GTR are threatening to take me to court unless I pay a penalty fare, but I'm certain I'm within the rules as a disabled passenger?

[disabledpass20]

Please can you upload the letter you sent to them (your reply to their first letter) and the second letter they sent to you?

I'm attaching my letter to them here. It went with all the attached items mentioned in the letter.

The letters they have sent me since are also attached (in between those two I just sent them a letter back saying I had already paid the fare and there was nothing outstanding)

 

[AlterEgo]

Their correspondence to me has been very nonspecific - they just said on this occasion I owed them £85.40 and when I objected and pointed out there was no 'outstanding fare' in any case (I sent them my trainline ticket history including the date in question which I assume they can access anyway), they just wrote back and said "having considered the points you have raised I am writing to inform you this department will be going forward with the case" -

I think you should now get your MP involved or a disability charity advocate and make clear their own policy covers you.

they said the money is made up of a "contribution towards the administration costs of GTR plus the outstanding fare owed". They have not actually said they're charging me a penalty fare.

A penalty fare cannot be issued retrospectively. This is a matter which has been reported for prosecution and they ask for the fare plus their admin fee for the time they themselves have wasted farting around with your case.

I was unable to buy a ticket at the station, and consequently I bought it during my journey. I think it's irrelevant that the inspectors were on the train when I bought the ticket - I could have indeed not bought it until the end station and that still should have been fine.

Agreed.

Nor did I owe the inspector any explanation of my medical history (I would have explained my situation in detail had he not been immediately aggressive and made me feel uncomfortable, which made it clear there was going to be no reasoning with him).

Indeed you do not have to substantiate your disability in these circumstances.

I don't have a disabled railcard - although I now think I should get one. The reason I haven't had one is because the discounts that it offers are the same as are offered by my 26-30 railcard (as far as I'm aware)

Not at all. The Disabled Railcard has no time restriction and holding one automatically entitles one to board without a ticket if the ticket issuing facilities are inaccessible to you, regardless of the TOC’s accessibility policy. It also gets a discount for anyone travelling with you and also discounts first class walk up fares. You should certainly get one, I find mine very useful.

 

[Titfield]

The lack of any form of basis for the demand for the moneys sought is astonishing. Whilst it is not explicitly stated it appears to be on the basis of boarding a train without a valid ticket and without a valid reason for doing so.

As @AlterEgo has suggested I think this needs the involvement of your MP or Disability Charity.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Please, could anyone advise me what I should do in this scenario? Honestly £85 is not much money to me at this point in my life, but it's the principle that bothers me. I acted in accordance with their rules, and I'm being penalised for that - and next time it could be a disabled person who is only just getting by financially who is put in this situation.

Going all the way back to the original question, it seems tome that GTR have taken no account of the OP's disability - although it's clearly spelt out in their letter inpost #31 above.

Given that previous cases suggest that GTR do follow this board (n.b. never, as far as I can see, to the drawback of posters) I do wonder if one more polite letter spelling out the OP's disability might do the trick? If GTR have read the thread, they'll be well aware of the wide concern and potential for corporate embarrassment.

 

[enyoueffsea]

I have to admit the op puzzles me, if the op carried a stylus, (computer pen with rubber end) then many problems would be solved for them.

Agreed, and in my experience TVMs can be operated adequately using a knuckle rather than a finger tip.

Two posts that couldn’t really be more ableism. “Why can’t you just…”

There are several aspects to the ticket buying process and the OP has very kindly explained what they feel able to do and what they don’t feel able to do. I’m sure they know their disability much better than people on the internet.

There are many clear examples on this forum of blatant fare evasion, this is so obviously far from this.

It’s a fairly simple conversation. The OP has a disability which limits their options of purchasing tickets. The policies allow the OP to purchase tickets in a way that meets their needs. The Inspector showed a worrying lack of knowledge or understanding of this and the TOC’s response to date has been equally as poor.

The only comments this thread need are assisting the OP in drafting a further response to the TOC or involvement of charities, MPs etc.

 

[Titfield]

Two posts that couldn’t really be more ableism. “Why can’t you just…”

I do not interpret those comments in that way.

To me it is "able" individuals trying to understand more about the challenges the OP faces and why oft suggested solutions are not suitable for the OP.

In my experience of this forum, the vast majority of the regular posters are seeking to understand, assist and advise to the benefit of the OP.

 

[enyoueffsea]

I do not interpret those comments in that way.

To me it is "able" individuals trying to understand more about the challenges the OP faces and why oft suggested solutions are not suitable for the OP.

In my experience of this forum, the vast majority of the regular posters are seeking to understand, assist and advise to the benefit of the OP.

I don’t intend to carry this conversation on any further as it is not the place to have the discussion, but I would agree with you if the comments were phrased differently.

“Could you use a stylus to assist your ticket purchasing at machines?” vs. “If you carried a stylus many of your problems would be solved”

One is a polite enquiry to understand more, the other is telling someone what they should do.

 

[Titfield]

I don’t intend to carry this conversation on any further as it is not the place to have the discussion, but I would agree with you if the comments were phrased differently.

“Could you use a stylus to assist your ticket purchasing at machines?” vs. “If you carried a stylus many of your problems would be solved”

One is a polite enquiry to understand more, the other is telling someone what they should do.

I share the sentiment about not carrying on this conversation further.

I note your comments about the phrasing of the comments however based on the many thousands of comments made by experts @Haywain and @philthetube I have read I am sure there motivations and intentions were of the noblest and that, as so often, a response written quickly can result in an unfortunate interpretation being capable of being construed rather than what was intended.

 

[AlterEgo]

It’s also worth remembering that the OP is the one who gets to decide if the facilities are accessible to them. If they say they cannot use the facilities, that is as good as fact.

It’s not in GTR’s gift to decide that for the OP and they’re way over the line here legally.

 

[GatwickDepress]

Not at all. The Disabled Railcard has no time restriction and holding one automatically entitles one to board without a ticket if the ticket issuing facilities are inaccessible to you, regardless of the TOC’s accessibility policy. It also gets a discount for anyone travelling with you and also discounts first class walk up fares. You should certainly get one, I find mine very useful.

I will note that obtaining a Disabled Railcard if you do not meet the limited criteria can be quite difficult. I legally cannot drive due to disability, yet I am ineligible for one.

 

[AlterEgo]

I will note that obtaining a Disabled Railcard if you do not meet the limited criteria can be quite difficult. I legally cannot drive due to disability, yet I am ineligible for one.

Yes this has always been a strange omission. I can drive and my disability is also not obvious and I do not identify “as disabled” but receive my card via a PIP award. Being unable to drive because of eg: non-epileptic seizures really ought to be criteria, but we digress!

 

[GatwickDepress]

Yes this has always been a strange omission. I can drive and my disability is also not obvious and I do not identify “as disabled” but receive my card via a PIP award. Being unable to drive because of eg: non-epileptic seizures really ought to be criteria, but we digress!

I've always thought it odd, and so have many professionals who are surprised at the very strict criteria. Currently 3 years into my PIP application, so let's see if I can get a Disabled Railcard before 2030! Thankfully, as a mature student, I am eligible for a 16-25 railcard which is better than nothing. But as you say, we digress!

 

[saismee]

Because nobody else has mentioned it (and it seems to puzzle OP), the figure they are giving you is likely the price of an anytime day single plus a 50 pound penalty fare. It increases to 100 pounds + ticket fare if you do not pay within a certain timeframe, and they usually put 100 pounds on the posters to help deter people.

I think you should now get your MP involved or a disability charity advocate and make clear their own policy covers you.

Agreed.

 

[Titfield]

Because nobody else has mentioned it (and it seems to puzzle OP), the figure they are giving you is likely the price of an anytime day single plus a 50 pound penalty fare. It increases to 100 pounds + ticket fare if you do not pay within a certain timeframe, and they usually put 100 pounds on the posters to help deter people.


Agreed.

The sum originally quoted to the OP may be calculated by that methodology but it can not be in the form of a Penalty Fare (which is £100 / £50 plus fare avoided) because a PF can only be issued at the time and not retrospectively.

 

[saismee]

The sum originally quoted to the OP may be calculated by that methodology but it can not be in the form of a Penalty Fare (which is £100 / £50 plus fare avoided) because a PF can only be issued at the time and not retrospectively.

Whoops. I thought OP had been issued a penalty fare. My bad.

 

[enyoueffsea]

If this was me, I would send the TOC a letter advising them I wouldn’t be paying the settlement offer, as I hadn’t done anything wrong.

Others much more skilled than me could advise you on drafting the letter, quoting the various policies.

I’d leave it with them to decide to either drop it entirely or progress to prosecution. If they very foolishly chose the latter, I would be pleading not guilty and having the day in court.

In parallel to this, I’d write to my local MP to raise the issues with this case as well as the CEO of the TOC.

Nothing will change as a result, sadly. But I’d be satisfied in doing my bit to try and raise and escalate it.

Although I appreciate you may not have the appetite to go all of the way with this, if necessary.

 

[AlterEgo]

Best strategy is a letter to the MD accompanied by MP letter or disability advocate. Alternatively, pay the settlement, and pursue this via the same avenues and also the press.

Regrettably many TOC prosecution teams are not staffed with Britain’s best or brightest. Quite staggering ignorance of the OP’s well written correspondence to be honest.

 

[Egg Centric]

I will note that obtaining a Disabled Railcard if you do not meet the limited criteria can be quite difficult. I legally cannot drive due to disability, yet I am ineligible for one.

OTOH it shouldn't be particularly hard to get a private prescription for a hearing aid if you want one, as there are some right sharks in the hearing aid industry (speaking as someone who isn't at all deaf but does have chronically "bunged up" ears as well a audio processing disorder who could definitely get one if I were so inclined, even though it'd be useless). I was surprised to see that on the criteria.

 

[JordR]

It appears GTR might be stuck on the fare evaders' hallmark of having purchased shortly before an RPI inspection. Their second letter appears to be a mass-produced rejection that doesn't acknowledge that they've considered a disability or any other specific circumstance.

Worth another go, maybe more concisely with just the excerpt of their own policy?

 

[RPI]

Did the OP purchase a ticket for their entire journey? Having skim read I'm not sure if that point has been made?

 

[Adam Williams]

It’s also worth remembering that the OP is the one who gets to decide if the facilities are accessible to them. If they say they cannot use the facilities, that is as good as fact.

100%.

And from knowing folks with OCD, it's almost always the case that they know it's entirely irrational, and it can be quite exhausting trying to repeatedly explain why things - which, to you and I - don't obviously make sense / can "obviously" be worked around, can and do trigger such intense distress and present a real blocker to activities that other people can go about easily.

In some ways I think society's portrayal of "OCD" in some popular (social) media has also made understanding worse here by conflating it with "liking neatness/symmetry/tidiness".

I would second your suggestion that OP acquires a Disabled Persons Railcard. It's unfortunate today that that does limit the vendors that the railcard can be acquired from (which should hopefully change "soon"), but it does confer many benefits and it's also quite a bit cheaper now following the recent increases in cost.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Show me which bylaw or where in the NRCoT this is stipulated. This is a huge myth on here which needs seriously busting.

Tickets may certainly be purchased after boarding, online, provided the ticket facilities at the origin were unavailable, or otherwise inaccessible.

The following is my lay opinion: I am not a legal professional.

If there is no opportunity to purchase before boarding one may purchase after, noting that not leaving enough time is not an excuse. If one has a mobile phone AND is willing to use it, an opportunity existed before boarding. Therefore boarding without taking that opportunity is an offence.

With regard to TVMs they are all capacitive touchscreens and you do not need to press them hard, a tap with a knuckle certainly works and I've done this.

Therefore I would recommend the OP pays any settlement. However to make life easier they may wish to get a capacitive touchscreen pen (few quid from Amazon, basically a pen with a small conductive rubber ball on the end) if their disability prevents them touching a TVM, as this will then make them fully usable by them and avoid any future issues.

 

[Adam Williams]

If one has a mobile phone AND is willing to use it, an opportunity existed before boarding.

It doesn't matter how willing you are if you can't get signal.

No member of the public is going to have the ability to issue a ticket offline.

 

[yorkie]

If there is no opportunity to purchase before boarding one may purchase after, noting that not leaving enough time is not an excuse. If one has a mobile phone AND is willing to use it, an opportunity existed before boarding. Therefore boarding without taking that opportunity is an offence.

Your argument appears to be that a disabled person who is unable to use machines boards a train, they are entitled to buy on board, without penalty, from a member of staff. However, if they successfully purchase a ticket online while on board, they are committing an offence, even when they had no requirement to buy online.

In other words, you accept that a disabled person has the right to board the train without a ticket, but only become guilty of an offence if and when they buy a ticket online.

I'm not entirely convinced by this argument. You may be right, but you are presenting it as absolute fact, rather than your opinion. Do you have any evidence that this is definitely the legal position?

Is your post based on working for a legal firm, or having studied/knowledge of disability legislation, or any other area in which you would acquire such knowledge?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It doesn't matter how willing you are if you can't get signal.

No member of the public is going to have the ability to issue a ticket offline.

True. But purchasing in front of an inspector in this case (as the OP says they did) is a very silly thing to do indeed because of what it looks like. It would have been sensible to ask the inspector what to do first as this makes it clear there is no intention to evade.

I would still recommend paying as I think the OP has zero chance of convincing GTR that they weren't trying it on.

 

[Watershed]

If one has a mobile phone AND is willing to use it, an opportunity existed before boarding.

Byelaw 18(3)(i) refers:

(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;

A mobile phone does not issue or validate tickets, nor is it "at" a station.

Nor, if we are taking a purposive interpretation, is a mobile phone the kind of "facility" the defence in the legislation is alluding to.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Your argument appears to be that a disabled person who is unable to use machines boards a train, they are entitled to buy on board, without penalty, from a member of staff. However, if they successfully purchase a ticket online while on board, they are committing an offence, even when they had no requirement to buy online.

In other words, you accept that a disabled person has the right to board the train without a ticket, but only become guilty of an offence if and when they buy a ticket online.

I'm not entirely convinced by this argument. You may be right, but you are presenting it as absolute fact, rather than your opinion. Do you have any evidence that this is definitely the legal position?

Is your post based on working for a legal firm, or having studied/knowledge of disability legislation, or any other area in which you would acquire such knowledge?

It is, like almost everyone here, based on a lay understanding of the situation. However we do have an experienced legal expert here, do we not? Perhaps they might clarify for us.

In all cases we post our opinions here; were I giving case law I would obviously refer to it as the Forum requires, so putting "it is my lay opinion that" at the start of every single post would seem superfluous (though if you'd prefer me to do that I can of course do it going forward, and I have edited the above post to state it).

But practically and sensibly, buying on a phone in sight of an inspector with it having asked them if that is the right action is a very poor choice of action because of what it looks like, and because most people who do that are intending to evade.

 

[John R]

I agree that GTR will regard this as pay when challenged. Bear in mind the OP boarded at Preston Park which is in the heart of the Brighton conurbation. I find it difficult to believe that there was no mobile signal there, nor in Burgess Hill, Haywards Heath, Three Bridges, Gatwick Airport, Horley, Redhill or Purley, which the train would have passed through and presumably stopped at in many cases. But instead they chose to buy a ticket only on seeing the inspectors, and only when questioned raised their matter of their disability.

 

[AlterEgo]

I agree that GTR will regard this as pay when challenged. Bear in mind the OP boarded at Preston Park which is in the heart of the Brighton conurbation. I find it difficult to believe that there was no mobile signal there, nor in Burgess Hill, Haywards Heath, Three Bridges, Gatwick Airport, Horley, Redhill or Purley, which the train would have passed through and presumably stopped at in many cases. But instead they chose to buy a ticket only on seeing the inspectors, and only when questioned raised their matter of their disability.

But they are allowed to do this! Passengers who cannot use ticket offices or ticket machines owning to their disability are *allowed to pay when challenged* when they come across staff or at the end of their journey! There’s no offence here; the OP is allowed to board the train with no valid ticket.

The whole shebang about no mobile signal etc etc is a total red herring. No offence was committed.

You and @Bletchleyite are again lost in the weeds. There is no concept of “opportunity to pay” with Bylaw 18.

Please, you and @Bletchleyite - state unequivocally which law has been broken by the OP, given:

- they cannot use the facilities at origin owing to their disability
- they alone are the arbiter of that
- there is clear permission to board without a valid ticket in these circumstances.

Do you think that had the OP not purchased their ticket on their phone, and instead simply asked to buy one from the inspector/guard, this would also constitute an offence? If so, why?

But practically and sensibly, buying on a phone in sight of an inspector with it having asked them if that is the right action is a very poor choice of action because of what it looks like, and because most people who do that are intending to evade.

Which offence please? Cite it.

 

[saismee]

It is ever frustrating coming back to this thread to see people suggesting OP should've done X or Y instead, and should start doing it from now on. OP was within their rights to board, we shouldn't be suggesting that they change how they use the service when it is up to the operator to uphold their own policies and stop trying to falsely prosecute an innocent and disabled person.

I think this thread should be locked once again until OP responds with more information or new questions. There isn't anything else to suggest until then.