Contesting a penalty train fare

wealdroam

Energize wrote: »

Why mention civil courts and breach of contract if you are referring to byelaws? They are two completely separate areas of law.

Simply because your suggestion that the Op should've refused to pay the penalty fare.
If that had happened, the railway would most likely cancel the PF and pursue a private prosecution under the byelaws.

Energize wrote: »

The person in question had a valid ticket with him and was able to hand it over, thus was not in breach.

You are mistaken.
The OP was unable to produce the ticket when asked to do so.
From the original post on this thread:

VodkaSorbet wrote: »

I recently had to pay a penalty fare as I couldn't find the return portion of my ticket whilst on the train...

Energize wrote: »

My standard practice is to give false identification information to those requesting it for such victimless crimes.

Oh dear.

Do you realise that a person following that practice is likely to fall foul of byelaw 23? (see link in earlier post)

Energize wrote: »

Ethics > Law.

If you say so.

Energize

wealdroam wrote: »

Simply because your suggestion that the Op should've refused to pay the penalty fare.
If that had happened, the railway would most likely cancel the PF and pursue a private prosecution under the byelaws.

Yes and a prosecution does not involve civil court, or having anything to do with breaking a contract. Which is why that doesn't make sense.

Do you realise that a person following that practice is likely to fall foul of byelaw 23? (see link in earlier post)

Obviously it's illegal, but it's justified when you have done nothing morally wrong. Maybe you think it's ok to victimise people who are paying for their fares and have come into an unfortunate circumstance though no fault of their own. I don't.

yorkie2

I hope no-one follows the advice of 'Energize' as it could land people into a lot of trouble, and possibly a criminal record.

geerex

aleph_0 wrote: »

A penalty fare shouldn't be issued in some circumstances when a change of route/change of ticket type excess should be used instead. Or, if the customer did have and show a valid ticket, but the inspector mistakingly thought it was invalid. Similarly, occasionally quirks of the oyster system can mean a passenger can be incorrectly charged, and might end up with a penalty fare.

I'm not sure if you're just generalising, but in the OPs specific scenario, an excess wouldn't have been possible as you can't excess a return if there's only the out or return portion produced.

yorkie2

VodkaSorbet asked how anyone could "ever" contest a Penalty Fare. aleph_0 gave some correct examples of where a Penalty Fare should not be issued (but might be, by incompetent staff).


The examples are of course not applicable to the OP's case, but are an answer to the particular question asked by the OP.

geerex

yorkie2 wrote: »

VodkaSorbet asked how anyone could "ever" contest a Penalty Fare. aleph_0 gave some correct examples of where a Penalty Fare should not be issued (but might be, by incompetent staff).


The examples are of course not applicable to the OP's case, but are an answer to the particular question asked by the OP.

Muchos gracias

terra_ferma

aleph_0 wrote: »

I would say the appeal system is designed for scenarios where the penalty fare shouldn't have been issued in the first place. But I agree, the fact that an inspector can say "you can appeal in writing", rather than get into an argument there and then when the inspector knows the appeal is likely to be unsuccessful, is another feature of the system.

Yes someone I know had a similar scenario, she fell asleep and over run her season ticket zones, she wasn't argumentative as she knew it was her fault (well, it was fairly clear cut....), but was told to appeal, which obviously was just a waste of time.

Voyager2002

VodkaSorbet wrote: »

Hi,

I recently had to pay a penalty fare as I couldn't find the return portion of my ticket whilst on the train (I had the outbound part proving it was a day return price paid, but the actual return portion had fallen down inside the lining of my bag and I only found it later at home as there was only about 5 minutes left on the train journey at that point).

The inspector said I could contest the penalty and showed me the address to send my appeal off to. So I sent off my tickets with an explanatory letter and received a reply that I had no grounds to contest the fare as their rules state you must be able to present your ticket to the inspector when asked, otherwise you have to pay a penalty.

Whilst this is a fair enough rule, it got me wondering how anyone could ever contest a penalty, if this will always be their response, and if so, why are they offering people the option of wasting their time and postage writing in to appeal? Or have I just been fobbed off...?

Any thoughts appreciated!

Do a search...

I recall a court case a good few years ago, where a passenger eventually won: he had been unable to produce a ticket but could demonstrate that he must have had one. He was on a long journey; had shown it twice earlier in the journey when it was inspected; but by the time of the third inspection he had somehow lost it.

If your journey began at a station with a barrier, so that it would not have been possible for a friend to have been using your ticket, then you can produce a pretty strong argument.

Stigy

Energize wrote: »

Obviously it's illegal, but it's justified when you have done nothing morally wrong. Maybe you think it's ok to victimise people who are paying for their fares and have come into an unfortunate circumstance though no fault of their own. I don't.

Obviously the staff are mind readers then. You really need to take a step back and think outside the box. What's to say the return portion wasn't given to a friend who didn't have a ticket to travel? I'm sure all the honest people who pay their fares would argue that this is far from victimless when they pay hundreds and sometimes thousands each year for their travel. Obviously not saying the OP is a fare evader, just that the whole idea of PFs are fit such circumstances.

aleph_0

Stigy wrote: »

Obviously the staff are mind readers then. You really need to take a step back and think outside the box. What's to say the return portion wasn't given to a friend who didn't have a ticket to travel? I'm sure all the honest people who pay their fares would argue that this is far from victimless when they pay hundreds and sometimes thousands each year for their travel. Obviously not saying the OP is a fare evader, just that the whole idea of PFs are fit such circumstances.

I agree with Stigy. It's also worth remembering that the (imo, good) advice given here has been of the form "here's how the system works, here are the byelaws, here are the consequences of certain actions", and explaining the motivation behind them.

The question of what the rules should be is an entirely separate conversation. I'm confident that the people on this thread have a variety of opinions as to what they laws and byelaws should be if they were in charge.