Expired railcard - best grounds for appeal

[AlterEgo]

Any reason?


I've had a good look at the notice and I really can't see any fault with how it's issued. I might talk to one of my lawyer friends to get their view though.

Post the notice on here, becuase there are elements of procedure you aren’t likely to be familiar with, but the posters here will be. There are numerous ways for the Notice to be non compliant and for an appeal to succeed.

@AlterEgo is not referring to the notice you received, but the sign(s) posted at the station where you boarded the train, advising that a Penalty Fares system applied. The PF Regulations are very specific about the wording those signs must contain and where they are placed.

No, I am asking the OP to post the Penalty Fare notice they received, with their details redacted.

We've seen enough cases where this issue has been raised. Either that a ticket has gone through a gateline or even been checked by another member of staff, and the invalidity of it, for whatever reason, hasn't been picked up. I can't recall a case where the omission of a prior ticket check to spot the invalidity has been used successfully to appeal whatever penalty has been imposed.

Indeed the opening of a barrier by a ticket is not permission to travel, which must be given by an authorised person, and the onus for which is in any case on the appellant to prove.

A non-complaint notice is usually the easiest and simplest of the technical appeals. The OP has no non-technical appeals available in the circumstances.

 

[womblingfree]

It's a receipt rather than a notice as I paid the penalty on the spot.

 

[furlong]

What was printed on the back of it? Please include a copy.

So is that a 'notice' or a 'receipt'? Go and read the regulations again if you thought it was compliant the first time!

(h) a statement that the person must either pay, or appeal against, the penalty fare within 21
days beginning with the day following the day on which the penalty fare is charged;
(j) a statement that the person is entitled to a receipt if they pay the penalty fare.

It incorrectly states you must pay by the given date - it should say 'pay or appeal'.
It doesn't say you're entitled a receipt (unless perhaps it's on the back).
The word 'receipt' should not have been ringed, implying it's ONLY a receipt and not a notice. It is clearly intended to be both - part notice, part receipt.

Additionally the statement that if you don't pay by the date given, legal proceedings may be started is similarly incorrect - if you appeal, you do NOT have to pay by that date and legal proceedings have to wait!

(If that's a standard pad GWR is using, it needs to withdraw it immediately and replace it with one that complies properly with the current version of regulations, removing all the bits that related only to former regulations. Meanwhile Transport Focus should investigate and demand that any Penalty Fares issued using those pads are refunded.)

 

[island]

For info, where we've seen an appeal including the signage technicality has been accepted, it's always (I believe) been accepted on another ground, rather than conceding that the signage is wrong. We have a suspicion that is deliberate, to avoid setting a precedent that could open the floodgates to a reversal of every PF issued over the last couple of years.

I believe the issue frequently raised here is something to the effect of the words “you may be charged a penalty fare” being interchanged with “you may have to pay a penalty fare”. A solicitor who posts regularly on the forum has expressed the view, which I share, that technical defects in the wording of signage, where the meaning is unaffected, do not meet the level required to invalidate a Penalty Fare. “De minimis non curat lex” – the law does not concern itself with trivial things.

Only a senior court can determine this conclusively, however.

Any idea where I can see a case that sets a precedent here? I don't know this particular area of the law, but my former career in national newspaper journalism means I'm no slouch when it comes to picking apart this stuff.

Penalty fare appeal results do not create a precedent and a future appeal panel is allowed to depart from them.

I also wondered whether the fact my ticket enabled me to pass through the barriers at Paddington without the validity being checked essentially gave me permission to travel - Regulation 6 (2)(d) of the Penalty Fares Regulations might apply?

I do not think this argument will get you very far at all, as ticket barriers have never been able to check Railcard validity. I think that to be relied upon, permission to travel must be given by an authorised person – a human – who is aware of the tickets held and authorised travel despite any lack my ticket or document.

 

[womblingfree]

Penalty fare appeal results do not create a precedent and a future appeal panel is allowed to depart from them.

So they’re making it up as they go along?

 

[furlong]

For signage, there are two separate issues - the poster content and the poster locations. Both aspects are deficient at Paddington. (If you want to see a major station even worse, take a look at London Bridge!)

 

[AlterEgo]

So they’re making it up as they go along?

No, but there is no such thing as precedent when it comes to Penalty Fares. The decision of one person's penalty fare does not bind the panel to making decisions on others' penalty fares.

 

[womblingfree]

No, but there is no such thing as precedent when it comes to Penalty Fares. The decision of one person's penalty fare does not bind the panel to making decisions on others' penalty fares.

So they are making it up as they go along.

 

[furlong]

No, but there is no such thing as precedent when it comes to Penalty Fares. The decision of one person's penalty fare does not bind the panel to making decisions on others' penalty fares.

While no precedent is set in the strict legal sense, there is supposed to be consistency and it is one of the roles of Transport Focus to monitor this and raise any concerns.

 

[FenMan]

So they are making it up as they go along.

No. The appelant is not going to a court where precedence is taken into account. There is no "making it up", the panel are reviewing the facts, as presented, and coming to a decision.

 

[AlterEgo]

While no precedent is set in the strict legal sense, there is supposed to be consistency and it is one of the roles of Transport Focus to monitor this and raise any concerns.

Riffing on this theme, we have seen penalty fare appeals upheld for reasons not even given in the appellant's correspondence, as the appeal was on technical grounds which could undermine faith in the penalty fare system. So yes, no legal precedent, and no way to bind a panel to decisions made previously, although they seem to be vaguely aware these issues are coming to public attention.

 

[island]

While no precedent is set in the strict legal sense, there is supposed to be consistency and it is one of the roles of Transport Focus to monitor this and raise any concerns.

Transport Focus is about as useful as a chocolate teapot, and at least you can eat the teapot.