Train fine.. help please

[kkong]

I presume OP was checked between Deansgate and Buckshaw, hence the need for the PF only to cover up to Buckshaw where the valid ticket can take over for the rest of the journey.

The OP stated they were approached by the RPI just before Bolton.

The PF notice states it was issued at Lostock, which seems to tally with that, allowing time for the RPI to enter the details before printing the PF.

 

[AndroidAsh]

"Unable to show a valid ticket for your entire journey" may well suffice to satisfy the 2018 Penalty Fares Regulations' requirement that the recipient has to be provided with “an explanation of why the person is being charged a penalty fare” in writing. It might be interesting to see how Penalty Services respond to an appeal on the basis that the OP held tickets for a journey from Deansgate to Leyland but was not provided with a written explanation of why either/both of those tickets was not regarded as being valid.

I think it is vital to establish whether there was any exchange between the OP and the official as to the destination station to which the penalty fare was to authorise travel. If there wasn't then the default provision in Regulation 5(5A) of the 2018 Regulations applied, and a PF issued at Lostock should have authorised travel only as far as Horwich Parkway (assuming that was the next scheduled call for the train in question). So the question to be answered is whether @AndroidAsh specified Buckshaw Parkway as the destination to which the penalty fare was to authorise travel (or agreed to a suggestion from the official to that effect). If not, and that destination was imposed without choice then, as @furlong says, the PF was invalid. Any appeal on this ground should spell out that the PF was not “charged in accordance with the requirements of these Regulations” (i.e. the Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018) - see Regulation 16(2) of those Regulations.

The fact that the OP already held a valid ticket for the Buckshaw Parkway-Leyland leg of the journey makes no difference to Regulation 5(5A)'s requirement that if the PF is to authorise travel beyond the train's next scheduled call, this must be preceded by the traveller 'specifying' a different destination station at which the train is due to call and the 'collector' deciding that it is reasonable to issue a PF to that destination. If that two-stage process hasn't been followed then the PF has not been issued in accordance with the Regulations' requirements.

Too confirm the I did not confirm this as my final destination was Leyland, the inspector just took Buckshaw from my purchased ticket that was invalid

**Edit** if it also helps I pulled these off the appeal site which again confirms Buckshaw

 

[John Palmer]

Too confirm the I did not confirm this as my final destination was Leyland, the inspector just took Buckshaw from my purchased ticket that was invalid

**Edit** if it also helps I pulled these off the appeal site which again confirms Buckshaw

Then I do not think that the process required by Regulation 5(5A) of the 2018 penalty fares regulations has been followed, that the penalty fare was for that reason not issued in accordance with the requirements of those regulations, and that an appeal on that ground should be upheld.

You were charged a penalty fare of £112.90. which is the full single fare from Oxford Road to Buckshaw Parkway + £100. No doubt the collector would have authorised travel to that station for that penalty fare had you asked for it, but since you didn't, his correct course of action was to issue a penalty fare for travel from Oxford Road to Horwich Parkway (next stop beyond Lostock where the PF was issued), for which the penalty fare would have been £7.50 (full single fare from Oxford Road) + £100. By unilaterally authorising travel to the more distant destination of Buckshaw Parkway the collector subjected you to a charge that was £5.40 more than the fare that should have been charged had the regulations been correctly applied. I dare say you would not have wished to alight at Horwich, but that doesn't alter the fact that you were not offered a choice between reduced penalty and authority for travel to a more convenient destination.

 

[furlong]

a penalty fare for travel from Oxford Road to Horwich Parkway (next stop beyond Lostock where the PF was issued), for which the penalty fare would have been £7.50 (full single fare from Oxford Road) + £100.

Anytime day single £7. No off-peak single.
(The original PF should probably also have used the off-peak at £12.50.)

 

[John Palmer]

Anytime day single £7. No off-peak single.
(The original PF should probably also have used the off-peak at £12.50.)

Apologies, you are quite correct; didn't read the fares entries properly. So, a difference of £5.50 rather then £5.40.

 

[AndroidAsh]

I've had a update about the PF! I just want to thank everyone involved ☺️

 

[MrJeeves]

Glad your appeal was successful! Good result, even if it took a few attempts.

 

[AlterEgo]

Appeal upheld as the Ground section was blank, I assume. Good result and well done for your perserverance.

 

[WesternLancer]

I've had a update about the PF! I just want to thank everyone involved ☺️

Excellent news, and I am v glad that my pessimistic early suggestions in the thread about the prospects of getting this overturned have been proved wrong! - shows the value of various different forum members who can scrutinise stuff and check out all the angles.

V pleased to read of this outcome.