Interesting to note the last sentence. It seems someone at GTR has been reading this forum.....
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Paid for e-ticket - phone died, penalty fare issued, first appeal unsuccessful.
- Thread starter MaxM
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
The response sums up the problem with this aspect of the railway: it repeatedly focusses on ways that might have been used to cheat as justifications for punitive action in a specific case where there is no evidence of actual cheating nor any reason to suspect actual cheating. The parliamentary debates basically show that the main role of what is today the appeals body is to examine these situations and make the judgement call as to whether or not the passenger really does seem to be dishonest and therefore deserving of a penalty. While it's fair for the inspector on the ground to take a firm line because he or she has no immediate access to all the background information, the appeals process is supposed to step in and fill that gap by looking at the whole picture and trying to separate the honest passengers from the dishonest ones. Contrary to the impression that might sometimes be gleaned from this forum, the primary reason for the appeals process is not to deal with technicalities or issuing errors, though of course it has to cover those as well as they are still far too common. If there were no issuing errors, there would still be appeals upheld because the passenger's behaviour was deemed in retrospect to have been honest (i.e. it was not a deliberate attempt to avoid paying the right fare). The underlying question an appeals body is trying to assess is "Given all the evidence now in front of us, how likely does it seem that this particular passenger was indeed trying to avoid paying their fare?" and in addressing that question their starting point is that the passenger was trying to cheat and so they need to see sufficient evidence ("special circumstances") to overturn that assumption.
Last edited:
@Hadders @Deerfold I found that interesting too.
@furlong Your points are similar to my thoughts on the matter. Furthermore, I did pay the correct fare and have multiple instances of the same journey on other days, as well as having scanned the ticket at the barrier to board the train hence rendering a refund impossible.
@furlong Your points are similar to my thoughts on the matter. Furthermore, I did pay the correct fare and have multiple instances of the same journey on other days, as well as having scanned the ticket at the barrier to board the train hence rendering a refund impossible.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I suspect TOCs dislike the advice here as much as Councils and the Police dislike pepipoo.com (the oddly named advice forum for getting off parking/speeding tickets).
I think the lack of addressing OP's actual reason for appeal by just ignoring it and focussing on something else is likely a deliberate attempt to distract the MP from OP's claim and muddy the waters. Sadly I can't say I'm that surpised.
There are two aspects to this. Firstly the technicalities about whether or not it was issued in accordance with the regulations, indeed ignored in the response. Secondly, the scope of what the appeals process was meant to be doing (and that's really for Transport Focus to sort out with the Appeals Panels).
On the second point, the implementation has become too narrow, in that the various responses we see tend to focus merely on "Was the inspector entitled to issue the penalty?" but that's only the first part of the question and wouldn't normally be the main thing people deciding appeals need to focus on. Often there's no dispute - yes of course the inspector was entitled to issue it - but that has no bearing on whether or not an appeal should be upheld. In fact, those inspectors who have some doubts about the passenger's explanation so issue the penalty and then advise the passenger to appeal are the ones understanding the system as it was intended to work, as the appeals body can make the extra checks that the inspector can't, to satisfy itself there was no dishonesty. The appeals system then lets everyone down by not striking the balance parliament intended. Recall that someone who loses their ticket is, if everything checks out, unlikely to be expected to have to pay the penalty. I think a dead battery where the ticket already got scanned at the gate is an even more clear-cut example of a "compelling reason" why it would be wrong to impose a penalty for intentional fare avoidance (which is what a Penalty Fare still is, notwithstanding the efforts of some operators to broaden its scope).
On the second point, the implementation has become too narrow, in that the various responses we see tend to focus merely on "Was the inspector entitled to issue the penalty?" but that's only the first part of the question and wouldn't normally be the main thing people deciding appeals need to focus on. Often there's no dispute - yes of course the inspector was entitled to issue it - but that has no bearing on whether or not an appeal should be upheld. In fact, those inspectors who have some doubts about the passenger's explanation so issue the penalty and then advise the passenger to appeal are the ones understanding the system as it was intended to work, as the appeals body can make the extra checks that the inspector can't, to satisfy itself there was no dishonesty. The appeals system then lets everyone down by not striking the balance parliament intended. Recall that someone who loses their ticket is, if everything checks out, unlikely to be expected to have to pay the penalty. I think a dead battery where the ticket already got scanned at the gate is an even more clear-cut example of a "compelling reason" why it would be wrong to impose a penalty for intentional fare avoidance (which is what a Penalty Fare still is, notwithstanding the efforts of some operators to broaden its scope).
Peter Sarf
Established Member
This (your second point) is very much how I see it. Perhaps an administration charge to cover the cost of researching the facts. This is a case where it is clear that the traveller was making absolutely no attempt to evade a fare as they had already started using the ticket they bought (on entry at Brighton) and had merely had an unfortunate problem later on.
If the railways (including the appeals process) want to be seen as quite adversarial in these instances then it becomes likely that the customer will also become more aggressive in seeking redress for the railways mistakes. Furthermore the railways should expect no quarter in the subsequent proceedings against them.
Alternatively :-
I recently travelled on valid return tickets without once needing to use my ticket to enter and leave a platform (two times unmanned gates at a London terminus, 2 times unmanned station) and encountering no ticket check on either journey 50 minutes long. The tickets appear unused and I could perhaps claim a refund ?. Should I view the railways with such contempt that I feel justified in screwing them every time I can because they will screw me when (not if) they can ?.
I should add that being honest means I could never do such a thing - but it does leave me feeling like a mug.
Last edited:
Nothing unusual. People right up to the Managing Director grade are known to at least read railway social media, if not always actively contributing. I once had a fairly senior manager tell me how much they liked one of my postings
Wallsendmag
Established Member
There are a lot of people in the industry some quite senior that read this forum
Nothing unusual. People right up to the Managing Director grade are known to at least read railway social media, if not always actively contributing. I once had a fairly senior manager tell me how much they liked one of my postings
I don't doubt there are senior people who read (and probably contribute) to the forum. What I am a little surprised at is how the forum has been referenced in GTR's reply to the MP.
I am in exactly the same spot as you (although this happened only a few weeks ago to me - my phone packed in and I could not display a ticket).
I found THIS on the Network Rail site.
Hope it's useful / inspirational!
Attachments
philthetube
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 3,882
interesting, and conflicting wording there, have and display are very different, if a phone has a flat battery then you have a ticket, you just cannot display it.
I'm afraid I don't think this will be of assistance.
Legally you are required to produce a ticket when asked to do so. Unfortunately if your phone battery has run out then you are unable to produce the ticket and condequently you've comitted an offence. It's the same situatiuon if you purchase a paper ticket and misplace it. You've got a valid ticket but are unable to produce it when asked. That's an offence, even if you later find it.
I do have sympathy for people in this situation and a difficult balance needs to be found between people whose phones have genuinely run out of battery and people who use this tactic to avoid paying their fares. Anyone with any ideas is welcome to start a thread in Speculative Discussion.
AlbertBeale
Established Member
But the implication of the "you're safe from a penalty fare if you have a ticket" message, surely, is that you must be able to demonstrate that you have a ticket ... otherwise this is meaningless. So having a paper ticket, but having left it at home, or having an electronic ticket, but not having functioning technology to enable you to demonstrate that, leaves the railway with no way to distinguish you from a fare-dodger. So they have little choice but to treat someone who's in effect ticketless as though they are ticketless.
NB - if you want to discuss your case you'll need to start a separate thread, to save confusion. No two cases are ever identical.
Yes, and I entirely agree with you, but when a person can later display, through means of an appeal, that they DID have a ticket which purchased BEFORE the penalty / fine was given, then the penalty / fine should be annulled, surely, otherwise this just comes off as a racketeering scam to catch unlucky punters.
The problem is, if tickets are allowed to be produced later then there will be people who never had a ticket who will show another person's ticket. It's difficult to prevent that.
Yes, true. This did cross my mind - a situation could occur where two people could travel together on one ticket and use the "I bought a ticket, look, I've even got a receipt in MY name as proof" as a kind of scam.
OK, thank you for your time, I'm beginning to see the light - I should knuckle down and pay this fine shouldn't I.
FFS.
superkopite
Member
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 204
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Making tickets optionally named and thus bound to an individual is a solution to this.
There's discussion on that here so it isn't replicated in this thread:
E-Tickets on dead phones - a possible solution?
The reason would simply be so nobody else could use it. You could choose to have unnamed but would not have this protection.
www.railforums.co.uk
Peter Sarf
Established Member
The only way out is if records show that the ticket produced later was scanned on the same service or a different service thus inferring it was used by someone else.
In the case of the OP. The actual ticket is tied down fairly well to the service the OP used as he scanned successfully at the origin station. The test would be - was the ticket scanned on the train (for the benefit of another passenger) ?.
My argument would be that if the ticket checks are not thorough enough to eliminate use of the unavailable ticket by someone else should the railways have a right to assume the worst ?. By all means apply a penalty fare and fine BUT upon subsequent investigation I would think it is morrally acceptable to charge no more than an admin fee in place of the penalty fare and fine. Otherwise the railways are going for a policy of guilty until proven innocent. The railways do seem to be going for a policy of inadequate policing and resorting to a close to the wind approach to people who are possibly committing a crime.
This feels like a situation where if someone matching my description committed a crime and I was unable to prove I was somewhere else - where is the guilty beyond reasonable doubt test. Are the railways falling back too much on something weaker than circumstantial evidence to enforce rules ?.
AlbertBeale
Established Member
What fine? No-one knows what you're talking about unless you start your own thread and explain your own circumstances.
- Status