FGW Fine for no ticket - help

[Neat69]

In January I made a train with First Great Western journey from a Station with no ticket facilities, got off the train at a major station and then straight onto another train to my Final destination.

 

On the second train there was a conductor who I asked to buy a ticket, he said I should have a ticket and I explained the situation the that I had changed trains and my originating station did not have any ticket facilities.

 

He said that I should of bought a ticket at the major station when I changed trains and would issue me with a penalty. He took down my name and address and said I would get a charge through the post. He didn't give me any paperwork at the time.

 

I have received a latter stating that I have 10 days to pay £46, or legal action will be taken.

 

This is ridiculous considering the original Fare was only £5, and has arrived after the 10 days specified on the letter (great)

 

 

Any help would be appreciated.

[Old-CodJA]

The position is that if a traveller genuinely cannot purchase a ticket at the station at which he starts a journey, he must pay the fare (purchase a ticket) at the FIRST opportunity to do so.

 

In this case, that is at the major station interchange point and therefore the inspector is correct in issuing a penalty notice or, making out a written report, which could continue to prosecution if it remains unpaid.

[neeze9]

If you were issued a penalty fare the payment date would have been 21 days after issue, sounds like that has expired (it is now mid-February)

£46 must include the dreaded admin fees added due to your late payment, the £5 you quote must be for the ticket you would of purchased prior to boarding the train - any penalty fare is a minimum of £20

Have you appealed yet??? Find the penalty fare and read what it advises you to do

[Old-CodJA]

If you were issued a penalty fare the payment date would have been 21 days after issue, sounds like that has expired (it is now mid-February)

£46 must include the dreaded admin fees added due to your late payment, the £5 you quote must be for the ticket you would of purchased prior to boarding the train - any penalty fare is a minimum of £20

Have you appealed yet??? Find the penalty fare and read what it advises you to do

 

Neat69 makes clear that the FGW Conductor did not hand him/her any paperwork at the time and therefore this cannot be a Penalty Fare matter. The Penalty Fares (Railways) Rules state that a numbered notice must be issued and handed to the traveller at the time of travel. If a traveller throws it away as quite often happens, that doesn't mean the TOC cannot take action, but Neat69 says no paper work was handed to him/her at the time

 

It is surprising how many people always assume that if you are on a train without a valid ticket and get checked, that you will automatically be issued a Penalty Fare Notice.

This is NOT the case.

 

Some rail operators do have a penalty fares scheme and some do not, but neeze9 is correct in saying if this had been a penalty fare case, the period allowed for payment or appeal is 21 days and has therefore expired. That does not prevent FGW from pursuing payment or legal action if the claim remains unpaid.

 

Even where a penalty fare scheme is in operation, rail company staff are not obliged to issue one to every passenger who is without a valid ticket.

 

If the inspector / guard / conducter has reasonable grounds to suspect that the passenger is attempting to avoid paying or, does not have means with him/her to pay, then a written report will be made. This could sometimes result in a trip to a Magistrates court or, the rail company might chose to send the passenger a bill first.

 

I would suggest that the best course of action would be to write to the office that issued the letter immediately. State what happened and see if FGW are prepared to reduce what appears to be their legitimately claimed charge.

Edited February 23, 2009 by Old-CodJA

[jkdd77]

You are NOT liable to a penalty fare, so do NOT pay it!

 

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/legislation/pf/penaltyfaresrules.pdf

The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 1994

 

Circumstances in which a penalty fare is not to be charged

where a person is travelling on a train

 

6. (1)Subject to the provisions of paragraph (3), in the case of a

person travelling by, being present on or leaving a train (in

this regulation referred to as “the relevant train”), no

person shall be charged a penalty fare in the circumstances

to which this regulation applies.

 

(2)The circumstances to which this regulation applies are that,

at the time when and at the station where the person in

question boarded the relevant train, or, in the case where a

person has boarded the relevant train after travelling on a

preceding train, that, at the time when and at the station

where the person in question boarded that preceding train,

(a) there were no facilities in operation for the sale of the

appropriate ticket or other authority to make the

journey being or having been made by that person;

 

(3)Paragraphs (1) and (2) of this regulation shall not prevent a

person from being charged a penalty fare where he had

been invited by anybody acting on behalf of the operator of

the relevant train or any preceding train to obtain a ticket

or other authority while travelling on or present on the

relevant train or that preceding train.

 

You should write to FGW enclosing a copy of the Penalty Fare Regulations, offering to pay the £5 normal fare, but stating that you are not liable for a penalty fare in law, and that you will vigorously defend any legal action, and hold FGW liable for any costs incurred in your defence.

 

Additionally, the DfT guidance on penalty fares states that a person should not be charged a penalty fare, if they have not had any prior opportunity to do so at their station of origin, and if doing so would cause them to miss their train. http://www.ircas.co.uk/docs/SRA%20-%20Penalty%20Fare%20Policy%202002.pdf

 

Interchange. A passenger who changes onto a penalty fares train at a penalty fares station may normally be charged a penalty fare if ticket facilities were available at the interchange station and warning notices were displayed where they could be seen by anyone changing

onto the penalty fares train. However, under condition 7 of the National Rail Conditions of Carriage, the full normal range of tickets must be made available to any passenger who started their journey at a station where no ticket facilities were available. In these circumstances, a passenger should not be expected to buy a ticket at the interchange station if they do not have enough time to do so without missing their connection. If it is not possible to check whether or not ticket facilities were available at the station where the passenger started their journey (which may be a station run by a different train company), a penalty fare should not be charged.

[Old-CodJA]

You are NOT liable to a penalty fare, so do NOT pay it!

 

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/legislation/pf/penaltyfaresrules.pdf

The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 1994

 

Circumstances in which a penalty fare is not to be charged

where a person is travelling on a train

 

6. (1)Subject to the provisions of paragraph (3), in the case of a

person travelling by, being present on or leaving a train (in

this regulation referred to as “the relevant train”), no

person shall be charged a penalty fare in the circumstances

to which this regulation applies.

 

(2)The circumstances to which this regulation applies are that,

at the time when and at the station where the person in

question boarded the relevant train, or, in the case where a

person has boarded the relevant train after travelling on a

preceding train, that, at the time when and at the station

where the person in question boarded that preceding train,

(a) there were no facilities in operation for the sale of the

appropriate ticket or other authority to make the

journey being or having been made by that person;

 

(3)Paragraphs (1) and (2) of this regulation shall not prevent a

person from being charged a penalty fare where he had

been invited by anybody acting on behalf of the operator of

the relevant train or any preceding train to obtain a ticket

or other authority while travelling on or present on the

relevant train or that preceding train.

 

You should write to FGW enclosing a copy of the Penalty Fare Regulations, offering to pay the £5 normal fare, but stating that you are not liable for a penalty fare in law, and that you will vigorously defend any legal action, and hold FGW liable for any costs incurred in your defence.

 

Additionally, the DfT guidance on penalty fares states that a person should not be charged a penalty fare, if they have not had any prior opportunity to do so at their station of origin, and if doing so would cause them to miss their train. http://www.ircas.co.uk/docs/SRA%20-%20Penalty%20Fare%20Policy%202002.pdf

 

Interchange. A passenger who changes onto a penalty fares train at a penalty fares station may normally be charged a penalty fare if ticket facilities were available at the interchange station and warning notices were displayed where they could be seen by anyone changing

onto the penalty fares train. However, under condition 7 of the National Rail Conditions of Carriage, the full normal range of tickets must be made available to any passenger who started their journey at a station where no ticket facilities were available. In these circumstances, a passenger should not be expected to buy a ticket at the interchange station if they do not have enough time to do so without missing their connection. If it is not possible to check whether or not ticket facilities were available at the station where the passenger started their journey (which may be a station run by a different train company), a penalty fare should not be charged.

 

 

Sorry jkdd77, you seem to be making the very assumption that I referred to earlier.

 

At no time has Neat69 stated that he was issued a Penalty Fare Notice and therefore this cannot be a penalty fare matter.

 

Neat69 stated that the charge claimed is £46 and that the single fare was £5. This again confirms this is not a penalty fare matter.

 

If it were a penalty fare, the rules state that the penalty will be the greater of twenty pounds or, twice the single fare for the journey. If this had been a penalty fare case the penalty would therefore be £20, but it is clearly NOT a penalty fare case.

 

It seems likely that FGW intend to prosecute a Byelaw offence, but have offered the opportunity to avoid prosecution by allowing Neat69 to pay the fare and their administration charge/costs for work they have had to do. If this option is accepted and Neat69 pays, FGW could not proceed further, but if it is not paid, they may proceed to issue a Summons once the date set for payment by has passed

 

They are entitled to do that and if Neat69 chooses not to pay it they may proceed with the threat of legal action. The penalty fares rules relate to an entirely different process.

 

Neat69 might allow the case to continue and see if FGW carry out the threat to prosecute, but I personally wouldn't risk it. You might challenge the costs claim on the basis that it should only be the real costs incurred, but in this day and age I doubt that any Magistrate is likely to think that £40.00 is excessive and if it does proceed, costs are likely to rise considerably.

 

.

Edited February 23, 2009 by Old-CodJA

[Neat69]

 

It seems likely that FGW intend to prosecute a Byelaw offence, but have offered the opportunity to avoid prosecution by allowing Neat69 to pay the fare and their administration charge/costs for work they have had to do. If this option is accepted and Neat69 pays, FGW could not proceed further, but if it is not paid, they may proceed to issue a Summons once the date set for payment by has passed

 

They are entitled to do that and if Neat69 chooses not to pay it they may proceed with the threat of legal action. The penalty fares rules relate to an entirely different process.

 

I've checked the railway bye-laws and it states:

 

18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas

(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.

(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.

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

 

(i) 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; or

(ii) there was a notice at the station where he began his journey permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket; or

(iii) an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.

 

So I cant see how they can have a case under this either?

Edited February 24, 2009 by Neat69

[timbo58]

it might seem a bit confusing but from the TOCs/magistrates point of view:

It is NOT one journey!

It is TWO -the journey from unstaffed station to major station

and the journey from major station onwards.

It is NOT an offence as you have correctly noted in the first instance to not have a ticket.

It IS an offence to then travel onwards from a place where ticket facilities existed with no ticket.

The facts over connections yada yada yada, are irrelevant.

 

I DO speak from 15 years experience here!

[Old-CodJA]

Quite right timbo58 and my 30 years experience comes to the same conclusion.

 

I'm not going over it all again, but the matter for which the offence could be alleged, is failing to show a ticket at the time the ticket examination took place.

 

At that point the traveller has passed an opportunity to pay the fare knowing that a fare is due, has not done so and has subsequently failed to show a ticket on demand.

 

You have a clear choice, to pay the charge and close the case or, choose the option of not paying the TOCs settlement offer (because that's what it appears to be), allow them to issue a summons, plead not guilty and put the argument that you have given here.

 

My personal view is that the latter option will cost you much more in the long run, but I'd genuinely be happy to be proven wrong.

 

If the case were to proceed, the Court will take into account all the facts and so far we only have one side of the argument so let's look at that first.

 

Neat69 does not deny knowing that a fare was due and knowing the fare should be paid 'at the first opportunity' as defined by the rules in force. Furthermore, Neat69 admits knowing that ticket purchase facilities were available at the changing point and not purchasing a ticket at that time.

 

Now I'm not saying that Neat69 is mistaken about whether or not there actually were facilities at the station from which the journey started and we don't know where it was, but please bear with me.

 

On the other side of the argument the TOC will show

 

1. Whether there actually were any ticket facilities at the station from which the first journey started and will remind the Magistrates that a permit to travel machine or, self-service machine is such a facility.

2. Whether there was a guard on the first train who the traveller could approach to pay the fare due but did not do so. Remember, if you get on a train without a ticket because you genuinely couldn't get one, it is up to the traveller to seek an opportunity to pay, not to wait to be challenged. (A ruling in an appeal court case made that quite clear.)

3. What time the first train arrived at the changing point and what time the train departed on the second part of the journey.

4. Whether the traveller had ample time to use the ticket facilities at the interchange station

5. Whether there was another service on which the traveller could have made the second part of the journey without unreasonable delay by paying the fare at the interchange

 

and finally...the court might well take into account that the rail company have given an opportunity to settle the matter without troubling them.

 

I'm not saying that latter comment is right nor, conclusive, but if we had the detailed answers to all those other questions, my years of experience lead me to ask what decision 'the man on the Clapham omnibus' might come up with as they say?

 

As I said, I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I'm not about to put any money on it.

 

Good luck.

Edited February 24, 2009 by Old-CodJA

[jkdd77]

Old-CodJA/ timbo 58: I respect your knowledge and experience , but surely a jourrney from A to C changing trains at B must be considered as a single journey?

 

Otherwise a person with an advance ticket from A to C could end their journey at B, where the first "journey" ends, but this is clearly not permitted as the train operating companies, and the courts, consider this to be a single journey. Conversely, if the onward connection from B was missed because the service from A was late, then the train company would, based on this definition, not be obliged to honour the ticket on the next train because it was a separate journey?

 

The compensation arrangements for severely delayed trains detailed in the NRCOC also imply that this is considered as a single journey.

 

Is there any specific case law covering the definition of a "journey", because neither the NRCOC or the bye-laws explicitly define it?

 

I re-read the OP's post, and interpreted his/her reference to "would issue me with a penalty" to mean that OP had approached the guard on the second train, and the guard had refused to issue a ticket at the normal single fare of £5, and that FGW were now claiming a £20 penalty fare plus £25 admin costs, even though the Penalty Fare Regulations make it clear that no penalty fare may be charged in these circumstances.

 

OP- how is the £45 charge broken down- is any reference made to a Penalty Fare or to an Unpaid Fares Notice?

 

Why would the DfT issue guidance on interchange stating that passengers can catch a connecting train without prior payment, without being liable to a penalty fare, if buying a ticket would cause them to miss their train, if they did not intend that this situation was to be treated as a single journey, with the benefit of the doubt given to the passenger?

 

If the guidelines on interchange are not relevant, then why would the DfT have issued them in the first place?

 

It would be perverse for a person to be convicted of a bye-law offence in a case where they had not violated the NRCOC, and were acting in accordance with implicit DfT guidance on when it is "reasonable" to catch a train at an interchange station without having bought a ticket.

 

Failure to pay a penalty fare in circumstances where a penalty fare is due is certainly a bye-law offence, but I would argue that:

-a penalty fare was not applicable under the circumstances,

-that the ordinary fare was due,

and that the OP fulfilled his/her bye-law obligations by attempting to buy a ticket at the ordinary fare at the first reasonable opportunity (with the definition of "reasonable" taking into account the specific DfT guidance on interchange in these circumstances). That the guard seemingly refused to sell the ticket at the ordinary fare is not the fault of the OP, and it is not fair for the OP to be hit with £20-£40 administration fees as a result, regardless of whether or not the charge relates to a formal penalty fare as such.

 

Condition 3 of the NRCOC states that "you must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, buy an appropriate ticket to complete your journey", and I presume that the usual interpretation of bye-law 18 is along similar lines.

 

Assuming this is the case, the question is whether it was "reasonably practicable for the OP to buy a ticket on the first train, or at the interchange station", under the particular circumstances of the case, and the burden of proof would be on FGW to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

 

If it was reasonably practicable for the OP to buy a ticket at the interchange station, then a bye-law offence has been committed.

If not, then a bye-law offence would appear not to have been committed.

 

I agree that it would be best to avoid the uncertainty of a court case and possible conviction.

 

My advice to the OP would be to be sure that there was indeed no ticket-purchase facilities whatsoever at your station of origin, and to be sure that you made reasonable efforts under the circumstances to find a guard to pay your fare to on the first train.

 

Assuming that this was indeed the case, I would:

1) Contact the DfT and ask for official guidance on the interpretation of Railway Bye-law 18 in this situation.

2) Write to FGW directly, explaining your situation, again offering to pay the ordinary fare in full settlement, and requesting that further enforcement action be suspended for 14 days to allow you to receive advice from qualified organisations.

At the same time contact Passenger Focus and/or your MP and ask them to raise your case with FGW. There is an outside chance FGW may drop the case as a "goodwill gesture".

 

If the guidance/ advice was negative, then I would seriously consider paying the £45 at that point, but there is nothing to lose from attempting to resolve the matter amicably.

 

If the guidance is in your favour, then I would probably fight on, and make the point to the judge that the guard should have shown discretion according to the DfT's own guidance, and that FGW are acting unreasonably in bringing such a case to court when the passenger has repeatedly offered to pay the fare due, both on the second train, and afterwards. I would also suggest that the administration fees were incurred as a sole and direct consequence of the guard's unjustified and unreasonable refusal to issue a ticket, and so were FGW's own fault.

[timbo58]

Sorry: this is definitely TWO seperate parts of the same journey, hence my first post was accurate legally although could have been worded better perhaps!

Therefore the conclusion remains the same: OP had the opportunity of paying (bear in mind however convenient/inconvenient this was it was still the first opportunity) and not taken it.

 

On your note about breaking journeys -this is acceptable as long as no fare is being avoided -ie branch lines often have cheaper fares from a station than the next major one on the main line in the peak hours (as they have fewer services this is a concession) the regulations strictly forbid purchasing tickets 'from'/'to' this station if the intent is to only then travel to/from the latter stations and therefore avoid the proper fare being paid, station barriers generally prevent this.

 

Your point on whether an advance booked ticket would be accepted on the next service is very relevant -the ticket would not be legally valid -this happens every day I am sure -staff can and do use their discretion in such circumstances.

 

 

I am confused as to to where the £46 charge amounts from:

But to deal with specifics:even though the Penalty Fare Regulations make it clear that no penalty fare may be charged in these circumstances.

-what circumstances?

A PF is perfectly acceptable if you enter a PF zone without a ticket after having had the opportunity to purchase. end of.

 

I have also to add that surely admin charges are only added on if the PF hasn't been paid -another issue entirely, disputing a charge you think unfair is one thing but not paying when you have been warned you'll incur extra charges is a bit silly really, IMHO.

Better to settle the amount and then claim it back, however much you resent it, IME a lot of people fall foul of their own emotions in these cases and wind up with massive bills-as I've said better to pay up and THEN protest.

 

To be fair I've never heard of these DfT guidelines, but I do have to say in my 15 years experience (RP manager experience including regularly attending court also) that the magistrates interpretation of 'reasonable opportunity' will be the FIRST opportunity in almost all cases, connections are of course relevant but will not be accepted as mitigating unless it was the last possible service or the delay would have been ridiculous (ie Pewsey -2 hour interval!)

Guidelines can only ever be advice, they won't override the byelaws, I'll have to look into this as they do sound like they might contradict overriding legislation which is silly!

 

Actually I wish the OP would give us some more details on this one as it is HIGHLY relevant where the journey commenced and what other efforts they may/may not have made to sort themselves out ticket-wise.

i.e. if it was a case of sitting down on both trains waiting for the staff to appear 'a la Mr Ben', and not actually attempting to find someone in both circumstances then of course a penalty -(whether that's a PF/standard fare or reporting for further action) was decided upon by the staff in question.

 

Frankly, I don't believe the OP has a case, unfortuantely for 'honest' passengers they will inevitably be tarred with the same brush as dishonest passengers if they use the same actions to get to the point where they are found without having paid their fare.

[timbo58]

ah, now I've looked at the OP again:

If this is what i think it was the OP was approached by a RPA/RPI/RPM member of staff:

i.e. a Guard is not going to take your name and address unless it's for an UPFN, it was also clearly not a PF as he would have been issued the PF sheet at the time.

This is an offer to 'settle out of court' and £46 is, I'm afraid to say, Cheap IME.

The old guidelines used to be: hmmmmm, fare avoided (FULL standard fare not cheap day thingummy railcard discount yada yada yada) PLUS TOC admin costs (usually £50 for the sake of argument) and we'll settle out of court, this saves them money and court time and you the possibility of a criminal record and court costs on top of TOCs court costs and the fine.

If they have a case (and they certainly think so obviously -it is usually only one or two persons decisions here -and they are usually almost full time court attendees/prosecutions officers so they know what will stick and what will not) then £46 is a bargain.

I suspect also that the letter will make it clear that this is not negotiable and any delay in reply will see it before the courts, otherwise I'd say 'make an lower offer'.

[Old-CodJA]

ah, now I've looked at the OP again:

If this is what i think it was the OP was approached by a RPA/RPI/RPM member of staff:

i.e. a Guard is not going to take your name and address unless it's for an UPFN, it was also clearly not a PF as he would have been issued the PF sheet at the time.

This is an offer to 'settle out of court' and £46 is, I'm afraid to say, Cheap IME.

The old guidelines used to be: hmmmmm, fare avoided (FULL standard fare not cheap day thingummy railcard discount yada yada yada) PLUS TOC admin costs (usually £50 for the sake of argument) and we'll settle out of court, this saves them money and court time and you the possibility of a criminal record and court costs on top of TOCs court costs and the fine.

If they have a case (and they certainly think so obviously -it is usually only one or two persons decisions here -and they are usually almost full time court attendees/prosecutions officers so they know what will stick and what will not) then £46 is a bargain.

I suspect also that the letter will make it clear that this is not negotiable and any delay in reply will see it before the courts, otherwise I'd say 'make an lower offer'.

 

 

That is my interpretation too timbo58