Pentaly Fare App Malfunction

[ForTheLoveOf]

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. People are successfully prosecuted under the RoRA when they say that they have paid but have been unable to present the ticket.

As I said above, a RoRA prosecution is unlikely in this scenario but cannot be ruled out.

What section of RoRA are you suggesting such a prosecution would have happened under?

 

[Coolzac]

Not on the ticket but I have emails, bank statements etc

The key thing is that if the emails/bank statements prove 100% that you purchased the ticket before travel, I don't see how Chiltern can charge you a penalty fare. You have paid the fare and purchased the correct ticket (which you can prove), and been allowed to travel by two agents of the railway who were authorised to do so. The problems with the App is not your fault! I would therefore send an e-mail or letter to Chiltern explaining this.

I am not as well versed in these matters specific to the railway as others on here are, so please don't take what I say as verbatim. See if they think along the same lines as me. However, I don't see how they could charge you due to something outside your control.

Also, as a wider issue, as the railway looks to use technology more and more - e-tickets, m-tickets, digital railcards etc. they need to come up with ways in dealing with faults. Otherwise they are going to start prosecuting innocent people who encounter these faults. I shouldn't have to buy another ticket if my digital railcard app has a fault with it and won't work! What if I don't have the means to?

 

[QWERTY1]

The key thing is that if the emails/bank statements prove 100% that you purchased the ticket before travel, I don't see how Chiltern can charge you a penalty fare. You have paid the fare and purchased the correct ticket (which you can prove), and been allowed to travel by two agents of the railway who were authorised to do so. The problems with the App is not your fault! I would therefore send an e-mail or letter to Chiltern explaining this.

I am not as well versed in these matters specific to the railway as others on here are, so please don't take what I say as verbatim. See if they think along the same lines as me. However, I don't see how they could charge you due to something outside your control.

Also, as a wider issue, as the railway looks to use technology more and more - e-tickets, m-tickets, digital railcards etc. they need to come up with ways in dealing with faults. Otherwise they are going to start prosecuting innocent people who encounter these faults. I shouldn't have to buy another ticket if my digital railcard app has a fault with it and won't work! What if I don't have the means to?

I did email Chiltern who just referred me to the appeals people. I don’t know if Chiltern has ever used discretion is resinding a fare before

Side note but on the appeals site there’s emojis on the page you have to pay the fare, two of which are a monkey and a broken heart. Really hope it’s due to a code malfunction rather than an attempt at banter

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

@QWERT1 please post any proposed appeal here before actually sending it off.

As I've said, I'm passing through Leamington anyway today so I will take a picture of the signage (or lack thereof). I'm more than happy to assist you in this case, as it's quite clear Chiltern are in the wrong, very much so.

 

[QWERTY1]

@QWERT1 please post any proposed appeal here before actually sending it off.

As I've said, I'm passing through Leamington anyway today so I will take a picture of the signage (or lack thereof). I'm more than happy to assist you in this case, as it's quite clear Chiltern are in the wrong, very much so.

Thanks for your appeal has already been sent unfortunately but essentially it just focused on been given permission to travel by two authorised member of staff.

If that is rejected which I presume it will he I guess my next course
Of action will to argue the fare amount was incorrect as per new rules tang someone mentioned earlier.

As for the signage thanks for making note of it. I was wondering how it plays into the whole situation?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Thanks for your appeal has already been sent unfortunately but essentially it just focused on been given permission to travel by two authorised member of staff.

If that is rejected which I presume it will he I guess my next course
Of action will to argue the fare amount was incorrect as per new rules tang someone mentioned earlier.

As for the signage thanks for making note of it. I was wondering how it plays into the whole situation?

The signage and the incorrect amount are important points along with the permission to board. If the signage is non-compliant (or non-existant), the Penalty Fare is invalid; the incorrect amount is also noteworthy but it does not fundamentally invalidate the Penalty Fare in the same way (at least, not in my view).

 

[QWERTY1]

The signage and the incorrect amount are important points along with the permission to board. If the signage is non-compliant (or non-existant), the Penalty Fare is invalid; the incorrect amount is also noteworthy but it does not fundamentally invalidate the Penalty Fare in the same way (at least, not in my view).

I see thanks. I presume maybe they would alter the fare due the. If the incorrect one was given or else in theory staff could just charge what ever they fancied.

 

[QWERTY1]

The signage and the incorrect amount are important points along with the permission to board. If the signage is non-compliant (or non-existant), the Penalty Fare is invalid; the incorrect amount is also noteworthy but it does not fundamentally invalidate the Penalty Fare in the same way (at least, not in my view).

I suppose the key issue is proving I was allowed to travel

 

[Gareth Marston]

I think theirs a good ground for a successful appeal given the evidence the OP says he has. Lets ignore the issue of PF Signage at Leamington - as this is a personal hobby horse issue of that particular poster.

Two Staff members have exercised discretion and probably come across the issue previously but instead of the technology un-jamming itself it hasn't for whatever reason - the OP needs to focus his reply on the interaction with the barrier staff at Leamington, the onboard staff member and the jammed app, these are the main issues. Its unfortunate that you didn't have the means to pay but you can add this as a side detail.

 

[QWERTY1]

I think theirs a good ground for a successful appeal given the evidence the OP says he has. Lets ignore the issue of PF Signage at Leamington - as this is a personal hobby horse issue of that particular poster.

Two Staff members have exercised discretion and probably come across the issue previously but instead of the technology un-jamming itself it hasn't for whatever reason - the OP needs to focus his reply on the interaction with the barrier staff at Leamington, the onboard staff member and the jammed app, these are the main issues. Its unfortunate that you didn't have the means to pay but you can add this as a side detail.

Essentially I told the guy at the gate at leamington what happened with the app and showed him the screen . He said “ go on through then”.

The lady on the train essentially said to play with the app. I didn’t see her again.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I think theirs a good ground for a successful appeal given the evidence the OP says he has. Lets ignore the issue of PF Signage at Leamington - as this is a personal hobby horse issue of that particular poster.

Two Staff members have exercised discretion and probably come across the issue previously but instead of the technology un-jamming itself it hasn't for whatever reason - the OP needs to focus his reply on the interaction with the barrier staff at Leamington, the onboard staff member and the jammed app, these are the main issues. Its unfortunate that you didn't have the means to pay but you can add this as a side detail.

It's not a hobby horse. The signage at Leamington is truly awful. If you didn't know to look for it, you wouldn't see it. Often enough there are members of staff standing in front of it.

How can anyone be expected to be aware of the fact that Penalty Fares apply when there's only one poster at a busy mainline station, and it isn't even properly visible?!

This is all quite apart from the wording, which I can understand that some will see as being pernickity. Nevertheless both are valid points!

 

[QWERTY1]

It's not a hobby horse. The signage at Leamington is truly awful. If you didn't know to look for it, you wouldn't see it. Often enough there are members of staff standing in front of it.

How can anyone be expected to be aware of the fact that Penalty Fares apply when there's only one poster at a busy mainline station, and it isn't even properly visible?!

This is all quite apart from the wording, which I can understand that some will see as being pernickity. Nevertheless both are valid points!

Would Chiltern not say when you buy a ticket you sign up to t&cs or something along those lines and it was my duty to know this before going into a ticketed area, or whatever the technical term is.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Would Chiltern not say when you buy a ticket you sign up to t&cs or something along those lines and it was my duty to know this before going into a ticketed area, or whatever the technical term is.

The National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT) refer to Penalty Fares being potentially applicable in some circumstances. But ultimately the Penalty Fares Regulations themselves govern whether or not a Penalty Fare is valid or not, and the NRCoT are relevant only insofar as the actual validity of a ticket etc. is concerned.

It is a basic principle of the Regulations that signage must be clearly visible to all passengers entering a Penalty Fares scheme. If you were to mount a further appeal, it would probably be on the basis of Regulations 6(2)(b) and 6(2)(d). For Regulation 6(2)(b), the relevant breaches of Regulation 8 would be Regulations 8(2) and 8(4).

 

[Gareth Marston]

It's not a hobby horse. The signage at Leamington is truly awful. If you didn't know to look for it, you wouldn't see it. Often enough there are members of staff standing in front of it.

How can anyone be expected to be aware of the fact that Penalty Fares apply when there's only one poster at a busy mainline station, and it isn't even properly visible?!

This is all quite apart from the wording, which I can understand that some will see as being pernickity. Nevertheless both are valid points!

Do we really need to dive down that rabbit hold though? Its essentially looking for a technicality to get you out of Jail for free rather than appealing on the basis that the technology has failed and there was no intent on the OP's part to avoid the fare due and other staff members had exercised discretion?

 

[QWERTY1]

Do we really need to dive down that rabbit hold though? Its essentially looking for a technicality to get you out of Jail for free rather than appealing on the basis that the technology has failed and there was no intent on the OP's part to avoid the fare due and other staff members had exercised discretion?

Might as well throw it all in though. I’m very intrigued about the whole issue of the fare being too high based on new regulations. Surely they have to reduce the fare or else there could be a situation where staff can charge whatever

 

[QWERTY1]

The National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT) refer to Penalty Fares being potentially applicable in some circumstances. But ultimately the Penalty Fares Regulations themselves govern whether or not a Penalty Fare is valid or not, and the NRCoT are relevant only insofar as the actual validity of a ticket etc. is concerned.

It is a basic principle of the Regulations that signage must be clearly visible to all passengers entering a Penalty Fares scheme. If you were to mount a further appeal, it would probably be on the basis of Regulations 6(2)(b) and 6(2)(d). For Regulation 6(2)(b), the relevant breaches of Regulation 8 would be Regulations 8(2) and 8(4).

Thanks for all this!!

 

[Gareth Marston]

Another question for the OP as its literally just come up here- do you have the Trainline App downloaded on your phone?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Do we really need to dive down that rabbit hold though? Its essentially looking for a technicality to get you out of Jail for free rather than appealing on the basis that the technology has failed and there was no intent on the OP's part to avoid the fare due and other staff members had exercised discretion?

I agree that later on, if this ever proceeds to prosecution, these will be points OP might want to rise. But for the moment, I see no reason to throw away valid arguments, as there's always a risk that the Penalty Fare appeal committee/company doesn't accept the argument of technology failure/staff permission.

 

[QWERTY1]

Another question for the OP as its literally just come up here- do you have the Trainline App downloaded on your phone?

I do indeed

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Might as well throw it all in though. I’m very intrigued about the whole issue of the fare being too high based on new regulations. Surely they have to reduce the fare or else there could be a situation where staff can charge whatever

Well, what time did you arrive into Marylebone (I'm assuming you just took one through train and not several)? This will govern what the appropriate fare to double is.

 

[QWERTY1]

Well, what time did you arrive into Marylebone (I'm assuming you just took one through train and not several)? This will govern what the appropriate fare to double is.

I would have got in at 12:46

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I would have got in at 12:46

In that case, as per Regulation 9 of the Regulations, the appropriate full single fare to be doubled is the £30.40 Super Off-Peak Single route "via Banbury", so the appropriate Penalty Fare would be £60.80. Regulation 9(6) makes clear that the time of travel must be taken into account when working out the appropriate full single fare - i.e. the Anytime fare is only the appropriate fare if there is no cheaper ticket valid at the time.

 

[QWERTY1]

I would have got in at 12:46

In that case, as per Regulation 9 of the Regulations, the appropriate full single fare to be doubled is the £30.40 Super Off-Peak Single route "via Banbury", so the appropriate Penalty Fare would be £60.80. Regulation 9(6) makes clear that the time of travel must be taken into account when working out the appropriate full single fare - i.e. the Anytime fare is only the appropriate fare if there is no cheaper ticket valid at the time.

Ah so it would appear I was over charged, the plot thickens

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Ah so it would appear I was over charged, the plot thickens

Indeed; that is one point of appeal. Part 3 of the Regulations makes clear that there is a three-stage appeal system and so you can still raise this point later. If I can recommend some light reading, the Penalty Fares Regulations would be quite useful to have a basic understanding of!

 

[QWERTY1]

Indeed; that is one point of appeal. Part 3 of the Regulations makes clear that there is a three-stage appeal system and so you can still raise this point later. If I can recommend some light reading, the Penalty Fares Regulations would be quite useful to have a basic understanding of!

Yes thank you! Appreciate all the input. Never knew what a mindfield train law was

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Yes thank you! Appreciate all the input. Never knew what a mindfield train law was

Yes, if this is the Government's idea of making public transport attractive then it's a very strange way of going about it indeed!

 

[Haywain]

Ah so it would appear I was over charged, the plot thickens

That may be the case, but if you are arguing that you should not have been charged a penalty fare at all the amount you should not have been charged is not really relevant. Your argument is that the correct amount to charge was zero.

 

[QWERTY1]

Yes, if this is the Government's idea of making public transport attractive then it's a very strange way of going about it indeed!

It has been very interesting though.
I just don’t see

That may be the case, but if you are arguing that you should not have been charged a penalty fare at all the amount you should not have been charged is not really relevant. Your argument is that the correct amount to charge was zero.

Yeah you’re right I’d argue that I shouldn’t have been charged at all.

The point about being charged the wrong amount is more a point of interest. I don’t know how this will impact the decision. I would say at minimum the fare should be reduced to the appropriate amount rather than the fare that was given.

 

[furlong]

(I see no scope in the appeals process for 'correcting' the penalty fare charged. If an incorrect penalty fare was levied and already paid and an appeal is upheld, it has to be refunded in full - without any deductions.)

 

[QWERTY1]

(I see no scope in the appeals process for 'correcting' the penalty fare charged. If an incorrect penalty fare was levied and already paid and an appeal is upheld, it has to be refunded in full - without any deductions.)

Sorry I’m a little bit confused. Does that mean even if the speak is unsuccessful I would have to pay £138 even though it’s the wrong charge, simply because that’s what was written down.