Took an earlier train and got a fine

[Marica M]

I also found this document where point 4.29 says: When a penalty fare cannot be charged.....Ticket restrictions. Many types of ticket cannot be used at certain times of day, on certain days of the week or on certain trains. These ticket restrictions can be complicated, and even familiar tickets such as cheap day returns can have different restrictions on different routes. If a passenger travels on a train on which their ticket is not valid, it is more likely that the restrictions were not properly explained to them than that they are deliberately trying to avoid paying the right fare. We believe that it is up to the train operators to make sure that each passenger understands the restrictions which apply to the ticket which they are sold. Under rule 7, a passenger may not be charged a penalty fare if he or she has a ticket for the journey which they are making that is not valid on that train only because of a ticket restriction. In these cases, the passenger only needs to pay the excess fare, in line with the National Rail Conditions of Carriage.
https://www.penaltyservices.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Penalty-Fares-Policy-2002.pdf
But I'm not sure if it's a relevant document anymore as there's a link to another clarification document on National rail site.

In relation to advanced ticket NR Conditions of travel says in 9.4: Where you are using a Ticket valid on a specific train service or train services (such as an “advance” Ticket) and you miss a service because a previous connecting train service was delayed, you will be able to travel on the next train service provided by the Train Company with whom you were booked without penalty.
https://assets.nationalrail.co.uk/e...572570/National_Rail_Conditions_of_Travel.pdf
Not really my case as I didn't have any connecting trains, but it references the next train ((( I've ommited this finding from my email draft.

 

[WesternLancer]

I also found this document where point 4.29 says: When a penalty fare cannot be charged.....Ticket restrictions. Many types of ticket cannot be used at certain times of day, on certain days of the week or on certain trains. These ticket restrictions can be complicated, and even familiar tickets such as cheap day returns can have different restrictions on different routes. If a passenger travels on a train on which their ticket is not valid, it is more likely that the restrictions were not properly explained to them than that they are deliberately trying to avoid paying the right fare. We believe that it is up to the train operators to make sure that each passenger understands the restrictions which apply to the ticket which they are sold. Under rule 7, a passenger may not be charged a penalty fare if he or she has a ticket for the journey which they are making that is not valid on that train only because of a ticket restriction. In these cases, the passenger only needs to pay the excess fare, in line with the National Rail Conditions of Carriage.
https://www.penaltyservices.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Penalty-Fares-Policy-2002.pdf
But I'm not sure if it's a relevant document anymore as there's a link to another clarification document on National rail site.

In relation to advanced ticket NR Conditions of travel says in 9.4: Where you are using a Ticket valid on a specific train service or train services (such as an “advance” Ticket) and you miss a service because a previous connecting train service was delayed, you will be able to travel on the next train service provided by the Train Company with whom you were booked without penalty.
https://assets.nationalrail.co.uk/e...572570/National_Rail_Conditions_of_Travel.pdf
Not really my case as I didn't have any connecting trains, but it references the next train ((( I've ommited this finding from my email draft.

experts will check - but I think important to note that I do not believe they are charging you a Penalty Fare (that is a particular thing) so the point you make here probably does not apply - they have written to you with a 'Fixed Penalty Notice' - which people on the forum often call a 'penalty fake' and seems to be something Northern in particular do.

So I suspect this will effect the wording needed in your draft reply - as this needs to be precise and correct (as I can tell you appreciate)

Hopefully you will get some useful edits on your draft. eg this bit would need changing:

"and consequently I am not liable to a penalty fare under the Penalty Fares Rules."

- because if I am correct the Penalty Fares rules would not have anything to do with it because you have not been charged a Penalty Fare.

Good luck with this - your treatment is appalling in my view.

 

[melevittfl]

I think "the next train" is arguably ambiguous. You could interpret it to mean "the next train you are able to take", which in your case was the earlier train. Rather than "the next train", meaning "the next train that leaves at a later time."

Given the wording on the Northern site, that seems to match with the "next train you are able to take" interpretation as well.

 

[Western Sunset]

I think Northern's rendering of "There is nothing stopping you from catching a different train..." is even less ambiguous.

My best wishes to the OP in their efforts to right Northern's egregious behaviour.

 

[CyrusWuff]

I also found this document where point 4.29 says: When a penalty fare cannot be charged.....Ticket restrictions. Many types of ticket cannot be used at certain times of day, on certain days of the week or on certain trains. These ticket restrictions can be complicated, and even familiar tickets such as cheap day returns can have different restrictions on different routes. If a passenger travels on a train on which their ticket is not valid, it is more likely that the restrictions were not properly explained to them than that they are deliberately trying to avoid paying the right fare. We believe that it is up to the train operators to make sure that each passenger understands the restrictions which apply to the ticket which they are sold. Under rule 7, a passenger may not be charged a penalty fare if he or she has a ticket for the journey which they are making that is not valid on that train only because of a ticket restriction. In these cases, the passenger only needs to pay the excess fare, in line with the National Rail Conditions of Carriage.
https://www.penaltyservices.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Penalty-Fares-Policy-2002.pdf
But I'm not sure if it's a relevant document anymore as there's a link to another clarification document on National rail site.

That's been removed in the 2018 Penalty Fare Regulations, but only applies to time-restricted tickets like Off-Peaks and Super Off-Peaks, rather than fixed time Advance tickets.

 

[realemil]

nor did he explain to me the restrictions of the Advance tickets and especially that it wasn't allowing passengers to take an earlier train.

I would personally not include this, as it might work against you.

and consequently I am not liable to a penalty fare under the Penalty Fares Rules

As other posters have stated; this isn’t a penalty fare so this wouldn’t apply.

I will appreciate it if you could review the case once again as I believe the T&Cs of Advance tickets and the information on Northern rail site were rather misleading

Personally I would write the following:

“Please review this case once again as per the evidence provided, which allowed me to travel on this train as the one specified on my ticket was cancelled.”

I would stand my ground and make it clear that you’re in the right, as it may seem like you’re unsure and chancing your luck.

 

[Ben Rhydding]

There is only one issue. You held a valid ticket.

I would not dilute this simple message. There is no confusion. You are not asking them for a favour. You are telling them that their actions are unlawful.

If the train is cancelled, for which an advance ticket is held, the ticket is valid on an alternative train. This is provided for in the Conditions of Travel and reinforced by the very clear statement on the Northern website.

Northern has introduced short distance advance tickets. These are valid only on the specified train. Yet every day they are cancelling dozens, sometimes hundreds of trains. Every day, there must be thousands of instances of these tickets being used on alternative trains because the booked one has been cancelled. The tickets are accepted without question - almost always.

 

[Pushpit]

I will appreciate it if you could review the case once again as I believe the T&Cs of Advance tickets and the information on Northern rail site were rather misleading and consequently I am not liable to a penalty fare under the Penalty Fares Rules. The train I had a valid ticket for was cancelled and I wasn't deliberately trying to avoid paying the right fare.

Thanks and regards,

___________________________________________________

I think that's a very good letter and frankly more polite and considerate than Northern deserves. In addition I do see merit - after sending it to the DRPU unit - to send a copy to the CEO and ask him in a very brief cover note to review whether this incident is the sort of customer service his company should be offering.

 

[185]

This report wasn't issued by a Carlisle staff member.

I know. But the fact that they do, concerns me when one considers they are a paid contractor, and any form of incentive or performance target removes discretion - eg in a similar fashion to contracted litter wardens... it also has the potential to encourage misconduct / fraud.

 

[Starmill]

There is only one issue. You held a valid ticket.

I would not dilute this simple message. There is no confusion. You are not asking them for a favour. You are telling them that their actions are unlawful.

I agree that this is the centre of the message. Everything else being presented is just evidence in support of this point. Personally I think the Conditions plus the statement on Northern's website alone are sufficient here.

If anyone has any similar issues in future I'd advise direct message to the train company concerned with a picture of the ticket, on twitter or whatsapp. They will then confirm in writing that the ticket is valid on the service before, if asked to do so, which puts it beyond all doubt.

 

[Haywain]

I know. But the fact that they do, concerns me when one considers they are a paid contractor, and any form of incentive or performance target removes discretion - eg in a similar fashion to contracted litter wardens... it also has the potential to encourage misconduct / fraud.

That is completely irrelevant to this thread, which is for the purpose of providing advice to the OP.

 

[Marica M]

Thank you all for your input and advice!
I will ask tomorrow a colleague from legal department to have a quick read, to refine the language and make it more formal before sending to DRPU.

I will let you know what I hear back from Northern.


Hi all, as promised, my update...

This afternoon I wrote to DRPU with a copy to complaints department:

Good afternoon,

I refer to your letters dated 21 November and 06 December 2023 , Ref NTLTIR00xxxx.

As you are aware, on the 13th November I booked an advanced ticket for travel on the 15th of November 09:08 service to Leeds. This service was cancelled as you can see from https://timetables.trainsplit.com/times.aspx?uid=P55544&date=20231115

On the 15th November I had an important meeting at work and therefore needed to catch an alternative train because of the cancellation. Thus I took the 08:40 service.

Section 8.4 of your advance ticket terms and conditions found at https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/tick...tickets/advance-tickets-terms-and-conditions/, states “If the train you purchased a ticket for is cancelled or is delayed and you still decide to travel, special arrangements will be made to accommodate you on another train (although a seat cannot be guaranteed).”

In addition, your train cancellations section found on your website here

https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/travel/train-cancellations#:~:text=There is nothing stopping you,if your service is cancelled also states “There is nothing stopping you from catching a different train if your service is cancelled. Just check Northern’s timetable to find an alternative train”.

Bearing the above in mind, I have done nothing wrong and did not try to avoid paying any fare. In fact, the ticket conductor on the train who inspected my e-ticket on the train did not ask me to pay another fare or the difference between the fare of the ticket I had already purchased and the fare for the train I caught.

I would also like to add that Starbeck station, from where I catch my train, is unstaffed and therefore there is no one from Northern Rail to advise on any special arrangements should you cancel a train.

As far as I am concerned I have complied with your terms set out above and I am actually quite shocked that, despite my offering to pay the difference of £11.20, you decided to issue a fixed penalty notice of £100. Why have you taken this heavy handed approach when I am clearly a law abiding citizen? As you are fully aware, I had paid for a ticket and was simply having to make alternative arrangements because of a cancellation caused by Northern Rail not me. I also note your website states “we would like to reassure passengers that Northern is committed to applying the legislation in a fair and consistent manner and it is important to realise that early engagement is imperative to facilitate a satisfactory outcome for all”. The website goes on to say “that the majority of matters the DRPU deal with could be resolved before prosecution arises and my message is a simple one. Should you find yourself in a fare dispute, do not ignore it and contact the DRPU to resolve the matter at the earliest opportunity”.

It seems to me that you are not adhering to your own advice and your approach is extremely unethical. I have contacted you previously and offered to pay the difference of £11.20 and I remain willing to pay this amount. However, I am not willing to pay to £100 penalty notice, when I had already paid for a train which you cancelled and complied with the terms on your website.

Finally, please accept this email as formal notice that if I do not receive confirmation from you by close of business on 15th December that you are willing to withdraw the penalty notice subject, of course, to my paying the £11.20, I will make a formal appeal to Penalty Services.

Yours sincerely,

(Advance ticket attached)
____________

And got this exact reply - no Hello or apologies, just 2 sentences:

Thank you for your e-mail. We have re-assessed this matter and confirm that we have closed this matter down and no further action will be taken.

_____________

Funny enough, this reply came in the email thread I had with them as if it was a reply to my email sent on the 5th of Dec and that they ignored till this afternoon. Never mind I suppose, as long as they closed this matter down.

Thanks again for all your valuable advise and time!

 

[realemil]

Very happy to hear that the matter has been resolved and closed. Hopefully (but doubtful), Northern takes the correct action in training their staff on how to properly handle these situations.

 

[SteveM70]

Good result that. If you can be bothered, and want to do everyone else a favour, forward the email thread to their MD and ask if this is the standard of revenue protection he expects, and what his plan is to improve it

 

[Adam Williams]

As much as this outcome is a win for OP, I find the responses when TOCs and other operators realise they've screwed up to so often be devoid of a) any sort of acknowledgement that what they had done was wrong and/or an explanation of how that happened, b) any sort of apology for the stress, hassle and inconvenience and c) any sort of plan on what the operator intends to do to avoid reoccurrences of the same problem.

It's really not a good look for Northern, frankly.

It's not every operator in every instance that makes this mistake - I've seen GWR manage a pretty damn good job certainly at points a) and b) on a number of occasions.

 

[WesternLancer]

Good result that. If you can be bothered, and want to do everyone else a favour, forward the email thread to their MD and ask if this is the standard of revenue protection he expects, and what his plan is to improve it

and the OP can send it to their MP who can ask the Minister the same question, since Northern is run directly by an outfit operated by the Dept for Transport

 

[gray1404]

I would definitely encourage the op to now make a formal complaint about this.

 

[Hadders]

This is a good result, well done for persisting and simply not rolling over and paying up.

This whole case really shows how stockingly bad Northern are at customer service and 'doing the right thing':

The passenger's details hould never have been taken in the first place
Someone in the DRPU should've realised what happened and dropped the case, but insteasd decided to send a letter threatening prosecution
Once challenged appropriately Northern drop the case with a response that offers no apology. They really should be giving the OP a couple of complimentary tickets.

Please do complain about this to Northern's Managing Director, I would also be tempted to copy your MP.

 

[Haywain]

Someone in the DRPU should've realised what happened

They would only know that if the report they received included the details of the "invalid" ticket that was held, and I rather suspect that detail wasn't there, hence the letter.

 

[Ben Rhydding]

I don`t think the "offence" of which the OP was accused was travelling on the train previous to the cancelled one when she should have caught the one subsequent. The alleged offence was travelling on a train different from the one named on the ticket and it would have made no difference whether it was the one before or the one after. The RPI was so far out of order and one hopes that the OP has taken the matter further.

The suggestion that one can only use an advance ticket on the train subsequent to the one cancelled has surely no basis. The only evidence that forum members seem able to offer in support of this theory is the word "next" in next available train. On the majority of occasions, the next available train will indeed be one timed later than the cancelled service. But sometimes a previous train will be the next available.

By cancelling the train, the railway has breached the contract. Unless the passenger accepts a refund, the railway has to do something to remedy the breach. Allowing travel on the next available train will often be the most practical way to achieve this. It would be perverse for the railway to insist that the alternative train must be timed later than the cancelled one when a previous train is available. The previous train might mitigate or even avoid delay altogether. The subsequent train might allow delays to compound, potentially even resulting in the passenger being stranded overnight.

The rule about "special arrangements" was written many years ago when advance tickets were far less common and cancellations thought to be the exception rather than the rule. Most stations offering advance tickets will have been staffed. So the situation was going to be so rare, that a "special arrangement" would be invoked to deal with it. This was long before advance tickets were introduced for short journeys between unstaffed stations.

There is a principle in law that an aggrieved party should try to mitigate his loss. In taking the previous train from Starbeck, the OP was doing what she was recommended to do in law. If forum members think otherwise, do they really think that Northern could have prosecuted her on the strength of an interpretation of the word "next" and, especially, when the prosecuting authority was the party who had precipitated the "offence" by cancelling the train.

Something needs to be done to stop rogue ticket inspectors from trying to penalise passengers who are the victims of service disruption.

 

[Haywain]

I don`t think the "offence" of which the OP was accused was travelling on the train previous to the cancelled one when she should have caught the one subsequent. The alleged offence was travelling on a train different from the one named on the ticket and it would have made no difference whether it was the one before or the one after. The RPI was so far out of order and one hopes that the OP has taken the matter further.

The suggestion that one can only use an advance ticket on the train subsequent to the one cancelled has surely no basis. The only evidence that forum members seem able to offer in support of this theory is the word "next" in next available train. On the majority of occasions, the next available train will indeed be one timed later than the cancelled service. But sometimes a previous train will be the next available.

By cancelling the train, the railway has breached the contract. Unless the passenger accepts a refund, the railway has to do something to remedy the breach. Allowing travel on the next available train will often be the most practical way to achieve this. It would be perverse for the railway to insist that the alternative train must be timed later than the cancelled one when a previous train is available. The previous train might mitigate or even avoid delay altogether. The subsequent train might allow delays to compound, potentially even resulting in the passenger being stranded overnight.

The rule about "special arrangements" was written many years ago when advance tickets were far less common and cancellations thought to be the exception rather than the rule. Most stations offering advance tickets will have been staffed. So the situation was going to be so rare, that a "special arrangement" would be invoked to deal with it. This was long before advance tickets were introduced for short journeys between unstaffed stations.

There is a principle in law that an aggrieved party should try to mitigate his loss. In taking the previous train from Starbeck, the OP was doing what she was recommended to do in law. If forum members think otherwise, do they really think that Northern could have prosecuted her on the strength of an interpretation of the word "next" and, especially, when the prosecuting authority was the party who had precipitated the "offence" by cancelling the train.

Something needs to be done to stop rogue ticket inspectors from trying to penalise passengers who are the victims of service disruption.

I think everything you've said has been covered in the previous 49 posts.

 

[KirkstallOne]

I made a direct complaint to Nick Donovan and the Head of Legal about their unlawful behaviour with respect to RoRA 1889 Section 5.1 prosecutions. No reply or acknowledgment whatsoever.

Let’s face it, the Northern DRPU is a rogue outfit with no respect for the law and this appears to be sanctioned at the highest level of the organisation.

 

[Wolfie]

I made a direct complaint to Nick Donovan and the Head of Legal about their unlawful behaviour with respect to RoRA 1889 Section 5.1 prosecutions. No reply or acknowledgment whatsoever.

Let’s face it, the Northern DRPU is a rogue outfit with no respect for the law and this appears to be sanctioned at the highest level of the organisation.

Complain to the Law Society and Solicitors Regulatory Authority. If officers of the Court chose to ignore the law that is absolutely grounds to have them stuck off. Copy in your MP and perhaps consumer bodies. Make the named individuals lives a living hell! After all they are happy to do that to passengers in violation of the law. Sauce for the goose and all that.....

I would definitely encourage the op to now make a formal complaint about this.

Absolutely. Do so on every occasion and cost the organisation significant resources. If all passengers do that the complacency at the top will stop. Given the Horizon scandal the railway's right to self-prosecute must be increasingly in question.

 

[KirkstallOne]

Complain to the Law Society and Solicitors Regulatory Authority. If officers of the Court chose to ignore the law that is absolutely grounds to have them stuck off. Copy in your MP and perhaps consumer bodies. Make their lives a living hell!

Funnily enough I have literally just sent a further email to my MP asking them to follow up the complaint, I did make them aware of the particulars at the time. This was prompted by being made aware that Northern are still misrepresenting S.5(1) offences to the court, and are still charging offences via SJP notices that they have no authority to do so.

I will hold fire on the SRA complaint whilst this plays out but it is something I am considering.

 

[telstarbox]

Good result!