Or it could be the way, the government legal service worded it?It’s a pity the DfT civil servant who wrote the regulations that way can’t be contacted for confirmation. Is it really that difficult for a TOC to do?
Or it could be the way, the government legal service worded it?It’s a pity the DfT civil servant who wrote the regulations that way can’t be contacted for confirmation. Is it really that difficult for a TOC to do?
Already asked that...They just dodged the question.
"I am sorry to say that "these wouldn't be the fares used" is a conclusion, rather than the explanation I seek of how it was reached. ..."
Possible advantages of what might be several rounds of trying to clarify with LTW are that they might view themselves as having a duty to respond/clarify, and that they may respond quickly.
If that fails:...
https://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/complaints/appealing_london_travelwatchLondon Travel Watch said:we will consider if the transport company: ...
• Answered all the questions you have raised in your complaint
Whichever, the person who approved the exact words must be traceable, surely?Or it could be the way, the government legal service worded it?
Most unlikely.Whichever, the person who approved the exact words must be traceable, surely?
Therefore, as there are three companies using the route from Kings Cross to Stevenage – Great Northern and Thameslink (as they are both part of the same company the same fare would apply) as well as LNER – the cheaper fare is for Great Northern and Thameslink and the more expensive is if you were travelling on LNER as it would give you access to both companies.
Do you think transport focus would be better? They also cover this route.What a load of incompetent waffle.
There are three companies operating trains between London and Stevenage:
Govia Thameslink Railway (who operate trains under the Thameslink and Great Northern brands)
LNER
Hull Trains (one train a week)
The Any Permitted fare is set by GTR and can be used on any operators service.
LNER offer cheaper tickets but they are only valid on their own trains.
Consumer rights don't come into the issuance of statutory penalties such as Penalty Fares. They would if Penalty Fares were only established in the NRCoT, for example, like happens in many other countries and even other rail systems within this country, but that is not the way it works for National Rail services.Or you could try Twitter, putting the point to one or more organisations.
Someone on here might confirm whether this is a case where any ambiguity or disagreement should go in the passenger's favour (provided the passenger's suggested meaning is possible) because of consumer rights.
I do feel the use of the word "full" is rather pointless and confusing, since it has so many possible meanings, but in this context the only meaning I think it has is that it excludes the possibility of Railcard discounts.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say in your last paragraph, but ultimately I can see no way in which it can credibly be suggested that an Anytime fare is always the "full single fare applicable" despite Regulation 9(6)'s express provisions. Such a situation, i.e. choosing the most expensive fare no matter what, might in certain circumstances also lead to the ludicrous situation where a Penalty Fare is issued on the basis of a fare whose route means that it isn't even valid on the service used!If you are correct (and I think you are) that in the context of the regulation, the word "full" can only have one meaning, then the regulation is clear.
If the word "full" was not present, there would be doubt as to what was; “the single fare applicable”, where a railcard was held but the fact of a railcard being held isn't one of the things which are required to be taken into account when determining the single fare applicable.
Perhaps another word ("undiscounted") could have been used instead of "full", but would it have resolved very much? Would the writers of the guidelines have decided that an Off-Peak fare was in some way "discounted", and we would be exactly where we find ourselves presently? The problem here is their interpretation, not the regulation itself.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say in your last paragraph
7.8 The regulations also “stop the clock” on the time limit for the payment of a penalty fare if a passenger has lodged an appeal. This means that, pending the consideration of their appeal, a passenger will not have to make payment of the penalty fare or incur administration fees for late payment
8.3 There was unanimous agreement from consultees to take forward “stopping the clock” for payment of penalty fares. Therefore these Regulations provide that train operators cannot recover penalty fares as a civil debt until any appeal under the Regulations has been concluded.
This makes it all the more ludicrous that TOCs sometimes claim that refusing to pay the Penalty Fare (or to make a minimum payment towards it) is evidence of intent to avoid payment of the fare.This is another area where the guidance attempts to retain the old regulations, but uses language carefully enough to be consistent - "may request" a minimum payment that the passenger has no obligation to pay.
I think some serious investigation needs to be done by the DfT into why the system is being completely misinterpreted in reality.
They really can't see incompetence when they're staring it in the mirror, can they?Response from LTW manager
“
The words ‘determined by reference to’ are misleading as they indicate that “(b)the day and time of the journey that person is making, has made or intends to make, as the case may be;” would have an impact on the amount of the penalty fare. In your case it doesn’t because the full single fare on a Sunday is £15.10, and the off peak fare is discounted so it does not apply as I explained above. There are examples where there full single fare on a weekend is different to the full single fare on a weekday which is probably why it is referenced. I think it is ambiguous and will see if I can have the wording made clear to prevent other passengers from believing that they have been charged too much, but a change of wording to clarify the term ‘full single fare’ will obviously not impact your penalty fare in any way.”
[quoting London Travel Watch manager]"...I think it is ambiguous and will see if I can have the wording made clear..."
I disagree. I suspect they are traceable but they probably wouldn't want one tracing them and it might be very hard to do so.Most unlikely.
Actually, maybe its not so hard to trace them. I agree with the above. Of course all it might lead to is a cha yjng of the law. Although surely that would need to be done in Parliament.Another avenue the OP might explore could be to phone or write to the DfT and query the intended purpose of section 9(6)(b), if not to sometimes make a fare other than the Anytime Single, the applicable one.
The explanatory memorandum laid before Parliament alongside the draft regulation doesn't explain it. Perhaps it was thought to be self-explanatory? In any event, the memorandum does give the name, address, phone and email of the contact at the DfT, who is given as the person to whom queries should be directed. While it was given primarily for the benefit of legislators to query while the instrument was under consideration by Parliament, it might be worth trying as a first point of contact. It's right at the end of the pdf linked to below.
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE RAILWAYS (PENALTY FARES) REGULATIONS 2018
will see if I can have the wording made clear
Let's not delude ourselves here. They have one set view on what "full fare" means, and nothing will change their view really. They are so deluded they don't even realise there is any alternative possible to their wildly incorrect view.Does that mean they are thinking of paying for an independent Legal Opinion on the matter, which may be one of the easier ways of getting "the wording made clear"?