP. The 80 pound so-called "Fixed Penalty Notice" is a term Northern coined themselves that has no backing in legislation. If you pay them this sum, they will not take the matter to court.

I would exercise caution in upsetting Northern and be tactful when writing them. Normally, I'd suggest you wish to close 2 separate cheques - one for the original single fare due, and a separate one for 80 pounds, in the hope they only cash the former. However as this case has been passed to ITAL trading as IRCAS that may not be as likely to be accepted, as it is in their interests that they recover as much as possible from you to keep Northern happy and ensure they keep their contract with Northern.

I'm sorry my advice isn't that helpful, but in future always purchase a ticket before boarding if there are facilities to do so.

 

[martybabes]

Therefore I think it quite probable that if Northern were to prosecute under the Railway Byelaws, you could be found guilty, as not boarding before boarding where facilities exist is a strict liability offence, so intent does not have to be proven. This could result in a real fine of more than 80GBP.

I have prosecuted much more serious offences than this and come away with a Conditional Discharge and no order as to costs. Going to court is indeed a bit of a lottery but, if you present a reasonable and honest version of the events as they happened, the outcome can often be less painful than feared.

 

[Fare-Cop]

First of all, I believe your story and do not believe that you intended to avoid the fare.

However, you committed by boarding the train at a station where ticket purchasing facilities exist. You should have allowed more time to purchase the monthly ticket from the ticket office. Even if you were somehow unable to use the ticket office, according to the National Rail Conditions of Carriage, you should have bought a single or return from the ticket machine, and then gone to the hassle of part-exchanging it for the season you want later.

Therefore I think it quite probable that if Northern were to prosecute under the Railway Byelaws, you could be found guilty, as not boarding before boarding where facilities exist is a strict liability offence, so intent does not have to be proven.

Like Dave Newcastle & maniacmartin, I have to say that I believe your explanation

I have prosecuted much more serious offences than this and come away with a Conditional Discharge and no order as to costs. Going to court is indeed a bit of a lottery but, if you present a reasonable and honest version of the events as they happened, the outcome can often be less painful than feared.

I agree, and having been in exactly the same position as Martybabes on occasion, I suggest that you might like to consider another option.

Write to IRCAS advising that you intend to continue an appeal and include with it a copy of a letter that should be sent to Northern containing a cheque for the fare only and a separate cheque for a nominal amount of say '£10 to cover their admin costs in collecting the fare that you had genuinely tried to pay before boarding and at the first opportunity thereafter'.

In your letter to Northern, you might wish to politely advise that 'as the record will show, you have been an exemplary customer with an unbroken record of purchasing monthly tickets and therefore that you hope Northern will kindly accept payment of the due fare only and will instruct their debt recovery agents at IRCAS to waive all other charges on this occasion'.

The TOCs do have authority to do that no matter what IRCAS and others might tell you because if it were to proceed to prosecution it is the TOC who are claiming the loss of fare.

 

[SWTCommuter]

If you have proof of posting the first cheque, this may be relevant

1. The Universal Postal Union (of which Britain is a signatory) makes it clear that, in the UK, post becomes the property of the recipient at the moment it is committed to the Royal Mail.

2. The Interpretation Act 1997 s7 makes it clear that a document sent by first-class post is deemed served. If the sender has proof of posting (or a witness)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/caradvice/honestjohn/5835910/No-need-for-physical-proof-of-posting-documents-to-DVLA.html

 

[rdwarr]

If you have proof of posting the first cheque, this may be relevant



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/caradvice/honestjohn/5835910/No-need-for-physical-proof-of-posting-documents-to-DVLA.html

What you're actually quoting is a "Reader's Letter" to the Telegraph rather than any sort of informed editorial. I'd take more advice on that argument before relying on it.

 

[SWTCommuter]

I'd take more advice on that argument before relying on it.

Surely that goes without saying, regardless of whether the source is 'informed editorial', a reader's letter or a forum post.

 

[Mojo]

I cannot find the Interpretation Act 1997 listed on the Legislation.gov.uk website.

Section 7 of the 1978 Act sounds like it might be what the letter writer was referred to, but not sure it relates to the settlement of a debt or a payment of a charge.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

My reading of the OP's one and only post is that they do not have 'proof of posting', and so that reference does not apply.

The widely adopted ruling on a statement by post being made at the point of posting is Adams v Lindell (1818) though that has been eroded by other judgements over time. The particulars in that case refered to an acceptance of a Contract, not to unscheduled payments by cheque.
A helpful Tribunal Decision about the time of posting in Browns CTP Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2012] confirmed that it is reasonable of a taxpayer to assume that a cheque payment made by first class post would be delivered the following day, though in that matter, the cheques were not lost, just delayed.

 

[beeza1]

Something about this thread is confusing me, I have never been on a train and seen a guard refuse to sell tickets, even when people have boarded at a manned station, it also seems as though the guard instructed the OP to buy at destination, and yet he still gets nobbled, seems likely Northern were running a sting operation that day.
OK, the Op boarded without a ticket, which raises the question, "How much time do you have to allow to purchase your ticket, 10 min's, 1 hour, 2 hours?"
A similar thing happened to me and several others a while ago, a man in the ticket queue got out a sheet of paper and started booking lots of tickets, he was asked by other customers and the ticket clerk to allow people wanting to catch the next train to get their tickets, these requests were ignored, so myself and several others had to board without tickets, the guard came round and sold us tickets without even asking why we hadn't bought at the station.
I do think there should be some official guideline regarding queuing times.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If you send something by first class post, and you can prove it, then it is deemed as served.

A queue at a ticket office does not mean you did not have an opportunity to buy. The SRA's Penalty Fares guidance states that TOCs should aim to have queue times of less than 10 minutes, but longer queue times do not change the rules so the sentence is essentially pointless.

The 80 pound so-called "Fixed Penalty Notice" is a term Northern coined themselves that has no backing in legislation. If you pay them this sum, they will not take the matter to court.

Given that this is something deliberately designed to sound like a Penalty Fare- for which legislation does exist- it is rather sad that DafT haven't sanctioned Serco and Abellio for this. Though Serco do seem to have form in making up rules and billing people according to them, if their referral to the Serious Fraud Office is anything to go by.

 

[LateThanNever]

If you send something by first class post, and you can prove it, then it is deemed as served.

A queue at a ticket office does not mean you did not have an opportunity to buy. The SRA's Penalty Fares guidance states that TOCs should aim to have queue times of less than 10 minutes, but longer queue times do not change the rules so the sentence is essentially pointless.



Given that this is something deliberately designed to sound like a Penalty Fare- for which legislation does exist- it is rather sad that DafT haven't sanctioned Serco and Abellio for this. Though Serco do seem to have form in making up rules and billing people according to them, if their referral to the Serious Fraud Office is anything to go by.

Quite - you might be able to use Serco's referral to the SFO as a back handed compliment. Eg "Although your major shareholder has been referred to the SFO I presume that your agents have made a genuine mistake in requesting a Fixed Penalty which has no legal basis. Accordingly I enclose my cheque for the fare which I have already endeavoured to pay on two occasions in complete settlement of your account."
Write to Northern not their debt lot! Get a proof of posting and if they cash the cheque you're home and dry. If they don't and they do take it to court it will look decidedly petty if they've refused your £2. And the court might think they are having their time wasted - especially if you point out what a good and regular customer you have been!

 

[Flamingo]

Quite - you might be able to use Serco's referral to the SFO as a back handed compliment. Eg "Although your major shareholder has been referred to the SFO I presume that your agents have made a genuine mistake in requesting a Fixed Penalty which has no legal basis. Accordingly I enclose my cheque for the fare which I have already endeavoured to pay on two occasions in complete settlement of your account."
Write to Northern not their debt lot! Get a proof of posting and if they cash the cheque you're home and dry. If they don't and they do take it to court it will look decidedly petty if they've refused your £2. And the court might think they are having their time wasted - especially if you point out what a good and regular customer you have been!

Or has happened a lot in South Wales recently, a £3-400 fine might be handed down in lieu of a £2.90 fare. Court is not always the easy option.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Or has happened a lot in South Wales recently, a £3-400 fine might be handed down in lieu of a £2.90 fare. Court is not always the easy option.

That would be for a non-attender who did not provide any income details to the court. Quite possibly someone who gave false details and they have worked their way through to a summons.

 

[Fare-Cop]

That would be for a non-attender who did not provide any income details to the court. Quite possibly someone who gave false details and they have worked their way through to a summons.

Although many have attended Court and still faced a lesser, but nonetheless hefty fine & costs when convicted of Byelaw offences.

Northern could decide to cancel their payment notice and go for the Byelaw 18.1 charge, which is why I suggested the course of action in post #7.

Sending a goodwill gesture to cover their basic admin costs recognises that the traveller did indeed fail to comply with Byelaw 18.1, but the record as a good customer of Northern ought not to see a heavy penalty on this occasion

 

[Puffing Devil]

Although many have attended Court and still faced a lesser, but nonetheless hefty fine & costs when convicted of Byelaw offences.

Northern could decide to cancel their payment notice and go for the Byelaw 18.1 charge, which is why I suggested the course of action in post #7.

Sending a goodwill gesture to cover their basic admin costs recognises that the traveller did indeed fail to comply with Byelaw 18.1, but the record as a good customer of Northern ought not to see a heavy penalty on this occasion

I can't recall seeing a Byelaw matter in court. All of the prosecutions I have seen have been under Regulation of Railways Act 1889. This results in a criminal record.

The Sentencing Guideline is on page 89 of this document. This normally equates to a fine of between 50-100% of your weekly income, less a discount of 1/3 for a prompt guilty plea. A surcharge of 10%, min £20 is added + the prosecution costs, which may be in the £100s of pounds. Some courts may question excessive costs, others may just award them.

 

[martybabes]

I can't recall seeing a Byelaw matter in court. All of the prosecutions I have seen have been under Regulation of Railways Act 1889. This results in a criminal record.

The Sentencing Guideline is on page 89 of this document. This normally equates to a fine of between 50-100% of your weekly income, less a discount of 1/3 for a prompt guilty plea. A surcharge of 10%, min £20 is added + the prosecution costs, which may be in the £100s of pounds. Some courts may question excessive costs, others may just award them.

Some courts take the view that the prosecution costs are to be met by the prosecutor! Where the defendant is on benefits, courts will often not make a costs award as this would then be funded by the tax-payer rather than the defendant. And even when the defendant is not financially assisted, courts will look at the harm caused and make an assessment on the seriousness of the offence compared to the penalty to be imposed. Conditional Discharges are not uncommon (and have a very good persuasive affect on the defendant's future behaviour). Sentencing guidelines are only guidelines.

Unless someone has refused to pay the walk-on First Class fare from Edinburgh to London, court proceedings are generally not worth the effort (at least from a cost/benefit point-of-view).

Publicity has the greatest deterrent value, but there is little interest on the part of the local rag for reporting fare-evasion cases.

 

[Mojo]

I can't recall seeing a Byelaw matter in court. All of the prosecutions I have seen have been under Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

Whilst most good companies rarely prosecute under Byelaw 18, of late a number of operators, mainly Northern Rail and Capital Connect, have taken the (IMHO morally dubious) step of taking customers to court under Byelaw 18.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Whilst most good companies rarely prosecute under Byelaw 18, of late a number of operators, mainly Northern Rail and Capital Connect, have taken the (IMHO morally dubious) step of taking customers to court under Byelaw 18.

Page 89 of the MSC guidance actually starts by referring to sentencing for the Byelaw 18 offence as a lower, 'Band A' sentencing matter and goes on to refer to the wilful intent charge under RoRA that attracts a higher 'Band B' penalty.

I can't recall seeing a Byelaw matter in court. All of the prosecutions I have seen have been under Regulation of Railways Act 1889. This results in a criminal record.

The Sentencing Guideline is on page 89 of this document. This normally equates to a fine of between 50-100% of your weekly income, less a discount of 1/3 for a prompt guilty plea. A surcharge of 10%, min £20 is added + the prosecution costs, which may be in the £100s of pounds. Some courts may question excessive costs, others may just award them.

Yes, most will be for offences alleged under RoRA (1889), but it is worth noting what the guidance from MoJ to CPS and other prosecutors (reproduced here) actually says:

Fare Evasion

You will often have a choice between specific legislation relating to the form of transport, and proceedings under the Theft Act 1978, or Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. See the Fraud Act 2006 and Forgery and Counterfeiting elsewhere in the Legal Guidance.

Section 5 Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (Stones 7-7043) is usually used for offences of fare evasion on the railways for:
travelling/attempting to travel on a railway without having previously paid the fare and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or
having paid the fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeding by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance and with intent to avoid payment thereof or
having failed to pay the fare, giving in reply to a request from an officer of a railway company a false name and address.

Section 103(a) Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (Stones 7-7001) covers a person refusing to quit a carriage on arrival at the point to which he has paid his fare.

Both section 5 and section 103(a) are summary only offences. "Intent to avoid payment" in section 5 does not mean a dishonest intent, but an intent to avoid payment of the sum actually due.

There are provisions in bye-laws which cover fare evasion, but in the vast majority of cases it will be appropriate to use the section 5 offence.

Consider using the provisions of the Fraud Act 2006, where there is evidence of premeditation, or persistence, or repeat offending, or large loss by the transport authority.

Where tickets have been altered or defaced consider a charge under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981.


.