Do I have to accept Unpaid Fare Notice

[indivisibleuk]

Hi all,

 

Does anyone know if it says anywhere that we are actually bound to accept an Unpaid Fare Notice when it is issued?

 

I did not accept one and now have a letter through the post as if I did.

 

DETAILS____

 

A month, or so, back I boarded a later train from Leeds to London after missing my train 10 mins before.

 

The guard (forcefully) tried to hand me an Unpaid Fare Notice after it was clear I could not pay the inflated price for the service.

 

I gave my proper details when asked and told the guard that I would not be accepting the UFN and that if they wanted to settle things they could send me a bill through the post

- which I would then dispute.

 

I did not accept the terms of the Notice and felt it had been misleadingly presented to me.

 

origianal ticket was £69 --- UFN was £124. I would not have boarded the train had I known the price of the ticket + BTW the train was by no means full!

 

I believe I have a case to argue but want to check that I was not obliged by law to accept the notice, there and then.

 

I feel i'm in for the long haul with fighting this so want to start off well!

 

Thanks in advance!

[indivisibleuk]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but I think I am well within my rights to reject the issue of the ticket? Can't find anything that addresses this happening

[Bombaymix]

I'm sure one of the railway forum regulars will be along shortly to advise further.

 

Sit tight, it's the weekend and the guys are probably busy

 

Regards

 

BM

[indivisibleuk]

Thx and enjoy Sunday

[honeybee13]

Hi all,

 

Does anyone know if it says anywhere that we are actually bound to accept an Unpaid Fare Notice when it is issued?

 

I did not accept one and now have a letter through the post as if I did.

 

DETAILS____

 

A month, or so, back I boarded a later train from Leeds to London after missing my train 10 mins before.

 

The guard (forcefully) tried to hand me an Unpaid Fare Notice after it was clear I could not pay the inflated price for the service.

 

I gave my proper details when asked and told the guard that I would not be accepting the UFN and that if they wanted to settle things they could send me a bill through the post

- which I would then dispute.

 

I did not accept the terms of the Notice and felt it had been misleadingly presented to me.

 

origianal ticket was £69 --- UFN was £124. I would not have boarded the train had I known the price of the ticket + BTW the train was by no means full!

 

I believe I have a case to argue but want to check that I was not obliged by law to accept the notice, there and then.

 

I feel i'm in for the long haul with fighting this so want to start off well!

 

Thanks in advance!

 

Hello there.

 

Just to clarify please, have you heard from them yet, and what type of ticket did you hold?

 

My best, HB

[BazzaS]

Hi all,

 

Does anyone know if it says anywhere that we are actually bound to accept an Unpaid Fare Notice when it is issued?

 

I did not accept one and now have a letter through the post as if I did.

 

DETAILS____

 

A month, or so, back I boarded a later train from Leeds to London after missing my train 10 mins before.

 

The guard (forcefully) tried to hand me an Unpaid Fare Notice after it was clear I could not pay the inflated price for the service.

 

I gave my proper details when asked and told the guard that I would not be accepting the UFN and that if they wanted to settle things they could send me a bill through the post

- which I would then dispute.

 

I did not accept the terms of the Notice and felt it had been misleadingly presented to me.

 

origianal ticket was £69 --- UFN was £124. I would not have boarded the train had I known the price of the ticket + BTW the train was by no means full!

 

I believe I have a case to argue but want to check that I was not obliged by law to accept the notice, there and then.

 

I feel i'm in for the long haul with fighting this so want to start off well!

 

Thanks in advance!

 

You aren't bound to accept nor pay an Unpaid Fare Notice, but you might later regret not doing so, especially if you don't appeal it (& follow the appeals procedure rigidly)

 

As HB has noted we need the details of the ticket you had (was it valid for only 1 particular time? One TOC? One route?)

 

If your £69 ticket wasn't valid for the £124 ticket service ... Why do you feel they should accept it?

 

If you choose to fight them on this you may be in trouble.

If they say "you failed to show a valid ticket on demand" : what would you say ? (Byelaw 17 or 18, entering a train to travel without a valid ticket, either in or not-in a compulsory area)

 

If they said "they failed to show a valid ticket on demand and have declined to pay their fare due, even having been offered a UFN ": and then. "this shows their intent to avoid the fare due "- what would you say? S5, Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

 

If you "play this wrong", you could be looking at a fine and a criminal record. You can appeal the UFN, but be sure not to miss any deadlines, so the case doesn't go forward to prosecution.

 

https://www.penaltyfares.co.uk/static/appeal.aspx

"Any appeal would therefore need to prove that the ticket shown when travelling was actually valid for the exact journey which was made. Even producing a valid ticket or railcard later does not negate liabilty to pay the UFN bill for not producing a valid ticket when requested at the time of travel."

 

If your ticket was valid for the service you travelled on, appeal.

If it wasn't valid for the service you travelled on : you may face an uphill battle.

Edited September 22, 2013 by BazzaS

[Old-CodJA]

You aren't bound to accept nor pay an Unpaid Fare Notice, but you might later regret not doing so, especially if you don't appeal it (& follow the appeals procedure rigidly)

 

As HB has noted we need the details of the ticket you had (was it valid for only 1 particular time? One TOC? One route?)

 

If your £69 ticket wasn't valid for the £124 ticket service ... Why do you feel they should accept it?

 

If you choose to fight them on this you may be in trouble.

If they say "you failed to show a valid ticket on demand" : what would you say ? (Byelaw 17 or 18, entering a train to travel without a valid ticket, either in or not-in a compulsory area)

 

If they said "they failed to show a valid ticket on demand and have declined to pay their fare due, even having been offered a UFN ": and then. "this shows their intent to avoid the fare due "- what would you say? S5, Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

 

If you "play this wrong", you could be looking at a fine and a criminal record. You can appeal the UFN, but be sure not to miss any deadlines, so the case doesn't go forward to prosecution.

 

https://www.penaltyfares.co.uk/static/appeal.aspx

"Any appeal would therefore need to prove that the ticket shown when travelling was actually valid for the exact journey which was made. Even producing a valid ticket or railcard later does not negate liabilty to pay the UFN bill for not producing a valid ticket when requested at the time of travel."

 

If your ticket was valid for the service you travelled on, appeal.

If it wasn't valid for the service you travelled on : you may face an uphill battle.

 

 

I agree, whilst you are not obliged to accept an unpaid fare notice, the TOC was never obliged to offer it as a resolution to the issue, which is that you did not hold a valid ticket for the journey that you were making.

 

The terms of pre-booked, advance issue, train specific tickets are absolutely clear. I don't particularly like these terms myself, but that is a purely personal view and does not make these terms any less binding on the ticket holder.

 

If a reduced fare is offered subject to strict condition that the ticket can only be used on the specific train for which it has been issued, it does state that, if not used in accordance with these conditions then a new ticket must be purchased. The purchaser accepts these conditions at the time of booking.

 

Unfortunately, it's like air fares and charges for other things, if you want flexibility you have to pay more for the privilege.

 

To be accepted as valid for travel any rail ticket must be valid for all of the following. It has to be valid for: the day, date, time of train, place of travel, class of accommodation being used and can only be used in accordance with any restrictions placed upon it.

Edited September 22, 2013 by Old-CodJA

[indivisibleuk]

My stance is that I would not have boarded the train, had I known the ticket price was so high. I did not accept the UFN and left both copies in possession of the Guard. I made an audio recording of this with the cafe/bar attendant as a witness to it.

 

It is my view that I have not contracted with the train company as I did not have a ticket nor did I agree to a UFN. I gave my correct name and address as is requirement by law and asked the guard to send a bill for the service, which I intended to dispute. I now have received a letter telling me to pay the UFN, which in my eyes, is invalid.

 

I don't have a UFN as I wouldn't accept it, I want to know if I have the right to do this. To negotiate the price of their service.

 

My thinking was if I accepted the UNF then I accept the service fee. I do not accept the price offered to me for their service, around double what I had paid for the same train 10 minutes before that one. I even offered to get off at the next stop but there wasn't one.

 

I am (and was then) happy to pay them a fair amount, which I deem to be the amount I payed for the last ticket, but it seems they have set the price after the fact. Again I would not have boarded the train had I have known the price of the ticket. I would have gotten the next Coach for £20.

 

---- if it came to court I would not accept that I had knowingly contracted, with anyone on any point of the journey. I pasted the barrier in Leeds on my old ticket, then in a state of panic boarded the next train as I had a job meeting to catch in London. I would stand by my right as a consumer to choose, I don't believe I got that opportunity.

 

Is this becoming more clear? If the law is against me I will suck it up and pay, but if it doesn't say anywhere that I have to accept the UFN and that I have to accept any price offered, even though they had accepted my boarding without a ticket, I want to contest.

[BazzaS]

My stance is that I would not have boarded the train, had I known the ticket price was so high. I did not accept the UFN and left both copies in possession of the Guard. I made an audio recording of this with the cafe/bar attendant as a witness to it.

 

It is my view that I have not contracted with the train company as I did not have a ticket nor did I agree to a UFN. I gave my correct name and address as is requirement by law and asked the guard to send a bill for the service, which I intended to dispute.I now have received a letter telling me to pay the UFN, which in my eyes, is invalid.

 

What do you believe the UFN was, other than the "bill for the service"?.

I've laid out that there is an appeals procedure for UFN's if you really believe the UFN to be invalid, which you should avail yourself of as a better option than just ignoring the UFN.

 

You can say "I'll accept a bill, but only for a reduced sum", but the likely response will be a summons.

 

I don't have a UFN as I wouldn't accept it, I want to know if I have the right to do this. To negotiate the price of their service.

 

No. You got on the train, and received "the service". If you wanted to 'negotiate' or decline the higher priced travel - you should have done so before boarding the train.

 

You and I don't have a contract for me to come round to your house, and drink all your tea, and any alcohol you might have, especially if it is a nice (and expensive!) bottle of wine.

I can't nip round to yours, drink you out of house and home, and then say "hey, we exchanged views on CAG, so I can consume your drinks, and then negotiate a price!".

 

My thinking was if I accepted the UNF then I accept the service fee. I do not accept the price offered to me for their service, around double what I had paid for the same train 10 minutes before that one. I even offered to get off at the next stop but there wasn't one.

 

I am (and was then) happy to pay them a fair amount, which I deem to be the amount I payed for the last ticket, but it seems they have set the price after the fact. Again I would not have boarded the train had I have known the price of the ticket. I would have gotten the next Coach for £20.

 

At risk of being a broken record, and because:

a) its relevant

b) a number of people have asked now : what were the conditions of the ticket you purchased?. Why do the TOC believe it wasn't valid for the service you took (or perhaps more importantly to persuade you, if the TOC think it wasn't valid, why do you believe it was?)

 

---- if it came to court I would not accept that I had knowingly contracted, with anyone on any point of the journey. I pasted the barrier in Leeds on my old ticket, then in a state of panic boarded the next train as I had a job meeting to catch in London. I would stand by my right as a consumer to choose, I don't believe I got that opportunity.

 

Is this becoming more clear? If the law is against me I will suck it up and pay, but if it doesn't say anywhere that I have to accept the UFN and that I have to accept any price offered, even though they had accepted my boarding without a ticket, I want to contest.

 

If it went to court?. Are you expecting a civil case for the alleged debt?. With the position you are taking expect instead a criminal case, with the TOC having no problem securing a conviction based on the argument you are advancing.

You had a right to choice as a consumer - to get on that train and pay the fare due, or not get on that train. You didn't (and don't) have the right to get on the train and tell the TOC what fare you wish to pay. If you held a discounted ticket not valid for that service, it did not entitle you to travel.

 

You may have been "in a state of panic", but you could have avoided that by buying a fully flexible ticket in the first instance. No doubt a court will have some sympathy for your reasoning ; but it won't stop them finding you guilty on the facts as presented.

 

If it was so important /urgent that you HAD to board that train regardless ; pay up for the privilege. You could no doubt have purchased a full fare ticket entitling you to travel on any train / route / at any time, but it appears you didn't, and chose a cheaper ticket with travel restrictions.

 

I'm confused as to why you had to get on the train you did, and in such a panic, if you are now saying you could have just got on a coach : why didn't you do so, if you weren't willing to pay full rail fare (or even check the fare before boarding!)

Edited September 22, 2013 by BazzaS

[Old-CodJA]

My stance is that I would not have boarded the train, had I known the ticket price was so high. I did not accept the UFN and left both copies in possession of the Guard. I made an audio recording of this with the cafe/bar attendant as a witness to it.

 

Many people get the wrong idea, somehow believing that if they refuse to acknowledge that they do not have a valid ticket there is nothing that the TOC can do. All the TOC has to do is to cancel the UPFN and deal with the matter as a TIR.

 

A Travel Irregularity Report can be made out by a Guard/Conductor/Inspector stating that a traveller, who gave his name & address as Mr XXXXXXXX of XX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX, identity confirmed by showing me XXXXXXXX was on the XX.XX hours train from XXXXXXXXXX to XXXXXXXX on (DATE) and at XX.XX hours he failed to show a valid ticket or pay the fare due when asked.

 

They can proceed from there.

[havinastella]

Did you have a ticket for the train you missed?

[Old-CodJA]

I gave my proper details when asked and told the guard that I would not be accepting the UFN and that if they wanted to settle things they could send me a bill through the post - which I would then dispute.

 

 

I have to say that I find this piece from the original post quite amusing.

 

The whole purpose of an Unpaid Fare Notice is for the TOC to provide the traveller with a notice (a bill) for the fare and to formally allow 21 days for the traveller to dispute it.

 

The Op says s/he didn't accept the notice because s/he wanted the TOC to send him/her a bill so that s/he could dispute it........ Er

 

It gets better...... now that the TOC has sent a bill through the post for the disputed fare the traveller seems to complain that they shouldn't have.....

 

 

I'm really sorry, but I cannot find anything misleading in the process at all.

Edited September 22, 2013 by Old-CodJA

[BazzaS]

Did you have a ticket for the train you missed?

 

Yes, they did, as a £69 ticket.

The fare they were asked to pay was £124 for the train they took, based on their earlier post:

 

origianal ticket was £69 --- UFN was £124.

 

£124.50 is the "Anytime" fare, Leeds to London King's Cross.

There is a £67 Advance ticket, on East Coast, validity:

"Advance : advance fares offer great value for money, you must book in advance and travel on a specific train

 

ROUTE OF TICKET EC & CONNECTNS - Only valid on the booked East Coast Trains services and required connecting services."

As for:

I even offered to get off at the next stop but there wasn't one.

Was this a Leeds to London non-stop train?. (Is there such a thing?)

 

For East Coast it seems that they all stop at Peterborough or Stevenage..... if you were asked to pay after these stations and and "there wasn't a next stop" ... you were well along your journey, and I suspect there had been a number of previous stations you could have got off at if you had sought out the train staff.

 

"I would have got off at the next stop" isn't even a particularly useful tack to take (if you were still travelling without a valid ticket), but it will be even less convincing if you were almost at London when the conversation took place, having only been caught without a valid ticket almost at the end of your journey.

 

You still havent replied if you were travelling with e.g. an Advance ticket, on a train that that ticket didn't entitle you to travel on.

Edited September 22, 2013 by BazzaS

[Stigy]

I honestly can't believe what I'm reading here. The cost of fuel is stupidly high but I don't fill up and say "Guys, send me the bill....".

 

I thought there was a genuine question here but I fail to see how there's any difference in the TOC sending someone the bill, and a Guard issuing a UFN. indvisibleuk, I'm afraid you might just come a cropper here as this will be an easy one for the TOC to prosecute.

[bg5067]

Sorry but I'm struggling with this. The fact that you're suppose to have a valid ticket before you board is clear enough.

[havinastella]

I believe the OP wanted a way out and wasn't impressed with the replies

[BazzaS]

I believe the OP wanted a way out and wasn't impressed with the replies

 

I wish that if people were only wanting replies validating their madness that they would say so.

 

Those who are happy to only tell people what they want to hear can do so on those threads, while I can avoid wasting time on them.

 

Those of us who "call it as we see it" can offer advice or a viewpoint, even if it isn't the answer the OP wanted, on those threads where the OP is seeking advice / views, rather than the OP just seeking validation.

[honeybee13]

Hello guys.

 

I hope the OP will come back and tell us how this case goes.

 

HB

[Old-CodJA]

Just in case the OP is still monitoring this thread and so that the whole issue is clear, perhaps it's worth looking in complete detail at what has been stated:

 

My stance is that I would not have boarded the train, had I known the ticket price was so high.

 

It is up to the traveller to check fares & train times to ensure that they hold a valid ticket before travelling. How will the rail company know where and when you want to travel if you don't check?

 

I did not accept the UFN and left both copies in possession of the Guard. I made an audio recording of this with the cafe/bar attendant as a witness to it.

 

Irrelevant, the refusal to accept a notice does not make the liability for the correct fare invalid

 

It is my view that I have not contracted with the train company as I did not have a ticket nor did I agree to a UFN.

 

Yes you have. The law requires that you must pay the correct fare due for your intended journey.

 

The instant you board a train with the intention to travel you are subject to one or other of two basic contract terms.

 

If there are genuinely no facilities to buy a ticket before travelling then an 'implied contract' exists. That implication is that you will pay the correct fare due for the journey that you intend to make in exchange for which the rail company will convey you from the station at which you joined the train to the station at which you have paid to alight.

 

If you hold a ticket, by purchasing that ticket you agreed to the terms of 'express contract', which make clear that you will abide by the conditions appertaining to that ticket in return for travel on the rail service for which you have paid.

 

I gave my correct name and address as is requirement by law

 

Correct, but so is the requirement to hold a valid ticket. It appears that your ticket was not valid for the service on which you were travelling.

 

and asked the guard to send a bill for the service, which I intended to dispute.

 

Which is exactly what the guard attempted to do.

 

I now have received a letter telling me to pay the UFN, which in my eyes, is invalid.

 

Condition 59 of The National Rail Conditions of Carriage make perfectly clear that no person has any authority to waive or amend these conditions of carriage. The view that 'in your eyes' this is invalid does not alter that fact.

 

I don't have a UFN as I wouldn't accept it,

 

I explained earlier, that alters nothing. The TOC are not obliged to allow deferred payment. In law the correct fare is due at the time of travel and not later. A refusal to pay the correct fare, or any excess fare due may lead to a report, which can result in a charge of intent to avoid a fare, or failure to comply with the strict liability requirement of a Byelaw.

 

I want to know if I have the right to do this. To negotiate the price of their service.

 

No, the terms were accepted when you bought the ticket.

 

My thinking was if I accepted the UNF then I accept the service fee.

 

This is confusing the issue somewhat. A UFN does not normally have any 'service fee' added. The UFN gives a traveller 21 days in which to pay or dispute liability.

 

If you fail to pay or successfully dispute the liability during that 21 day period, a reminder letter may be sent, which does have an added administration fee and this is notified in print on the UFN.

 

If you fail to act in accordance with the terms of a UFN, the reason an added charge enters the discussion is because of your negligence in failing to read the terms or act in accordance with the appeal opportunity. If you reject the opportunity of an appeal process (the UFN), you can hardly complain that these terms are unfair, because you hadn't read them, but want to dispute them.

 

I do not accept the price offered to me for their service, around double what I had paid for the same train 10 minutes before that one.

 

You paid for service 'A', which, under the terms & conditions accepted by you at the time of purchase was available to you at price 'B'.

 

You failed to comply with those terms.

 

You travelled on service 'C', for which you held no valid ticket and on which you were required to pay the relevant price 'D'. You refused to pay that fare (due in law) and you refused to accept an opportunity to appeal liability.

 

I even offered to get off at the next stop but there wasn't one.

 

That would not have made your ticket valid for the service on which you travelled even if there had been another stop.

 

I am (and was then) happy to pay them a fair amount, which I deem to be the amount I payed for the last ticket, but it seems they have set the price after the fact.

 

The TOC has not set the price 'after the fact'. You have travelled 'not in accordance with the ticket held' and the appropriate fare will be that due and advertised for the specific circumstances of travel.

 

Again I would not have boarded the train had I have known the price of the ticket. I would have gotten the next Coach for £20.

 

The rail company cannot be held responsible for your failure to check fares and times.

 

---- if it came to court I would not accept that I had knowingly contracted, with anyone on any point of the journey.

 

It may be worth considering the reply given to a similar argument put by a traveller in Court where I was present a year or so ago. The defendant said he 'did not recognise the conditions and did not accept that he was bound by them'. The presiding district judge replied, 'Mr X, you may say that you do not recognise the law, but the law certainly recognises you and the requirement for you to comply with it..'

 

I pasted the barrier in Leeds on my old ticket, then in a state of panic boarded the next train as I had a job meeting to catch in London. I would stand by my right as a consumer to choose, I don't believe I got that opportunity.

 

You did have an opportunity to choose, but without authority, you chose to travel not in accordance with the conditions that you had previously accepted when choosing that ticket.

 

Is this becoming more clear? If the law is against me I will suck it up and pay, but if it doesn't say anywhere that I have to accept the UFN and that I have to accept any price offered, even though they had accepted my boarding without a ticket, I want to contest.

 

Unless you have not told us something relevant, the case seems perfectly clear to me.

 

The TOC did not accept you boarding without a valid ticket. You chose to board without a valid ticket after having failed to catch the train for which you held a reduced fare ticket. This has not been accepted, you have been challenged for attempting to use that ticket on a service for which it was not valid.

 

You were on a train without a valid ticket for that service

You were asked to pay the appropriate fare for the service on which you were travelling.

You refused to do so

You were offered the opportunity to pay (without penalty) or appeal within 21 days

You refused to accept that opportunity

Despite your refusal, the TOC have afforded you the opportunity to pay an administrative settlement and they are not obliged to do so.

You refuse to accept this opportunity to deal with the matter without further action.

 

How do you think those facts might be viewed by any subsequent court action?

Edited September 28, 2013 by Old-CodJA

[Nystagmite]

I'm curious what case the OP has to argue. Many of the stations I visit, (I travel on the train most weeks) do have a notice up regarding the penalty fare.

[BazzaS]

I'm curious what case the OP has to argue. Many of the stations I visit, (I travel on the train most weeks) do have a notice up regarding the penalty fare.

 

However, this isn't even a penalty fare.

The OP was being asked to pay just the full standard fare due, not any additional penalty.

[Old-CodJA]

However, this isn't even a penalty fare.

The OP was being asked to pay just the full standard fare due, not any additional penalty.

 

Exactly. The definition of UFN as opposed to PFN perhaps needs a little clarification for some and I understand that with the plethora of ticket types, restrictions and various important legislations, confusion can sometimes arise.

 

A PENALTY FARE NOTICE (PFN) is a civil remedy, which includes a formal penalty that may be imposed for a breach of rule (or mistake) leading to the traveller having no valid ticket. This is not to be used in any matter where 'intent to avoid a fare is evident' and cannot be applied on all railways or services. A PFN can only be issued by an Authorised Person within the meaning of the Railways Act and only in areas and on trains where there is a specific DfT approved penalty fares scheme in place. If the penalty remains unpaid and not successfully appealed, the notice can be cancelled and the matter may proceed to prosecution.

 

An UNPAID FARE NOTICE (UFN) is a notice issued to a traveller who has no valid ticket and where there is a matter in dispute. This allows the traveller to appeal in writing, or pay the fare due in law within 21 days and without penalty. There is no need for DfT approval for any particular area and rail staff are not obliged to issue such notices, but may alternatively report the identified matter for consideration of prosecution. If the matter remains unpaid and not successfully appealed the matter can proceed to prosecution of a Byelaw offence, or in cases where evidence may exist to support it, the matter might be considered an intent not to pay and will be summonsed accordingly. It is a means of resolving such cases by allowing a third party to review the disputed issue, before applying any sanction, if considered appropriate.

 

If the traveller decides to pay the fare due without penalty within 21 days that is the end of the matter.

 

This is a process strongly supported by Passenger Focus and ATOC.

Edited September 29, 2013 by Old-CodJA

[timbo58]

OC has nailed it here as usual.

 

To emphasise on your mention of 'contractual' agreements (or not).

You HAD made a contract with the railway company thus:

 

You agree to be bound to all of the conditions and bylaws IMPLICITLY (an IMPLIED contract) by:

being on railway premises with the intent to travel

Travelling on a railway

 

You agree to be bound to all of the conditions and bylaws EXPLICITLY (an EXPLICIT contract) by:

buying a ticket of any type

having a railcard

 

You cannot buy any ticket (even if it is later found not to be valid) without making a contract.

 

To clarify - you wouldn't have made any contract with the Toc by accepting a UPFN as you already HAD a contract with the Toc and as it was explicit: they have all the physical evidence they need to prove that -i.e. your original ticket.

 

I actually had a gent who claimed he was a barrister once claim he didn't have 'a contract' and therefore wanted to challenge the full undiscounted single fare he was then liable for on my train, this 'barrister' didn't seem to understand implied and explicit contracts either: some barrister!

 

(he paid up BTW after going a beetroot colour after gaining an inquisitive audience due to his own big gob, the only clever thing he did that day I'd wager!).

 

Frankly I am surprised the Toc are still giving you the courtesy of settling the UPFN since you didn't have a valid ticket, couldn't/wouldn't pay on the spot the correct fare and refused to accept a UPFN, -that's known 'in the trade' as '3 strikes and you're out' since the TOC could genuinely argue they would not have got the due fare paid and could very easily report straight to court for prosecution.

 

I realise you feel you have been treated unfairly (you haven't legally I am afraid) but you should have accepted the upfn and challenged it afterwards, you now have this opportunity once more: I'd grab it with both hands, the alternative is a far more costly court appearance.

Edited October 2, 2013 by timbo58
typo