Penalty Services - penalty fares appeal company who acts incorrectly and spreads misinformation

[AdamWW]

I am not wasting my time with a 2nd or 3rd appeal, I've simply told Merseyrail I am prepared to defend my position in court.

The 3rd appeal does, I think, go somewhere else.

The impression I get is that generally the 1st and 2nd appeals are a waste of time other than being necessary to get to the 3rd appeal at which it's possible some sense will be applied.

 

[Haywain]

They didn't investigate my case in any way nor did they check the CCTV footage as I requested ( I could tell by their response.)

As an independent body they will have no access to CCTV held by the train company.

 

[Alex C.]

As an independent body they will have no access to CCTV held by the train company.

There isn't any reason they couldn't request it from the TOC if they think it will help review the case.

I accept that most footage will have been deleted by the time it gets to an appeal panel.

 

[Watershed]

There isn't any reason they couldn't request it from the TOC if they think it will help review the case.

I accept that most footage will have been deleted by the time it gets to an appeal panel.

Indeed. We have recently seen a case where the Appeals Body asked the passenger for further evidence before deciding an appeal. There is no reason it couldn't do the same of a TOC.

 

[ainsworth74]

Indeed. We have recently seen a case where the Appeals Body asked the passenger for further evidence before deciding an appeal. There is no reason it couldn't do the same of a TOC.

But only the passenger is guilty of any wrong doing, therefore only the passenger would ever need to prove their innocence. TOCs can never get things wrong therefore never need prove that they are innocent!

 

[Haywain]

We have recently seen a case where the Appeals Body asked the passenger for further evidence before deciding an appeal. There is no reason it couldn't do the same of a TOC.

I'm not convinced that it's true that the appeals body could access the CCTV but it's not something I know in detail.

 

[Watershed]

But only the passenger is guilty of any wrong doing, therefore only the passenger would ever need to prove their innocence. TOCs can never get things wrong therefore never need prove that they are innocent!

Indeed; that certainly appears to be the practical position even though the Regulations make clear that claims by passengers are to be treated as accurate unless proven otherwise by the TOC.

I'm not convinced that it's true that the appeals body could access the CCTV but it's not something I know in detail.

For obvious reasons the appeals body would not have access to a TOC's CCTV systems. But it would be entirely within a TOC's remit to provide them with footage that disproves the passenger's version of events - noting the fact that the burden of proof lies on the TOC, as above.

If a TOC is unwilling or unable to provide requested footage, the appeals body should make according inferences. In practice I fear that's probably not what happens.

 

[talldave]

The 3rd appeal does, I think, go somewhere else.

The impression I get is that generally the 1st and 2nd appeals are a waste of time other than being necessary to get to the 3rd appeal at which it's possible some sense will be applied.

Is that the stage at which the assessors are getting paid 80p an hour, or thereabouts?

 

[AdamWW]

Is that the stage at which the assessors are getting paid 80p an hour, or thereabouts?

I think it was £10, but yes.

However the point is that unlike previous stages there does seem to be some attempt at fairness at this point and we've seen people succeed at this stage when the previous two stages used spurious reasons to reject the appeal.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think it was £10, but yes.

£10 per case was the going rate rather than it being an hourly rate.

 

[CarrotPie]

£10 per case was the going rate rather than it being an hourly rate.

So there's an incentive to just say "no" because then it's case closed and onto the next one.

 

[Haywain]

So there's an incentive to just say "no" because then it's case closed and onto the next one.

That's a very cynical view.

 

[AdamWW]

That's a very cynical view.

If it's quicker to decline an appeal rather than uphold it (I'm not sure that's the case) then it's not cynicism to say that there's an incentive. There clearly is.

It might be cynical to suggest that people are acting on that incentive.

 

[CarrotPie]

That's a very cynical view.

Well what else are you going to do whe you're a single parent with three hungry teenagers at home who you can barely afford to feed?

 

[Haywain]

Well what else are you going to do whe you're a single parent with three hungry teenagers at home who you can barely afford to feed?

I don't see what your personal circumstances have to do with it.

 

[CarrotPie]

I don't see what your personal circumstances have to do with it.

They don't. People want money. If that means dealing with cases quickly and not paying any attention to them, that's what people will do. It's amazing what commission does to people.

 

[Titfield]

£10 per case was the going rate rather than it being an hourly rate.

I suspect that at some point in time someone has calculated the average time it takes to handle each case and then take a pay per hour figure to give a rate per case.

 

[Buzby]

There does appear to be a very close parallel between Penalty Services and the two Private Parking arbitration services (like POPLA) whereby the illusion of an organisation that stands to ‘protect’ the punter is simply a mouthpiece for the organisation that intends to do the prosecution - whether SJ or small claim.

The mistake is in believing they in some way they help the consumer. All I’ve been able to ascertain is that the consumer feels something has been done and they didn’t just roll over - but the end result is apparently the same. Would it be cynical to say that this is all part of the plan, giving the pursuers an opportunity to suggest there are adequate means to appeal, if the consumer is prepared to use them?

 

[AdamWW]

The mistake is in believing they in some way they help the consumer. All I’ve been able to ascertain is that the consumer feels something has been done and they didn’t just roll over - but the end result is apparently the same. Would it be cynical to say that this is all part of the plan, giving the pursuers an opportunity to suggest there are adequate means to appeal, if the consumer is prepared to use them?

We certainly have seen people have their appeals upheld at the third stage.

 

[ainsworth74]

It is perhaps worth noting that these people doing the third stage appeals are not doing it as a full time job. Last time they recruited earlier this year it was suggested that there would be around ten to fifteen days work per year, or at least that was the commitment they were looking for. It is highly unlikely that a single parent would be doing this as their main source of income (and perhaps more is the pity) and I'm not sure that there is a incentive to just say no to get through more cases considering the low level of work expected.

It is clear that the role is really intended to be little more than a glorified volunteer role.

 

[Haywain]

They don't. People want money. If that means dealing with cases quickly and not paying any attention to them, that's what people will do. It's amazing what commission does to people.

If, as you suggest, a one word 'answer' is all that is needed it is difficult to see why no is any easier to give as an answer than yes. Either way, reasons for the decision will need to be given and there is likely to be an audit process to confirm that appropriate decisions are reached. And then there's the fact thst not everybody is as mercenary as you suggest.

 

[Hadders]

I'm wondering if it might be worth an FOI to Northern, Southeastern and TPE asking:

How many PF have been issued
How many appeals stage 1 appeals were submitted and how many were successful
How many stage 2 appeals were submitted and how many were successful
How many stage 3 appeals were submitted and how many were successful

I suspect the figures will show a greater proportion of stage 3 appeals are successful.

 

[SteveM70]

I'm wondering if it might be worth an FOI to Northern, Southeastern and TPE asking:

How many PF have been issued
How many appeals stage 1 appeals were submitted and how many were successful
How many stage 2 appeals were submitted and how many were successful
How many stage 3 appeals were submitted and how many were successful

I suspect the figures will show a greater proportion of stage 3 appeals are successful.

It would be interesting.

What do we think a properly functioning appeals system’s data should tell us?

To me, first stage should be relatively high success rate as it should be weeding out the obviously wrong; second the lowest as it’s the same cohort remarking their work; third a bit higher as it’s independent people dealing with the residual more complicated/unusual ones

 

[Haywain]

I'm wondering if it might be worth an FOI to Northern, Southeastern and TPE asking:

How many PF have been issued
How many appeals stage 1 appeals were submitted and how many were successful
How many stage 2 appeals were submitted and how many were successful
How many stage 3 appeals were submitted and how many were successful

I suspect the figures will show a greater proportion of stage 3 appeals are successful.

If anyone is going to do that it would perhaps be useful to ask how many were paid, and how many later moved to prosecution.

 

[Fermiboson]

I'm wondering if it might be worth an FOI to Northern, Southeastern and TPE asking:

How many PF have been issued
How many appeals stage 1 appeals were submitted and how many were successful
How many stage 2 appeals were submitted and how many were successful
How many stage 3 appeals were submitted and how many were successful

I suspect the figures will show a greater proportion of stage 3 appeals are successful.

It appears that many of these appeal systems do not actually show at which stage the appeals were rejected/accepted in the metadata, which enables them to use the 2 day work threshold. I also vaguely recall TPE saying something about disclosing the way their PF systems worked was contrary to commercial interest on WDTK.

Edit: Found the relevant response https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requ...979/attach/html/3/FOI Response Davis.pdf.html