As OC states. the rules regarding where you can be accommodated are in the byelaws. The byelaws and conditions of carriage are quite lengthy so to have stickers for everything on every train wouldn't be possible. I understand some train operators decide to place advice stickers, but it isn't a mandatory requirement to do this. From what you've said so far I believe the PF was applied correctly, however there may be grounds for appeal IF other passengers without 1st class tickets were NOT Penalty fared and allowed to simply leave the carriage, so if there were other passengers and they were all PF'd too (within the contrasts of time and other duties of the revenue staff of course) then it's unlikely any appeal will work. On the other hand 'sitting on the arm' would prevent a 1st class ticket holder from using the seat so that could be a reason to be 'harsher per se', I wasn't there so I cannot say. It seems the incorrect advice from the member of staff is the main issue however, so stick to that in any complaint/appeal as general comments (however valid) about the guards/trains/service will be ignored.

I would agree with fkofilee here, a ticket is only valid for the journey (and route) it describes. Hence it is largely irrelevant if there isn't a 'sum' avoided by travelling onward. The type of ticket is nonsense IMHO. If you have been given permission 'in what form and by whom' is the important point, since in which case it matters not what ticket you have or what form it is, since permission to travel can negate the need for a ticket at all.

I thought this had already been answered very well indeed on the railUK forum? It's not an UPFN (unpaid fares notice), since an UPFN is for the full standard undiscounted fare only, which in your case was £4.30 not £104.30. It's not a penalty charge either. Unfortunately 'revenue staff' are often accused of being rude, but this is another issue and won't help with your ticketless travel situation. My suspicion, since the sum is exactly £100 more, is this is an offer to settle out of court and the £100 is probably the train company. i.e. Your research was probably a waste of time since this isn't anything to do with Compulsory Ticket areas, UPFNs or PF's. If you don't come to any agreement by settling it (and £100 is quite a standard sum to be requested IME) then the train company will pass it onto their prosecutions department who may take you to court. If you are found guilty in court the fine can be quite high and will include the fare avoided plus the Tocs reasonable costs for bringing this action plus a victim surcharge. Lot's of 'if's' I appreciate -although that's the gamble. I believe this is a strict liability offence under the Rora 1889, i.e. you couldn't produce a ticket when asked to do so, therefore an offence was caused. There is no need for the company to prove you intended to avoid the fare, i.e. a prosecution (based on everything you've said so far on both forums) is VERY likely to suceed. BUT You KNOW all of this since the very 1st response to you on RUK forums stated this very clearly. I appreciate you want a 2nd opinion but since you've had about 20 already I think you'll probably hear nothing different here. If you want a different opinion, (bearing in mind you've used the 2 busiest rail specific forums that have experienced staff /ex staff on them) you can always use a general consumer forum where you'll hear lots of sympathetic noises from downtrodden commuters who give you a hug and no useful advice whatsoever. Since if you don't cough up they will almost certainly report for prosecution and almost certainly succeed and the amount then fined will be almost certainly higher, non negotiable and legally enforceable, I would personally pay up, and quickly since no reply will mean 'yes, please prosecute' to the train co.

I rarely see the point in these Train V Plane comparisons as those who make them have no intent of ever choosing the plane option, even if it made sense, which it doesn't IME. A chap many years ago snorted to me'' that flying by concorde 'was cheaper' than a Chippenham-Paddington 1st class season ticket'', (it wasn't) I pointed out that there wasn't a landing strip anywhere near Chippenham on which concorde could land/take off nor near Paddington so the comparison was not achievable and he shut up. I wonder where passengers get this silliness from?

I've never heard of a 'questioned under caution and pay at a later date' option. Surely if you are being questioned under caution it can only be for a report for fare evasion -for which intent normally need stop be proven AND there wouldn't then be an option to travel onto Bristol, it would definitely be off at the next manned station. The pay at a later date is a UPFN surely? I think the option that should have been offered was a UPFN for the full fare to the desired destination or get off at the next stop that has an opportunity to pay, with a UPFN that far. I simply don't understand why the TM gave a ZF excess unless he thought that a full fare ticket or UPFN would be rejected and was being a little cowardly about it. Unless it can be proven the TOCs ticketing facilities were definitely at fault then there's probably no defence I am afraid.

The reason they didn't ask you anything after the 'were you leaving the station without paying' question was that you answered in the affirmative. Since this proves intent to avoid the payment -the fare was due at or before the time of travel and you failed to pay, failed to pay on the train and failed again to pay at the destination. This being the case you can't then claim at a later date in court that it was your intent to pay since all of your actions and your statement prove otherwise.

I think it might be impossible to exactly quantify how much is lost, however there are ways & means to estimate this. Take, for instance, when a TOC places a barrier line at a station at a given time on a given day. The local trains guards and station staff can state fairly knowledgably whether the traffic flows are 'usual' and the barrier staff know how many are reported for no ticket and the booking office can state how much takings are 'up' due to the line being there. Multiply that by various blocks at various stations at various times of the day/week. You don't have to do too much of that to see patterns and extrapolate the figures. TOCs are businesses 1st & foremost, they are driven by profit, this means that no matter how many experienced staff tell them 'you are losing money' they won't spend upwards of £1 million recruiting revenue staff and putting barrier lines in at a station until the business case is proven. That business case took over 2 years at Reading for example, and the reality of the evasion was actually 3 times that predicted, and thats including the number of people that got wise and found a way round the new barriers. That doesn't mean the TOC definitely knows who individually is deliberately stealing or even if they are doing it regularly, but it makes a case for having more checks made or a permanent barrier line installed. Unlike some others on this thread I can only give my opinion based on experience, admittedly not as long as some of the posters, but still enough that I am reasonably confident my views are accurate in the real world. Staff on train and at stations have more of a 1-1 relationship with their regular passengers than they do with their managers, however as has absolutely clearly and correctly been said, even someone like an experienced RP manager (above an RPI) or guard is not allowed to use discretion in many cases where years ago they certainly would have. If that makes them part of the problem then you really don't know what the problem is.

Generally you'll only be asked to sign once at the end and on any amendments (possibly) that you wish to be made in the transcript. Once you've signed the document you've acknowledged 'it is a true record' (and thats generally the question asked right at the end 'if you agree this is a true record of our conversation today...sign here'.) It's not really worth grasping at the possibility the inspector who questioned you did something fundamentally wrong, as it doesn't sound like they did, the best advice is that you should presume their case is strong and play it from that perspective. 2 hours sounds like a ridiculously long amount of time to me, all my interviews were less than 20 minutes typically, of course if you 'waffled on' and the inspector had to write all of this up it would run into many pages and have to be read back to you, so that obviously delays the interview.

Yes, I have indeed done something I shouldn't have done- and I paid the fine, despite believing it to be unfair as I had no choice, an offence against the RTA fwiw, although that's not relevant anyway. The laws in question on this thread have been there for 126+ years simply because they are as watertight as a law can be.

Have to say if the rules are there to 'deliberately extort' then someone, somewhere would have successfully challenged them by now. Most of these 'rules' are covered by bylaws up to 126 years old don't forget., they have been 'tried and tested' as the phrase goes , many, many times by people both more determined, more stupid and more clever than most here. Administrative penalties rarely make a profit, let alone are the 'huge extortion racket' you obviously think. It costs a small fortune to run a RP department, having run one myself I can vouch for that. If all you can say to most posts is 'it's a rip off' /cry 'crime' when it isn't one and you know it, you really aren't helping, your opinion is already ever so well known surely? The OP asked if it was fair, I replied it was according to the rules they agreed, sorry if this doesn't match your ideal world scenario.

Hello, yes it is fair and no, it isn't a 'stitch up'. You need to have a valid ticket and any qualifying document to prove entitlement to the discount on you and show these when asked to do so by anyone authorised to ask. Sorry, but those are the rules and I am quite sure you would have seen these somewhere in writing when you first got this ticket/discount card.

Basically it's a strict liability offence the way I see it: you couldn't produce a valid ticket when asked to do so by an authorised person. It's a simple yes or no offence -no mitigation. Pay up before it gets any higher I am afraid.

OC is spot on as usual. £80 as an administrative settlement is pretty cheap IME I am afraid, I appreciate it seems high in comparison with the fare however. I did report someone for not paying their fare a long, long time ago and he was very meek and polite about it, they'd used a machine and used a YP discount which they weren't entitled to, they'd saved 50p, the settlement was £50 and that was the lowest the prosecuting office would consider, despite his willingness to come clean and politeness at the time of being caught. It's worth carefully considering the points OC has raised here as all of these will be asked if you elect to go to court instead and you'll need compelling arguments with as much evidence to support them if you wish to come out as 'not guilty' I can assure you.

I remember that. Maybe he would have given the same 'attitude' to the magistrates if the ToC had taken him to court? It seemed very much to me as 'I've paid them what I owe them now finally they've caught me so that's ok then.....fair game'. No, it isn't ok, I don't blame the TOC (who are, after all is said and done, a commercial company) for accepting a huge 'offer out of court' as £40k + isn't small beans to anyone- let's be honest! However it doesn't serve 'justice' for someone who can easily, (really, really easily) afford to pay £20 a journey to then be allowed to simply recompense the TOC he was stealing from for 4 years for their 'losses' without actually acknowledging or paying a penalty for the outright arrogant theft he was committing. I can understand when someone who simply can't afford to pay for a journey tries to fare dodge, but this is like me stealing a car regularly to get to work, despite the fact I can easily afford to buy a new one every few years, it's insulting to normal punters and staff and his attitude seems to be 'oh well I made a mistake and lost at the 'game of fare dodging'. Pathetic -if that's now cost you any chance of a career in a role that demands (and should do) absolute trust from client and employer then you bloody well deserve it.

I guess you find out who your friends truly are when the 'chips are down' don't you? If your journey for 1 month was all the same route and his journeys previously to this and after it's replacement was markedly different, I have no doubt he is already under suspicion anyway.