Stansted Airport fines

[sct]

Went through today. Certainly is another huge poster on the right hand side above the ramp with a few different languages. It's all over the gates too. I wish the OP well with the appeal but I would be very surprised for GA to overturn it given how clear the signage is.

Thanks - a few people have mentioned additional signage and I'm not ignoring these posts but I don't think any of this signage is relevant for the purposes of my appeal, as it is not in the form required by the Penalty Fare Regulations.

It clearly does go to how aggrieved I feel/ sympathy others might feel for me; having been back to TH, I do now acknowledge that the signage is incredibly visible so it was inattentional blindness on my part.

 

[furlong]

I would complete the logic by adding a section about how they must decide appeals, roughly along the lines of quoting 17(4)
"If the relevant Appeal Panel, after considering an appeal under this regulation, concludes that
any ground specified in regulation 16(3) applies, it must, subject to paragraph (7), allow the
appeal" to show this leaves the panel no room for discretion as the facts presented (and in the absence of the submission of contrary facts from the specific date) leave no room for any reasonable conclusion other than that 16(3)(a) applies.
[I've hurried that - you need to expand it and word it better.]


Expand the no discretion to vary the words part by providing the other examples where there is discretion to show the contrast. I.e. the regulations were capable of offering discretion over the wording (e.g. 1(e) - "wording which indicates"), and do so elsewhere, but they don't here, so this must be decided in law as a straightforward matter of fact - are the stipulated words present on the notice or not? You submit that the words were not present, the notice does not comply, the regulations weren't followed and therefore the regulations require the appeal panel to uphold the appeal - with any other outcome you might submit that they would be making an error of law.

(If the 2nd appeal is rejected, then for the 3rd appeal you'll need to pull apart whatever explanation they give by drawing upon legal principles and potentially finding some case law.)
(You might go further and suggest that if they are minded to disallow the appeal they might find it advisable to obtain a legal opinion to inform their decision.)

 

[sct]

I would complete the logic by adding a section about how they must decide appeals, roughly along the lines of quoting 17(4)
"If the relevant Appeal Panel, after considering an appeal under this regulation, concludes that
any ground specified in regulation 16(3) applies, it must, subject to paragraph (7), allow the
appeal" to show this leaves the panel no room for discretion as the facts presented (and in the absence of the submission of contrary facts from the specific date) leave no room for any reasonable conclusion other than that 16(3)(a) applies.
[I've hurried that - you need to expand it and word it better.]


Expand the no discretion to vary the words part by providing the other examples where there is discretion to show the contrast. I.e. the regulations were capable of offering discretion over the wording (e.g. 1(e) - "wording which indicates"), and do so elsewhere, but they don't here, so this must be decided in law as a straightforward matter of fact - are the stipulated words present on the notice or not? You submit that the words were not present, the notice does not comply, the regulations weren't followed and therefore the regulations require the appeal panel to uphold the appeal - with any other outcome you might submit that they would be making an error of law.

(If the 2nd appeal is rejected, then for the 3rd appeal you'll need to pull apart whatever explanation they give by drawing upon legal principles and potentially finding some case law.)
(You might go further and suggest that if they are minded to disallow the appeal they might find it advisable to obtain a legal opinion to inform their decision.)

This is super helpful and makes sense - I'll amend on that basis. Thank you so much for taking the time to read and provide feedback.

 

[Watershed]

Hi - comments welcome on my draft appeal submissions below (which I intend to submit at some point over the weekend). @Watershed, would particularly appreciate your views if you have a moment. If the tone is wrong I can make it less formal.

Background

This is my second appeal in relation to Penalty Fare Notice [redacted]. Further background information can be found in my original appeal submissions.

My appeal is based on Greater Anglia’s failure to comply with the notice requirements of The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 (the “Regulations”) (as detailed below).

However, I would also like to reiterate that my failure to purchase a ticket was a genuine error and not an attempt to evade the fare. This is evidenced by the fact that I used my contactless card to touch in at Tottenham Hale (demonstrating an intention to pay) and by my proactive engagement with a ticket officer immediately upon becoming aware of the issue. [I know this is not strictly relevant but I want to include it because v important for me to make clear in all correspondence that it was not a dishonesty offence.]

Relevant sections of the Regulations

Regulation 6(2)(b) states that a passenger must not be charged a Penalty Fare if “at the time when, and at the station where, the passenger boarded the train… the requirements for the display of notices specified in regulation 8 were not satisfied;”

The relevant sections of Regulation 8 are as follows:

"8.—(1) The requirements for the display of notices are as follows.
(4) Standard notices and compulsory ticket area notices must also be displayed at sufficient locations around the station so that at least one notice is readily visible to passengers prior to boarding a train at the station, including passengers changing from one train to another train"

The relevant sections of paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 are as follows:

“1.—(1) A standard notice must contain—
(c)the wording “Please buy your ticket before you travel otherwise you may be charged a Penalty Fare”,

Notices readily visible at Tottenham Hale

I submit the notice at Tottenham Hale does not meet the requirements of the Penalty Fare Regulations. I attended Tottenham Hale station at approximately 4:30pm on 10 September and paid close attention to the notices. I attach photographs that I took at that time.

Assuming that the notices have not changed between my fine on 25 August and 10 September (which seems likely), these photographs demonstrate that the notice at Tottenham Hale is deficient for the following reasons:

• the relevant notice can be seen on the right of the first photograph attached. It is obscured by another sign and therefore is not ‘readily visible’ to passengers transferring from the London Underground, as required by Regulation 8(4).
• the notice does not use the prescribed form of wording required by sub-paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1. This wording has been included in quotation marks in the Regulations and therefore it is clear that the precise form of wording is required in order for the notice to be legally compliant. No discretion is granted to the operators to amend or paraphrase this form of wording.

[I note that there is more general signage regarding the use of contactless payments on the ticket gates. It is clear that these signs are not compliant with Regulation 8 and therefore I am not considering in any more detail (although I would note for completeness that I also did not notice these signs).] [Thoughts on whether to include this welcome]

[Include a conclusion? Inclined not as makes too lengthy)]

This is a very well-drafted appeal overall - yes, it's formal, but this is essentially a legal process so that's entirely appropriate.

It's worth noting that Regulation 16(4) provides that:

(4) Where the appellant makes representations as part of an appeal under this regulation in relation to any of the matters specified in paragraph (5), it is for the operator on whose behalf the penalty fare was charged to provide evidence that reasonably demonstrates that any fact described by the appellant in relation to any of those matters is not true.

Paragraph (5) includes reference to the question of "whether any of the circumstances mentioned in regulations [sic] 6(2) applied" - and Regulation 6(2) imposes the signage requirements on which your appeal is founded.

Therefore, for the purposes of this appeal, it's for GA to disprove any assertion you make, and accordingly you can be more assertive when it comes to the second paragraph of your "Notices readily visible" section. I would perhaps change "(which seems likely)" to "(Regulation 16(4) provides that the burden of proof falls on the operator to disprove that this is the case)".

I would also quote the part of the wording that is non-compliant - the Appeals Body is (frankly) stupid, so you want to make it as simple as possible for them to understand what you're saying.

I would include your penultimate paragraph but just slightly alter it to state that, whilst there is some general signage warning about Penalty Fares and contactless payment, this signage does not comply with Regulation 8 and so has no relevance to the appeal. I wouldn't admit having seen or read it - that will only be used against you by the Appeals Body.

I would certainly include a conclusion that, as @furlong suggests, closes the "loop" to explain that a failure to comply with the wording requirements under Regulation 8(4) and Schedule 1 means the Appeals Body is required to allow the appeal - there's no element of discretion to it.

It's up to you whether you include further grounds of appeal - you might decide that it's worthwhile including a "compelling reasons" appeal (Regulation 16(3)(d)) for instance.

 

[furlong]

It's up to you whether you include further grounds of appeal - you might decide that it's worthwhile including a "compelling reasons" appeal (Regulation 16(3)(d)) for instance.

I would always include a plausible second independent argument like that. This means that, if they accept the inevitability of the correctness of your signage argument but are scared of the wider implications, they can uphold the appeal on the grounds of your second argument and dodge having to admit anything about their signage fiasco.

 

[sct]

Thank you both so much for taking the time to review and provide such considered comments - it really is so kind of you and I am incredibly grateful. All of these comments make sense so I'll amend on that basis and submit over the weekend. Will keep you posted.

For completeness, here is what I have now submitted (incidentally, terrible system, which limits number of words to 2000 and doesn't allow line spacing. I've submitted as PDF too in the hopes someone can actually read, not sure how they are expected to read blocks of text!). Many thanks again both for your help.

Background

This is my second appeal in relation to Penalty Fare Notice [redacted]. Further background information can be found in my original appeal submissions.

My appeal is based on Regulation 16(3)(a) - that “the penalty fare was not charged in accordance with the requirements of these Regulations;” based on the failure of Greater Anglia to meet the notice requirements specified in Regulation 8.

My appeal is also based on Regulation 16(3)(d) that “there are compelling reasons why, in the particular circumstances of the case, the appellant should not be liable to pay the penalty fare.”.

Relevant sections of the Regulations

Regulation 6(2)(b) states that a passenger must not be charged a Penalty Fare if “at the time when, and at the station where, the passenger boarded the train… the requirements for the display of notices specified in regulation 8 were not satisfied;”

The relevant sections of Regulation 8 are as follows:

"8.—(1) The requirements for the display of notices are as follows.
(4) Standard notices and compulsory ticket area notices must also be displayed at sufficient locations around the station so that at least one notice is readily visible to passengers prior to boarding a train at the station, including passengers changing from one train to another train"

The relevant sections of paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 are as follows:

“1.—(1) A standard notice must contain—
(c)the wording “Please buy your ticket before you travel otherwise you may be charged a Penalty Fare”,

Regulation 16(3)(a) grounds for appeal - Tottenham Hale notices

I submit the notice at Tottenham Hale does not meet the requirements of the Penalty Fare Regulations. I attended Tottenham Hale station at approximately 4:30pm on 10 September and paid close attention to the notices. I attach photographs that I took at that time.

Assuming that the notices were in this form when I travelled on 25 August (Regulation 16(4) provides that the burden of proof falls on the operator to disprove this assumption), these photographs demonstrate that the notice at Tottenham Hale is deficient for the following reasons:

1. the relevant notice can be seen on the right of the first photograph attached. It is obscured by another sign and therefore is not ‘readily visible’ to passengers transferring from the London Underground, as required by Regulation 8(4).

2. The notice does not use the form of wording required by sub-paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1.

The required form of wording is “Please buy your ticket before you travel otherwise you may be charged a Penalty Fare”. The notice states “Please buy your ticket before you travel, otherwise you may have to pay a Penalty Fare of at least £100”.

This wording has been included in quotation marks in the Regulations and therefore it is clear that the precise form of wording is required in order for the notice to be legally compliant.

No discretion is granted to the operators to amend or paraphrase this form of wording. I note that, in contrast, other sub-paragraphs of this provision do permit operators discretion over the form of wording to use on notices - for example, paragraph 1(1)(e) which uses the formulation ‘wording which indicates’. However, paragraph 1(1)(c) very clearly and intentionally does not permit operators any flexibility on this point. Failure to use the prescribed wording therefore renders the notice non-compliant with the Regulations.

I note that there is more general signage regarding the use of contactless payments at Tottenham Hale. It is evident that these signs are not compliant with Regulation 8 and therefore are irrelevant for the purposes of this appeal.

Regulation 16(3)(d) appeal - compelling reasons not liable to pay the penalty fare

Further, I submit that there are compelling reasons that I should not be liable to pay the penalty fare. I submit that I made an honest error, and that the confusing ticketing requirements on my route contributed to my mistake. In addition, I have reason to believe my experience is indicative of wider issues on this route and sharp practice by Greater Anglia.

My failure to purchase a ticket was a genuine error. Personal integrity is of the utmost importance to me; I did not (and would never) intentionally fare evade. This is evidenced by the fact that I used my contactless card to touch in at Tottenham Hale (demonstrating an intention to pay) and by my proactive engagement with a ticket officer immediately upon becoming aware of the issue.

I believe that this route is a particularly confusing ticketing system and that Greater Anglia are profiting from passengers’ lack of understanding. Greater Anglia have, to date, failed to provide me with the data of penalty fares charged at Stansted Airport, despite my request to do so. However, there has been publicity regarding the number of penalty fares issued on this route before. I have also corresponded with London Travel Watch, who inform me that they are aware of penalty fare issues on this route.

There are also many stories and reviews available online of passengers who believe they have behaved honestly and diligently but have been ‘caught out’ by this route. Many of these individuals will be visitors to this country and therefore particularly susceptible to making this mistake due to lack of familiarity with England’s geography, railway ticketing system, and/or language.

The following factors contributed to my own confusion: (i) London Stansted is the only major London airport where contactless payments are not accepted at the train station, (ii) I was able to ‘touch in’ at Tottenham Hale without issue, and (iii) the airport is named London Stansted so I believed it to be part of the London contactless area.

In this context, I note the comments made by the Minister of State for Transport at the time the Regulations were enacted: "Rail users should make every effort to get the right ticket for their journey, but if you make an honest mistake you should feel confident that the appeals system will recognise this and treat you fairly.”.

I do not believe it would be fair for me to have to pay a penalty fare, given my honest behaviour, the circumstances of my mistake and the known issues on this route.

Conclusion

Regulation 17(4) provides that “If the relevant Appeal Panel, after considering an appeal under this regulation, concludes that any ground specified in regulation 16(3) applies, it must, subject to paragraph (7), allow the appeal.”

The evidence I have provided demonstrates that the penalty fare I received was not charged in accordance with the Regulations, due to Greater Anglia’s failure to comply with Regulation 8(4) and paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1.

The Regulations are extremely clear on this point. Notices must use the exact form of wording set out in the relevant provision of the Regulations. Failure to do so means that the notices do not comply with the Regulations. If the notices do not comply with the Regulations, a penalty fare must not be charged.

Therefore I submit that the Appeals Body is required under Regulation 17(4) to allow my appeal and to disallow my appeal would be an error of law.

If the Appeals Body were minded to disallow my appeal (which I hope will not be the case), I would encourage it to take legal advice in relation to the interpretation of these provisions in order to inform its decision and would request that details of its legal analysis is included in the decision.

Further or in the alternative, I submit that Regulation 16(3)(d) applies for the reasons set out above and ask the Appeals Body to find that there are compelling reasons I should not be liable to pay the penalty fare.

 

[Watershed]

Thank you both so much for taking the time to review and provide such considered comments - it really is so kind of you and I am incredibly grateful. All of these comments make sense so I'll amend on that basis and submit over the weekend. Will keep you posted.

For completeness, here is what I have now submitted (incidentally, terrible system, which limits number of words to 2000 and doesn't allow line spacing. I've submitted as PDF too in the hopes someone can actually read, not sure how they are expected to read blocks of text!). Many thanks again both for your help.

Background

This is my second appeal in relation to Penalty Fare Notice [redacted]. Further background information can be found in my original appeal submissions.

My appeal is based on Regulation 16(3)(a) - that “the penalty fare was not charged in accordance with the requirements of these Regulations;” based on the failure of Greater Anglia to meet the notice requirements specified in Regulation 8.

My appeal is also based on Regulation 16(3)(d) that “there are compelling reasons why, in the particular circumstances of the case, the appellant should not be liable to pay the penalty fare.”.

Relevant sections of the Regulations

Regulation 6(2)(b) states that a passenger must not be charged a Penalty Fare if “at the time when, and at the station where, the passenger boarded the train… the requirements for the display of notices specified in regulation 8 were not satisfied;”

The relevant sections of Regulation 8 are as follows:

"8.—(1) The requirements for the display of notices are as follows.
(4) Standard notices and compulsory ticket area notices must also be displayed at sufficient locations around the station so that at least one notice is readily visible to passengers prior to boarding a train at the station, including passengers changing from one train to another train"

The relevant sections of paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 are as follows:

“1.—(1) A standard notice must contain—
(c)the wording “Please buy your ticket before you travel otherwise you may be charged a Penalty Fare”,

Regulation 16(3)(a) grounds for appeal - Tottenham Hale notices

I submit the notice at Tottenham Hale does not meet the requirements of the Penalty Fare Regulations. I attended Tottenham Hale station at approximately 4:30pm on 10 September and paid close attention to the notices. I attach photographs that I took at that time.

Assuming that the notices were in this form when I travelled on 25 August (Regulation 16(4) provides that the burden of proof falls on the operator to disprove this assumption), these photographs demonstrate that the notice at Tottenham Hale is deficient for the following reasons:

1. the relevant notice can be seen on the right of the first photograph attached. It is obscured by another sign and therefore is not ‘readily visible’ to passengers transferring from the London Underground, as required by Regulation 8(4).

2. The notice does not use the form of wording required by sub-paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1.

The required form of wording is “Please buy your ticket before you travel otherwise you may be charged a Penalty Fare”. The notice states “Please buy your ticket before you travel, otherwise you may have to pay a Penalty Fare of at least £100”.

This wording has been included in quotation marks in the Regulations and therefore it is clear that the precise form of wording is required in order for the notice to be legally compliant.

No discretion is granted to the operators to amend or paraphrase this form of wording. I note that, in contrast, other sub-paragraphs of this provision do permit operators discretion over the form of wording to use on notices - for example, paragraph 1(1)(e) which uses the formulation ‘wording which indicates’. However, paragraph 1(1)(c) very clearly and intentionally does not permit operators any flexibility on this point. Failure to use the prescribed wording therefore renders the notice non-compliant with the Regulations.

I note that there is more general signage regarding the use of contactless payments at Tottenham Hale. It is evident that these signs are not compliant with Regulation 8 and therefore are irrelevant for the purposes of this appeal.

Regulation 16(3)(d) appeal - compelling reasons not liable to pay the penalty fare

Further, I submit that there are compelling reasons that I should not be liable to pay the penalty fare. I submit that I made an honest error, and that the confusing ticketing requirements on my route contributed to my mistake. In addition, I have reason to believe my experience is indicative of wider issues on this route and sharp practice by Greater Anglia.

My failure to purchase a ticket was a genuine error. Personal integrity is of the utmost importance to me; I did not (and would never) intentionally fare evade. This is evidenced by the fact that I used my contactless card to touch in at Tottenham Hale (demonstrating an intention to pay) and by my proactive engagement with a ticket officer immediately upon becoming aware of the issue.

I believe that this route is a particularly confusing ticketing system and that Greater Anglia are profiting from passengers’ lack of understanding. Greater Anglia have, to date, failed to provide me with the data of penalty fares charged at Stansted Airport, despite my request to do so. However, there has been publicity regarding the number of penalty fares issued on this route before. I have also corresponded with London Travel Watch, who inform me that they are aware of penalty fare issues on this route.

There are also many stories and reviews available online of passengers who believe they have behaved honestly and diligently but have been ‘caught out’ by this route. Many of these individuals will be visitors to this country and therefore particularly susceptible to making this mistake due to lack of familiarity with England’s geography, railway ticketing system, and/or language.

The following factors contributed to my own confusion: (i) London Stansted is the only major London airport where contactless payments are not accepted at the train station, (ii) I was able to ‘touch in’ at Tottenham Hale without issue, and (iii) the airport is named London Stansted so I believed it to be part of the London contactless area.

In this context, I note the comments made by the Minister of State for Transport at the time the Regulations were enacted: "Rail users should make every effort to get the right ticket for their journey, but if you make an honest mistake you should feel confident that the appeals system will recognise this and treat you fairly.”.

I do not believe it would be fair for me to have to pay a penalty fare, given my honest behaviour, the circumstances of my mistake and the known issues on this route.

Conclusion

Regulation 17(4) provides that “If the relevant Appeal Panel, after considering an appeal under this regulation, concludes that any ground specified in regulation 16(3) applies, it must, subject to paragraph (7), allow the appeal.”

The evidence I have provided demonstrates that the penalty fare I received was not charged in accordance with the Regulations, due to Greater Anglia’s failure to comply with Regulation 8(4) and paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1.

The Regulations are extremely clear on this point. Notices must use the exact form of wording set out in the relevant provision of the Regulations. Failure to do so means that the notices do not comply with the Regulations. If the notices do not comply with the Regulations, a penalty fare must not be charged.

Therefore I submit that the Appeals Body is required under Regulation 17(4) to allow my appeal and to disallow my appeal would be an error of law.

If the Appeals Body were minded to disallow my appeal (which I hope will not be the case), I would encourage it to take legal advice in relation to the interpretation of these provisions in order to inform its decision and would request that details of its legal analysis is included in the decision.

Further or in the alternative, I submit that Regulation 16(3)(d) applies for the reasons set out above and ask the Appeals Body to find that there are compelling reasons I should not be liable to pay the penalty fare.

This reads as a very well drafted appeal overall - I would congratulate you on having been able to come up with this!

Unfortunately, I wouldn't hold out great hopes of the appeals body finding in your favour - it seems that many appeals are only properly looked at when it comes to the third and (ostensibly final) stage of appeal.

Therefore, you shouldn't be disheartened if the appeal is incorrectly rejected - it is clear that you have valid grounds for appeal, and though the appeals body may err in rejecting your appeal, the main thing is that you've appealed once and the Penalty Fare has not yet been cancelled.

This means that you have statutory protection from being prosecuted (under the main offence that could be alleged here - i.e. the Byelaws or section 5(3)(a) of RoRA). The only recourse which is lawfully available to GA now, if both your second and (if relevant) final appeals fail, would be to bring a civil claim against you in the County Court.

We have never heard of a TOC doing this before. That's not to say they can't, but it seems unlikely. It's perhaps more probable that they might try and prosecute you - even though they are legally barred from doing so, or for an offence which their own evidence demonstrates has not been committed (e.g. section 5(1) of RoRA). We have, sadly, heard of cases of both.

Either way, I'm sure we all look forward to hearing how things proceed.

 

[furlong]

Well if they've any sense they'll uphold the appeal and avoid getting drawn into this any more deeply, but if they don't, by pointing out what you consider would be an error of law and advising them to take advice (to protect themselves as individuals as well as their employer), this prepares the groundwork for a third appeal potentially to discuss misfeasance.

 

[Taunton]

This doesn’t arise for visitors to the UK unless they are in the tiny minority that have flown into one airport and out from Stansted. If they’d flown into Stansted they’d have been aware from the outset.

Not at all. For our last visitors through there, I picked them up in the car, but after a week of getting to know the place, they went back home using the train.

I am sure most of them can read English fine

Ah yes, "them" are perfectly able to take in posters written by a lawyer. I mean, fancy not being able to read English! Typical of foreigners!

 

[talldave]

Well if they've any sense they'll uphold the appeal and avoid getting drawn into this any more deeply, but if they don't, by pointing out what you consider would be an error of law and advising them to take advice (to protect themselves as individuals as well as their employer), this prepares the groundwork for a third appeal potentially to discuss misfeasance.

And by upholding the appeal they will implicitly render all similarly issued penalty fares void for as far back as the signage has been non-compliant.

Whilst this of no relevance to the OP, it would be nice to know that such wrongs could be righted.

 

[island]

Not at all. For our last visitors through there, I picked them up in the car, but after a week of getting to know the place, they went back home using the train.

Again, a tiny minority.

 

[Taunton]

Well, it looks like all these "tiny minorities", added together, can form a good revenue stream of fines for the operator to pocket. £50 per occurrence, according to the opening post, along with significant delays exiting at the barriers because so many people were being "done".

I recall going to Switzerland with their all-encompassing Holiday Ticket. Boarding the train at Zurich airport station the conductor immediately came around, and said the ticket was not valid as it had to be signed. Did I get a fine? No, he smiled, and lent me his pen.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I recall going to Switzerland with their all-encompassing Holiday Ticket. Boarding the train at Zurich airport station the conductor immediately came around, and said the ticket was not valid as it had to be signed. Did I get a fine? No, he smiled, and lent me his pen.

I suspect the same happens here many times over. But no one ever starts a thread to say "minor fare transgression, but guard let me off" But I think it happens a lot.
Just occasionally on here we see where common sense could have been applied a bit more by the railway. But far and away most posts are deliberate fare evasion.

 

[AlterEgo]

I recall going to Switzerland with their all-encompassing Holiday Ticket. Boarding the train at Zurich airport station the conductor immediately came around, and said the ticket was not valid as it had to be signed. Did I get a fine? No, he smiled, and lent me his pen.

Switzerland has the rare distinction of being an even more aggressive and punitive Penalty fare scheme than Britain does. There are myriad stories of treatment of foreign tourists in Switzerland at least as harsh as the OP's experience at Stansted.

 

[Haywain]

Ah yes, "them" are perfectly able to take in posters written by a lawyer. I mean, fancy not being able to read English! Typical of foreigners!

Do you think the notices at Tottenham Hale, as illustrated in post #41, were written by a lawyer or are difficult to understand? To be clear, I am not referring to the Penalty Fare notice but the notices all over the gateline indicating that contactless and Oyster can't be used on Stansted Express.

 

[Joe Paxton]

Do you think the notices at Tottenham Hale, as illustrated in post #41, were written by a lawyer or are difficult to understand? To be clear, I am not referring to the Penalty Fare notice but the notices all over the gateline indicating that contactless and Oyster can't be used on Stansted Express.

Quite.

The argument being presented in this thread against the penalty fare is the lawyerly one - that the mandated Penalty Fares poster contains the wrong wording.

Meanwhile the mass of signage and notices all over the place show pictograms and also have information in multiple European languages regarding the invalidity of contactless to Stansted Airport. It looks as though a significant amount of thought and effort has gone into these.

 

[furlong]

The argument being presented in this thread against the penalty fare is the lawyerly one - that the mandated Penalty Fares poster contains the wrong wording.

Meanwhile the mass of signage and notices all over the place show pictograms and also have information in multiple European languages regarding the invalidity of contactless to Stansted Airport. It looks as though a significant amount of thought and effort has gone into these.

And yet despite all this "significant amount of thought" they still persist in not correcting a mistake in the only notices that the law requires them to display! How hard is it to create a sticker to place over the incorrect words? The mistake misleads the reader into thinking the minimum penalty is higher than it actually is so it's not hard to imagine why someone thought this might have been a good idea that they would get away with doing to make the poster scarier, but misrepresenting the law like this should be a complete no-no. Heads should roll over this. (Someone might like to see if FOI can shed any light.)

But the train companies have form as they displayed a similar arrogance over the previous Penalty Fares regulations by ignoring various bits designed to protect passengers once the SRA had gone and they realised the DfT had no interest in performing its enforcement duties.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Out of interest I noticed yesterday that the GWR posters are similarly non-compliant in that they refer to the new upper limit of £100 instead of the specified wording, so this issue is not confined to Greater Anglia.

 

[Watershed]

Please can we stick to the original topic, which relates to Penalty Fares issued at Stansted Airport.

Discussion of whether or not Stansted, Gatwick etc. constitute "London airports" has been moved to this thread.

 

[sct]

Victory at second stage appeal! Decision attached. Thanks all for the excellent advice I've received re interpretation of Penalty Fare Regulations - I really appreciate you taking the time to share your expertise. Really shows how volunteer advice can make a difference; I have donated the amount of my penalty fare to a local legal advice centre to show my appreciation.

Unfortunately, there is no detail re the grounds of acceptance so difficult to tell whether my line of argument re notice deficiency has been accepted, and therefore whether my case is of more general interest. There is a reference in the letter to all transport companies displaying warning notices. I'm inclined to think this is part of the template, rather than an indication that they are not accepting my argument re deficiencies in notice (because this sentence appeared in the first appeal decision and also because I think they would make it explicit if that were the point they were trying to make).

So seems to me that it might be worth others running the notice wording line of argument. I've tweaked the appeal wording I used below to make it of more general application in case it is a helpful starting point for others. Re-reading it, I actually think you could draw out the point a little more clearly about the wording actually being misleading and a misrepresentation of the regulations, but I'll leave others to make that tweak if they want.

Regulation 16(3)(a) grounds for appeal - [insert station name] notices

I submit the notice at [insert station name] does not meet the requirements of the Penalty Fare Regulations. I attach photographs that I took of the warning notices at [insert station name] on [date].

Assuming that the notices were in this form when I travelled on [insert date] (Regulation 16(4) provides that the burden of proof falls on the operator to disprove this assumption), these photographs demonstrate that the notice at [insert station name] is deficient for the following reason:

• [insert details of any other notice deficiencies observed - for example, signs being obscured, not at relevant entrances]
• The notice does not use the form of wording required by sub-paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1.

The required form of wording is “Please buy your ticket before you travel otherwise you may be charged a Penalty Fare”. The notice states “Please buy your ticket before you travel, otherwise you may have to pay a Penalty Fare of at least £100”.

This wording has been included in quotation marks in the Regulations and therefore it is clear that the precise form of wording is required in order for the notice to be legally compliant.


No discretion is granted to the operators to amend or paraphrase this form of wording. I note that, in contrast, other sub-paragraphs of this provision do permit operators discretion over the form of wording to use on notices - for example, paragraph 1(1)(e) which uses the formulation ‘wording which indicates’. However, paragraph 1(1)(c) very clearly and intentionally does not permit operators any flexibility on this point. Failure to use the prescribed wording therefore renders the notice non-compliant with the Regulations.

 

[Hadders]

That’s a good result, thanks for letting us know.

 

[fandroid]

When travelling through Tottenham Hale recently (from Greater Anglia to Tube) I looked back after passing through the ticket gates. There were plenty of big red notices about not using Oyster or Contactless for Stansted Express but the only visible Penalty Fare poster was on a back wall, behind the other notices.

 

[Jamiescott1]

Sorry to be unable to post a link. The lead story on itv london news at 6pm tonight was an investigation into the high number of penalty fares issued at Stansted Airport.

 

[spag23]

Does this work?

https://www.itv.com/news/london/2023-12-01/flaw-in-stansted-express-ticketing-system-is-leaving-customers-with-hefty-fines

 

[Brissle Girl]

"We can't tell you the number of fines as it's commercially sensitive". Why is the number of people getting it wrong a commercially sensitive issue?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

"We can't tell you the number of fines as it's commercially sensitive". Why is the number of people getting it wrong a commercially sensitive issue?

Indeed. And haven't some other TOCs in the past not previously trumpeted just how many persons have been successfully prosecuted in a particular court session, as well as the typical fine and costs amounts imposed (contrasting markedly with the relatively low fares avoided)?

 

[Watershed]

Indeed. And haven't some other TOCs in the past not previously trumpeted just how many persons have been successfully prosecuted in a particular court session, as well as the typical fine and costs amounts imposed (contrasting markedly with the relatively low fares avoided)?

These TOCs including, notably, Greater Anglia (see e.g. this article - with apologies for linking to a Roach-infested Reach Media site)...

They'll use any tactic to distract from the dishonourable little racket they've got going on here.

 

[Wolfie]

"We can't tell you the number of fines as it's commercially sensitive". Why is the number of people getting it wrong a commercially sensitive issue?

In other words we don't want to disclose how many people we are shafting and just how much money that is raking in just in case someone stops us.

 

[jon0844]

The warnings at Tottenham Hale and Liverpool Street are pretty big and noticeable. I don't know if they do announcements in multiple languages on the train also, perhaps along with more posters, but at what point do we accept people need to have some responsibility for their own actions?

I don't really see it as a racket. Most tourists came from Stansted first, so would have known how to pay. Those going to the airport and being caught out are, more likely, residents here going on holiday. They have even less excuse, no?

 

[Turtle]

In other words we don't want to disclose how many people we are shafting and just how much money that is raking in just in case someone stops us.

Spot on.