Appealed Transpennine Penalty Fare for purchase after train departure

[glasgowniteowl]

Seems like a big loophole lol, surely if you intentionally fare evade you can still be prosecuted for that even if you appeal every one of your penaltry fares

The loophole as you call it, is only there for penalty fares, they could have gone straight to prosecution without issuing a penalty fare, people are unlikely to be "offered" multiple penalty fares

 

[Sumier]

The loophole as you call it, is only there for penalty fares, they could have gone straight to prosecution without issuing a penalty fare, people are unlikely to be "offered" multiple penalty fares

Right, I understand, so the Penalty Fare is the train company opting for a fine rather than a criminal prosecution, and they can't have both? - Sorry I'm a law student so nerdy things like this are interesting to me

 

[AlterEgo]

Seems like a big loophole lol, surely if you intentionally fare evade you can still be prosecuted for that even if you appeal every one of your penaltry fares

Penalty fares are not the only disposal available. In fact, the inspector here has made an error. As we’ve explored, they were not allowed to issue a penalty fare here. If they suspected you of boarding without a ticket the correct action is to report you for prosecution, not penalty fare you.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

Right, I understand, so the Penalty Fare is the train company opting for a fine rather than a criminal prosecution, and they can't have both? - Sorry I'm a law student so nerdy things like this are interesting to me

Pretty much yes, penalty fare is not a "fine" as such, that can only be issued by a court, but is seen as a "fine" by many

the issuing of a penalty fare bars prosecution unless its completely ignored and goes unpaid and not appealled, if it remains unpaid but was appealed it would then become a civil debt rather than something that can be prosecuted so appealing removes prosecution

Again in your instance by your timeline it should not have been issued at all, that's why the exact timeline of when you were asked for a ticket was crucial

 

[Sumier]

Pretty much yes, penalty fare is not a "fine" as such, that can only be issued by a court, but is seen as a "fine" by many

the issuing of a penalty fare bars prosecution unless its completely ignored and goes unpaid and not appealled, if it remains unpaid but was appealed it would then become a civil debt rather than something that can be prosecuted so appealing removes prosecution

Again in your instance by your timeline it should not have been issued at all, that's why the exact timeline of when you were asked for a ticket was crucial

Legend, thank you for the explanation

 

[Haywain]

Again in your instance by your timeline it should not have been issued at all, that's why the exact timeline of when you were asked for a ticket was crucial

The only crucial thing is whether a valid ticket was shown, not when it was purchased.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

The only crucial thing is whether a valid ticket was shown, not when it was purchased.

No the crucial thing is whether the op was asked to show a valid ticket prior to it being purchased

 

[Haywain]

No the crucial thing is whether the op was asked to show a valid ticket prior to it being purchased

Which is what I am saying. However, if the OP states that the ticket was shown, then you are effectively asking what time they were asked for the ticket rather than when it was purchased.

 

[Sumier]

No the crucial thing is whether the op was asked to show a valid ticket prior to it being purchased

Also surely the inspector's bodycam footage will show that he asked for my tickets and I whipped out my phone from my pocket and showed him immediately - there is no case to be made that I purchased the tickets after he asked for them as it would show up as me fiddling around on my phone trying to buy them

 

[AlterEgo]

Also surely the inspector's bodycam footage will show that he asked for my tickets and I whipped out my phone from my pocket and showed him immediately - there is no case to be made that I purchased the tickets after he asked for them as it would show up as me fiddling around on my phone trying to buy them

Bodycams are not turned on routinely unless a dispute starts.

 

[Fermiboson]

Important to note that first and second appeals are often denied without due reason and it’s worth it to go all the way to the third appeal to, if nothing else, stall the clock for the 21 day prompt payment deadline.

For your curiosity:
The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018

5.—(1) Subject to regulations 6, 7 and 10, if a person fails to produce a platform ticket or a valid travel ticket in accordance with regulation 4, a collector may charge that person a penalty fare.

6.—(1) Subject to paragraph (6), a person travelling by, present on, or leaving a train (in this regulation “the passenger”) must not be charged a penalty fare where either paragraph (2) or (3) applies.

(2) This paragraph applies if, at the time when, and at the station where, the passenger boarded the train—

(a)there were no facilities in operation for the sale of a travel ticket for that passenger’s journey;

(b)the requirements for the display of notices specified in regulation 8 were not satisfied;

(c)a notice was displayed indicating that the passenger was, or persons generally were, permitted to travel by or be present on the train without having a travel ticket; or

(d)the operator of the train or the station, or a person acting or purporting to act on behalf of the operator, indicated that the passenger was, or persons generally were, permitted to travel by or be present on the train without having a travel ticket.

(3) This paragraph applies if—

(a)the passenger has travelled on a preceding train;

(b)at the time when, and at the station where, the passenger boarded the first of the preceding trains, any of sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph (2) applied; and

(c)at the time when, and at the station where, the passenger changed from any preceding train—

(i)any of sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph (2) applied; or

(ii)the passenger did not have sufficient time between leaving one train and boarding the next to purchase a travel ticket.

11.—(1) A person who has been charged a penalty fare under regulation 5(1) is not liable to pay where proceedings for any of the offences specified in paragraph (4) are also brought against that person in relation to the same failure to produce a platform ticket or a valid travel ticket which gave rise to that penalty fare.

(2) If a person to whom paragraph (1) applies has paid the penalty fare, or part of it, the operator on whose behalf the penalty fare was charged must refund that person the amount paid within the period of 10 working days, beginning with the day on which proceedings are brought.

(3) Where a person falling within paragraph (1)(a) has appealed against the penalty fare under regulation 16, proceedings for any of the offences specified in paragraph (4) may only be brought against that person for the same failure to produce a platform ticket or a valid travel ticket if the operator, on whose behalf the penalty fare was charged, notifies the relevant Appeal Panel that the penalty fare is cancelled before—

(a)the relevant Appeal Panel has decided the outcome of the appeal under regulation 16; or

(b)the time period mentioned in paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 expires,

whichever is sooner.

 

[Sumier]

Important to note that first and second appeals are often denied without due reason and it’s worth it to go all the way to the third appeal to, if nothing else, stall the clock for the 21 day prompt payment deadline.

For your curiosity:
The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018

Will do, I'll keep you all informed of their response. Thank you everyone for your replies and guidance!

 

[furlong]

Important to note that first and second appeals are often denied without due reason and it’s worth it to go all the way to the third appeal to, if nothing else, stall the clock for the 21 day prompt payment deadline.

For your curiosity:
The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018

Part of what you quote is out-of-date. Please look up The Railways (Penalty Fares) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.

 

[800Travel]

Will do, I'll keep you all informed of their response. Thank you everyone for your replies and guidance!

If you want to post your appeals on here prior to submitting them, there are some forum members who are good at checking and improving them. Just redact any references and personal information. Good luck with getting this sorted

 

[ainsworth74]

Part of what you quote is out-of-date. Please look up The Railways (Penalty Fares) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.

Perhaps for the avoidance of doubt for others it's worth noting that the operative legislation is the Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 as amended by the Railways (Penalty Fares) (Amendment) Regulations 2022. So it is correct to cite the 2018 Regulations, those are the operative law, it's just important to make sure that you're looking at a version which takes account of the amendments introduced by the 2022 Regulations. If you just look at the amendment regulations in isolation you're liable to confuse yourself as the way we write amendments to law is completely and utterly user unfriendly.

As far as I'm aware the version on legislation.gov.uk is currently fully up to date so I would also recommend anyone seeking to review and quote the 2018 Regulations uses that as their source.

 

[robhurt]

I believe that the Penalty Fare should not have been issued under these circumstances as you correctly point out section 4 of the legislation. You should note, however, that the company has the right under the Penalty Fares legislation to revoke your Penalty Fare and bring proceedings against you under a Byelaw offence, as long as this is done prior to the independent appeals outcome being reached. Here's the relevant section of the legislation:

11.—(1) A person who has been charged a penalty fare under regulation 5(1) is not liable to pay where proceedings for any of the offences specified in paragraph (4) are also brought against that person in relation to the same failure to produce a platform ticket or a valid travel ticket which gave rise to that penalty fare.

(2) If a person to whom paragraph (1) applies has paid the penalty fare, or part of it, the operator on whose behalf the penalty fare was charged must refund that person the amount paid within the period of 10 working days, beginning with the day on which proceedings are brought.

(3) Where a person falling within paragraph (1)(a) has appealed against the penalty fare under regulation 16, proceedings for any of the offences specified in paragraph (4) may only be brought against that person for the same failure to produce a platform ticket or a valid travel ticket if the operator, on whose behalf the penalty fare was charged, notifies the relevant Appeal Panel that the penalty fare is cancelled before—

(a)the relevant Appeal Panel has decided the outcome of the appeal under regulation 16; or

(b)the time period mentioned in paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 expires,

whichever is sooner.

 

[furlong]

.

I believe that the Penalty Fare should not have been issued under these circumstances as you correctly point out section 4 of the legislation. You should note, however, that the company has the right under the Penalty Fares legislation to revoke your Penalty Fare and bring proceedings against you under a Byelaw offence, as long as this is done prior to the independent appeals outcome being reached.

There is no right to do this under that legislation. The legislation merely sets out some conditions and consequences if proceedings are subsequently brought. That's an important distinction.

Some of us would argue that an authority, having decided to resolve a potentially criminal matter by the imposition of a civil penalty, can only subsequently succeed with criminal proceedings for the same matter in circumstances where it was mislead into imposing the penalty - new evidence undermines the decision. (I also suspect the courts might not view the first appeal deadline as sacrosanct in these circumstances either.) This is not a situation where the civil penalty and the criminal approach are independent of each other - the Penalty Fare has always been intended as an alternative to a prosecution, not a supplement to it.

 

[island]

There is no right to do this under that legislation.

yes there is, it's set out right there in post 46.

Some of us would argue that an authority, having decided to resolve a potentially criminal matter by the imposition of a civil penalty, can only subsequently succeed with criminal proceedings for the same matter in circumstances where it was mislead into imposing the penalty - new evidence undermines the decision.

Nothing in law (statute or case) supports this argument.

 

[furlong]

yes there is, it's set out right there in post 46.

Nothing there provides any right to prosecute.

11(1) / 11(2) are about consequences - if one happens (iirespective of how or why), the liability to pay the PF disappears/what's paid is refunded.

11(3) tries to impose some additional restrictions on some prosecutions. It says nothing about when prosecutions can be - there is no right here - it says only when they can't.
(I doubt this regulation has been tested much if at all, but it's awkward as 'cancelled' is incompletely defined, whereas new evidence or certain types of mistakes could be capable of 'voiding' a PF putting things back as if it had never been issued and then none of these regulations would be relevant anyway. And without this sort of 'voiding' all someone has to do is lie to the inspector about something crucial so the PF that's issued is indisputably invalid, then reveal it supported by evidence on second appeal in a way that mandates the appeals body to uphold the appeal - and then purport to rely upon 11(3) to get away scot free.)

Anyway it's the wrong thread for us to be repeating these arguments as (1) I don't think any of us can recall an example of "cancellation before appeal" happening in practice so I think it's wrong to keep mentioning it on threads such as this one as if it's a realistic possibility that could change how someone responds and (2) we've seen appeals bodies previously state that tickets bought after boarding are not "valid" so it's that argument that the response needs to address, that a ticket bought on a phone on a train can be no less valid than a ticket bought from a conductor on a train - what matters is that it was bought BEFORE the inspector asked to see it.

 

[P Binnersley]

You can check the actual purchase time of a ticket by putting the QR code into the Railway ticket decoder website.

 

[800Travel]

You can check the actual purchase time of a ticket by putting the QR code into the Railway ticket decoder website.

Would that also show up on railway systems as the ticket having been scanned?

 

[glasgowniteowl]

Would that also show up on railway systems as the ticket having been scanned?

No it's only reading the information contained in the aztec code not actually communicating with the ticket database

 

[Sumier]

Afternoon everyone, update time

First appeal rejected, probably as we all expected, about to draft my second appeal if anyone has any tips and pointers. Ive attached a copy of the response from the appeal services.

 

[IanXC]

You may wish to speak with your payment card provider, as they should be able to provide the authorisation details for the payment, which will include the exact time the payment was authorised, which I would suggest is the point at which the ticket has been paid for and thus purchased.

 

[185]

It would be interesting to see if there is a variance between the transaction processing with the banks and the data generated on the e-ticket. For the record, that link

RSP6 decoder

- the Aztec barcode decoder mentioned above does work (with some persistence) and does show a time purchased in minutes, not seconds. It also leaves no footprint when scanning as it is offline. It would be useful to see how these two times stack up against the train's actual departure time on RTT (17:56:45).

 

[Sumier]

It would be interesting to see if there is a variance between the transaction processing with the banks and the data generated on the e-ticket. For the record, that link

RSP6 decoder

- the Aztec barcode decoder mentioned above does work (with some persistence) and does show a time purchased in minutes, not seconds. It also leaves no footprint when scanning as it is offline. It would be useful to see how these two times stack up against the train's actual departure time on RTT (17:56:45).

Says 17:58 :/. I might just have to bite the bullet and pay the fine, lesson learnt to purchase tickets well before the train leaves

 

[185]

Ah, no worries. Although, (as suggested above) I would also check on your bank statement to see what transaction time they recorded - it is quite relevant as the railway's transaction time should match yours.

 

[Haywain]

Ah, no worries. Although, (as suggested above) I would also check on your bank statement to see what transaction time they recorded - it is quite relevant as the railway's transaction time should match yours.

That's unlikely, as there will inevitably be a delay between the bank authorising transaction and the retailer generating the ticket, which then has to be sent to the customer.

 

[Snow1964]

I seem to recall that if you post the ticket including the Aztec code, someone on here can actually read it and confirm the exact time the ticket was issued. (We had a very similar case recently where it was down to seconds as to whether it was issued prior to inspection.) I suspect it might confirm the Inspector's view of events, but if you are willing to post it, hopefully that person will see the post and confirm.

I wouldn't trust train running info to nearest 15 seconds either, very often it is extrapolated from when train rolls onto next signalling section, it doesn't mean that it actually started moving at the exact time shown.
Then got to allow door cycle times. Unless there is a fully time calibrated video of the train departure as evidence, need to allow an error factor of anything before/after 0-100 seconds on train departure time.

From Ops version it appears the Inspector decided it was purchased after departure, it might be factual that it had only been bought few minutes before, but that doesn't prove it was after departure. Really need to know what time the scanner flags as just bought (half a minute ago, 5 minutes ago etc)

 

[furlong]

I don't think we saw your submission, but I suggest you take issue with their statement that "tickets purchased after boarding are not valid" and try to argue in legal terms (a) nothing makes them invalid and then (b) how that means a PF can't be issued if one was purchased PRIOR to being asked to present your ticket for inspection, followed by the standard stuff about how that means the appeal must be upheld and if they disagree to check with lawyers and provide their legal arguments. (Even mentioning that in these circumstances, other remedies are available to the train company, but not a PF.)