Unpaid Fare Notice - Newcastle - Edinburgh 8/10/11 - Advice Please?

[garethgray]

Hi,

I travelled with my wife and 4yr old daughter from Newcastle to Edinburgh yesterday. I had advance tickets booked for the 1754 train from Newcastle.

We had inadevertently boarded the wrong train (an 'earlier' service which had arrived late in Newcastle) at approx. 1750 as we had assumed it was ours and there was no announcement given on the platform that it was a late running earlier service. An announcement was made on the train (literally 1 minute before departure) stating it was a late running service at which point we tried to disembark immediately. The guard on the platform would not allow us to leave the train, the whistle blew and it left.

The ticket inspector came round and immediately stated our ticket was not valid. I explained that when the announcement was made on board that it was not the 1754, we immediately tried to disembark (I have a witness statement from another passenger confirming we immediately left) but were not allowed to get off by the platform guard. I appreciate this may have been due to health & safety if the train was about to leave but my complaint is that there was nowhere near sufficient time between the onboard announcement and the departure to allow us to leave the late running train so we could get on the correct train (which was literally minutes behind the train we boarded in error). I was subsequently issued with an unpaid fare notice for £89.00. The attitude of the ticket inspector left a lot to be desired and he seemed pleased to be debating and issuing the UFN causing much distress to my wife and daughter. I refused to sign for the UFN and asked for the ticket inspectors name (which he did not give but stated his UFN would trace back to him).

What do you think my chances are of appeal?

 

[AlterEgo]

I have industry experience here. An appeal to RPSS will be unsuccessful. The UPFN was issued by the book.

RPSS will only rescind an UPFN if it was issued wrongly (you actually presented a valid ticket and the guard thought it was invalid for example).

You will need to pay within ten days of issue. However, if you contact the TOC's Customer Relations team, they may be able to refund the amount paid on a discretionary basis. Note "discretionary".

RPSS will definitely not uphold an appeal. I advise the following:

1. Pay the UPFN
2. Appeal to RPSS at the same time (although it will be unsuccessful, your early wish to appeal will be noted later on)
3. Contact East Coast (I assume it was them?) Customer Relations and explain your story as you have done above. Apologise for boarding the wrong train, but explain the confusion and that you attempted to get back off before being "caught".

I would normally expect a favorable outcome in these circumstances.

Others will no doubt be along to offer advice, but I am happy to proof read a letter to the TOC should you wish (others may also be happy to do so).

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Sorry to hear about this incident, its an expensive mistake to have made and can be a very easy mistake to make.

The merits of Advance Fares and the strict restrictions have been debated often on here, but your description of the events does seem to emphasise the apparent ease with which the innocent passenger can be caught out by those Restrictions. The Guard was enforcing those Restrictions correctly, as you probably realise with hindsight.

I agree with AlterEgo.
Your letter of appeal to East Coast would probably have the greatest prospects of success if you focus on the facts: a) that you attempted to disembark at the soonest opportunity after being alerted by the staff's announcement but were prevented from doing so, b) that you learned after the event that an earler train had been delayed so that it arrived at the time your booked train was expected, and c) that the 'correct' train and 'wrong' train were easily confused and indistinguishable by you and your party.

I'd not advise that you pursue the line of complaint that the Guard was at fault. I've seen Guards on East Coast offering a little leniency and then seen it immediately abused; many front-line staff deserve as much sympathy and support as they deserve criticsm when things go wrong.

I'd suggest that your appeal could be more of a polite request rather than a complaint. My personal view is that a delayed train which arrives at the time of a booked train (same operator and on same route) is likely to be boarded by passengers expecting their booked train at that time, and that this is a reasonable and blameless mistake.

 

[glenbogle]

Disgusting behaviour from East Coast employee in my opinion. An honest mistake,distressing and upsetting passengers, it makes you wonder if the guard has never made a mistake in his life.

I would have refused to even give my name/address and got the BTP to meet the train if he wanted to call them.

Really annoys me this, it's not the customers fault the train is late and running to the wrong path.

I would not pay the bill, they will not take you to court for £80 that's for sure.

 

[First class]

Disgusting behaviour from East Coast employee in my opinion. An honest mistake,distressing and upsetting passengers, it makes you wonder if the guard has never made a mistake in his life.

I would have refused to even give my name/address and got the BTP to meet the train if he wanted to call them.

Really annoys me this, it's not the customers fault the train is late and running to the wrong path.

I would not pay the bill, they will not take you to court for £80 that's for sure.

Refuse to give your name and address? You do realise that is another offence that can see you convicted don't you? ANY railway employee can ask for your name and address. Providing a false one, or refusing to give one will usually end up badly for you as it could lead to a Byelaw or S5 prosecution.

An Unpaid Fare Notice has been correctly issued for the customer to challenge at a later time and date when someone else can make an informed decision. No money has been lost at this point.

Your post is full of bad advice. A TOC will take someone to court for fares under £1, so I would say it is very likely a court will get involved for an £80 fare unless it can be resolved by Customer Services. Merseyrail's average fare must be about £2-3 and they have the highest rate of 5(3) prosecutions, (with full criminal records as a result) than any other TOC.

A TOC doesn't need evidence that the customer made a mistake to prosecute. It is a very simple case to prove:

1) Did the customer have a valid ticket? - no

-Game over. (Although this rarely happens without good reason, such as refusing to pay a "bill")

(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter
any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a
valid ticket entitling him to travel

The ONLY defence to that offence is:

(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or
validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where,
he began his journey; or
(ii) there was a notice at the station where he began his journey
permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket; or
(iii) an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a
valid ticket.

 

[yorkie]

I would not pay the bill, they will not take you to court for £80 that's for sure.

Really? Do you have any proof of this? Northern have taken people to court over 10p. Okay, so EC care a lot more about their image than Northern, but I still think it's very poor advice to assure people EC won't take them to court over £80. Unless you know something the rest of us don't?

 

[AlterEgo]

Disgusting behaviour from East Coast employee in my opinion. An honest mistake,distressing and upsetting passengers, it makes you wonder if the guard has never made a mistake in his life.

I would have refused to even give my name/address and got the BTP to meet the train if he wanted to call them.

Really annoys me this, it's not the customers fault the train is late and running to the wrong path.

I would not pay the bill, they will not take you to court for £80 that's for sure.

Incredibly naive advice I'm afraid.

The UPFN was correctly issued and BTP will advise that the OP committed a strict liability offence, which is a crime, much like speeding.

We do not have to agree with the rules or the law, but we do have to obey them I'm afraid.

 

[Greenback]

I would have refused to even give my name/address and got the BTP to meet the train if he wanted to call them.

Not advice I would be happy to either give or take, particularly with a 4 year old involved.

Really annoys me this, it's not the customers fault the train is late and running to the wrong path.

I would not pay the bill, they will not take you to court for £80 that's for sure.

I don't think it's the passenger's fault that announcements weren't made either, or if they were that they weren't audible or clear. I would write to EC immediately setting out the facts as Dave suggested and asking them to withdraw the UPFN. I would not pay any money, and if EC declined to withdraw it, I would be quite prepared to go to court.

 

[yorkie]

I'd take AlterEgo's advice but, as Greenback says, I would not hand over any money at this stage (once you do this, it may be harder to get it back). The appeal must arrive at the awful debt collection agency that EC use (who don't actually know many of the rules, as I found out when I assisted a passenger who had to deal with that truly awful organisation) but it's EC customer services who you'll need to cancel the UPFN. So, in other words, you need to write to both EC and the debt collection agency.

In the unlikely event of EC not cancelling the UPFN, see if any newspapers will deal with this story, as EC don't like bad publicity and cancel UPFNs in all cases that I know of where a passenger has been charged unfairly and the newspaper agrees with the passenger. But give EC a chance first.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'd take AlterEgo's advice but, as Greenback says, I would not hand over any money (once you do this, it may be harder to get it back). The appeal must arrive at the awful debt collection agency that EC use (who don't actually know many of the rules, as I found out when I assisted a passenger who had to deal with that truly awful organisation) but it's EC customer services who you'll need to cancel the UPFN. So, in other words, you need to write to both EC and the debt collection agency.

The problem with not paying is that being referred to a debt collection agency may impact the OP's credit score, as an unsettled debt.

I can't vouch for how EC's Customer Relations work, so if anyone has any further experience that would support Yorkie's suggestion (i.e. that they won't refund a UPFN that has been paid!) then by all means please say so, and I'll alter my original suggestion to reflect this.

All we can say for definite is that an appeal to RPSS will not be upheld - but you must appeal to them straight away anyway, as it is an early indication that you do not accept your obligation to pay.

Please let us know how it goes, as there are a number of experts on here who do like to hear the results of our advice, so we can continue to offer current and relevant solutions!

 

[glenbogle]

First Class, why would you have to give your name when the revenue protector refused to give his? I thought they all had to wear name badges and have them displayed. The attitude of this employee appears to be the problem here.

I am only stating what i would do in the same situation. I would not pay it.

 

[garethgray]

Many thanks for all advice people. I intend to write to EC and respond to the UPFN with my debit card details but with the explicit condition that I do not authorise any payment to be taken from it without a full and detailed response from EC Customer Relations first. I will post the letter here for any comments/further advice - it will be kept factual and concise.

Thanks again,
GG

 

[AlterEgo]

Many thanks for all advice people. I intend to write to EC and respond to the UPFN with my debit card details but with the explicit condition that I do not authorise any payment to be taken from it without a full and detailed response from EC Customer Relations first. I will post the letter here for any comments/further advice - it will be kept factual and concise.

Thanks again,
GG

I wouldn't advise putting your debit card details in the letter!

Please don't post the letter publicly on the forum...Please PM it to one (or more) of us who have offered to read it.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

First Class, why would you have to give your name when the revenue protector refused to give his?

Because it's the law that when he asks you, you give your name. Not the other way round.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

why would you have to give your name when the revenue protector refused to give his?

Perhaps Railway Byelaw 23 might help you here?

Your comments above are poorly informed and do not result in helpful advice

I am only stating what i would do in the same situation. I would not pay it.

Maybe, but stating what you would do appears to be based, partly, on . . .

they will not take you to court for £80 that's for sure.

How do you substantiate that advice? We have many many prosecutions where the amount of the fare is immaterial to the decision to prosecute (and where the TOCs' costs are added to the Claim).

 

[All Line Rover]

It's not that rare for two trains to arrive at similar times (because of one train being delayed), and on the multiple occasions when this has happened to me, Virgin staff made it quite clear that passengers with tickets for the xx:20 should not board the (late running) train waiting at the platform because it is the xx:10. I once saw one member of staff using a megaphone!

Certainly the situation you were in could cause confusion (even I get confused sometimes!), so I fully agree with the advice to send off a letter to East Coast explaining the situation. There's no point complaining about the guard as he acted "correctly," even though it's a little unfair that he showed no discretion. (I'm not going to make any judgements, though, as I do not know the full circumstances.)

 

[Greenback]

I wouldn't advise putting your debit card details in the letter!

Please don't post the letter publicly on the forum...Please PM it to one (or more) of us who have offered to read it.

I agree. You can PM me with the letter if you want to. I have a lot of experience in customer services, both on the railway and outside it.

 

[All Line Rover]

Because it's the law that when he asks you, you give your name. Not the other way round.

Why should a member of staff refuse to give their name when requested? I seems a little odd...

I, for one, will not give my personal details to someone unless I know who the person is that I am speaking to (even if the person were a police officer, for example, I still prefer to ask for their name and some form of identification).

 

[Greenback]

Certainly the situation you were in could cause confusion (even I get confused sometimes!), so I fully agree with the advice to send off a letter to East Coast explaining the situation. There's no point complaining about the guard as he acted "correctly," even though it's a little unfair that he showed no discretion. (I'm not going to make any judgements, though, as I do not know the full circumstances.)

There are no judgements to be made. The guard was doing their job correctly, by the book. Others may not have done exactly the same thing, but is a method where the circumstances can be investigated and resolved later on.

 

[All Line Rover]

There are no judgements to be made. The guard was doing their job correctly, by the book. Others may not have done exactly the same thing, but is a method where the circumstances can be investigated and resolved later on.

I just thought that the guard could have phoned Newcastle station (maybe?) to ask if the OP's story added up? And if the train he (the guard) was on arrived at Newcastle at 17:50 and someone (the OP) boarded with a ticket to the same destination for the 17:54 service, it seems obvious that an innocent mistake has been made? As I said, I don't know the full facts so won't make any judgement about the guard, but giving a UPFN to someone who has made an innocent mistake could cause unnecessary worry and distress.

 

[Greenback]

I just thought that the guard could have phones Newcastle station (maybe?) to ask if the OP's story added up? And if the train he (the guard) was on arrived at Newcastle at 17:50 and someone (the OP) boarded with a ticket to the same destination for the 17:54 service, it seems obvious that an innocent mistake has been made? As I said, I don't know the full facts so won't make any judgement about the guard, but giving a UPFN to someone who has made an innocent mistake could cause unnecessary worry and distress.

I don't see what Newcastle station could have added, but I agree it's not ideal that the passenger has been put through the UPFN process. The guard will have known the times at Newcastle; most probably the majority of guards might not have issued a UPFN. I'd like to think so anyway.

 

[william]

Surely the best appeal procedure is the one advised on the actual penalty notice?

If you do decide to appeal it make sure you keep the evidence for your defence.

 

[AlterEgo]

Surely the best appeal procedure is the one advised on the actual penalty notice?

If you do decide to appeal it make sure you keep the evidence for your defence.

Yes, but the appeal, I guarantee, will be declined in the circumstances. See previous posts for this.

The best route is via Customer Relations/Services, in terms of bearing any fruit.

 

[IainH]

This potentially could also hinge on what the departure screen on the platform said, as if it was not clear this was the late train (as sometimes happens, you are waiting at the right platform, your train is on the screen, and then a few minutes before another train comes through - the screen may silently change but there is no announcement). In that case you can legitimately point out you followed the signs, and there is no obligation on you to watch the screen once you are at the right platform and have confirmed your train is the next one - you could reasonably expect an announcement and in this case there wasn't one. So you would be in the clear.

 

[First class]

This potentially could also hinge on what the departure screen on the platform said, as if it was not clear this was the late train (as sometimes happens, you are waiting at the right platform, your train is on the screen, and then a few minutes before another train comes through - the screen may silently change but there is no announcement). In that case you can legitimately point out you followed the signs, and there is no obligation on you to watch the screen once you are at the right platform and have confirmed your train is the next one - you could reasonably expect an announcement and in this case there wasn't one. So you would be in the clear.

There is a legal obligation to check you are boarding the correct train for which your tickets are valid. The lack of an announcement works in the favour of the TOC as you could not interpret that as someone authorising you to board.

Byelaw 18(1)

 

[Darandio]

Time to be slightly controversial I guess.

The key word here is that in your opening post you used the word "assumed", this has obviously been your downfall from the start. Anyone travelling on an advance ticket should never "assume" they are boarding the correct service.

One thing Newcastle is not short of is departure information. As you enter the station, there is a 60 foot (citation needed) LED display showing any information you require. After moving through the barriers, there is another batch of LED displays showing this information and then along each platform there is yet another batch of LED display screens. There is really no excuse to board the incorrect train and I don't buy the argument that it's an easy mistake to make if a train is running late and arrives at the same time. I also don't buy the "no platform announcements" argument as these can hardly be heard clearly at the best of times.

I am presuming there was no rush involved as you were booked in advance and would have arrived in good time, enough time at least to look at all of the above information and determine which platform you needed to be at? I would have also thought that boarding the late running service, dispatch would have been pretty quick anyway, it's no wonder the announcement was only made 1 minute prior to departure. Of course, this may not have happened for a variety of reasons, I can only speak on past experience and not from yesterday.

Despite all of that, I am not saying the UPFN is correct and fully sympathise with what has happened, given that you did have a genuine story to give the guard and that you had tried to disembark. Hopefully it gets sorted out in your favour, it's certainly a mistake you won't make again in a hurry!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

and there is no obligation on you to watch the screen once you are at the right platform and have confirmed your train is the next one

Bo*@"&ks!

 

[nedchester]

Time to be slightly controversial I guess.

The key word here is that in your opening post you used the word "assumed", this has obviously been your downfall from the start. Anyone travelling on an advance ticket should never "assume" they are boarding the correct service.

One thing Newcastle is not short of is departure information. As you enter the station, there is a 60 foot (citation needed) LED display showing any information you require. After moving through the barriers, there is another batch of LED displays showing this information and then along each platform there is yet another batch of LED display screens. There is really no excuse to board the incorrect train and I don't buy the argument that it's an easy mistake to make if a train is running late and arrives at the same time. I also don't buy the "no platform announcements" argument as these can hardly be heard clearly at the best of times.

I am presuming there was no rush involved as you were booked in advance and would have arrived in good time, enough time at least to look at all of the above information and determine which platform you needed to be at? I would have also thought that boarding the late running service, dispatch would have been pretty quick anyway, it's no wonder the announcement was only made 1 minute prior to departure. Of course, this may not have happened for a variety of reasons, I can only speak on past experience and not from yesterday.

Despite all of that, I am not saying the UPFN is correct and fully sympathise with what has happened, given that you did have a genuine story to give the guard and that you had tried to disembark. Hopefully it gets sorted out in your favour, it's certainly a mistake you won't make again in a hurry!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Bo*@"&ks!

Most people on here have an in depth knowledge of the ins and outs of advance tickets and the operation of the railway.

The general public do not have such knowledge and in this case I would have hoped the guard would have been more flexible. he will have realised that his train was leaving 'about' the same time as the 1754 (due to late running) and should take this into account. At the end of the day the passenger and his wife and daughter will not have got to Edinburgh at any different time than if they'd got the correct train (OK, four minutes, but that ain't much) so it is fairly obvious that they were not trying to bend the rules in any way.

The railway can be a very hostile place sometimes when passengers make quite innocent errors. Maybe it is because some guards are wary of using their initiative for fear of a manager disciplining them for doing so?

 

[Paul Kelly]

Only tangentially relevant to this case, but a thought occured to me that I thought would tie in with this thread. If the train the OP was booked on (the 17:54) had been showing on the screens as delayed, even just by a couple of minutes, do I understand correctly that in that circumstance it would have been OK to board the earlier delayed train with an Advance for the later one?

The National Rail Advance Terms and Conditions say "If delays occur while travelling, you will be allowed to take the next available train(s) to complete your journey." If one train is so badly delayed that it departs within 4 minutes of the next one, there's probably a reasonable chance that this following train will be at least slightly delayed too. And seeing the conditions don't require any minimum amount of delay to have elapsed (I think it was John@Home who pointed this out), I wonder is it permitted (if you know your train is going to be delayed - again, even just by a couple of minutes) to get on an earlier train to ensure you reach your destination on time.

Or do the words "the next available train" preclude boarding a train that departs before the original train's scheduled departure time? I was just thinking this could potentially be a useful defence in similar circumstances to those encountered by the OP.

 

[AlterEgo]

Or do the words "the next available train" preclude boarding a train that departs before the original train's scheduled departure time? I was just thinking this could potentially be a useful defence in similar circumstances to those encountered by the OP.

I interpret it as it being the next available train after your booked train.

Discretion is often shown, so it often pays to speak to staff who may wish to avoid a Delay Repay claim....

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I interpret it as it being the next available train after your booked train.

Conditions of Advance Tickets:

If delays occur while travelling, you will be allowed to take the next available train(s) to complete your journey.

But, there was clarification in an East Coast briefing this Spring:

This means passengers do not have to wait for an EC train that is known to be running over 60 minutes late, under those circumstances they can take an earlier EC train where there is one.

this appears to explain that it is enough to know that a booked train WILL BE late to authorise the use of another service - which may theoretically include a service running ahead of the delayed train.