Southeastern Key smartcard ticket purchased but given Penalty Fare Notice

[TeaAndTing]

Hi All, I would really appreciate some help with writing an appeal for a Penalty Fare Notice.

My daughter has recently turned 18 and has autism. I used to purchase train tickets for her to travel to college in Gillingham Kent, but she has just started buying them herself.

This morning she caught the 08:26 train from Chatham to Gillingham. My daughter bought a return ticket from Chatham to Gillingham through her Southeastern app at 08:16 and unfortunately chose Key smartcard ticket collection at Chatham station. When she arrived at Chatham station she was unable to load the ticket onto her Key smartcard as she had ony just bought it. However at the ticket gate she showed proof of her ticket in her online account in the Southeastern app and they let her through.

On boarding the train an inspector asked for her ticket, she advised the ticket was on her Key smartcard but the inspector had an issue with their phone and could not read the Key smartcard. The inspector followed her off the train at Gillingham. My daughter asked if there was anyone else at Gillingham station who could read the smartcard and was advised there wasn't, although this obviously isn't true as there would be several smartcard readers at Gillingham station.

The inspector said that the proof of purchase of the ticket was not enough, because she could have already requested a refund of the £2.75 ticket, my daughter has a Disabled Person's railcard so the ticket was discounted. The inspector's argument wasn't that my daughter hadn't left enough time to collect the ticket on the Key smartcard, their argurment was that they didn't believe my daughter had a valid ticket at all. If the inspector had been able to read the Key smartcard they would have been able to activate and view the ticket but they said they had an issue with their phone and couldn't read my daughter's Key smartcard.

The inspector suggested that my daughter read the Key smartcard herself with her own mobile phone instead as proof of the ticket, but she doesn't have a NFC reader on her cheap mobile phone. The inspector was quite aggessive about this and didn't believe that a mobile phone would not have NFC. The inspector said my daughter was lying that her mobile phone couldn't read the Key smartcard. The inspector then said that my daughter shouldn't have been using a Key smartcard at all without a mobile with NFC and issued a Penalty Fare Notice for being unable to show a valid ticket.

The reason my daughter has the Key smartcard was to make things easier for her when I used to buy her train tickets. But I always bought the tickets at least 2 hours in advance so they could be collected at the station. Although in this case the issue seems to have purely been that the inspector was unable to read the Key smartcard and my daughter didn't have NFC on her phone to read the smartcard either. I have advised my daughter not to use the Key smartcard again and to use eTickets. But please can anyone give me advice on what grounds if any we can appeal this Penalty Fare Notice. It seems very unfair as my daughter had actually purchased a valid return ticket before she boarded the train.

Thank you so much in advance.

 

[Greyman1]

Contact customer services at Southeastern.
Explain the situation and see if they can help you. If theu can see this is a regualr ticket that is purchased this will back up your claim also.

You have 21 days from the date of issue to pay or appeal. I expect customer services will come back to you fairly quickly.
If they can't help.Follow the appeals process, and make sure you upload any supporting documentation, like a disabled railcard.

Let us know how you get on.

Make a complaint | Southeastern

We always aim to give a good service, but sometimes things do go wrong. If you want to make a complaint we’ll try to resolve the problem for you

www.southeasternrailway.co.uk

 

[AlterEgo]

Firstly, could you please upload a copy of the notice with her details redacted?

Secondly, it’s worth noting that passengers with disabilities meaning they cannot access ticket issuing facilities, and who hold a Disabled Railcard, are entitled to buy a ticket on board without penalty. This sounds like it may apply to your daughter.

 

[Greyman1]

I concur. I think you will be able to sort this.

 

[TeaAndTing]

Thank you so much for your replies. I will complain to Southeastern first to see if they can help. Please see attached Penalty Fare Notice. Please can you also tell me what I should be quoting in the appeal regarding my daughter having a Disabled Persons Railcard?

 

[island]

The Penalty Fare Notice is invalid as it does not comply with section 5 (2) (j) of the Railways Penalty Fares Regulations 2018, as amended. This is because it does not say that the passenger is entitled to a receipt if they pay.

 

[MrJeeves]

On boarding the train an inspector asked for her ticket, she advised the ticket was on her Key smartcard but the inspector had an issue with their phone and could not read the Key smartcard. The inspector followed her off the train at Gillingham. My daughter asked if there was anyone else at Gillingham station who could read the smartcard and was advised there wasn't, although this obviously isn't true as there would be several smartcard readers at Gillingham station.

Is it just me, or is it madness that the staff member couldn't scan the smartcard and decided that was a good enough reason to PF the passenger? Like... what?

If the staff member's E-Ticket scanner wasn't working, would they go around issuing penalties to everyone with E-Tickets?

Did OP's daughter state that they hadn't been able to collect it to the ticket inspector on board?

The inspector then said that my daughter shouldn't have been using a Key smartcard at all without a mobile with NFC and issued a Penalty Fare Notice for being unable to show a valid ticket.

This is completely ridiculous.

 

[island]

Is it just me, or is it madness that the staff member couldn't scan the smartcard and decided that was a good enough reason to PF the passenger? Like... what?

If the staff member's E-Ticket scanner wasn't working, would they go around issuing penalties to everyone with E-Tickets?

It does feel like we're missing some detail.

Did OP's daughter state that they hadn't been able to collect it to the ticket inspector on board?

That's a good question.

 

[TeaAndTing]

Yes I agree it does sound ridiculous. My daughter said the inspector couldn't scan the Key smartcard so asked my daughter to scan it, but my daughter has no NFC on her mobile. My daughter is adamant that the inspector didn't say that the ticket wasn't on the Key smartcard, they couldn't scan it at all. My daughter didn't even discuss that she hadn't been able to collect the ticket. The inspector then argued that the onus was on my daughter to be able to scan the smartcard on her phone. The inspector said my daughter should only use a Key smartcard with a mobile with NFC. I agree this doesn't sound right at all.

My daughter said that the inspector's main justification for the Penalty Fare Notice was that she didn't believe that my daughter's mobile didn't have NFC. In fact the inspector called over another member of Southeastern staff about my daughter's mobile phone not about the ticket. This station staff member said "if your phone doesn't have NFC why are you using a Key card?" My daughter not being able to scan the Key smartcard made the inspector decide she was guilty of not having a ticket. Totally ridiculous conclusion.

 

[MrJeeves]

Yeah, it's completely nonsensical.

I'd recommend appealing on the technical basis listed by island, as well as submitting a complaint to Southeastern after the appeal is successful. Others can provide better advice than me about structuring your appeal.

I don't think she'd have much ground to stand on by appealing that the staff member should have been able to load the ticket themselves, as I would say not having loaded the ticket would mean she didn't actually have a valid ticket at that time anyway.

Why wouldn't a customer rely on TOC infrastructure...

 

[Wallsendmag]

The detail that seems to be missing is the two hour delivery time from online purchase to being available at a gate

 

[Benjwri]

The detail that seems to be missing is the two hour delivery time from online purchase to being available at a gate

It really depends on what actually happened. If the OP's account is true that doesn't come into it, the RPI was unable to ascertain if a ticket was held on the smartcard due to failure of their own equipment, and decided this was sufficient evidence of the OP's daughter not having a ticket. It is not, and therefore the Penalty Fare was incorrectly issued and in my opinion this should be the reasoning the appeal. (Given an appeal based on technicality is unlikely to succeed until the third round anyways).

If the fact the ticket wasn't loaded definitely wasn't mentioned to the inspector, there's no need to mention it in the appeal, and proof that the ticket was purchased before should be sufficient.

 

[Belperpete]

My understanding is that this is similar to the situation where someone buys a paper ticket for collection, but fails to print it out at the ticket machine? In other words, has bought a ticket but doesn't have it with them. A bit of a hark back to the days when you had to allow 2 hours before a paper ticket was available to collect. In which case, if the OP 's daughter hadn't downloaded the ticket onto her card, she was guilty of travelling without a ticket?

Even though the RPI was effectively just guessing this, would Southeastern be able to show that she hadn't downloaded the ticket onto her card from their back office systems? And could they use this to prove the RPI's wild assertion that she didn't actually hold a ticket?

 

[etr221]

My understanding is that this is similar to the situation where someone buys a paper ticket for collection, but fails to print it out at the ticket machine? In other words, has bought a ticket but doesn't have it with them. A bit of a hark back to the days when you had to allow 2 hours before a paper ticket was available to collect. In which case, if the OP 's daughter hadn't downloaded the ticket onto her card, she was guilty of travelling without a ticket?

Even though the RPI was effectively just guessing this, would Southeastern be able to show that she hadn't downloaded the ticket onto her card from their back office systems? And could they use this to prove the RPI's wild assertion that she didn't actually hold a ticket?

But the RPI issued the PF, based on their assumption that because they could not read the smartcard there was no ticket on it, whether or not there was. And so (to my mind) improperly issuing the PF. If Southeastern subsequently determine that there was ticket on the smartcard (because it hadn't been downloaded), that doesn't change the incorrectness of the initial PF (thought it may be give them grounds to otherwise proceed).

But - given that the RPIs inability to read the smartcard is something of an nth hand report - I would suggest the best course is that advised by MrJeeves in post #10, to base the appeal on the PFN being non-compliant with the PF regulations, as pointed out by island in post #6.

 

[Belperpete]

Firstly, could you please upload a copy of the notice with her details redacted?

Secondly, it’s worth noting that passengers with disabilities meaning they cannot access ticket issuing facilities, and who hold a Disabled Railcard, are entitled to buy a ticket on board without penalty. This sounds like it may apply to your daughter.

I doubt that would stand, as she has apparently accessed the ticket issuing facility many times previously. Also, did she make the RPI aware that she has a Disabled Railcard?

But the RPI issued the PF, based on their assumption that because they could not read the smartcard there was no ticket on it, whether or not there was. And so (to my mind) improperly issuing the PF. If Southeastern subsequently determine that there was ticket on the smartcard (because it hadn't been downloaded), that doesn't change the incorrectness of the initial PF (thought it may be give them grounds to otherwise proceed).

But - given that the RPIs inability to read the smartcard is something of an nth hand report - I would suggest the best course is that advised by MrJeeves in post #10, to base the appeal on the PFN being non-compliant with the PF regulations, as pointed out by island in post #6.

My point is that the appeal needs to be very carefully worded to avoid suggesting that she was in possession of a ticket, if Southeastern can easily disprove that. And should also avoid admitting her guilt! The appeal needs to be based on the technicalities of the manner in which the PF was issued.

 

[AlterEgo]

I doubt that would stand, as she has apparently accessed the ticket issuing facility many times previously.

Many times? Has she? The OP says her daughter has "just started buying them herself". And even if they had used the facility successfully before, it does not mean it is accessible to her. That isn't how accessibility works - that's like saying that, at a station without level access, if you can struggle out of a wheelchair, crawl, and then drag yourself and your wheelchair up 5 steps then a station is accessible to you. It isn't.

Also, did she make the RPI aware that she has a Disabled Railcard?

The RPI should have seen the OP's ticket was discounted with one had they bothered to check her proof of purchase, but perhaps the OP can clarify this. She would have been entitled to buy on board in these circumstances, and no appeal panel is going to argue the toss about whether or not the facilities are accessible.

 

[Belperpete]

Many times? Has she? The OP says her daughter has "just started buying them herself". And even if they had used the facility successfully before, it does not mean it is accessible to her. That isn't how accessibility works - that's like saying that, at a station without level access, if you can struggle out of a wheelchair, crawl, and then drag yourself and your wheelchair up 5 steps then a station is accessible to you. It isn't.

The OP posted that he regularly bought tickets for her, which she downloaded onto the smart card. So yes, she was regularly accessing the ticket issuing facility.

And why would anyone expect an RPI to closely examine a document that is irrelevant to the ticket check?

 

[AlterEgo]

The OP posted that he regularly bought tickets for her, which she downloaded onto the smart card. So yes, she was regularly accessing the ticket issuing facility.

No, the card isn't a ticket issuing facility in these circumstances - those would be the ticket offices and/or machines at the station, as per the 6.1.3.3 of the NRCoT and 2.7.2 of the Disabled Railcard terms and conditions, and 6(4)(a) of the Penalty Fares Regulations. Whether or not the OP attempted to buy a ticket using either of these methods is not, in fact, relevant.

Plainly the OP's daughter has not been able to access their ticket, and in any case was given authority to travel by the gateline staff, who knew the they could not present their ticket yet positively allowed them to board the train.

It's quite simple - if you have a Disabled Railcard you can buy a ticket on board, and should not be Penalty Fared. From Southeastern's own Accessible Travel Policy:

If you are disabled and have not been able to purchase a ticket before travelling, for a reason related to your disability, you will not be subject to a penalty fare and will be able to purchase the full range of tickets available to you, including any appropriate discount that applies either on board the train or at your destination.

Note that there is no requirement for a passenger to verbalise their own difficulties to staff at the time - something they may be unable to do owing to the nature of their disability.

If you want to play Monday Morning Quarterback about whether the OP's daughter is disabled enough to make this argument then be my guest. They are autistic, and have a Disabled Railcard and that to me seems quite sufficient evidence for an appeals panel, to go on top of being given authority to travel in any case, and on top of the Notice not being made out correctly.

 

[Belperpete]

No, the card isn't a ticket issuing facility in these circumstances - those would be the ticket offices and/or machines at the station, as per the 6.1.3.3 of the NRCoT and 2.7.2 of the Disabled Railcard terms and conditions, and 6(4)(a) of the Penalty Fares Regulations. Whether or not the OP attempted to buy a ticket using either of these methods is not, in fact, relevant.

Plainly the OP's daughter has not been able to access their ticket, and in any case was given authority to travel by the gateline staff, who knew the they could not present their ticket yet positively allowed them to board the train.

It's quite simple - if you have a Disabled Railcard you can buy a ticket on board, and should not be Penalty Fared. From Southeastern's own Accessible Travel Policy:

If you are disabled and have not been able to purchase a ticket before travelling, for a reason related to your disability, you will not be subject to a penalty fare and will be able to purchase the full range of tickets available to you, including any appropriate discount that applies either on board the train or at your destination.

Note that there is no requirement for a passenger to verbalise their own difficulties to staff at the time - something they may be unable to do owing to the nature of their disability.

If you want to play Monday Morning Quarterback about whether the OP's daughter is disabled enough to make this argument then be my guest. They are autistic, and have a Disabled Railcard and that to me seems quite sufficient evidence for an appeals panel, to go on top of being given authority to travel in any case, and on top of the Notice not being made out correctly.

As you say, the ticket issuing facilities are the machines at the station, which she was regularly using to download tickets onto her card.

I was not disputing that the disability is a reason to challenge the PF, I was disputing your claim that the RPI should have made a detailed check of a proof of purchase that is irrelevant as to whether she is actually in possession of a ticket.

 

[AlterEgo]

As you say, the ticket issuing facilities are the machines at the station, which she was regularly using to download tickets onto her card.

But that is not what we mean by this - in this respect it is a passenger's ability to use the machines or ticket office to *purchase* a ticket, which is what the law is concerned with. They have to be able to use the ticket machine from the start to the end of the purchase flow to access the full range of tickets for it to be accessible to them.

I was not disputing that the disability is a reason to challenge the PF

Well you are - your argument is she could access the ticket machine, but we have no evidence of that.

I was disputing your claim that the RPI should have made a detailed check of a proof of purchase that is irrelevant as to whether she is actually in possession of a ticket.

It's not really a detailed check at all - just seeing if the proof of purchase, which must have been presented to them, had a disabled railcard attached. I'm afraid I don't really buy the argument that if a guard is presented with proof of purchase by an otherwise ticketless 18 year old female they should discount it, shut their eyes, go lalalalala and not look at it because it is "not relevant" to their single Judge Dredd-like duty of checking ticket validity. But that is not the only duty of customer-facing staff. The person in front of them could be a minor, or disabled, both facts which could be revealed by a glimpse at the proof of purchase. This is fairly basic Duty of Care and hidden disability awareness stuff, and the railway often fails at both of these more often that it should. Nobody is asking for mind reading powers, just a little more tact and sense than PF'ing someone in these circumstances.

 

[rs101]

The RPI was unable to read the smartcard at all, so the passenger offered proof of purchase - that seems like a very sensible solution to me and should have been sufficient evidence to allow travel.

Whereas issuing a penalty fare solely because the RPI didn't have a working reader is about as reasonable as the RPI issuing penalty fares because they'd broken their glasses and couldn't read paper tickets.

 

[Belperpete]

But that is not what we mean by this - in this respect it is a passenger's ability to use the machines or ticket office to *purchase* a ticket, which is what the law is concerned with. They have to be able to use the ticket machine from the start to the end of the purchase flow to access the full range of tickets for it to be accessible to them.


Well you are - your argument is she could access the ticket machine, but we have no evidence of that.


It's not really a detailed check at all - just seeing if the proof of purchase, which must have been presented to them, had a disabled railcard attached. I'm afraid I don't really buy the argument that if a guard is presented with proof of purchase by an otherwise ticketless 18 year old female they should discount it, shut their eyes, go lalalalala and not look at it because it is "not relevant" to their single Judge Dredd-like duty of checking ticket validity. But that is not the only duty of customer-facing staff. The person in front of them could be a minor, or disabled, both facts which could be revealed by a glimpse at the proof of purchase. This is fairly basic Duty of Care and hidden disability awareness stuff, and the railway often fails at both of these more often that it should. Nobody is asking for mind reading powers, just a little more tact and sense than PF'ing someone in these circumstances.

In this case, we know that she was able to use the ticket issuing facility, because the OP has told us that she regularly used it when he purchased the tickets for her. And that is what you stated in your post #3 above, ticket issuing facilities, and to which I was responding. But now you have switched to talking about ticket purchasing facilities.

And I repeat that I am not disputing that she should be able to use her disability as a reason for disputing the PF. I am disputing your claim that the RPI should not have issued the PF in the first place on the basis of him being expected to check something that is totally irrelevant to whether she actually has a ticket in her possession. It is the same as if someone boards a train in a PF zone without bothering to collect their prepurchased paper/card ticket - proof of purchase does not get you off the PF, and so is irrelevant.

There is also the issue of how much an RPI can be expected to read off a small phone screen being waved in his face. It is why ticket checks are made using aztec codes. Did she hand her phone over so that the RPI could scroll through the information? I very much doubt it, and I suspect many people would object if the RPI "demanded" they hand their pihone over.

You are arguing from the point of hindsight, because we have been told by the OP that his daughter is disabled, that the OP should have checked. Are you suggesting that every time an RPI is about to issue a PF, he should be expected to check if the person concerned has a hidden disability?

The RPI was unable to read the smartcard at all, so the passenger offered proof of purchase - that seems like a very sensible solution to me and should have been sufficient evidence to allow travel.

Proof of purchase is NOT sufficient in a PF zone. You must collect the ticket and have it with you, be that a paper ticket or an electronic ticket.

 

[rs101]

In this case, we know that she was able to use the ticket issuing facility, because the OP has told us that she regularly used it when he purchased the tickets for her. And that is what you stated in your post #3 above, ticket issuing facilities, and to which I was responding. But now you have switched to talking about ticket purchasing facilities.

And I repeat that I am not disputing that she should be able to use her disability as a reason for disputing the PF. I am disputing your claim that the RPI should not have issued the PF in the first place on the basis of him being expected to check something that is totally irrelevant to whether she actually has a ticket in her possession. It is the same as if someone boards a train in a PF zone without bothering to collect their prepurchased paper/card ticket - proof of purchase does not get you off the PF, and so is irrelevant.

There is also the issue of how much an RPI can be expected to read off a small phone screen being waved in his face. It is why ticket checks are made using aztec codes. Did she hand her phone over so that the RPI could scroll through the information? I very much doubt it, and I suspect many people would object if the RPI "demanded" they hand their pihone over.

You are arguing from the point of hindsight, because we have been told by the OP that his daughter is disabled, that the OP should have checked. Are you suggesting that every time an RPI is about to issue a PF, he should be expected to check if the person concerned has a hidden disability?


Proof of purchase is NOT sufficient in a PF zone. You must collect the ticket and have it with you, be that a paper ticket or an electronic ticket.

Re the statement in bold - the Greater Anglia staff use a "small phone screen" to read the aztec codes and smartcards. The sole justification the RPI gave for issuing a PF was that he was unable to read the keycard and expected the customer to do it for them.

IF he'd been able to read the card and found no valid ticket was loaded on it, then issuing a PF would be the appropriate course of action.

 

[AlterEgo]

In this case, we know that she was able to use the ticket issuing facility, because the OP has told us that she regularly used it when he purchased the tickets for her. And that is what you stated in your post #3 above, ticket issuing facilities, and to which I was responding. But now you have switched to talking about ticket purchasing facilities.

Semantics. A ticket issuing facility is, as per the Bylaws, an opportunity to purchase a ticket, which is why I have had to spell it out in plainer English so we know what we are talking about. "Ticket issuing facilities" when applied to a ticket machine means "a machine which can sell you a ticket starting from scratch right up to delivering the ticket in a medium to the passenger". If a machine can only allow for the collection or delivery of an online-purchased ticket it is not a "ticket issuing facility", which is how the Bylaws describe this:

no person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if:

1. 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

That is why everyone on the forum uses this term to talk about the ability to purchase tickets, hence I thought the understanding of this term was common knowledge: https://www.railforums.co.uk/search/4813380/?page=2&q=ticket+issuing+facilities&o=relevance

I am disputing your claim that the RPI should not have issued the PF in the first place on the basis of him being expected to check something that is totally irrelevant to whether she actually has a ticket in her possession. It is the same as if someone boards a train in a PF zone without bothering to collect their prepurchased paper/card ticket - proof of purchase does not get you off the PF, and so is irrelevant.

So? That is not the only duty of an RPI. They are not automatons; they are front line staff with the same responsibilities for the duty of care of passengers, and should be trained in how to spot and handle vulnerable customers. They aren't going to get it right every time - we can't expect them to - but we really are just asking here for the RPI to do what the gateline did, and look at the booking confirmation. Your insistence that actually, no, they shouldn't bother feels at this point like digging a hole for the sake of it, having already tactfully walked back on your suggestion that the ticket issuing facilities were, in fact, accessible to the OP's daughter and now seem to accept that their disability is valid grounds on which to appeal.

There is also the issue of how much an RPI can be expected to read off a small phone screen being waved in his face.

Assumption, and not only of the RPI's gender, which has been revealed by the OP to actually be female. But the gateline managed.

Did she hand her phone over so that the RPI could scroll through the information?

We don't know.

I very much doubt it, and I suspect many people would object if the RPI "demanded" they hand their pihone over.

Yes but you're getting cross here at something which didn't happen. Nobody is suggesting the RPI should have demanded anything. I don't think anyone would have an issue with the RPI at least looking at the proof of purchase, because they are entitled to use their discretion. In fact, had they looked, they might have realised the customer was deserving of some help or discretion.

You are arguing from the point of hindsight, because we have been told by the OP that his daughter is disabled, that the OP should have checked. Are you suggesting that every time an RPI is about to issue a PF, he should be expected to check if the person concerned has a hidden disability?

Nobody's asking for the Spanish Inquisition, just the briefest check of the proof of purchase in this case. It would show it was discounted with a Disabled Railcard. It is not up to each individual passenger to declare their hidden disability to staff to avail of the rights and protections they enjoy - it can help, of course! But, some people with some disabilities are unable to do this. And, now we can only speak with hindsight, and the OP's claim the protections retrospectively...it is what it is.

I don't think it's so unreasonable for us to ask "what could the railway have done better here?" - it's resulted in a young, disabled passenger being wrongly Penalty Fared, on multiple grounds.

 

[WesternLancer]

Thank you so much for your replies. I will complain to Southeastern first to see if they can help. Please see attached Penalty Fare Notice. Please can you also tell me what I should be quoting in the appeal regarding my daughter having a Disabled Persons Railcard?

Apols if I have missed something in the thread form other experts but is this wise?

I will complain to Southeastern first to see if they can help.

Whilst you complain to Southeastern Trains the clock will be ticking on any Penalty Fare prompt payment discount which has to be made to the independent Appeal services as detailed on the Penalty Fare instruction - I would not be waiting for South Eastern Customer Services to consider your complaint before Appealing!

I would lodge the Appeal as the instructions require, citing your reasons with help from any Penalty Fares experts on this forum as to what to include in your Appeal - you need to get the Appel in before the deadline to Appeal, and the prompt payment reduction is lost. The Appeal stops the clock - contacting South Eastern about it will not achieve that IIRC