Ticket on train confusion - penalty fare

[Belperpete]

My understanding that this is in reference to the exclusions from prosecution that come after the first appeal decision in the relevant law. So what you mean is that if I essentially have to admit to breaking one of these laws to appeal the penalty to then get immunity from being prosecuted under these laws, then I need to be certain I didn't do anything criminal but NOT under these laws because they might pursue me for those other offences.

What is this in practice though? Assault/theft/etc? Just other general crimes they might look to check I didn't commit at the same time? Or is there some particularity about tickets I won't be immune from?

You have previously stated that the basis of your appeal is that action under the Penalty Fare Regulations is not applicable in your case, as you showed a valid ticket - in which case, if the Penalty Fare Regulations are not applicable, they could surely argue that the immunity to prosecution that they give is inherently also not applicable. That potentially leaves you open to action under the byelaws for travelling without a ticket, which you admitted to the inspector.

My view is that the inspector was being lenient on you, in only charging you a penalty fare, rather than reporting you for deliberately travelling without a ticket. If you want to appeal that, and in so doing report yourself, that is up to you.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Once a PF is appealed the TOC cannot pursue a criminal case, so I think that is a very low risk.

No, once the appeal is decided. They technically could see the appeal and cancel the PF and prosecute. Very unwise to admit an offence in the appeal.

 

[Brissle Girl]

No, once the appeal is decided. They technically could see the appeal and cancel the PF and prosecute. Very unwise to admit an offence in the appeal.

That isn't my interpretation of this clause.

(3) Where a person falling within paragraph (1)(a) has appealed against the penalty fare under regulation 16, proceedings for any of the offences specified in paragraph (4) may only be brought against that person for the same failure to produce a platform ticket or a valid travel ticket if the operator, on whose behalf the penalty fare was charged, notifies the relevant Appeal Panel that the penalty fare is cancelled before—

(a)the relevant Appeal Panel has decided the outcome of the appeal under regulation 16; or

(b)the time period mentioned in paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 expires,

whichever is sooner.

 

[AlterEgo]

What if it was not possible to buy a ticket. For example; no ticket office or suitable ticket machine?

Then they have not committed an offence anyway of course, but that is not relevant to the OP. There is only one issue at play in the whole thread; the OP presented a valid ticket upon inspection, and therefore the Penalty Fare fails, and the appeal succeeds, on its simplest ground of appeal.

 

[allypally]

Hi all,

I'm appealing a penalty fare. It's the second appeal.

The appeal status is shown on the penalty services website as follows:

"Appeal on hold - Waiting on information from Train Operating Company".

Does anyone know what this means, why the appeals service would need information from the rail company and what information the rail company can provide?

Tia

 

[Haywain]

Hi all,

I'm appealing a penalty fare. It's the second appeal.

The appeal status is shown on the penalty services website as follows:

"Appeal on hold - Waiting on information from Train Operating Company".

Does anyone know what this means, why the appeals service would need information from the rail company and what information the rail company can provide?

Tia

That might well depend on what your appeal was based on.

 

[allypally]

That might well depend on what your appeal was based on.

I provided a valid ticket to inspectors that I purchased after boarding without a ticket.

 

[AlterEgo]

I provided a valid ticket to inspectors that I purchased after boarding without a ticket.

What was the reason given by the inspector on the penalty fare?

 

[allypally]

Ticket not valid.

 

[Snow1964]

I provided a valid ticket to inspectors that I purchased after boarding without a ticket.

Can you clarify, do you mean you purchased it from the guard, or do you mean bought it online (and normally it won't let you buy it after train has departed the start station), so you bought for later train or didn't pay for whole journey

 

[allypally]

Also, the second appeal was lodged on 24 April, which means the three week deadline for a response is this Wednesday, 15 May.

The appeal was placed on hold yesterday, 11 May.

What happens if Wednesday passes with no response?

Can you clarify, do you mean you purchased it from the guard, or do you mean bought it online (and normally it won't let you buy it after train has departed the start station), so you bought for later train or didn't pay for whole journey

It was just an anytime ticket I bought online. I boarded without a ticket and then bought one on the train. (And I had no idea there were inspectors that would board later after departure; I wasnt just trying to just buy a ticket once I saw them.)

 

[furlong]

If the deadline passes without a decision, then the Penalty Fare doesn't go away, but you no longer are liable to pay it. In other words, if you don't pay it voluntarily, a court can't be asked to force you to.

Relevant questions are:
Was it an e-ticket, with a 2-D code on your device that they scan?
How long was it between boarding and completing the purchase of the ticket?
How long was it between purchasing the ticket and the ticket inspection being announced?

 

[allypally]

If the deadline passes without a decision, then the Penalty Fare doesn't go away, but you no longer are liable to pay it.

Rlevant questions are:
Was it an e-ticket, with a 2-D code on your device that they scan?
How long was it between boarding and completing the purchase of the ticket?
How long was it between purchasing the ticket and the ticket inspection being announced?

- Yes, it was a barcode anytime ticket
- About 20 mins because of tunnels and I went to the toilet first IIRC.
- Don't know, over 10 minutes, probably.

 

[furlong]

Ticket not valid.

Did the inspector explain why it was not valid?

 

[allypally]

Did the inspector explain why it was not valid?

They said their scanner said it was purchased after departure. But as far as I can determine from the national rail conditions and the penalty fare legislation, this doesn't invalidate the ticket for the journey.

As far as I understand, the transgression was the act of boarding not the notion the ticket was invalid and therefore a penalty fare is not appropriate. My appeal was based on this logic.

My first appeal was rejected but I don't think the assessor quite got my point.

Now my second appeal is on hold and I'm wondering what information the assessor actually wants from the train company.

I am a bit worried - can the operator just cancel the penalty and prosecute me? My logic kind of leaves me open to that, I fear. EDIT: I forgot about the prosecution immunity after first appeal decision.

 

[Brissle Girl]

- Yes, it was a barcode anytime ticket
- About 20 mins because of tunnels and I went to the toilet first IIRC.
- Don't know, over 10 minutes probably.

I suspect you will struggle to persuade the authorities that you were doing anything other than trying to avoid payment if it took you 20 mins after boarding to make the purchase, as that would require both rather a lot of tunnels and a long toilet stop.

You should be aware that they will know from your ticket exactly how long before the ticket inspection it was purchased.

 

[allypally]

Sadly it was a long time in the loo but I'd rather not elaborate

 

[Cowley]

Thread reopened for @allypally to provide an update.

 

[allypally]

So I understand that because the first appeal decision has been given, the operator can't cancel the penalty fare and pursue prosecution (because of the immunity under 11.(4)), but the reason I reopened this topic is because of the "Appeal on hold" notice (post 35 above) - What is this about? -, and given the dates I outlined in post 41, penalty services don't have a lot of time to get the information from the train company.

 

[Honestviews]

It’s very simple! Appeal the PF on the abundantly simple basis that a valid travel ticket was shown, and this protects the OP from prosecution and is a ground certain to succeed anyway.

I don't think that is quite right - at least not until three weeks have passed from the day on which the appeal is received.

You have to read the whole of Regulation 11 (as amended by the 2022 Regulations). It states the following:

11 Penalty fares and criminal offences


(1) A person who has been charged a penalty fare under regulation 5(1) is not liable to pay where proceedings for any of the offences specified in paragraph (4) are also brought against that person in relation to the same failure to produce a platform ticket or a valid travel ticket which gave rise to that penalty fare.


(2) [Subject to paragraph (2A),] If a person to whom paragraph (1) applies has paid the penalty fare, or part of it, the operator on whose behalf the penalty fare was charged must refund that person the amount paid within the period of 10 working days, beginning with the day on which proceedings are brought.


[(2A) If a person to whom paragraph (1) applies has paid a penalty fare calculated in accordance with regulation 9(1A) or (4A), or part of such penalty fare, the operator on whose behalf the penalty fare was charged must refund the person any amount paid that exceeds the amount of the full single fare applicable for their journey within the period of 10 working days, beginning with the day on which proceedings are brought.]


(3) Where a person falling within paragraph (1)(a) has appealed against the penalty fare under regulation 16, proceedings for any of the offences specified in paragraph (4) may only be brought against that person for the same failure to produce a platform ticket or a valid travel ticket if the operator, on whose behalf the penalty fare was charged, notifies the relevant Appeal Panel that the penalty fare is cancelled before—

(a) the relevant Appeal Panel has decided the outcome of the appeal under regulation 16; or


(b) the time period mentioned in paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 expires,

whichever is sooner.


So under 11 (3) if the person appeals then the operator can still bring a prosecution if either the outcome of the appeal has not been decided or before the the time period mentioned in paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 expires, which is 21 days beginning with the day on which the appeal is received.

Ironically you are better off appealing then paying. If you appeal after that 21 days you can't be prsoecuted. If you pay then under 11 (2) the operator simply has to refund the amount within the period of 10 working days, beginning with the day on which proceedings are brought.

That isn't my interpretation of this clause.

(3) Where a person falling within paragraph (1)(a) has appealed against the penalty fare under regulation 16, proceedings for any of the offences specified in paragraph (4) may only be brought against that person for the same failure to produce a platform ticket or a valid travel ticket if the operator, on whose behalf the penalty fare was charged, notifies the relevant Appeal Panel that the penalty fare is cancelled before—

(a)the relevant Appeal Panel has decided the outcome of the appeal under regulation 16; or

(b)the time period mentioned in paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 expires,

whichever is sooner.

Agreed - it is either once the appeal has been decided or before the the time period mentioned in paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 expires, which is 21 days beginning with the day on which the appeal is received.

 

[island]

Agreed - it is either once the appeal has been decided or before the the time period mentioned in paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 expires, which is 21 days beginning with the day on which the appeal is received.

And since the first appeal has indeed been decided, I am sure you will agree that no prosecution is valid.

 

[Honestviews]

And since the first appeal has indeed been decided, I am sure you will agree that no prosecution is valid.

I do indeed - I was just offering my view on the advice that was given that appealing means a prosecution can't be undertaken. That advice is given at least twice in the thread so i thought it would be helpful to others reading it in the future. It is also advice I have read a number of times before.

 

[allypally]

So my appeal has just been rejected. I found the respond from the assessor to be really disappointing; it's like he didn't consider my arguments at all.
I now need to appeal again and I was hoping you more experienced folks could help me. I've reproduced my appeal and its rejection below

My appeal:

"I respectfully submit that the penalty fare is void because I presented a valid ticket upon inspection as required by 4.(1) of The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018. The ticket was valid in every respect as defined in 3.(2)(a) of the same. The purchasing of a ticket after boarding for the service and journey in question does NOT invalidate the ticket. The previous assessor stated that Condition 6.1 of the NRCoT establishes that the ticket presented was invalid, but this is incorrect. Condition 6 of the NRCoT states "In order to be valid, some Tickets must be activated or endorsed with a date of travel before you board a train. This is made clear in the terms & conditions of those Tickets." Therefore, some tickets do NOT need to have been activated or endorsed with a date of travel before boarding to be valid. In any case, while Condition 6.1 states that a valid ticket must be held before boarding, it does not follow that a ticket purchased after boarding is therefore invalid. This is the 'fallacy of the inverse' from basic logical reasoning. It may be that i) an act of boarding without a valid ticket is a transgression, and ii) in the time between said boarding and the purchasing of a ticket, the issuance of a Penalty Fare would have been legitimate; however, the law on penalty fares does not concern itself with the above i), and ii) is not relevant as a valid ticket was presented for inspection in accordance with 4.(1) of the law for the whole journey and (every other aspect as in 3.(2)(a)). Even if the inspectors felt that some 'punishment' was deserved because they believed I boarded without a ticket, they chose the wrong legal instrument; a penalty fare is for the failure of producing a valid ticket, only. There was no attempt at fare evasion and the company received the full fare prior to inspection."

The rejection:

"In line with Regulations 5 of The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 as amended from time to time, any person travelling by, present on or leaving a penalty fares train must, if required by an authorised collector, produce a valid ticket or other authority for the journey they have made or are making. If a person fails to produce a valid ticket or other authority in line with Regulation 5.1, the authorised collector may charge that person a penalty fare, in line with the regulations. Every passenger has equal rights and responsibilities when using the rail network. For example, everyone has the right to make the rail journey covered by the validity of their ticket/pass/smartcard, and a responsibility to adhere to the terms and conditions under which the product held was issued. The National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT) set out those rights and responsibilities and advise that a valid ticket or other authority to travel must be produced for inspection when required. Rest assured that Penalty Services is neither judge nor jury and we are not deciding anyone's innocence or guilt when judging appeals so your honesty is not under any scrutiny whatsoever. Similarly, because there is no onus on the train company to prove there was any intention to avoid payment of the correct fare before issuing a penalty fare, the discretion guidelines are not based on intent. Having taken into consideration all the points raised to date, we regret to advise that your appeal has been unsuccessful."

 

[Brissle Girl]

Probably not a surprise tbh. This all seems to come down to whether the ticket you presented was valid. A third appeal will be looked at independently, and you will need to start from scratch in terms of setting out your case (with no assumption that they will see your previous correspondence). I'm not confident that they will side with you, but there is no harm in trying.

The railway's view appears to be that if a ticket is purchased after departure, then it is not a valid ticket for that journey, as you are legally required to purchase a ticket prior to boarding. Therefore, it cannot be valid. I know posters on here have differing opinions as to whether that is correct - I suspect it will need a test case to determine one way or another. Are you up for it if your third appeal is rejected?

 

[allypally]

Probably not a surprise tbh. This all seems to come down to whether the ticket you presented was valid. A third appeal will be looked at independently, and you will need to start from scratch in terms of setting out your case (with no assumption that they will see your previous correspondence). I'm not confident that they will side with you, but there is no harm in trying.

The railway's view appears to be that if a ticket is purchased after departure, then it is not a valid ticket for that journey, as you are legally required to purchase a ticket prior to boarding. Therefore, it cannot be valid. I know posters on here have differing opinions as to whether that is correct - I suspect it will need a test case to determine one way or another. Are you up for it if your third appeal is rejected?

Well going to Magistrate's court sounds like an easy way for a £60+ charge to end up at £600 if I fail, but the idea does seem a little exciting.

Yes, I think the inference you describe is the view the assessors have taken, whereas I have argued that the two are unconnected in the context of penalty fares. The boarding without a ticket is a breach of the byelaws, but that transgression does not affect the validity of a ticket then purchased and later presented for inspection. As penalty fares are only concerned with said validity (and are not issued for the breach of the boarding byelaw), then the penalty fare is inappropriate.

 

[Urban Gateline]

Probably not a surprise tbh. This all seems to come down to whether the ticket you presented was valid. A third appeal will be looked at independently, and you will need to start from scratch in terms of setting out your case (with no assumption that they will see your previous correspondence). I'm not confident that they will side with you, but there is no harm in trying.

The railway's view appears to be that if a ticket is purchased after departure, then it is not a valid ticket for that journey, as you are legally required to purchase a ticket prior to boarding. Therefore, it cannot be valid. I know posters on here have differing opinions as to whether that is correct - I suspect it will need a test case to determine one way or another. Are you up for it if your third appeal is rejected?

Yes exactly, Thameslink and GN are all in PF areas where facilities are always available to buy before boarding, once you get on the train you won't be able to buy a ticket for that specific train so unless he started it on the platform before boarding it would not have offered that service he boarded after it departs, probably would have gotten away with it had he finished the transaction before boarding as it will all be timestamped whatever site/app he bought it from.

This is the difficulty with different ways of operating, GN/TL have no guards to sell tickets, only inspectors so they come down hard, whilst most other TOC's have onboard staff happy to sell the same tickets supplemented with inspectors to go after the non payers, I do feel for the OP as he doesn't seem out to milk the system like many do, rules are the rules though unfortunately.

 

[allypally]

Yes exactly, Thameslink and GN are all in PF areas where facilities are always available to buy before boarding, once you get on the train you won't be able to buy a ticket for that specific train so unless he started it on the platform before boarding it would not have offered that service he boarded after it departs, probably would have gotten away with it had he finished the transaction before boarding as it will all be timestamped whatever site/app he bought it from.

This is the difficulty with different ways of operating, GN/TL have no guards to sell tickets, only inspectors so they come down hard, whilst most other TOC's have onboard staff happy to sell the same tickets supplemented with inspectors to go after the non payers, I do feel for the OP as he doesn't seem out to milk the system like many do, rules are the rules though unfortunately.

The ticket I purchased was just a super off peak ticket because I was buying on the day anyway. Had I not rushed and just caught the next train and bought the ticket on the platform via my phone, all would have been fine. The ticket itself was valid for all the relevant super off peak journeys that day. It's because the scanner of the collections officer showed it had been purchased 10 mins prior and, critically, after departure that it is being claimed it was invalid.

 

[AlterEgo]

A ticket purchased after departure remains perfectly valid. Had the inspector decided to sell you a ticket rather than penalty fare you, the ticket they sold you would be completely valid.

Did you include this reasoning in your appeal? It’s usually only at the third stage where some sense comes into proceedings.

 

[Brissle Girl]

A ticket purchased after departure remains perfectly valid. Had the inspector decided to sell you a ticket rather than penalty fare you, the ticket they sold you would be completely valid.

Did you include this reasoning in your appeal? It’s usually only at the third stage where some sense comes into proceedings.

As I said earlier, that’s your opinion, but whether the third appeal panel agrees with you we’ll have to wait and see. There is no downside in pursuing a third appeal though.

If they don’t, the only way forward is to fight what might become a test case if the railway comes for its money.

 

[AlterEgo]

As I said earlier, that’s your opinion, but whether the third appeal panel agrees with you we’ll have to wait and see. There is no downside in pursuing a third appeal though.

If they don’t, the only way forward is to fight what might become a test case if the railway comes for its money.

It’s not even a debate. It’s unequivocally valid. Nobody can suggest that if the RPI or guard sold a ticket after departure that the ticket they sold for good money was not valid for the journey being made. Such a ticket allows the traveller to make their journey; it’s a very simple argument. Does anyone actually hold a contrary view - that if you purchase a ticket after departure it is de facto *not valid* to make the journey?