Penalty Fare Notice - Feel it is unjust

[najaB]

I am therefore sending a cheque to you [IPFAS] for the sum of £3.20

*Head banging on desk*

The £3.20 is due to Southeastern, not IPFAS. The clue is in the name: Independent Penalty Fares Appeal Service. They don't deal with 'regular' fares, the TOC concerned does.

Speaking of concerned, I am very concerned that some three weeks after your initial post, your fare is still unpaid - this could very easily result in a RoRA prosecution!

I have given you what advice I can so, barring any further developments, I am bowing out. I hope you get this sorted soon.

 

[talltim]

Hopefully it shouldn't be too hard to appreciate that if you send Party A a cheque in respect of an amount due to Party B, the argument could be made that you haven't attempted to pay Party B at all.

If party B wanted you to send the money to party B, they shouldn't get party A to ask you send the money to party A...

 

[najaB]

If party B wanted you to send the money to party B, they shouldn't get party A to ask you send the money to party A...

I agree that to you or I it appears to be an unnecessarily complex way to sort it out, but they may have their reasons for preferring to deal with it that way.

That notwithstanding, if andygb had done so, the matter would have been resolved by now.

 

[bnm]

Speaking of concerned, I am very concerned that some three weeks after your initial post, your fare is still unpaid - this could very easily result in a RoRA prosecution!

Which, on the evidence thus far, would fail.

 

[najaB]

Which, on the evidence thus far, would fail.

I'm not so confident - the OP was given (admittedly overly complicated) instructions on how to pay the fare, which they haven't followed. And they haven't attempted to pay the fare directly to the TOC, nor do I recall any point at which they have contacted the TOC directly about the matter. One could argue that the OP hasn't actually attempted to pay the fare due, but has instead taken a course of action intended to delay payment for as long as possible.

I don't believe that to be the case, but a skilled prosecutor could make that case.

 

[cuccir]

Andy was instructed to settle the matter of his train travel by paying IPFAS £3.20 in one format (a £20 payment with promise of a refund of the remainder). He offered the money in another format (a cheque of £3.20). I cannot see how there would be any evidence of avoiding to pay a fare.
--
That said; I would also have ignored this and sent the money to Southern.

 

[martin2345uk]

The guy was told explicitly that Southeastern wanted him to pay via IPFAS which he did - I'm struggling to see why people think he's done wrong here?

 

[gray1404]

Sounds like the fare, minus any railcard discounts is still payable so should be paid ASAP. How is the OP to pay it? Not everyone has a cheque book.

 

[martin2345uk]

Sounds like the fare, minus any railcard discounts is still payable so should be paid ASAP. How is the OP to pay it? Not everyone has a cheque book.

But he already sent a cheque for the fare?!

 

[island]

Indeed. If another Govia company (well, any company really) could happily look into accounts and sort things then all hell would break loose with regards to the protection of personal data and privacy.

This is quite wrong. There is a carve-out from the Data Protection Act for data processing in connection with the prevention and detection of crime, which applies to this situation.

 

[jon0844]

This is quite wrong. There is a carve-out from the Data Protection Act for data processing in connection with the prevention and detection of crime, which applies to this situation.

Really? Until now it was just a penalty fare and no mention of any crime.

 

[andygb]

The guy was told explicitly that Southeastern wanted him to pay via IPFAS which he did - I'm struggling to see why people think he's done wrong here?

I am also struggling with this Martin.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But he already sent a cheque for the fare?!

I have indeed, it was sent to a Mr Saunders at IPFAS on 13th April.
Mr Saunders has not confirmed receipt of that as yet.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

One could argue that the OP hasn't actually attempted to pay the fare due, but has instead taken a course of action intended to delay payment for as long as possible.
I don't believe that to be the case, but a skilled prosecutor could make that case.

I really do not see how any sane person with a modicum of intelligence could argue that I have not attempted to pay the full fare.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Others are welcome to assess my sanity and intelligence, but I insist that by not having paid the fare due to the Train Operating Company who carried you, then a sane and intelligent person could reasonably find that you had not done enough to discharge your liability.

The outcome may not turn on this point, and hopefully the collection agency and the train Company may communicate to resolve the issues internally, but by paying the train Company you would have closed one possible line of future conflict.

 

[island]

Really? Until now it was just a penalty fare and no mention of any crime.

A Penalty Fare is issued as a way of dealing with a crime that has been committed. Just because it isn't prosecuted doesn't make it a crime.

 

[andygb]

Others are welcome to assess my sanity and intelligence, but I insist that by not having paid the fare due to the Train Operating Company who carried you, then a sane and intelligent person could reasonably find that you had not done enough to discharge your liability.

The outcome may not turn on this point, and hopefully the collection agency and the train Company may communicate to resolve the issues internally, but by paying the train Company you would have closed one possible line of future conflict.

I was instructed by Transport Focus to pay IPFAS, which I did on 13th April.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I was instructed by Transport Focus to pay IPFAS, which I did on 13th April.

I know.
You've repeated that several times now.

But that was an 'instruction' to pay the full value of the Penalty Fare (which as has also been explained several times now, is all that they are authorised to collect) and you have elected NOT to pay the penalty. I support your view that the penalty is not due.
But that, then leaves us with the fare.
That is due to the Operating Company. The Company whose train you travelled on. The Company who hasn't been paid a fare for that journey. The Company who is still entitled to demand that fare. NOT the company who administers the Penalty Fares system.

What Transport Focus did advise was paying the penalty, and I'm sure you can recall that. The Penalty would only be due to the company that administers the Penalty Fares, and not to the train operator. As you, I and the train operator all agree that the Penalty was wrongly issued, and the operator even agreed to refund the Penalty (due to the IPFAS, the collection agency) less the fare, it rather clarifies that the fare due is a matter between you and the train operator.

But there we are. The facts are not new and have been laid out in this thread several times. You can take the advice or leave it.

 

[cuccir]

I know.
You've repeated that several times now.

But that was an 'instruction' to pay the full value of the Penalty Fare (which as has also been explained several times now, is all that they are authorised to collect) and you have elected NOT to pay the penalty. I support youre view that the penalty is not due. But that, then leaves us with the fare.
That is due to the Operating Company. The Company whose train you travelled on. The Company who hasn't been paid a fare for that journey. The Company who is still entitled to demand that fare. NOT the company who administers the Penalty Fares system.

But Andy wasn't instructed to pay the penalty fare. He was instructed to pay £3.20, but via a £20 payment and a refund of £16.80. He sent the money that he was instructed to pay, to the people who he was instructed - after seeking further clarification on the matter - to send it to.

 

[crehld]

I know.
You've repeated that several times now.

But that was an 'instruction' to pay the full value of the Penalty Fare (which as has also been explained several times now, is all that they are authorised to collect) and you have elected NOT to pay the penalty. I support youre view that the penalty is not due. But that, then leaves us with the fare.
That is due to the Operating Company. The Company whose train you travelled on. The Company who hasn't been paid a fare for that journey. The Company who is still entitled to demand that fare. NOT the company who administers the Penalty Fares system.

The OP was given explicit, clear, unambiguous and unequivocal instructions to pay the fare due to IPFAS. This explicit, clear, unambiguous and unequivocal instruction was made by the train operating company (Southeastern) itself, who are due the fare. The OP duly sent in a cheque for the outstanding fare to IPFAS as was requested by Southeastern. It seems entirely reasonable, therefore, that when a person who wishes to pay their fare is given such explicit, clear, unambiguous and unequivocal instructions about who to pay the fare to, that those instructions should be followed. The regular passenger is not going to be furnished with the fine details of the complex array of companies, agencies and bodies who are each party to the OP's case, nor indeed the inter-relationships between them. Indeed, the OP found themselves confused by this complexity and actively sought clarification about who they should send payment to. How would the OP reasonably have known otherwise?

It is incredible that the OP now finds themselves in a position of being accused in some quarters of somehow being difficult and trying to avoid making payment of the fare due despite having actually sent payment, or the even more outlandish accusation that by consistently and actively demonstrating intent to pay the fare due from the outset of their journey and the subsequent aftermath, and indeed following instructions to make such payment to IPFAS, the OP has somehow become liable for an RoRA prosecution.

Such comments really are unhelpful to the OP who finds themselves in a rather tricky situation which is in no part of their own making. One really has to wonder whether such comments are driven by ignorance, a momentary lapse of judgement or, perhaps, some sort of unhealthy desire to relish in the OP's misfortune.

To the OP: can I suggest you contact IPFAS to confirm they have received the fare you were instructed to pay them along with copies of your correspondence with Transport Focus. Can I then suggest updating Transport Focus with your situation. Explain you have paid the fare due to IPFAS but despite this are now facing threats of prosecution. Seek clarification that the wrongly issued penalty fare has been cancelled and that as you have paid the fare due to IPFAS (as instructed by Southeastern) the matter is now closed and that any attempt to prosecute you will be dropped. In both cases take detailed notes and a named point of contact, and follow each conversation up with a letter or email which details the main points discussed.

 

[jon0844]

I'm sorry for what I said, as I never realised the OP had been told just to pay the fare to IPFAS and it would all be sorted.

I was still of the belief the instructions had been to pay the full amount and then get the difference paid back after.

 

[island]

This is going around in circles :/

 

[najaB]

I was still of the belief the instructions had been to pay the full amount and then get the difference paid back after.

You're not alone there, I must also have missed the post where andygb said that he was instructed to pay £3.20 to IPFAS.

 

[DaleCooper]

You're not alone there, I must also have missed the post where andygb said that he was instructed to pay £3.20 to IPFAS.

Does this help?

Indeed, and I have received this reply from Transport Focus. It transpires that I have to send the payment to IPFAS and not Southeastern, so at least that is a lot clearer now.

"Southeastern have asked that you make your payment directly to IPFAS via their website (www.penaltyfares.co.uk), by telephone (0871 559 2997), or by post. As soon as this payment is made IPFAS will alert Southeastern, and I will do the same. A cheque will then be processed and sent to your home address.
I hope this resolves any outstanding queries."

I will send the £3.20 to them today, and let them make the next move. I wonder how long (if ever) a cheque back to me would take to be "processed"?
I will also send a covering letter, to say that I offered to pay the fare on the day, but that it was declined by the revenue officer who then incorrectly imposed a penalty fare notice on me.

Why would they send a cheque if they are only asking for £3.20?

 

[bb21]

That is not the same as an instruction of sending £3.20 to IPFAS.

While I agree that the whole thing seems a bit ridiculous, I cannot help but feel that had DaveNewcastle's advice of sending £3.20 to SouthEastern been followed, the whole matter would have most likely closed by now.

I'm sure this will be resolved eventually, but seems to be involving a lot of unnecessary hassle as things currently stand.

 

[andygb]

You're not alone there, I must also have missed the post where andygb said that he was instructed to pay £3.20 to IPFAS.

I decided that there was no valid reason for me to send £60 plus £3.20 to IPFAS, because I cannot afford to shell out that money on something which I should not have to pay.
I therefore decided to send £3.20 which is what I owe - not a penny more or a penny less, unless of course you take into account the postage and time that this whole infuriating matter has cost me.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That is not the same as an instruction of sending £3.20 to IPFAS.

While I agree that the whole thing seems a bit ridiculous, I cannot help but feel that had DaveNewcastle's advice of sending £3.20 to SouthEastern been followed, the whole matter would have most likely closed by now.

I'm sure this will be resolved eventually, but seems to be involving a lot of unnecessary hassle as things currently stand.

Have you bothered to read the whole thread?
I was instructed to send the money to IPFAS by Transport Focus.
Who are Transport Focus anyway, and what are they supposed to do?
I had previously been advised to contact them, but unfortunately they seem reluctant to answer my emails promptly.
I think that we need an ombudsman to deal with these transport companies because they are just winging it as far as I can see.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The OP was given explicit, clear, unambiguous and unequivocal instructions to pay the fare due to IPFAS. This explicit, clear, unambiguous and unequivocal instruction was made by the train operating company (Southeastern) itself, who are due the fare. The OP duly sent in a cheque for the outstanding fare to IPFAS as was requested by Southeastern. It seems entirely reasonable, therefore, that when a person who wishes to pay their fare is given such explicit, clear, unambiguous and unequivocal instructions about who to pay the fare to, that those instructions should be followed. The regular passenger is not going to be furnished with the fine details of the complex array of companies, agencies and bodies who are each party to the OP's case, nor indeed the inter-relationships between them. Indeed, the OP found themselves confused by this complexity and actively sought clarification about who they should send payment to. How would the OP reasonably have known otherwise?

It is incredible that the OP now finds themselves in a position of being accused in some quarters of somehow being difficult and trying to avoid making payment of the fare due despite having actually sent payment, or the even more outlandish accusation that by consistently and actively demonstrating intent to pay the fare due from the outset of their journey and the subsequent aftermath, and indeed following instructions to make such payment to IPFAS, the OP has somehow become liable for an RoRA prosecution.

Such comments really are unhelpful to the OP who finds themselves in a rather tricky situation which is in no part of their own making. One really has to wonder whether such comments are driven by ignorance, a momentary lapse of judgement or, perhaps, some sort of unhealthy desire to relish in the OP's misfortune.

To the OP: can I suggest you contact IPFAS to confirm they have received the fare you were instructed to pay them along with copies of your correspondence with Transport Focus. Can I then suggest updating Transport Focus with your situation. Explain you have paid the fare due to IPFAS but despite this are now facing threats of prosecution. Seek clarification that the wrongly issued penalty fare has been cancelled and that as you have paid the fare due to IPFAS (as instructed by Southeastern) the matter is now closed and that any attempt to prosecute you will be dropped. In both cases take detailed notes and a named point of contact, and follow each conversation up with a letter or email which details the main points discussed.

Thanks for this post, I will have to write yet another letter to IPFAS, seeking confirmation that they have received my payment and letter.
Sadly, I do not trust them or RPSS any more.

 

[bb21]

Have you bothered to read the whole thread?

Yes, I have read the whole thread, word by word.

 

[ukkid]

Ipfas is a trading name of southeastern. Therefore he has paid southeastern. A trading name does not denote a seperate company. If it was me i'd write to ceo saying how I felt how I'd been treated and reiterate that I had sent payment for the fare. If it was correct, I might add the fare was always available to them and all reasonable attempts had been made to provide it. l

 

[bb21]

I am pretty confused as to what your position is at the moment. So in your opinion you have paid whichever organisation the £3.20 you think you owe, and you consider that you have done everything right. Is that a fair summary?

Ignoring all the other side-discussions, if that were indeed the case, then surely you have nothing to fear. You can very confidently allow them to take you to court, should they decide to do that, and after presenting your side of the arguments, you believe the judge will find in your favour. From what I can see, a large number of posters also appear to agree with you.

So in essence, nothing else needs to be done from your part, apart from preparing a pack for the court for when/if needed. You can confidently get on with life and ignore all future communication from whoever, until the day of the hearing.

I am not as confident as some other posters, but largely because I am not sure where you stand legally, but if it were indeed so clear-cut as some others have suggested, there is no more you need to do except what I outlined above.

I cannot see myself agreeing with it, for the simple fact that there is no guarantee you will definitely win should it go to court, and by your actions trying to sort it all out, I get the impression that you are not 100% sure either. All of the above would have only made sense had you been absolutely confident that you were correct, but if that were the case, there surely would be no need to have any further involvement with either SET and IPFAS. In the event that you are taken to court, you can grab them by their goolies comprehensively.

All of this means that it would have made much more sense to have simply sent £3.20 to the registered address or relevant personnel as DaveNewcastle pointed out, or, since you requested assistance from Transport Focus, to have followed what they agreed with SouthEastern. I find it unfortunate that you did neither.

Obviously I wish you luck in your endeavours, and am sure this will be resolved one way or another, but I have big questions over whether all this hassle for the effort you invested in it is all worth it. That, I suspect, only you can answer. I hope that expands on my post four upthread, and explains my take on this whole matter.

 

[andygb]

Ipfas is a trading name of southeastern. Therefore he has paid southeastern. A trading name does not denote a seperate company. If it was me i'd write to ceo saying how I felt how I'd been treated and reiterate that I had sent payment for the fare. If it was correct, I might add the fare was always available to them and all reasonable attempts had been made to provide it. l

Yes, that is the logic which I am applying here.

It should also be noted that in the email which I received from Transport Focus, Southeastern had decided to waive the penalty fare/fine, which tells me that it was invalid to start with - as others on this thread have alluded to.
I was from the outset prepared to pay the fare, but not given a chance.
I have now paid the fare to IPFAS as instructed, so I really do not see a problem - apart from the stress put on me over the past weeks.

 

[Llanigraham]

Ipfas is a trading name of southeastern. Therefore he has paid southeastern. A trading name does not denote a seperate company. If it was me i'd write to ceo saying how I felt how I'd been treated and reiterate that I had sent payment for the fare. If it was correct, I might add the fare was always available to them and all reasonable attempts had been made to provide it. l

Wrong.
A company can have several trading arms, and all can be separate for monetary purposes. :roll:

 

[35B]

More to the point, there is a distinction between a company being a wholly owned subsidiary and a different division. Shell owns British Gas, but if I sent my payment for the gas bill to Shell, I wouldn't expect British Gas to be able to account for it.