Penalty Fare notice

[Phil Holland]

Hi all, I am hoping you might be able to help me, please. My daughter has been given a penalty fare notice. She and three friends got a train to Manchester on a Sunday morning in December. They rarely use the train, only just arrived in time after finding somewhere to park and jumped on the train because the next one wasn't for another hour. They tried to pay on the train and indeed the conductor said he would sell them tickets, but he refused to take cards, he said he would only take cash, which they did not have. As a 30 year + commuter I know that is nonsense. Consequently they got hit with the penalty fare notice when they got to Manchester. Clearly this is a pure money making exercise, with no thought for the customers. I have appealed but the whole appeals process is ridiculous and complicated, no doubt intended to make you give up and just pay the fine, seeming to consist of letters or emails saying I have contacted the wrong people and I need to speak to someone else. The latest email said the fine has increased to £55, not quite sure why. What is the best way forward, please? I don't intend to give up, I think she was treated very badly.

 

[island]

What station did they join the train at?

If it had a card-only ticket vending machine and no open booking office, then the train conductor was right inasmuch as they should have bought their tickets at the ticket machine. Not allowing enough time to buy a ticket is not an excuse.

There may be some other technical points we can raise in terms of defective signage at the station if we know which one it is, as Northern haven’t done the best job at that.

It’s important not to ignore this and hope it’ll go away, as it will potentially escalate into your daughter being prosecuted and she may end up with a criminal record.

 

[Puffing Devil]

I'm assuming that your daughter and friends boarded a train in a Penalty Fare Zone - if you let us know the station name we can verify that.

If that assumption is correct, then @island is correct - your Daughter should have bought a ticket before boarding. Not to do so puts them in breach of a Railway Byelaw for which they can be prosecuted. Arriving at the station without enough time to buy a ticket is not an excuse.

The guard acted correctly - the TVM is card only and tickets are available on board for those who wish to pay with cash. Clearly, your daughter had a card and wanted to use it to buy a ticket. They arrived in Manchester and were given a Penalty Fare.

Unfortunately, your 30 year commuting experienced has not served you well as you appear to have missed the publicity on stations and the huge splash screens on the TVMs warning of penalty fares. The Penalty Fare was issued correctly and your daughter has no grounds for an appeal, other than the slim possibility of defective signage at the station. However, as your daughter has already admitted jumping on the train without having time to buy a ticket that avenue of appeal is very weak, especially as she may have mentioned this in Manchester.

Whilst in no means a big supporter of Northern, I do support stronger revenue enforcement. Far too many passengers have by accident, or design boarded trains without a ticket and have left without paying at the other end. If there had been no staff at Manchester could you honestly say that your daughter would have gone to the ticket office and voluntarily offered up her fare?

I agree it is a money making exercise - it's to make people pay for their tickets before they board the train and to have the correct ticket for their journey. That makes money for the railway. The penalties are there to make the alternative unpleasant, though they avoid prosecution.

Your daughter and her friends have fallen foul of the rules. The law is on the side of the rail company and the Penalty Fare should be paid as soon as possible to avoid further charges and eventual court action.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Hi all, I am hoping you might be able to help me, please. My daughter has been given a penalty fare notice. She and three friends got a train to Manchester on a Sunday morning in December. They rarely use the train, only just arrived in time after finding somewhere to park and jumped on the train because the next one wasn't for another hour. They tried to pay on the train and indeed the conductor said he would sell them tickets, but he refused to take cards, he said he would only take cash, which they did not have. As a 30 year + commuter I know that is nonsense. Consequently they got hit with the penalty fare notice when they got to Manchester. Clearly this is a pure money making exercise, with no thought for the customers. I have appealed but the whole appeals process is ridiculous and complicated, no doubt intended to make you give up and just pay the fine, seeming to consist of letters or emails saying I have contacted the wrong people and I need to speak to someone else. The latest email said the fine has increased to £55, not quite sure why. What is the best way forward, please? I don't intend to give up, I think she was treated very badly.

Have you paid the Penalty Fare? It not, you should, if nothing else to avoid the Penalty Fare being cancelled and prosecution being instigated.

If the Penalty Fare has been paid, you can mount up to three stages of appeal against the Penalty Fare. It might be useful to read The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 to find out the kinds of things that might lead to a successful appeal.

There may well be bases of appeal, but merely appealing on the basis that "it's not fair" won't cut it.

 

[gray1404]

I think as others have said we need to know the station they boarded at and the train company they travelled with and also the time of day.

 

[Phil Holland]

Thanks for all your replies. She got on at Poynton. She 100% wasn't trying to avoid paying. I have paid by card on the train plenty of times over the years, I have never been asked for cash.

 

[Clip]

Thanks for all your replies. She got on at Poynton. She 100% wasn't trying to avoid paying. I have paid by card on the train plenty of times over the years, I have never been asked for cash.

Times have changed now im afraid and where possible you must always purchase before you board - Id pay the PF and chalk it up to experience and know for next time.

 

[Killingworth]

There should be a notice displayed clearly explaining the situation and warning that cash only is accepted on the train. (Taking card payments takes longer and costs the company a percentage to process). There are at least two such notices beside the entrance at my station and it makes the position clear on the Ticket Vending Machine which only takes cards. (Avoids the danger of the machine being broken into to steal any cash.)

Users without a valid card should request a Promise to Pay notice which can be presented on the train to allow penalty free payment - with cash. If the young lady had one of these the conductor might have been able to use discretion and taken a card payment?

Unfortunately so many have formerly taken advantage of the previous lackadaisical approach to revenue collection that now the collection of fares is being tackled some will be caught out. I'd suggest bearing this background in mind when raising any appeal.

Illustrations below are of the notices on all Northern stations subject to Penalty fares, the first screens on the TVM, a Promise to pay ticket and an out of order machine. I would always take a photograph of that out of service screen if unable to buy a ticket as it clearly shows the date and time to prove I would have been unable to use it. If it were totally blacked out, effectively dead, I'd expect Northern to have that on record, but I'd still take a picture to prove it.

 

[island]

Thanks for all your replies. She got on at Poynton. She 100% wasn't trying to avoid paying. I have paid by card on the train plenty of times over the years, I have never been asked for cash.

Poynton booking office is closed on Sundays, but the station has ticket machines which should have been used. I can’t comment on the station signage, though perhaps other members can.

Repeating over and over what you have done “over the years” is, with respect, irrelevant. Northern has been dealing with endemic fare evasion for years and the Penalty Fares scheme is the latest tool in the armoury. The scheme requires a ticket to be purchased before boarding where the facilities are a available to do that. Your daughter chose not to do this. She now needs to pay the Penalty Fare in full to avoid the matter potentially escalating to prosecution and a criminal record. As ForTheLoveOf mentions above, an appeal can be lodged after payment (and its success would lead to the Penalty Fare being refunded), though I am not clear what the grounds of any appeal might be.

 

[Phil Holland]

Poynton booking office is closed on Sundays, but the station has ticket machines which should have been used. I can’t comment on the station signage, though perhaps other members can.

Repeating over and over what you have done “over the years” is, with respect, irrelevant. Northern has been dealing with endemic fare evasion for years and the Penalty Fares scheme is the latest tool in the armoury. The scheme requires a ticket to be purchased before boarding where the facilities are a available to do that. Your daughter chose not to do this. She now needs to pay the Penalty Fare in full to avoid the matter potentially escalating to prosecution and a criminal record. As ForTheLoveOf mentions above, an appeal can be lodged after payment (and its success would lead to the Penalty Fare being refunded), though I am not clear what the grounds of any appeal might be.

Thanks, it is just total frustration with the whole process, compounded by the completely unhelpful email and letter responses that I have received to my appeals. I even asked the conductor on my train on Friday about it, he said he would have accepted card payment and would have applied common sense because we are, after all, customers.

 

[island]

That conductor is part of the problem, not the solution, which is educating passengers that the fare is due before boarding the train and using Penalty Fares etc. to reinforce the education. A culture of paying only when the nasty man comes round demanding tickets or your exit is blocked by horrid ticket gates is what Northern is trying to shift.

 

[Killingworth]

That conductor is part of the problem, not the solution, which is educating passengers that the fare is due before boarding the train and using Penalty Fares etc. to reinforce the education. A culture of paying only when the nasty man comes round demanding tickets or your exit is blocked by horrid ticket gates is what Northern is trying to shift.

When asked a hypothetical question like that about something that happened in the past it's best to answer that discretion might have been used but for reasons unknown it wasn't. Why it wasn't will depend on the way the situation was perceived and played at the time.

In a totally different scenario in my younger days I was asked to accept a cheque when cheque cards were still fairly new (late 60s). The cheque card rules said I must see the cheque being signed*. The well spoken middle aged lady had produced a ready signed cheque to me. I politely, or so I thought, asked her to sign again on the reverse so I could compare with the card. She refused, telling me she'd been coming here since before I was born and her cheques had always been accepted. A queue built up. She aggressively demanded to see the manager. We both stood our ground. I felt I'd lost at the time when I (nobody more senior around) eventually decided the battle wasn't worth the hassle and took the cheque, praying it wouldn't bounce, or a letter of complaint would be received! After she left other customers in the lengthening queue backed my stand, said she'd been totally out of order and that I'd acted correctly. I was left shaking!

I bet she signed cheques in the presence of the payee after that. That's the sort of thing that's probably happening now out on the rail network. "I've always paid on the train". We can't know what else the conductor had had to put up with previously that day.

Nowadays increasing numbers have been taking conscious advantage of the opportunities not to pay on the trains, some on a regular basis. As always a minority have made it worse for the few who make honest mistakes.

The strict enforcement of the penalties so soon does, however, seem very harsh.

* Younger readers may not be familiar with payment by cheque, but 50-60 years ago the well to do might have cheques accepted without much identification at some retailers, and for quite large amounts, as long as they seemed honest. A different world. However, most places didn't take cheques at all, it was totally cash. Anyone who proffered a cheque in those days was usually considered trustworthy, especially if they spoke with an apparently well educated accent and sounded confident. Times were changing and increasing numbers were not honest.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Thanks, it is just total frustration with the whole process, compounded by the completely unhelpful email and letter responses that I have received to my appeals. I even asked the conductor on my train on Friday about it, he said he would have accepted card payment and would have applied common sense because we are, after all, customers.

Common sense is, unfortunately, not a defence to an offence under the Railway Byelaws (which is what is committed when you fail to use available ticketing facilities), nor is it a ground for appeal against a Penalty Fare.

There is a thread here about possible grounds for appealing against Penalty Fares issued in respect of journeys started at a station managed by Northern. Note that, however, you will have to leave aside the grounds of "fairness", "common sense" etc. - the potential grounds of appeal raised there are to do with Northern's compliance with the Regulations in terms of signage and the like; they are primarily "technicality" arguments, and thus you have to approach it level-headed to make sure you have a valid point, and not from an angle of being annoyed.

It is understandable that there is confusion about what is and isn't acceptable, and the actions of some Northern staff, such as the conductor you reference, aren't any help in this. But at least you are aware of the rules now, and thus the requirement to board with a valid ticket where there are facilities to obtain such a ticket.

In a way, your daughter was 'lucky' to have gotten off with 'just' a Penalty Fare. It could have been much worse, as other threads on this section attest to: for example, it could have been a case of her details being taken and Northern proposing a private prosecution under the Railway Byelaws, avoidable only through the payment of a settlement of (usually at least) £80.

 

[Phil Holland]

Thanks all for your help and input, I do appreciate it. As someone who has always paid for their tickets over many years I was always annoyed when it was clear that quite a significant number of passengers simply weren't paying (it was obvious at M'cr Picc before they had barriers and before they had people checking tickets at each exit, on the days when they did have people checking it was amazing how long the queues were to buy tickets!) which probably meant as a result us honest passengers were paying more. I will repeat again that there was no way my daughter was trying to avoid paying. I have checked with her again what happened and I have also been to Poynton station. She said that they arrived at the station in good time but hadn't realised that the car park was pay and display. As they had no cash they had to find a side road in which to park. By the time they found one and got back to the station the train was pulling in. It was on the far platform and they had to run across to catch it. It was only the second time that she had ever used that station (the first time the ticket office was open to get a ticket so she hadn't ever used the platform machines) and she has probably only ever used a train without me or her mum with her on a single figure number of occasions. I attach a couple of photos. The pay and display signs are prominent in the car park and clearly they spotted them. There are no signs about ticket purchase. If there had been then no doubt they would have spotted them too. There is a sign on the sidewall on the way in, but they wouldn't have seen that because it is on the side on the right and they would have been running up the stairs to the left to go across across the bridge. Would you consider that to be "prominent" in the circumstances? I don't think I would

 

[Clip]

I can understand why you are going after this but please take caution - the other option open to Northern would be a prosecution and not a penalty fare - the rules are quite straight forward about buying before you board - I wouldnt persue this if i were you as it could have a worse outcome than you are currently looking at

 

[_toommm_]

I suspect that the yellow sign on the right that, while IMO, not clear enough; is still grounds for the PF to be upheld (notwithstanding the argument about the wording of the signs).

Ultimately you are required to pay before boarding if those facilities are available, and have done for a long time. Both passengers and train operating companies have to abide by a rulebook called the National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT) which state you must buy before boarding where facilities are available. It's just that services up north have previously took a much lighter stance on paying on the train compared to the more London-centric operators (which is probably where your argument comes from).

I suspect as a whole that, while potentially a little bit immoral, and the guard should have probably explained the rules, the PF would be upheld. Like others have said, pay, then argue; or the PF will grow and grow...

 

[najaB]

I suspect that the yellow sign on the right that, while IMO, not clear enough; is still grounds for the PF to be upheld (notwithstanding the argument about the wording of the signs).

It is enough - it appears that you can't reach the platform without passing it.

 

[gray1404]

The yellow penalty fare notice on the platform that the train left from, do you have a photo of the sign. It is possible that the wording may not comply with the regulations.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

It is enough - it appears that you can't reach the platform without passing it.

There is a sign at the entrance to the platform. Good, Regulation 8(2) is complied with. But the sign can hardly be said to be "readily visible" if a passenger is going up the staircase, as it is at 90 degrees to the way they are walking (and totally opposed to the direction they are looking). Oops, so they're not complying with Regulation 8(4) then. If a passenger is boarding a train at the platform nearest the position of the photographer on the first image posted above, yes that is clearly readily visible, as you would ordinarily be looking that way when entering that platform.

Really, what they need to have done is to put another poster at the top of the staircase, or having a standalone sign that's in the path that way, so that it can't be missed when going to the other platforms from that entrance.

Having posters at the stop of the staircase isn't difficult by any means, and I know of several stations that do this. Northern have implemented my latter suggestion, a standalone sign, at Wilmslow (even if the sign isn't itself a Regulations-compliant sign, it clearly can't be missed).

 

[bb21]

There is a sign at the entrance to the platform. Good, Regulation 8(2) is complied with. But the sign can hardly be said to be "readily visible" if a passenger is going up the staircase, as it is at 90 degrees to the way they are walking (and totally opposed to the direction they are looking). Oops, so they're not complying with Regulation 8(4) then. If a passenger is boarding a train at the platform nearest the position of the photographer on the first image posted above, yes that is clearly readily visible, as you would ordinarily be looking that way when entering that platform.

I don't quite understand. Using your argument it could equally be argued that going for the nearest platform the poster is still not "readily visible", as why would my eyes be looking at the wall? I would be focusing on the road ahead instead. Up to the stairs, the routes traced are the same whichever platform I am heading. If the poster were "readily visible" it would apply to both cases, and vice versa.

 

[najaB]

But the sign can hardly be said to be "readily visible" if a passenger is going up the staircase, as it is at 90 degrees to the way they are walking (and totally opposed to the direction they are looking).

It is, however immediately beneath the sign which directs them to go over the stairs to the opposite platform.

 

[cuccir]

There's no harm in paying and then appealing, based on a lack of visibility.

I'm not sure there's much use in us arguing as to whether that appeal would win; I think it's clear that it depends on what is understood as 'readily visible' and to me from a common sense perspective that sign - if it is the only one passed - looks marginal, in that I could believe it could be called either way.

But pay, appeal, see what happens.

 

[Fare-Cop]

There's no harm in paying and then appealing, based on a lack of visibility.

I'm not sure there's much use in us arguing as to whether that appeal would win; I think it's clear that it depends on what is understood as 'readily visible' and to me from a common sense perspective that sign - if it is the only one passed - looks marginal, in that I could believe it could be called either way.

But pay, appeal, see what happens.

That post by cuccir makes perfect sense.

There are a number of factors that need to be considered in hoping that any appeal might be successful, but I'd ask the OP to be aware of the following

Firstly, I suggest that it is your daughter who must appeal, not you. It looks from your original post that your daughter is over 18 and notwithstanding any personal arrangement by which you may make the payment on her behalf, she seems to be an adult.

The need to buy a ticket, the need to respond to a penalty notice and the responsibility for any 'alleged offence' are hers.

Quite often, parents trying to take over in an understandable and well-meaning wish to help or protect their offspring, but this can cause delay and diversion in getting these things resolved quickly because they cannot give a first hand account of what occurred, whereas the Authorised Collector, who issued the notice can do.

On the subject of visibility of a notice, it is universally accepted by all promotional planners that the most prominent and eye-catching colour combination is clear black text on a bright yellow background. It's the reason why all speed cameras are painted bright yellow.

The Penalty Fare notices use that combination for exactly that reason.

I agree that coming from the direction that the photographer is facing in that particular view of Poynton, it is not immediately easy to read without slowing down and looking at it for a few seconds, but it is as prominent at or near average eye-level as can be on a wall alongside the walker and the bright yellow is fairly obvious.

What would be more important in deciding whether any appeal could turn on just that visibility point, is confirmation that there is no other signage on the station. As Killingworth has kindly provided images of all Northern signage in post 8, it is clear that the signs do meet the requisite wording requirement. The constant 'grasping at straws' by some posters can give those seeking help unrealistic hope.

For example, what other signs are displayed? What signs are situated at or near to the TVM at Poynton?

It is important for TOC and traveller to abide by the National Rail Conditions of Travel, but it is not NRCoT that a traveller would be prosecuted under.

National Railway Byelaw 18.1 [2005] makes it a strict liability requirement for every traveller to obtain a valid ticket before boarding any train at a station at which all the facilities to do so are provided. The facility and clear instruction as to what is and will be accepted seem to be in place at Poynton.

If I were the OPs daughter I would certainly pay the 20.00 penalty and consider whether any appeal is worthwhile, but I would not risk the likelihood of a fine & costs that will run to hundreds of pounds as an alternative to paying that small sum now.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

As Killingworth has kindly provided images of all Northern signage in post 8, it is clear that the signs do meet the requisite wording requirement.

I would suggest comparing the wording of the signage to the Regulations, as you are not correct there.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Again and again, the board goes off at a tangent, looking for a potential loophole.

The crux of the matter is this:

National Railway Byelaw 18.1 [2005] makes it a strict liability requirement for every traveller to obtain a valid ticket before boarding any train at a station at which all the facilities to do so are provided. The facility and clear instruction as to what is and will be accepted seem to be in place at Poynton.

Irrespective of any signage, the OP's daughter was in breach of the byelaw. The choice is a Penalty Fare or prosecution. I would suggest that if objections are continued to the Penalty Fare, then Northern would be more than happy to revert to prosecution.

There is no right to a Penalty Fare.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Again and again, the board goes off at a tangent, looking for a potential loophole.

The crux of the matter is this:



Irrespective of any signage, the OP's daughter was in breach of the byelaw. The choice is a Penalty Fare or prosecution. I would suggest that if objections are continued to the Penalty Fare, then Northern would be more than happy to revert to prosecution.

There is no right to a Penalty Fare.

Prosecution under the Railway Byelaws or RoRA is statute barred if a Penalty Fare has been issued and appealed*, so there is no tangent: irregularities in the signage are points which may well result in a successful appeal, resulting in the OP's daughter being not even out of the cost of the Penalty Fare. Things have changed quite substantially in a number of areas through the new Regulations; it is disappointing that people are posting here with incorrect information that they would know is now out of date, had they read the (relatively short) Regulations.

Whilst it is worthwhile to point out the potential alternative outcomes of a ticketing irregularity such as this, if anything, it is those alternatives that are hypothetical and not relevant to the OP's daughter's situation of having been issued with a Penalty Fare.

*Regulation 11(3) of The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 statute bars prosecution where a Penalty Fare has been appealed, if the operator doesn't notify the appeals body of their withdrawal of the Penalty Fare before the 21-day period for the first stage appeal to be responded to elapses (or the response is made, whichever is first).

 

[Puffing Devil]

Prosecution under the Railway Byelaws or RoRA is statute barred if a Penalty Fare has been issued and appealed*, so there is no tangent: irregularities in the signage are points which may well result in a successful appeal, resulting in the OP's daughter being not even out of the cost of the Penalty Fare. Things have changed quite substantially in a number of areas through the new Regulations; it is disappointing that people are posting here with incorrect information that they would know is now out of date, had they read the (relatively short) Regulations.

Whilst it is worthwhile to point out the potential alternative outcomes of a ticketing irregularity such as this, if anything, it is those alternatives that are hypothetical and not relevant to the OP's daughter's situation of having been issued with a Penalty Fare.

*Regulation 11(3) of The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 statute bars prosecution where a Penalty Fare has been appealed, if the operator doesn't notify the appeals body of their withdrawal of the Penalty Fare before the 21-day period for the first stage appeal to be responded to elapses (or the response is made, whichever is first).

You're wrong. The operator can give notice to the appeal panel that the PF is withdrawn and can then proceed to prosecution.

(3) Where a person falling within paragraph (1)(a) has appealed against the penalty fare under regulation 16, proceedings for any of the offences specified in paragraph (4) may only be brought against that person for the same failure to produce a platform ticket or a valid travel ticket if the operator, on whose behalf the penalty fare was charged, notifies the relevant Appeal Panel that the penalty fare is cancelled before—

(a)the relevant Appeal Panel has decided the outcome of the appeal under regulation 16; or

(b)the time period mentioned in paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 expires,

whichever is sooner.

(4) The offences referred to in paragraphs (1) and (3) are the offences under[....]
​

For the OP, this means that if an appeal is commenced on the basis of signage, Nothern can withdraw the PF and move to a prosecution, provided they do so within the timescales and before any appeal has been decided.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

You're wrong. The operator can give notice to the appeal panel that the PF is withdrawn and can then proceed to prosecution.

(3) Where a person falling within paragraph (1)(a) has appealed against the penalty fare under regulation 16, proceedings for any of the offences specified in paragraph (4) may only be brought against that person for the same failure to produce a platform ticket or a valid travel ticket if the operator, on whose behalf the penalty fare was charged, notifies the relevant Appeal Panel that the penalty fare is cancelled before—

(a)the relevant Appeal Panel has decided the outcome of the appeal under regulation 16; or

(b)the time period mentioned in paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 expires,

whichever is sooner.

(4) The offences referred to in paragraphs (1) and (3) are the offences under[....]
​

For the OP, this means that if an appeal is commenced on the basis of signage, Nothern can withdraw the PF and move to a prosecution, provided they do so within the timescales and before any appeal has been decided.

I mentioned this in my post. However, first of all, such an approach would be extremely unlikely, and if it was considered too high of a risk, you could always appeal on a dummy reason at the first stage (say, "it's not fair"), and then use the real reason at the second stage appeal.

If anything, it is far more likely that a Penalty Fare is cancelled on the basis of non-payment than an appeal being made. Indeed, I am sure @furlong would be able to elaborate on the potential implications of a train company settling out of Court with a passengers (accepting payment for a Penalty Fare), and subsequently attempting to reverse such a settlement because a passenger has appealed the validity of them being 'in the wrong'.

 

[jumble]

What would be more important in deciding whether any appeal could turn on just that visibility point, is confirmation that there is no other signage on the station. As Killingworth has kindly provided images of all Northern signage in post 8, it is clear that the signs do meet the requisite wording requirement. The constant 'grasping at straws' by some posters can give those seeking help unrealistic hope.

It is curious that the Guideline says
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/Penalty Fares Guidelines 2018.pdf
Warning notices should clearly state the possible consequences of ticketless travel
but the schedule in the actual regs does not

Standard notice
1.—(1) A standard notice must contain—

(a)the penalty fares logo as shown in Part 3;

(b)the word “WARNING” in large, prominent text at the top of the notice;

(c)the wording “Please buy your ticket before you travel otherwise you may be charged a Penalty Fare”;

(d)the wording “A Penalty Fare is £20 or twice the full single fare applicable to your journey (whichever is greater)”;

(e)wording which indicates where information about the circumstances in which a person may be charged a penalty fare in relation to travel by, presence on or leaving a train is published or may be obtained; and

(f)the logo, and name if the logo does not contain the name, of each operator that charges penalty fares in relation to trains arriving at or departing from the area of the station to which the notice applies.

(2) The absence of a logo or name, as required by sub-paragraph (1)(f), on a notice only invalidates the notice in relation to the operator whose logo or name is missing.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Prosecution under the Railway Byelaws or RoRA is statute barred if a Penalty Fare has been issued and appealed* [....]
*Regulation 11(3) of The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 statute bars prosecution where a Penalty Fare has been appealed, if the operator doesn't notify the appeals body of their withdrawal of the Penalty Fare before the 21-day period for the first stage appeal to be responded to elapses (or the response is made, whichever is first).

If you are going to post an assertion on this section it must be correct; your statement is not.

I mentioned this in my post. However, first of all, such an approach would be extremely unlikely, and if it was considered too high of a risk, you could always appeal on a dummy reason at the first stage (say, "it's not fair"), and then use the real reason at the second stage appeal.

If anything, it is far more likely that a Penalty Fare is cancelled on the basis of non-payment than an appeal being made. Indeed, I am sure @furlong would be able to elaborate on the potential implications of a train company settling out of Court with a passengers (accepting payment for a Penalty Fare), and subsequently attempting to reverse such a settlement because a passenger has appealed the validity of them being 'in the wrong'.

More discussion which is of little relevance to the OP's daughter. It should be in another thread.