Stansted Airport fines

[The_Van]

Contactless is coming in the next two years or so See https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...s-coming-to-contactless-payment-cards.231684/

Excellent. Thank you

 

[Titfield]

You mean you havent heard of London (Bournemouth Hurn) Airport?

Or indeed London Ashford (LYDD) Airport

I was being too clever for my own good. Hurn Airport served as London's International Airport for a brief period (1944 - 1946) until the opening of the facilities at Heathrow.

Bournemouth Airport

Though of course it could be argued that so did Poole (Harbour) as the base for international flying boat operations.

 

[jon81uk]

Interesting re announcements - do you know how often they are? I didn't hear one.

As part of my commute yesterday I caught the 1752 stansted express yesterday and heard an announcement about contactless payment cards not being valid at 1748 while I was stood on the platform.

There are stickers on the ticket gates, a banner across the wall behind the ticket gates and a stand-up sign about contactless not being valid to Stansted. Then in a free-standing frame inside the ticket gates and to the right there is a more standard notice about penalty fares.

 

[ianBR]

Are there any other countries in the world that treat visitors so badly - anyone whose first language is not English will not know what contactless means - even other English speaking countries do not use that term.

I also doubt there are any other capital cities that allow contactless payments when you get on a train but not when you get off?

 

[35B]

As part of my commute yesterday I caught the 1752 stansted express yesterday and heard an announcement about contactless payment cards not being valid at 1748 while I was stood on the platform.

There are stickers on the ticket gates, a banner across the wall behind the ticket gates and a stand-up sign about contactless not being valid to Stansted. Then in a free-standing frame inside the ticket gates and to the right there is a more standard notice about penalty fares.

I agree - when I went through last week the signage at Tottenham Hale was extremely visible. I was not looking closely enough to comment on whether it was legally compliant.

 

[Clip]

Are there any other countries in the world that treat visitors so badly - anyone whose first language is not English will not know what contactless means - even other English speaking countries do not use that term.

I also doubt there are any other capital cities that allow contactless payments when you get on a train but not when you get off?

This is seemingly getting a bit silly now - Im guessing the vast majority of people going through stanstead will be predominantly British given its a low cost airline hub so you are talking a bout a small minority and yes plenty of other places uses the term 'contactless' you only have to have a look at a few cities transport pages to find this out but are you claiming that people who will have researched about their travel plan wouldnt have looked into what the travel arrangements for said country/city are before they decide to come here? I dont believe people are really that foolish not to do so - we do even if we are having a weekend in London because it pays to be up to speed on where you are going and to match with what you are actually doing whilst there

Contactless pay as you go | SL

sl.se

Contactless Fare Payment For Public Transport

NFC technology has become such a big part of our daily lives. It allows us to transact seamlessly on the...

www.smartnation.gov.sg

Tap to pay your fare with OMNY

The new contactless fare payment system – OMNY – is here to keep you moving at a New York pace.

new.mta.info

 

[The exile]

Are there any other countries in the world that treat visitors so badly - anyone whose first language is not English will not know what contactless means - even other English speaking countries do not use that term.

I also doubt there are any other capital cities that allow contactless payments when you get on a train but not when you get off?

If you have earlier arrived at Stansted you will have discovered that contactless / oyster doesn’t work before you can even access the platform.

 

[jon81uk]

Are there any other countries in the world that treat visitors so badly - anyone whose first language is not English will not know what contactless means - even other English speaking countries do not use that term.

I also doubt there are any other capital cities that allow contactless payments when you get on a train but not when you get off?

While it is not with contactless, it would be possible in Paris to buy a zone 1-3 ticket for travel in central Paris, board the train and travel out to the zones 4-5 and not have a valid ticket to exit the RER at Disneyland (for example).

Almost all zonal ticketing systems will have circumstances where ticket types are no longer valid after a certain point.

 

[Haywain]

Almost all zonal ticketing systems will have circumstances where ticket types are no longer valid after a certain point.

And where they don't they may well not have any access to longer distance services.

 

[AlterEgo]

Are there any other countries in the world that treat visitors so badly - anyone whose first language is not English will not know what contactless means - even other English speaking countries do not use that term.

"Contactless" is in very common use in the USA! In fact I just checked in for a United flight:

Contactless payments​

We've gone contactless! Save a credit card now to make touch-free purchases.

Contactless payments apply to:
United airport transactions: IAD-ORD, ORD-MCO


I've a bit of sympathy with the OP; it isn't that intuitive for contactless to be OK at Luton and Gatwick and Heathrow, but not Stansted, but I have to say the signage and copious reminders are very, very prominent to the point of being intrusive.

 

[sct]

This would certainly be a good place to start. I have severe doubts as to whether compliant signage (as opposed to general, non-compliant signage warning of the possibility of PFs) is "readily visible" at Tottenham Hale.

Thanks again for your helpful reply on this. I went to Tottenham Hale this pm and took the attached photos.

I agree with previous posters that the general signage couldn't really be much more visible. So I hold my hands up there.

I still wonder whether signage is adequate at all for this specific route. However, I've cooled off slightly re the broader issue. Ultimately I don't have the data to know whether this is a significant issue or not - I'm speculating that it is based on internet posts, the number of people on my train fined, and the set up at Stansted (army of people checking tickets, resulting in delays for all passengers).

I received a considered response from London Travel Watch saying they are aware of the issues, will continue to monitor and will raise again in their next meeting with Greater Anglia. They also note they have worked with Greater Anglia to put in place the information posters at Liverpool Street at Tottenham Hale and onboard announcements. Presumably Greater Anglia will be able to tell from their data what impact those measures have had, and whether there is a significantly higher rate of Penalty Fares at Stansted than on other routes.

My analysis below re specific Q of whether signage is legally compliant, but welcome views. I also note that the legal notice is on the right hand side of the larger photo and you can see it is obstructed by another sign. But it looks like both can signs be moved. No idea whether they are and I obviously don't know where it was placed when I travelled through. I could also have a go on the grounds that the notice may not have been 'readily visible to [me] prior to boarding a train at the station' due to its location/potential obstruction?

Display of Notices

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

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

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

(c)the wording “Please buy your ticket before you travel otherwise you may be charged a Penalty Fare”; As you noted, this wording has not been faithfully reproduced; "be charged" has been changed to "have to pay". They've also added on "of at least £100", which is not really accurate given the potential reduction to £50. It's absolutely a technicality, but probably worth a go.

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

(da)in stations in England, the wording “A Penalty Fare is £100 plus the price of the full single fare applicable for your intended journey. However, if it is paid within 21 days, the Penalty Fare is reduced to £50 plus the price of the single fare applicable”; YES

(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 YES - bottom rhs

(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. YES

 

[Watershed]

Thanks again for your helpful reply on this. I went to Tottenham Hale this pm and took the attached photos.

I agree with previous posters that the general signage couldn't really be much more visible. So I hold my hands up there.

I still wonder whether signage is adequate at all for this specific route. However, I've cooled off slightly re the broader issue. Ultimately I don't have the data to know whether this is a significant issue or not - I'm speculating that it is based on internet posts, the number of people on my train fined, and the set up at Stansted (army of people checking tickets, resulting in delays for all passengers).

I received a considered response from London Travel Watch saying they are aware of the issues, will continue to monitor and will raise again in their next meeting with Greater Anglia. They also note they have worked with Greater Anglia to put in place the information posters at Liverpool Street at Tottenham Hale and onboard announcements. Presumably Greater Anglia will be able to tell from their data what impact those measures have had, and whether there is a significantly higher rate of Penalty Fares at Stansted than on other routes.

My analysis below re specific Q of whether signage is legally compliant, but welcome views. I also note that the legal notice is on the right hand side of the larger photo and you can see it is obstructed by another sign. But it looks like both can signs be moved. No idea whether they are and I obviously don't know where it was placed when I travelled through. I could also have a go on the grounds that the notice may not have been 'readily visible to [me] prior to boarding a train at the station' due to its location/potential obstruction?

Display of Notices

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

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

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

(c)the wording “Please buy your ticket before you travel otherwise you may be charged a Penalty Fare”; As you noted, this wording has not been faithfully reproduced; "be charged" has been changed to "have to pay". They've also added on "of at least £100", which is not really accurate given the potential reduction to £50. It's absolutely a technicality, but probably worth a go.

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

(da)in stations in England, the wording “A Penalty Fare is £100 plus the price of the full single fare applicable for your intended journey. However, if it is paid within 21 days, the Penalty Fare is reduced to £50 plus the price of the single fare applicable”; YES

(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 YES - bottom rhs

(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. YES

You're right on the mark with this analysis. The fact the sign is hidden behind a silly "see it, say it, sorted" sign is ample grounds for appeal in my view. Compliant Penalty Fare warning signage isn't some optional luxury, as operators seem to treat it - it's an inherent requirement of issuing Penalty Fares.

The sign continues to use the old "may have to pay" wording rather than the new "may be charged"; although this might be considered a technicality, the Regulation uses quote marks for this sentence, and the sign does not contain with what's inside those marks! On other aspects, e.g. (f), it allows "wording which indicates" something - it's thus clear that the Regulation's drafters intended signage to have the exact specified wording for paragraph (c), and not any old wording that operators think they can get away with!

I wouldn't hold out great hopes of the appeals body allowing an appeal (especially a first or second stage one) on either basis, but it's nevertheless worth doing as it gives you statutory protection against being prosecuted in relation to this incident, thus making this purely a civil matter.

 

[sct]

You're right on the mark with this analysis. The fact the sign is hidden behind a silly "see it, say it, sorted" sign is ample grounds for appeal in my view. Compliant Penalty Fare warning signage isn't some optional luxury, as operators seem to treat it - it's an inherent requirement of issuing Penalty Fares.

The sign continues to use the old "may have to pay" wording rather than the new "may be charged"; although this might be considered a technicality, the Regulation uses quote marks for this sentence, and the sign does not contain with what's inside those marks! On other aspects, e.g. (f), it allows "wording which indicates" something - it's thus clear that the Regulation's drafters intended signage to have the exact specified wording for paragraph (c), and not any old wording that operators think they can get away with!

I wouldn't hold out great hopes of the appeals body allowing an appeal (especially a first or second stage one) on either basis, but it's nevertheless worth doing as it gives you statutory protection against being prosecuted in relation to this incident, thus making this purely a civil matter.

Thanks so much - I really appreciate you taking the time to reply. I submitted my first stage appeal but I'll give this line of argument a go when that's rejected. I agree with you re the drafter's intentions, but I'm also not hopeful (as clearly a technicality and presumably there are broader implications if they ruled this form of signage, which is everywhere, is non-compliant). Thanks again - will keep you posted!

 

[furlong]

Decisions have to be made on the facts and the regulations as they stand - broader considerations cannot be a factor when deciding an individual case. It would have been easy enough for the train companies to have fixed this by now - that they haven't speaks volumes. The irony isn't lost when they vigorously pursue passengers over minor ticketing technicalities yet ignore their own blatant disregard of one of the key regulations they are subject to. There was another thread where someone posted the response dismissing the problem with the incorrect wording so you might want to write your appeal in a way that prevents them from sending that same response to you, by attempting to show that they have no discretion on such a matter - provide a skeleton argument to show that if the words are wrong and the regulations weren't adhered to they are required to uphold the appeal. If they don't then, you've laid the groundwork for the next step (civil court, which you might invite to conclude that the appeals body misdirected itself).

 

[jon0844]

While it is not with contactless, it would be possible in Paris to buy a zone 1-3 ticket for travel in central Paris, board the train and travel out to the zones 4-5 and not have a valid ticket to exit the RER at Disneyland (for example).

Almost all zonal ticketing systems will have circumstances where ticket types are no longer valid after a certain point.

The zones in London are pretty clearly marked on route maps, which is better than some countries where you may struggle to work out the zones for stations outside of the city centre (e.g. airports or tourist attractions).

I think on balance we do things better than most.

As said above, a foreigner visiting London and arriving at Stansted will discover that contactless isn't valid in the first place - so they're unlikely to think it valid when going back to the airport. Most people will therefore, most likely, be British people starting their trip from Stansted.

I am sure most of them can read English fine and it sounds like there are plenty of warnings, suggesting it isn't a conspiracy to make easy money from tricking people on purpose. Indeed, from the photos of the gateline vinyls I don't think they could make it any clearer. Clearly the PF posters need to be compliant, but chances are most people are going to see the vinyls long before the posters.

 

[BJames]

The zones in London are pretty clearly marked on route maps, which is better than some countries where you may struggle to work out the zones for stations outside of the city centre (e.g. airports or tourist attractions).

I think on balance we do things better than most.

As said above, a foreigner visiting London and arriving at Stansted will discover that contactless isn't valid in the first place - so they're unlikely to think it valid when going back to the airport. Most people will therefore, most likely, be British people starting their trip from Stansted.

I am sure most of them can read English fine and it sounds like there are plenty of warnings, suggesting it isn't a conspiracy to make easy money from tricking people on purpose. Indeed, from the photos of the gateline vinyls I don't think they could make it any clearer. Clearly the PF posters need to be compliant, but chances are most people are going to see the vinyls long before the posters.

Having seen that picture above, I agree. The PF poster is stupidly hidden but a lot of effort has gone into that signage. The only thing I can see that isn't there that is at the Liverpool Street gatelines is the actual oyster touch pad itself - at LST this has stickers over it saying STOP - DO NOT TOUCH IN for Stansted (might be a slight variation on this, I can't remember the exact wording) so there's the opportunity until the very last moment. But I'm not convinced this makes a huge difference with the vinyls in place anyway.

 

[Haywain]

The PF poster is stupidly hidden

In the picture it is being used, along with the other sign, to block a defective wide-aisle gate, and would not normally be in that position. Whether it was hidden when the OP travelled is open to question.

 

[jon81uk]

In the picture it is being used, along with the other sign, to block a defective wide-aisle gate, and would not normally be in that position. Whether it was hidden when the OP travelled is open to question.

I've seen it just behind the wide aisle gate up against the ramp area.

 

[jon0844]

There may also be more than one PF poster.

 

[sct]

There was another thread where someone posted the response dismissing the problem with the incorrect wording so you might want to write your appeal in a way that prevents them from sending that same response to you, by attempting to show that they have no discretion on such a matter - provide a skeleton argument to show that if the words are wrong and the regulations weren't adhered to they are required to uphold the appeal.

Thanks very much for your reply. I'm currently drafting my second stage appeal (rejection attached for completeness, although it looks fairly generic to me) - I have had a hunt through the forum and, although I've found lots of helpful discussion re the specific 'be charged'/'have to pay' point, I'm not able to find the response you refer to. If you (or anyone else) can remember it, might you be able to provide a link so I can try to cover this point off?

 

[dingdinger]

There may also be more than one PF poster.

There is also a poster near the ramp on the right hand side in various languages. Not sure on the exact wording but definitely clear that you can't use oyster/contactless at Stansted. I think Greater Anglia have done very well with their signage (even on the oyster readers) and warnings both at Tottenham Hale and Liverpool Street. Also extra staff at Liverpool Street advising passengers and I've been questioned before at Tottenham Hale when tapping in asking where I was going.

 

[The_Van]

When I went through TH on Saturday evening the Stansted Express Poster was literally right behind the ticket gates and unmissable. I believe the staff also had hi vis jackets with some message about Stansted tickets on it

 

[fandroid]

There's a warning about contactless and Stansted Express right on the card readers at Liverpool Street platform 7. I wasn't looking for it, but it was rather obvious

 

[Falcon1200]

anyone whose first language is not English will not know what contactless means

In which case would they would consider paying by contactless in the first place? And, as has been mentioned before (in connection with Heathrow IIRC) would someone with the wherewithal to fly into the UK not check before arrival their onward travel options from the airport?

 

[island]

In which case would they would consider paying by contactless in the first place? And, as has been mentioned before (in connection with Heathrow IIRC) would someone with the wherewithal to fly into the UK not check before arrival their onward travel options from the airport?

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.

 

[jon0844]

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.

This.

With regards to people not knowing what contactless means, they would recognise the symbol. They might look to see if the symbol was on a gateline at Stansted, but more likely seek a ticket office or TVM, selecting their language and most likely buying a single ticket to London (or London zones) and then paying with contactless.

While our ticketing options are confusing, most foreigners are still aware of the basics of public transport; probably having a better system than ours in their own country! Not everyone is going to arrive like Elf or George of the Jungle...

 

[scragend]

While it is not with contactless, it would be possible in Paris to buy a zone 1-3 ticket for travel in central Paris, board the train and travel out to the zones 4-5 and not have a valid ticket to exit the RER at Disneyland (for example).

This is (or certainly was) indeed possible. I once boarded an RER train in central Paris using a T+ ticket bearing the symbol "RER dans Paris", alighting at Torcy which - unbeknown to me at the time - is not "dans Paris" but is out in the sticks in Zone 5. I put the ticket into the turnstile barrier and it told me it was "non valable". There were no staff present, or at least none that I could see. Fortunately another passenger who probably didn't have a ticket at all then arrived off the same train and just pushed the next turnstile along, which turned out to be faulty, and he was able to get through. So I did the same.

Bought a valid ticket on the way back of course.

 

[sct]

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)]

 

[dingdinger]

There is also a poster near the ramp on the right hand side in various languages. Not sure on the exact wording but definitely clear that you can't use oyster/contactless at Stansted. I think Greater Anglia have done very well with their signage (even on the oyster readers) and warnings both at Tottenham Hale and Liverpool Street. Also extra staff at Liverpool Street advising passengers and I've been questioned before at Tottenham Hale when tapping in asking where I was going.

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.

 

[Hadders]

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.

The signage has to meet the regulations, which are very prescriptive as to the exact wording they must use. If the signs at Tottenham do not use the prescribed wording then any Penalty Fare issued is invalid.