penalty fare help

[ciar1]

Hello

I was recently given a penalty fare but want to know where I stand.

I was travelling from crews hill station on first capital connect. There was no ticket office and a sign saying it was a no penalty fare station. On reaching zone 3 an inspector got on and I showed them my zone 1-3 ticket on oyster but told them I needed to buy a ticket from crews hill. They immediately started writing out a penalty so I explained there was no facilities at crews hill to buy one. They said it was because I had a ticket so might be planning to use it not to pay. The complication is that I also had a small amount of credit on my oyster and hadn't touched in at crews hill, I knew it wasn't enough for the journey so didn't even think to.

I wrote an appeal but now they want my oyster record and I am worried they'll start questioning all my journeys because I don't touch in at my usual zone 3 station as there's no barriers and with a travelcard you don't get fined. Will they do that or only look at the one journey?

Where do I stand on this? I showed I had intended to pay by telling the truth despite being in zone 3 and with a sign stating no penalty fares with no additional terms, can they actually fine me? Surely this breaks their own rule?

Thanks in advance for any help.

 

[34D]

This PF is issued incorrectly, as penalty fares do not apply from Crews Hill.

Write to FCC saying that an error has been made, and that you would like to be refunded the difference between the amount that you paid and the cost of the cheapest relevant Crews Hill-Bowes Park ticket (appropriate to the time of day).

 

[Ferret]

This PF is issued incorrectly, as penalty fares do not apply from Crews Hill.

Write to FCC saying that an error has been made, and that you would like to be refunded the difference between the amount that you paid and the cost of the cheapest relevant Crews Hill-Bowes Park ticket (appropriate to the time of day).

If the RPI reasonably suspected that the OP was defrauding the railway, then a PF was an entirely inappropriate way of dealing with it! Details taken, interview under caution if the RPI was PACE-trained, and then an MG11 maybe, or at the very least a TIR, but not a PF.

 

[ciar1]

If the RPI reasonably suspected that the OP was defrauding the railway, then a PF was an entirely inappropriate way of dealing with it! Details taken, interview under caution if the RPI was PACE-trained, and then an MG11 maybe, or at the very least a TIR, but not a PF.

Can you say that in plain English please? Mg11? Tir?

and what part of me telling him where I travelled from while in a zone covered by a travelcard from my usual route is defrauding the railway? The inspector even told me to appeal as I would 'most likely not have to pay'.

 

[Monty]

I do not understand why IRCAS are even asking for oystercard details in this case as its totally irrelevant for the first part of his journey. The penalty fare should be cancelled without further question. As Ferret has said if the RPI suspected fraudulent travel, then an MG11 form should be submitted.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Can you say that in plain English please? Mg11? Tir?

and what part of me telling him where I travelled from while in a zone covered by a travelcard from my usual route is defrauding the railway? The inspector even told me to appeal as I would 'most likely not have to pay'.

MG11 - Magistrate guidence form 11
TIR - Ticket Irregularity Report

To answer you second question the inspector may have suspected that you were using your oystercard as a short ticket. ie not paying for the whole journey and using the oyster to get out of the station at the end. I'm not implying this is what you do, but just an example. Anyway even if this was the case a Penalty Fare was not an appropriate course of action.

 

[island]

They don't need Oyster details. You cannot be charged a penalty fare when travelling from a station that is not a penalty fares station, so the authorised collector was completely out of order and the PF should be cancelled on that basis.

 

[John @ home]

Welcome to the forum, ciar1.

You're correct that Penalty Fares do not apply to journeys which start at Crews Hill.

Penalty Fares do not apply when travelling from Crews Hill station.

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/cwh/details.html

The request for a copy of the Oyster record is strange, and has the appearance of a fishing expedition. If a train company suspects a passenger of fraudulent travel, they may use information available to the company as evidence. The passenger's Oyster record was available to the company at the time the Penalty Fare was issued. If this is no longer available to the company, for example because the ticket inspector failed to note the number of the Oyster card, that is a problem for the train company and not for the passenger. I know of no rule or law which requires a former passenger to supply this information some weeks later. The Oyster card may well have been lost.

I would write a further letter stating simply that the Penalty Fare has been issued in error because Penalty Fares do not apply when travelling from Crews Hill station. I would not respond to the request for a copy of the Oyster record. That is, I would not supply it and, at this stage, I would not refuse to supply it.

 

[34D]

If the RPI reasonably suspected that the OP was defrauding the railway, then a PF was an entirely inappropriate way of dealing with it! Details taken, interview under caution if the RPI was PACE-trained, and then an MG11 maybe, or at the very least a TIR, but not a PF.

That is the other thought, of course. Agree 100% with what you have written.

 

[Ferret]

Can you say that in plain English please? Mg11? Tir?

and what part of me telling him where I travelled from while in a zone covered by a travelcard from my usual route is defrauding the railway? The inspector even told me to appeal as I would 'most likely not have to pay'.

My apologies - others have already explained what they are but to go into more depth, an MG11 is the product of an interview under caution and usually results in you going to Court having been charged with an offence. A TIR is a Travel Irregularity Report - which means it's a matter for further investigation. If that investigation reveals wrongdoing, then again you can expect to go to Court.

The gist is that as per your account, the Inspector suggested that he thought you might not have paid for your whole journey unless challenged, and used that as an excuse to issue a Penalty Fare. I'm saying that he's wrong, and he can't do that, and pointing out what he should have done instead, if he reasonably suspected you were not intending to pay for your whole journey, and crucially, had evidence to prove it.

Furthermore, it seems he knows he was in the wrong having told you to appeal it! This smacks of 'I know I can't prove anything, I think this person is on the fiddle, so I'm just going to waste their time'.

Write to whoever handles the Penalty Fare (is it IRCAS?) Stating that as per (insert website address here), Penalty Fares do not apply from your point of origin, and that therefore the Penalty Fare is invalid. Then have a justified but polite rant at FCC pointing out the invalidity of the Penalty Fare as issued.

 

[bluenoxid]

My apologies - others have already explained what they are but to go into more depth, an MG11 is the product of an interview under caution and usually results in you going to Court having been charged with an offence. A TIR is a Travel Irregularity Report - which means it's a matter for further investigation. If that investigation reveals wrongdoing, then again you can expect to go to Court.

The gist is that as per your account, the Inspector suggested that he thought you might not have paid for your whole journey unless challenged, and used that as an excuse to issue a Penalty Fare. I'm saying that he's wrong, and he can't do that, and pointing out what he should have done instead, if he reasonably suspected you were not intending to pay for your whole journey, and crucially, had evidence to prove it.

Furthermore, it seems he knows he was in the wrong having told you to appeal it! This smacks of 'I know I can't prove anything, I think this person is on the fiddle, so I'm just going to waste their time'.

Write to whoever handles the Penalty Fare (is it IRCAS?) Stating that as per (insert website address here), Penalty Fares do not apply from your point of origin, and that therefore the Penalty Fare is invalid. Then have a justified but polite rant at FCC pointing out the invalidity of the Penalty Fare as issued.

Keep it basic. Don't implicate yourself.

 

[ciar1]

Thank you for all the responses. I have sent an appeal almost identical to what Ferret suggested, albeit without the rant (as much as I would have enjoyed it!) will let you know what happened.

 

[Ferret]

Thank you for all the responses. I have sent an appeal almost identical to what Ferret suggested, albeit without the rant (as much as I would have enjoyed it!) will let you know what happened.

Well, the rant can come after the PF has been cancelled!

 

[Tibbs]

Well, the rant can come after the PF has been cancelled!

In addition to your request for compensation.

Monetary penalty is the only way to make companies learn from their mistakes.

Sauce for the goose etc etc etc...

 

[Ferret]

In addition to your request for compensation.

Monetary penalty is the only way to make companies learn from their mistakes.

Sauce for the goose etc etc etc...

Well, when the PF is cancelled, FCC are already minus the fare owing for the part of the journey up to the boundary of zone 3! Serves them right on this occasion I'm afraid.

 

[Tibbs]

Well, when the PF is cancelled, FCC are already minus the fare owing for the part of the journey up to the boundary of zone 3! Serves them right on this occasion I'm afraid.

But where's the penalty element?

If the rail customer has to pay a penalty fare for getting it wrong, why shouldn't the TOC?

 

[island]

The law doesn't provide for one.

 

[Tibbs]

The law doesn't provide for one.

Never let it be said all are equal, eh?

It's a shame individuals don't have the same resources that TOCs have to bring private prosecutions. I'm pretty sure fraud would be a good place to start.

 

[Flamingo]

I'm just curious, but if the Op had not been incorrectly issued with a PF, but instead an MG11 or TIR had been completed, what would the likely outcome have been?

 

[island]

I'm just curious, but if the Op had not been incorrectly issued with a PF, but instead an MG11 or TIR had been completed, what would the likely outcome have been?

Every chance they would end up in a bit of a mess, judging from previous form of FCC.

 

[Ferret]

I'm just curious, but if the Op had not been incorrectly issued with a PF, but instead an MG11 or TIR had been completed, what would the likely outcome have been?

No further action. Byelaw 18 doesn't apply because the station didn't have ticket issuing facilities, and you can't demonstrate intent to avoid the fare because there hadn't been any opportunity to pay beforehand. FCC would just have written presumably asking for the fare to be paid, which is what the RPI should've done at the time - got the OP to pay the sodding fare!!! Which as far as I can see, the OP would've been happy to do!

 

[Flamingo]

No further action. Byelaw 18 doesn't apply because the station didn't have ticket issuing facilities, and you can't demonstrate intent to avoid the fare because there hadn't been any opportunity to pay beforehand. FCC would just have written presumably asking for the fare to be paid, which is what the RPI should've done at the time - got the OP to pay the sodding fare!!! Which as far as I can see, the OP would've been happy to do!

Fair enough

 

[barrykas]

Playing Devil's Advocate here, the OP has stated that they hold a Zone 1-3 Travelcard on Oyster. That being the case, why would he/she want to buy a paper ticket from Crews Hill to Boundary Zone 3 (costing £3.10 Single/£5.40 Day Return) rather than using Pay As You Go (£1.80 Off-Peak, £2.40 Peak)?

From an RPI's point of view, the fact that the OP is unable to present a validated Oyster card and claims to have travelled from Crews Hill is going to set alarm bells ringing I'm afraid.

I haven't been to Crews Hill recently, but both Street View (the Street View car visited the car park, such as it is!) and the "Stations Made Easy" plan on the National Rail site show a TVM there...But then they also both show the Oyster validators covered up, which dates the photo somewhat!

 

[John @ home]

why would he/she want to buy a paper ticket from Crews Hill to Boundary Zone 3 (costing £3.10 Single/£5.40 Day Return) rather than using Pay As You Go (£1.80 Off-Peak, £2.40 Peak)?

The OP explains in post #1 that

I also had a small amount of credit on my oyster and hadn't touched in at crews hill, I knew it wasn't enough for the journey

 

[LexyBoy]

I agree that it would certainly look suspicious, and such behaviour could result in that passenger being monitored more closely in future. However the passenger is perfectly entitled to use a paper ticket if they wish - I am not aware of any compulsion to use Oyster. For example, if the passenger held a Railcard not loaded onto Oyster then the paper ticket could be cheaper.

According to NRE there are no ticket purchase facilites now, nor the facility to top up Oyster.

 

[zoothorn]

From a recent visit there I can confirm that Crews Hill has only a validator, there are no ticket purchase facilities of any kind there, hence its exclusion from the PF zone

 

[Ferret]

Playing Devil's Advocate here, the OP has stated that they hold a Zone 1-3 Travelcard on Oyster. That being the case, why would he/she want to buy a paper ticket from Crews Hill to Boundary Zone 3 (costing £3.10 Single/£5.40 Day Return) rather than using Pay As You Go (£1.80 Off-Peak, £2.40 Peak)?

From an RPI's point of view, the fact that the OP is unable to present a validated Oyster card and claims to have travelled from Crews Hill is going to set alarm bells ringing I'm afraid.

I haven't been to Crews Hill recently, but both Street View (the Street View car visited the car park, such as it is!) and the "Stations Made Easy" plan on the National Rail site show a TVM there...But then they also both show the Oyster validators covered up, which dates the photo somewhat!

Well, alarm bells or not, you have to have actual evidence that the OP was attempting to evade the fare in order to take any action. Mere suspicion that they might be up to no good (which may be right or wrong) is not sufficient. The simple fact in this case is that the OP did not have an opportunity to buy a ticket valid for travel - FCC's employee got it wrong.

 

[jon0844]

When I went into London yesterday, there were more RPIs than usual at Hatfield talking about someone they were keen to observe. Seems like they were about to start doing some evidence gathering ahead of a possible prosecution.

To me, that's the proper way to do things. If the OP was considered to be doing anything dodgy, like always travelling with too little money on an Oyster and not buying a ticket extension unless challenged, then FCC would need to monitor it - and then go for the kill.

I don't wish to accuse the OP of doing anything wrong, but I can see how there could be a potentially lucrative fraud here and for all we know, FCC will now be monitoring him from now on. They are VERY proactive on revenue protection at the moment.

 

[maniacmartin]

They are VERY proactive on revenue protection at the moment.

Its a shame they aren't proactive enough to install TVMs at all unstaffed stations.

 

[jon0844]

I presume they'd get vandalised too frequently? For one thing, there's no way any TVM installed there would be able to accept cash.

And if you made it card only, I doubt that would be enough to add it into the penalty fare scheme.

 

[island]

Permit to Travel machines then.