Penalty fare - invalid railcard discount appeal help needed!

[Estelle]

I would strongly advise you to pay the £20 here. You might be able to get the train company you got the ticket from to refund it because of the problems but that is a separate matter. On the Penalty Fare notice you have received what is the reason stated for issuing the notice?

If you pay the penalty fare first and then appeal, I think it would be correct that the worst that could happen then is you loose the appeal. It would be very bad form for them to cancel and otherwise paid Penalty Fare and refund you just because you appeal and they don't like it. I don't think the rules allow them to do this. Penalty Fares can be canceled though under certain circumstances. If you are going to appeal though you have to have valid grounds for appealing.

Thanks for the advice - the weird thing is that the inspector who issued it did not even complete the form properly. He didn't put anything in the reason for issuing, got my details and the due date wrong too. The customer service was very bad! You are correct, I feel that my grounds to appeal isn't strong, as others have suggested, the penalty fare was issued in line with the rules and regulations. Part of me thinks if I don't try I would never know, but a larger part of me is worried that it gets to prosecution.

 

[yorkie]

Pay it (ASAP) and then appeal and complain about all of these things.

 

[Estelle]

Pay it (ASAP) and then appeal and complain about all of these things.

If I pay it, appeal and it falls through, can they still take it to prosecution?

 

[yorkie]

Once they have taken payment, that will be the end of the matter in terms of the fact that the debt has been paid.

That doesn't stop you appealing and complaining though!

 

[najaB]

Unless I've missed it, we don't know what the journey was, so we don't know the undiscounted fare.

Indeed. But if @Estelle was using a 16-25 railcard then the minimum fare at that time was £12.

 

[gray1404]

Is it possible to appeal on the basis that the notice was not filled out correctly? (of course one of us would need to have sight of it to confirm such.)

 

[najaB]

Is it possible to appeal on the basis that the notice was not filled out correctly? (of course one of us would need to have sight of it to confirm such.)

It's possible to appeal on any basis, the question is if an appeal on that basis is likely to be successful. In this case an appeal on that basis might be successful, but that risks the OP then facing a Byelaw 18 prosecution.

 

[gray1404]

Are TOCs allowed to do that though. Revert to prosecution just because they don't like the fact someone has been able to appeal? It seams rather unfair.

 

[yorkie]

Are TOCs allowed to do that though. Revert to prosecution just because they don't like the fact someone has been able to appeal?

If the Penalty Fare has not yet been paid, it could be cancelled and a prosecution made instead. This could happen - at least theoretically - if any new evidence comes to light.

It seams rather unfair.

I don't think the system is intended to be "fair" but that's a whole new topic!

 

[gray1404]

I guess what I meant is that it would be unfair if a customer having PAID it, appeals only to have it cancelled, that would be unfair. It would be like the train company spitting their dummy out because they didn't like the fact they had appealed.

So I understand they can cancel it if it has not yet been paid but can they still cancel it after it has been paid and the customer goes onto appeal?

Sorry for not being clear earlier.

 

[najaB]

..can they still cancel it after it has been paid and the customer goes onto appeal?

In theory, yes, but it wouldn't be likely - it would be more likely in circumstances where additional evidence comes to light that makes what originally appeared to be an innocent mistake actually look like a much more serious offence.

 

[Estelle]

Indeed. But if @Estelle was using a 16-25 railcard then the minimum fare at that time was £12.

Sorry @najaB - I am afraid you have lost me there, does that mean even if the ticket's original price was below £12, using a railcard at the time would make the ticket £12? This term/condition in the railcard is very confusing.

 

[MikeWh]

Sorry @najaB - I am afraid you have lost me there, does that mean even if the ticket's original price was below £12, using a railcard at the time would make the ticket £12? This term/condition in the railcard is very confusing.

You shouldn't be sold a railcard discounted ticket if the price is more than the undiscounted fare. This is what I think @yorkie was saying to @najaB. You shouldn't have had to pay £12 if you'd bought a valid ticket.

 

[najaB]

You shouldn't be sold a railcard discounted ticket if the price is more than the undiscounted fare.

Agreed. However @Estelle was using a railcard discounted ticket which, at that time, should have been £12. You should have been using a non-discounted ticket which would have been c. £3.

 

[Estelle]

In theory, yes, but it wouldn't be likely - it would be more likely in circumstances where additional evidence comes to light that makes what originally appeared to be an innocent mistake actually look like a much more serious offence.

Sorry@najaB slightly irrelevant to my situation, but you got me curious about how it works. So even if I have paid, new evidence comes to light afterwards, they can still cancel the penalty fare and prosecute instead? What do you mean by a much more serious offence? As in not having a ticket at all?

Also I am afraid the £12 railcard term/condition has completely flew over my head. If the ticket's original price is £5 at anytime of the day and after 10am, with a railcard, the ticket price is discounted to £3, why is the £12 relevant?

 

[MikeWh]

Sorry@najaB slightly irrelevant to my situation, but you got me curious about how it works. So even if I have paid, new evidence comes to light afterwards, they can still cancel the penalty fare and prosecute instead? What do you mean by a much more serious offence? As in not having a ticket at all?

I am not a lawyer, but I don't think that once paid a penalty fare can be cancelled.

Also I am afraid the £12 railcard term/condition has completely flew over my head. If the ticket's original price is £5 at anytime of the day and after 10am, with a railcard, the ticket price is discounted to £3, why is the £12 relevant?

It's not. You wouldn't be sold the £12 fare ever.

It kind of becomes relevant if the normal fare is between £12 and £18 because then the discounted fare will be less, but not 34% less.

 

[Estelle]

I am not a lawyer, but I don't think that once paid a penalty fare can be cancelled.

It's not. You wouldn't be sold the £12 fare ever.

It kind of becomes relevant if the normal fare is between £12 and £18 because then the discounted fare will be less, but not 34% less.

Thank you for clarifying, it is starting to make some sense.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Estelle

Whilst we understand that you want to find some way of avoiding this the bottom line is whatever you say happened at Station A or whatever happened at Station B the only really relevant fact is that you bought a ticket valid for a latter train and were caught traveling with an invalid ticket.

Claiming that you were unaware of the Minimum fare will get you nowhere as when you bought the 16 to 25 railcard you will have signed to say you understood the terms of conditions of use or ticked the box when you bought it online to say you understood. Its a dead end.

£20.00 makes it go away forever.......how much time and effort have you already put into finding "a get out of jail card" ?

 

[plymothian]

Not paying attention or bothering to learn T&Cs is a rife these days. "I agree" has been so easily clicked on your computer, people don't bother any more and so get caught out all the time (same with two together not being valid before 09.30).

Also I am afraid the £12 railcard term/condition has completely flew over my head. If the ticket's original price is £5 at anytime of the day and after 10am, with a railcard, the ticket price is discounted to £3, why is the £12 relevant?

Simply put:
If travelling before 10.00 am Monday - Friday (excluding bank holidays and during July and August), in order to have a 16-25/26-30 railcard discount applied, you must pay at least £12.00 for your ticket (excluding Advance tickets*)

So, if your ticket cost after you apply the discount is less than £12.00, the fare must be made up to at least £12.00:
normal ticket price = £0.01 - £12.00 - you DO NOT apply a 16-25/26-30 discount eg. ticket = £5.00 - no discount required else you'd pay £12.00 instead of £5.00
normal ticket price = more than £12.00 and the discount brings it to less than £12.00, you pay at least £12.00 eg. ticket = £15.00; railcard discount of 34% brings this to £9.90, ticket is then made back up to £12.00, thus you save £3.00.

*advance tickets DOES NOT MEAN tickets bought in advance of travel, but the specific ticket type called Advance when you are tied to travelling on a particular train.

 

[island]

Sorry@najaB slightly irrelevant to my situation, but you got me curious about how it works. So even if I have paid, new evidence comes to light afterwards, they can still cancel the penalty fare and prosecute instead? What do you mean by a much more serious offence? As in not having a ticket at all?

Also I am afraid the £12 railcard term/condition has completely flew over my head. If the ticket's original price is £5 at anytime of the day and after 10am, with a railcard, the ticket price is discounted to £3, why is the £12 relevant?

Some of the posts, whilst well-meaning and informative, have brought in additional criteria, cases, prosecutions, rules, and calculations that are simply irrelevant to the original issue. These would best be raised by those posters in new threads.

To come back to brass tacks, the issue was that you travelled on a train with a ticket that needed activating, but you didn’t activate the ticket. You have been dealt with by the issuance of a £20 Penalty Fare, which is the standard resolution of West Midlands Trains for passengers who have made a mistake and travelled without a valid ticket.

I appreciate you feel this to be harsh and are looking for ways to avoid the liability. The only way I can see is if you in fact travelled on CrossCountry, Virgin Trains, Arriva Trains Wales, or some other Train Operating Company not authorised to charge Penalty Fares. If that was so, please let us know so we can advise accordingly.

If, on the other hand, you did travel on West Midlands Trains or another Train Operating Company authorised to charge Penalty Fares, then you now need to pay the £20 promptly to avoid the matter escalating, potentially into your being Prosecuted and obtaining a Criminal Record, as well as a Fine of up to £1,000 and court costs and victim surcharges. The amount is due and payable irregardless of any Appeal you may choose to make (and will be refunded should such Appeal be successful).

 

[jumble]

If you wish to record a telephone call you need to state that at the start of the call, as the company/agent may object and terminate the call. Whether that is right wrong or indifferent is neither here nor there, but you really shouldn't record the call without them being made aware.

I am always interested to hear this opinion because my understanding from a FOI request to the ICO in 2012 is that there is No legal reasons a member of the public cannot covertly record interviews or telephone conversations
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/no_legal_reasons_a_member_of_the
I further understand that in the view of the ICO organisations dont need to tell you they are recording you

https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/is-my-information-being-handled-correctly/

I woudl be interested to understand what I am missing here.


As an aside I personally am not very concerned if a Company/Agent potentially objects or not just as any company who chooses not to tell me is presumably equally not concerned if I object

I found this most amusing from another forum

"Anyone phoning Stoke council gets a recorded message saying that "Calls may be recorded for training and monitoring purposes" so I often do.
I suppose they could have meant that THEY were allowed to do that,but with no pronouns as a guide,who call tell?"


Regards
Jumble

 

[DaveNewcastle]

It's unfortunate that this conversation has strayed from the subject and from helpful advice, because I feel compelled to challenge this post in case it misleads anyone else, taking this thread further off topic:

I am always interested to hear this opinion because my understanding from a FOI request to the ICO in 2012 is that there is No legal reasons a member of the public cannot covertly record interviews or telephone conversations . . . .

I regret that this is misleading on two counts :-
1. The statement above is NOT what is stated in the link provided by the Information Commissioner's Office (that link explains that the exemption only applies in the case of recordings which are solely for the private, personal, recreational use of the person making the recording. That exception is crucial.),
2. The Information Commissioner's Office's advice cannot be construed as legal advice (in fact, the interpretation of private use when the content is subsequently disclosed to another party has been challenged and debated in law several times lately).
Additionally, individuals are in a different position to Companies in respect of recording; they will have certain rights under the 2000 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and the 1984 Telecommunications Act.

In fact, the legal position is far from simple, which is why a frequent solution for someone finding that a conversation has been recorded, is to apply to a Court for an injunction to prevent further disclosure, rather than attempt to take an action against the person taking the recording. When individuals attempt to use unauthorised covert recordings as evidence in subsequent proceedings in Court, then there is likely to be one of a number of adverse outcomes for the person attempting to introduce the evidence, including refusal to admit the recording, a reduced award of damages to reflect the illegal nature of the evidence, or a counter-claim by the aggrieved party.

See Singh v Singh and Ors [2016] EWHC 1432. I can't watch this simplistic statement remain unchallenged "there is No legal reasons a member of the public cannot covertly record interviews or telephone conversations".

 

[jumble]

It's unfortunate that this conversation has strayed from the subject and from helpful advice, because I feel compelled to challenge this post in case it misleads anyone else, taking this thread further off topic:I regret that this is misleading on two counts :-
1. The statement above is NOT what is stated in the link provided by the Information Commissioner's Office (that link explains that the exemption only applies in the case of recordings which are solely for the private, personal, recreational use of the person making the recording. That exception is crucial.),
2. The Information Commissioner's Office's advice cannot be construed as legal advice (in fact, the interpretation of private use when the content is subsequently disclosed to another party has been challenged and debated in law several times lately).
Additionally, individuals are in a different position to Companies in respect of recording; they will have certain rights under the 2000 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and the 1984 Telecommunications Act.

In fact, the legal position is far from simple, which is why a frequent solution for someone finding that a conversation has been recorded, is to apply to a Court for an injunction to prevent further disclosure, rather than attempt to take an action against the person taking the recording. When individuals attempt to use unauthorised covert recordings as evidence in subsequent proceedings in Court, then there is likely to be one of a number of adverse outcomes for the person attempting to introduce the evidence, including refusal to admit the recording, a reduced award of damages to reflect the illegal nature of the evidence, or a counter-claim by the aggrieved party.

See Singh v Singh and Ors [2016] EWHC 1432. I can't watch this simplistic statement remain unchallenged "there is No legal reasons a member of the public cannot covertly record interviews or telephone conversations".

Many Thanks Dave for your as ever valuable contribution
I agree we are OT and will now bow out gracefully


Jumble