Paid for e-ticket - phone died, penalty fare issued, first appeal unsuccessful.

[paul1609]

But printing is an option, not a necessity if you have a device on which you can display an eTicket. If you haven’t got a suitable device and can’t access a printer don’t use eTickets.

Yep, I agree. Just pointing out the assumption that everyone enjoys the facilities afforded by living in urban areas isn't correct. Despite being within 60 miles of Charing Cross there's quite substantial communities down here that the only internet connection they can get with a download speed in excess of 1Mbi is Starlink at £75 pm plus equipment.

 

[Hadders]

This thread is for assisting the OP deal with their issue of their phone running out of charge and not being able to show their ticket and not for a general discussion of paper v e-tickets.

 

[MaxM]

I've submitted my final appeal. It had to be concise due to the 2000 character limit, hence I've limited the my description of the regulations in the hope the appeals body actually have some knowledge of it or will look them up.

"My penalty fare was issued on the 09:28 Brighton to Bedford train on 16-01-24, on my journey from Brighton to London Blackfriars, where I arrived at 10:41. I bought a valid e-ticket but couldn't produce it due to a dead phone battery. My appeal is based on Regulation 5(5A) regarding penalty fare travel authorisation, Regulation 6(2)(b) and notice requirements 8(2) and 8(4) and Regulation 16(3)(d) for compelling reasons.

The collector authorised my penalty fare to travel to Blackfriars without my awareness or informing me that it was optional to leave at the next station for a reduced fee; I could have charged my phone if so. By the wording of 5(5A), the next station should be the default destination, otherwise the TOC can charge a greater penalty fare than the minimum; as a private company this is a conflict of interest.

Additionally, the enclosed photo evidence shows an absence of penalty fare notices at Brighton station, violating regulations 8(2) and 8(4), thus the penalty fare must not be charged by regulation 6(2)(b).

Finally, in respect to Regulation 16(3)(d) of compelling reasons to allow the appeal. I have enclosed evidence that I paid for a valid ticket in full. Running out of battery was an honest mistake that I am very embarrassed by and take very seriously; accordingly I have invested a lot of time in this appeal. In 2018 Rail Minister Jo Johnson said "Rail users should make every effort to get the right ticket for their journey, but if you make an honest mistake, you should feel confident that the appeals system will recognise this and treat you fairly.” I ask the Appeals Body to show fairness in this case.

In conclusion under Regulation 18(4), the appeal must be allowed by 16(3)a as the penalty fare was not charged in accordance with regulations 6(2)(b) and 5(5A). Further or alternatively, I submit Regulation 16(3)(d) applies and ask the Appeals Body to find that there are compelling reasons I should not be liable to pay the penalty fare."

I used an excellent template from a previous appeal I found

Stansted Airport fines

Went through today. Certainly is another huge poster on the right hand side above the ramp with a few different languages. It's all over the gates too. I wish the OP well with the appeal but I would be very surprised for GA to overturn it given how clear the signage is. Thanks - a few people...

www.railforums.co.uk

but couldn't make it as eloquent as theirs due to space constraint but concise is always better.

These were the photos I enclosed of Brighton station without Penalty Notices. There were two penalty notices in total I could find, not in the photos, one near the side entrance and one hidden away at the back of a 'booklet' style notice board, neither sufficiently visible.

I'll keep update on the outcome.

 

[furlong]

There is no size limit on the appeal. What led you to think there was? That should be a separate matter of complaint if it caused you to truncate your arguments and potentially lose as a result.
What people normally do is include their full appeal as an attachment and treat the limited text box as a covering letter giving a short summary.

(If the appeals process did impose a size limit, then you could argue it was not compliant with the regulations and therefore the Penalty Fare itself was not issued in accordance with the regulations and therefore void.)

 

[MaxM]

Thank you @furlong for the response, the reason I thought it was limited was because as far as I could see there was no indication that I should attach my appeal if it exceeded the character limited box. In the information below the text box, it mentions what evidence should be attached, but not that the appeal itself should be attached as a document.

Hopefully, the concise nature is clearer; it lacks some of the more persuasive writing but I imagine they have many appeals to read through every day.

This is my final appeal. I'm not sure if I would be able to appeal again with regard to your point. Possibly I could pay in protest and attempt to claim a refund.

 

[island]

If there are issues with submitting an appeal online due to character limits, there is also the option to appeal by post.

 

[MaxM]

As anticipated, my third appeal was unsuccessful.

Frustratingly, they did not address the other issues I raised with the penalty fare e.g. lack of notices in Brighton station.

They mention I can no longer appeal through the penalty services but I am able to send my case on to 'London Travel Watch' to see if they can assist:

'There is no higher tier of appeal than the Independent Appeals Panel, but if you believe there has been a failure to process your appeal correctly, you may wish to refer your case in writing to:- London TravelWatch, Europoint, 5-11 Lavington Street, London, SE1 0NZ; via the web at www.londontravelwatch.org.uk; or by e-mailing [email protected].'

I am inclined to do so, as I feel I have not been given sufficient explanation of why my appeal refused as they have not addressed the other mitigating circumstances I have outlined. Perhaps they are not required to; I still feel this is a case where they are simply charging me not because it is the right thing to do but because the cards are stacked in their favour and the appeal was a window dressing of due process.

My question now is if I should pay the penalty fare before I submit my case to London Travel Watch to avoid any further fines? This would be a payment under protest, however I'm not sure how I can make that distinction clear.

I believe I have almost 21 days to pay the penalty, however it's not immediately obvious from their wording.

I have enclosed the appeal outcome and my final appeal as a PDF, although it can also be read in my post above (dated 05.02.2024).

 

[furlong]

For London Travelwatch, I think the point would be that your technical grounds for appeal appear to have been completely ignored in the panel's judgment, and you believed you were unable to explain them in any more detail because of the size limit imposed on your appeal and this was to your detriment. You could ask why there is a size limit as the regulations make no reference to one and invite them to agree that the current appeals process does not comply with the regulations for this reason.

At this point if you pay, it's over from their point of view, but you can continue to challenge to try to get your money back.

If you don't pay, the threats will escalate until either you do pay (more, as they'll keep attempting to add on charges) or it reaches court.

 

[island]

If you don't pay, the threats will escalate until either you do pay (more, as they'll keep attempting to add on charges) or it reaches court.

If it does at all. There are very few instances of civil proceedings being taken to recover unpaid penalty fares. Though we cannot rule out the possibility of a criminal prosecution being improperly taken.

 

[AlterEgo]

Very odd refusal of the third appeal. I’m always very sceptical of technical appeals based on “lack of” signage and assertions that “I didn’t ask for the PF to Blackfriars”. Nonetheless if the panel is to refuse an appeal on those grounds it has to give reasoning. It seems as though the panel has just said “lol, no, didn’t charge your phone, what do you expect” which may be aligned with natural justice and common sense but which isn’t in the spirit of the Penalty Fares regulations. And I’m a big believer of playing the field as it lies.

I would be inclined to raise this with LTW and encourage the OP to do so, as there is little to lose by doing this.

 

[Pushpit]

My question now is if I should pay the penalty fare before I submit my case to London Travel Watch to avoid any further fines? This would be a payment under protest, however I'm not sure how I can make that distinction clear.

I believe I have almost 21 days to pay the penalty, however it's not immediately obvious from their wording.

You can simply write to GTR and inform them that payment is being made under protest.

The other option would be the Small Claims channel / MCOL, presumably based on the grounds mentioned in your appeal which appear not to have been considered in the 3rd appeal, plus perhaps a Statement of Truth from you that the RPI said you would get your money back if you could show the ticket later on: I presume that had he told you want in fact transpired, you may have acted differently. I wouldn't say this approach is guaranteed to work, since the core argument - namely the traveller's responsibilities to keep their phone charged - may well be attractive to the Court.

 

[MaxM]

Thank you all for your help. I have sent the following email to LTW

'Dear sir or madam,

RE: Final Penalty Fare Appeal Rejected Despite Valid Ticket


Thank you for taking the time to read my complaint. The TOC in question is GTR Thameslink.

My penalty fare was issued on the 09:28 Brighton to Bedford train on 16-01-24, on my journey from Brighton to London Blackfriars. I bought a valid e-ticket prior to the journey but could not show the ticket inspector on board the train due to a dead phone battery. My phone had power to allow me through the ticket barriers.

There were inconsistencies with the penalty fare, namely the way the penalty was issued and the lack of correct signage at Brighton station. I have enclosed my final appeal with further details alongside some of the photographic evidence I provided.

I also am unhappy with the lack of explanation in the final appeal outcome, which I have attached. The breach of regulations I describe in my final appeal are not addressed. It may be the case that they are not required to, but this gives the strong appearance of ignoring evidence.

I appreciate my case is not a dramatic one, but my concern is that a private funded TOC is taking advantage of their favourable position in law courts to carry out private prosecutions in a cursory manner as a means of increasing revenue. To emphasise this point, I paid in full for a valid e-ticket; I am now required to pay this ticket again plus the price of the penalty (£50 or £100 depending on pay date).

Please let me know if there are any more details you require. I would be very grateful for any advice you can offer. Thank you again for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.'

I may simply have to pay the penalty fare before their response and write to GTR as you suggest @Pushpit. I will re-read the penalty fare outcome and work out how long I have left to pay. Perhaps this information is also on their website when I enter my penalty fare reference.

 

[Titfield]

Thank you all for your help. I have sent the following email to LTW

'Dear sir or madam,

RE: Final Penalty Fare Appeal Rejected Despite Valid Ticket


Thank you for taking the time to read my complaint. The TOC in question is GTR Thameslink.

My penalty fare was issued on the 09:28 Brighton to Bedford train on 16-01-24, on my journey from Brighton to London Blackfriars. I bought a valid e-ticket prior to the journey but could not show the ticket inspector on board the train due to a dead phone battery. My phone had power to allow me through the ticket barriers.

There were inconsistencies with the penalty fare, namely the way the penalty was issued and the lack of correct signage at Brighton station. I have enclosed my final appeal with further details alongside some of the photographic evidence I provided.

I also am unhappy with the lack of explanation in the final appeal outcome, which I have attached. The breach of regulations I describe in my final appeal are not addressed. It may be the case that they are not required to, but this gives the strong appearance of ignoring evidence.

I appreciate my case is not a dramatic one, but my concern is that a private funded TOC is taking advantage of their favourable position in law courts to carry out private prosecutions in a cursory manner as a means of increasing revenue. To emphasise this point, I paid in full for a valid e-ticket; I am now required to pay this ticket again plus the price of the penalty (£50 or £100 depending on pay date).

Please let me know if there are any more details you require. I would be very grateful for any advice you can offer. Thank you again for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.'

I may simply have to pay the penalty fare before their response and write to GTR as you suggest @Pushpit. I will re-read the penalty fare outcome and work out how long I have left to pay. Perhaps this information is also on their website when I enter my penalty fare reference.

I very much doubt that the following will help this OP but it may be of assistance to others.

When making an appeal to any form of official body or tribunal it assists all parties if the appeal is laid out approximately as follows:

I wish to appeal the decision of (name of body taking the decision) in (what they did) on (date).

My grounds of appeal are:

(1) That the signage at Brighton Railway Station is in contravention of (give details) and as a result .......

(2) That the penalty fare (give detail) was not issued in accordance with (cote regulation) and as a result

(3) xxxxxxxx

By laying out and specifying each ground of appeal separately citing the appropriate regulation you 'compel' the appeal body to consider and respond to each ground separately.

You only need to succeed on one ground of appeal.

 

[northwichcat]

Moreover, if someone was let off in these circumstances, what is to stop them having a second copy of the ticket used by someone else on the same or a different train?

Surely the code on an e-ticket is unique, so if one is scanned exiting a station and someone else claimed it was their ticket when they had a dead phone battery, then someone would be lying.

Or print off the ticket

I did that with the TPE £1 Advance tickets I managed to secure. However, still the code needs to be scanned, otherwise one person might show an e-ticket and another may show a paper version of the same ticket.

 

[island]

I very much doubt that the following will help this OP but it may be of assistance to others.

When making an appeal to any form of official body or tribunal it assists all parties if the appeal is laid out approximately as follows:

I wish to appeal the decision of (name of body taking the decision) in (what they did) on (date).

My grounds of appeal are:

(1) That the signage at Brighton Railway Station is in contravention of (give details) and as a result .......

(2) That the penalty fare (give detail) was not issued in accordance with (cote regulation) and as a result

(3) xxxxxxxx

By laying out and specifying each ground of appeal separately citing the appropriate regulation you 'compel' the appeal body to consider and respond to each ground separately.

You only need to succeed on one ground of appeal.

The OP is not lodging an appeal as they have exhausted their rights of appeal.

Surely the code on an e-ticket is unique, so if one is scanned exiting a station and someone else claimed it was their ticket when they had a dead phone battery, then someone would be lying.



I did that with the TPE £1 Advance tickets I managed to secure. However, still the code needs to be scanned, otherwise one person might show an e-ticket and another may show a paper version of the same ticket.

I am not ignoring you but the moderator asked that this line of discussion cease and I am respecting that.

 

[MaxM]

The first response from the travel watchdog is not reassuring.

'Dear Mr McManus

Thank you for contacting London TravelWatch .

London TravelWatch is the statutory watchdog protecting and promoting transport users' interests. I should explain that our role includes dealing with customer complaints that the rail industry has not been able to resolve satisfactorily. This means that we must give the rail industry an opportunity to sort things out with you before we get involved.

In order for us to deal with your enquiry please could you provide as much information as you can. It would help us if you can provide:

• train operator
• copies of any correspondence
• What you would like to see as an outcome to your appeal

Once you have provided more information we can advise you on what we can do to help you or what you should do next.'

Most of this information I already provided but I will re-send the original email with more details. Possibly they have a response deadline and sent out an email to satisfy that deadline.

 

[WesternLancer]

Thank you all for your help. I have sent the following email to LTW

'Dear sir or madam,

RE: Final Penalty Fare Appeal Rejected Despite Valid Ticket


Thank you for taking the time to read my complaint. The TOC in question is GTR Thameslink.

My penalty fare was issued on the 09:28 Brighton to Bedford train on 16-01-24, on my journey from Brighton to London Blackfriars. I bought a valid e-ticket prior to the journey but could not show the ticket inspector on board the train due to a dead phone battery. My phone had power to allow me through the ticket barriers.

There were inconsistencies with the penalty fare, namely the way the penalty was issued and the lack of correct signage at Brighton station. I have enclosed my final appeal with further details alongside some of the photographic evidence I provided.

I also am unhappy with the lack of explanation in the final appeal outcome, which I have attached. The breach of regulations I describe in my final appeal are not addressed. It may be the case that they are not required to, but this gives the strong appearance of ignoring evidence.

I appreciate my case is not a dramatic one, but my concern is that a private funded TOC is taking advantage of their favourable position in law courts to carry out private prosecutions in a cursory manner as a means of increasing revenue. To emphasise this point, I paid in full for a valid e-ticket; I am now required to pay this ticket again plus the price of the penalty (£50 or £100 depending on pay date).

Please let me know if there are any more details you require. I would be very grateful for any advice you can offer. Thank you again for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.'

I may simply have to pay the penalty fare before their response and write to GTR as you suggest @Pushpit. I will re-read the penalty fare outcome and work out how long I have left to pay. Perhaps this information is also on their website when I enter my penalty fare reference.

Apols for late comment and I note you have sent this off to LTW - but I would pay the Penalty demanded now (to avoid any cost increasing) with a covering note that indicates it is paid despite the fact that you do not believe your Appeal has been considered properly, and that you are raising the matter with LTW as advised was possible.

Ref what you have written to LTW, I would have been tempted to suggest a clearer 'ask' should have been included stating what you feel LTW should do in order to pursue the matter further to your satisfaction. I'm not sure if your letter really makes that clear.

However, I not you have sent it off so it will be interesting to see how they respond.

I do thoroughly commend you for your efforts to persevere with this, so good luck for this stage.

 

[Deerfold]

I realise this is a bit late now, but it would probably have been an idea at each stage to post a proposed letter for tidying up rather than posting what you've already sent, as each time there's been suggestions on what would have been better. I'm surprised none of the regular responders suggested this.

 

[MaxM]

Thank you @WesternLancer, as you suggested I've paid the penalty fare and will be writing a cover letter of protest. There isn't any contact details for the Penalty Services website so I will be making a complaint to GTR Thameslink, unless someone recommends otherwise.

I've taken on your advice @Deerfold and will post the email for London TravelWatch here before sending.

'Dear sir or madam,

RE: Final Penalty Fare Appeal Rejected Despite Valid Ticket

Thank you for taking the time to read my complaint. The TOC in question is GTR Thameslink.

I have attached my appeals in a PDF and the appeal outcomes. I have also attached the evidence I provided to the Penalty Services.

My final appeal has been rejected. I have paid the penalty fare to avoid further charges however I have sent a cover letter to GTR Thameslink explaining my payment was made under protest and I will be seeking to contest the penalty fare. I have attached this correspondence.

As an outcome, I would like the penalty fare to be removed and to be refunded the amount I have paid. The Third appeal outcome does not address any of the breaches of regulation I made in my final appeal (I'll give the appeal number here). It may be the case that they are not required to, but this gives the strong appearance of ignoring evidence. For these reasons, I believe the penalty fare should not be upheld.

I look forward to your response and am grateful for any assistance you can offer.'

My original email and response from London TravelWatch are in the posts #132 and #136 for reference. Thank you.

 

[Hadders]

The first response from the travel watchdog is not reassuring.

'Dear Mr McManus

Thank you for contacting London TravelWatch .

London TravelWatch is the statutory watchdog protecting and promoting transport users' interests. I should explain that our role includes dealing with customer complaints that the rail industry has not been able to resolve satisfactorily. This means that we must give the rail industry an opportunity to sort things out with you before we get involved.

In order for us to deal with your enquiry please could you provide as much information as you can. It would help us if you can provide:

• train operator
• copies of any correspondence
• What you would like to see as an outcome to your appeal

Once you have provided more information we can advise you on what we can do to help you or what you should do next.'

Most of this information I already provided but I will re-send the original email with more details. Possibly they have a response deadline and sent out an email to satisfy that deadline.

This is London Travelwatch's standard reply. I've had the sae response when I've asked them to look at issues before.

To manage expectations, they aren't the best but it's worth a shot.

 

[island]

It should be noted that taking the matter to LTW does not "freeze" the penalty fare and this may begin to incur extra fees if not paid promptly.

 

[MaxM]

Thank you @island, I paid the penalty fare last night for that reason but will be writing a cover letter to GTR Thameslink saying the payment was under protest.

@Hadders, I will certainly try. Without researching, I've heard the rail ombudsman might be an option as a point of contact. Can anyone confirm this?

If there are no suggestions to improve my email to London TravelWatch in post #139, I will make my own edits and send it.

I'll post what I send here.

 

[AlterEgo]

@Hadders, I will certainly try. Without researching, I've heard the rail ombudsman might be an option as a point of contact. Can anyone confirm this?

Yes, but they are a waste of time. They only really investigate whether a train company has followed its own processed properly.

 

[WesternLancer]

Thank you @island, I paid the penalty fare last night for that reason but will be writing a cover letter to GTR Thameslink saying the payment was under protest.

@Hadders, I will certainly try. Without researching, I've heard the rail ombudsman might be an option as a point of contact. Can anyone confirm this?

If there are no suggestions to improve my email to London TravelWatch in post #139, I will make my own edits and send it.

I'll post what I send here.

I can't myself think of anything else to add or suggest changes to your draft to LTW

 

[Hadders]

It might also be worth contacting your MP about this.

 

[MaxM]

I sent my email to LTR TravelWatch and the complaint below to GTR Thameslink. Unfortunately, the online complaint form was not working so I had to use Twitter/X.

'My penalty fare was issued on the 09:28 Brighton to Bedford train on 16-01-24, on my journey from Brighton to London Blackfriars. I bought a valid e-ticket prior to the journey but could not show the ticket inspector on board the train due to a dead phone battery. My phone had power to allow me through the ticket barriers.

I have exhausted all appeals with the penalty fare service. In the final appeal outcome, they did not address my descriptions of breaches of the penalty fare regulations and thus I contend there was not sufficient reason to refuse my appeal.

I have paid the penalty fare under protest so as not to incur further fines. I have contacted London TravelWatch in an effort to appeal this case further and I am seeking a full refund of the penalty fare I have paid.

The appeal number is XXX and transaction number for the penalty fare payment is XXX.

My final appeal is pasted below. I will attach the final appeal outcome. (I attached both these documents)

Thank you for your help in this matter.'

Next, I will contact my MP when I get the time.

 

[Pushpit]

Next, I will contact my MP when I get the time.

Don't forget to mention this quote from the minister back in 1989 when the Penalty Fare was introduced. In summary the minister indicated that if you lost your ticket there would be a process by which the traveller could produce the ticket at a later point, with an implication that the penalty fare would be waived. Passengers would not be bulldozed or bullied into paying penalty fares, so long as there was a reasonable excuse for not producing the ticket.

British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill Lords - Hansard - UK Parliament

Hansard record of the item : 'British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill Lords' on Monday 6 February 1989.

hansard.parliament.uk

 

[MaxM]

@Pushpit, this is an excellent quote, thank you very much.

Second response from LondonTravelWatch.

"Thank you for contacting London TravelWatch , the statutory watchdog protecting and promoting passengers' interests.

I am sorry to read about the problems you have encountered. Your appeals will now be passed to a Caseworker. We aim to provide you with a full response within 35 working days. If it is not possible to provide a full response by this date, then we will contact you to inform you of the current situation.


Please read the attached what to expect document."

The document essentially states what their limitations are, I'll attach it to this post. I think my best bet is contacting my MP.


Email from City Thameslink

Unsurprising response from City Thameslink customer service.

"Thanks for getting in touch about your unsuccessful penalty appeal.

Although I understand the reasons for your appeal and further email to us, you will have to contact the penalty fare team directly as we have no dealings with penalty fares at customer services. Please contact them directly.

Thanks again for taking the time to get in touch."
There is no way of contacting the Penalty Fare Team directly that I know of, conveniently. I will do some more research.

 

[MaxM]

I have been in correspondence with London TravelWatch, who are awaiting a response from GTR, and also Thameslink customer services who have been particularly unhelpful. If anyone is interested in the details of these, I can post some of the emails.

Thankfully, I managed to find the time to write to my MP, Caroline Lucas. It's not perfect; I should have mentioned I am a constituent of hers but it's a start.

'Thank you for taking the time to read my email.

The train company in question is GTR Thameslink.

My penalty fare was issued on the 09:28 Brighton to Bedford train on 16-01-24, on my journey from Brighton to London Blackfriars. I bought a valid e-ticket prior to the journey but could not show the ticket inspector on board the train due to a dead phone battery. My phone had power to allow me through the ticket barriers. I was issued a penalty fare but was assured if I could present a valid ticket on appeal that it would be withdrawn.

Unfortunately, all three of my appeals were rejected.

There were inconsistencies with the penalty fare, namely the way the penalty was issued and the lack of correct signage at Brighton station. I have enclosed all my appeals with further details alongside some of the photographic evidence I provided.

I also am unhappy with the lack of explanation in the final appeal outcome, which I have attached. The breach of regulations I describe in my final appeal are not addressed. It may be the case that they are not required to, but this gives the strong appearance of ignoring evidence. If there are valid reasons for rejecting my appeals, they were not made clear.

I appreciate my case is not a dramatic one, but my concern is that a private funded train company is taking advantage of their favourable position in law courts to carry out private prosecutions in a cursory manner as a means of increasing revenue. To emphasise this point, I paid in full for a valid e-ticket; I have paid for this ticket again plus the £50 penalty. In total, for a single train journey to London and back I paid £95.40.

It is worth noting that during the second reading of British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill in February 1989, it can be seen that it was intended the penalty fare would have a 21 day discretionary period where authorities could withdraw penalty fares at their discretion given a reasonable excuse. Having clear proof of purchase of the valid e-ticket is surely an excellent reason to withdraw a penalty fare.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...ribution-a8072c04-42da-4375-960f-a8c7525a2b50 (see comments by Mr. McNair Wilson).

In summary, I believe my appeals against my penalty fare were not handled correctly and as a outcome of my enquiries I would like to see my penalty fare overturned.

I realise you may be limited in how much you can achieve in this situation but I would be very grateful for any help you could offer. Please let me know if you require any other information. I am currently also in correspondence with the customer services department of Thameslink, which has provided little help, and transport watchdog London TravelWatch. I can provide transcripts of this correspondence if needed.'

We'll see what happens.

 

[MaxM]

I wrote to my MP and received a response from a Senior Stakeholder Manager from GTR. I don't agree with all the points and feel it still avoids directly addressing the issues I raised. The emboldened text highlighting the appeals body response is also frustrating as that was not the basis of my appeal.

I will be contacting Transport Focus next. I was considering finally dropping the matter but then I heard a new announcement over the tannoy about penalty fares at a station which ended with the slogan 'It's only fair that we all pay the fare' and decided to continue.

The letter is below.

"I hope you are well and thank you again for the email on behalf of Mr McManus.

It is worth clarifying that a Penalty Fare is not a fine. We use fines when we suspect or can evidence fraud.

A Penalty Fare by contrast is a fare charged at a higher rate than the normal price because a passenger did not follow the normal rules for travel, in this case – being able to show that they had a valid ticket on request. The point is to encourage compliance, deter petty fare evasion, and ultimately – have a revenue protection “tool” which is not as significant as a fine or involve any likelihood of court action or similar, but does provide some level of an effective deterrent to encourage customers to follow the rules for travel. The penalty fare was until recently £20, but was recently increased to £50/£100 by the Government as consultation showed that £20 was now ineffective as a deterrent given inflation.

The Penalty Fare is £100 plus the price of the full single fare applicable for the customer’s intended journey. However, if it is paid within 21 days, the Penalty Fare is reduced to £50 plus the price of the single fare applicable. A customer has a right of appeal, and the reduced rate of £50 is available while an appeal is underway.

In this case, while Mr McManus had purchased a ticket, he did not ensure that he had charged his phone. A similar analogy would be purchasing a paper ticket and then leaving it behind.

As I am sure Mr McManus can appreciate, while in his case he had accidentally failed to charge his phone, someone who is seeking to commit fraud is also likely to use the exactly the same excuse if they encounter staff. It is also the behaviour we would expect of someone that has purchased a valid ticket for either end of their journey to operate the respective gate lines, but missing the central portion – so called “dough nut” tickets. While we are increasingly able to detect this type of fraud through data analysis, on-train inspections do also play a role.

It is also worth being aware as wider context that eTickets which are not scanned can then be refunded, and there is a growing issue of customers deliberately avoiding having their tickets scanned either by staff or the gateline, to then obtain a fraudulent refund.

As a result, we take a simple approach of expecting customers to be able to demonstrate that they have a ticket.

We make this clear on the detail regarding eTickets on our website “As with paper tickets, you must ensure your eTicket is available for inspection at any point during your journey” and we currently have an advertising campaign on trains to further remind customers that they are expected to be able to power their phone if they wish to use eTickets.

I can see Mr McManus has appealed his Penalty Fare on three occasions, including to the independent review panel. The panel’s explanation of its decision is:

“You were given a Penalty Fare Notice (PFN) as you could not, when asked, provide evidence of a valid ticket for your travel as your phone would not turn on. You have appealed the PFN on the basis that you had bought a ticket and the problem with your phone meant that you could not show the ticket when asked. The panel is unfortunately unable to uphold your appeal. While not unsympathetic, the panel is of the view that the responsibility for remembering to charge a phone fully before travelling does lie with the passenger and not with the Train Operating Company.”

Ultimately, we have a reasonable expectation that Mr McManus is able to produce a working phone if he wishes to use an eTicket, especially before 09:30 in the morning and circa twenty minutes into a journey. He did have alternative options such as a traditional paper ticket, printing his eTicket, or turning his phone off if he released belatedly that it was critically low on power.

We take a simple approach of expecting customers to take reasonable steps to demonstrate a valid ticket to help reduce instances of fraud, to avoid our staff being placed in an uncomfortable position of potentially applying discretion to some cases and not others, and because an alternative system where the railway in effect is stating that it is acceptable that customers travel without tickets, so long as they then demonstrate it after the fact would rapidly become unworkable. This also avoids a hypothetical scenario of a group of individuals sharing tickets with each other, knowing that with the best will in the world, it is highly unlikely they will all encounter revenue enforcement on the same day.

With regards to Mr McManus’ other areas for appeal - with regards to the query regarding an alternative station, he appears to have informed our staff member of his intended journey and was charged the fare accordingly in line with the 2022 Penalty Fares regulation. He also appears to have been well aware that he was travelling on a part of the railway where being able to demonstrate a valid ticket is expected.

We do not have a direct relationship with the appeals panel as it is an independent body, but I do not see a reason why it would ultimately have differed from the decision quoted above, Mr McManus does not dispute he was unable to provide a valid ticket.

I know this will not be the outcome Mr Mcmanus is hoping for, but I hope clarifying that it is a fare, not a fine, and the reasons why we expect customers to be able to show digital eTickets if they are using them helps provide some context on Penalty Fares.

I do recognise that Mr McManus will likely still feel that a “zero tolerance” approach feels harsh, but I also expect that by reading the RailForums he is likely a member of, he will also conclude that unfortunately many customers are not as honest as he is, hence the adoption of a simple and consistent approach."