£40 Admin fees for unpaid ticket?

[matthieu]

I'll try and keep this brief. My partner catches the train to work. The (home) station is unmanned and has no machine so she has to buy a return when on the train. However on the day in question I dropped her off to work and she had to get the train home. The (work) station is manned and conveniently became a penalty fare zone on the very same day 5th April.

 

The conductor came round and she went to pay for a single. No penalty fare was mentioned and she went to pay the normal fee using her debit card. It was then his machine failed which has happened on a few occasions now and every other conductor will swipe or manually input the card details. This conductor refused to and asked for her name and address and said a bill for the ticket fare would be sent in the post.

 

We received said bill 2 weeks later. Asking for £5.50 (fare) and

£40 (Admin Fees) Essentially asking for £40 because the conductor wouldn't swipe/manually enter the card details.

 

I sent them a cheque for the £5.50 and asked them to provide a breakdown of the admin fees. They responded with the standard script about penalty fares and said that the credit card (payment type) had been declined and asked for the remaining £40.

 

I responded again saying there is nothing wrong with her card as she had since used it and the conductor happily entered the card details. I also again asked for a full breakdown of the admin fees and sent the letter by recorded delivery.

 

Today I have received a response. Stating - The credit card was declined and the conductor treated the matter as a travel irregularity and in such cases they charge the ticket fare plus their standard administration fee of £40. However they did state that under these circumstances they are prepared to reduce the fee to £20.

 

Is it worth battling onwards? can they enforce this admin fee as it's not a penalty fare?

 

Many thanks

[SRPO]

No, they cant.

As long as the fare is paid you should be fine (based on the info provided).

[Old-CodJA]

SRPO is quite right, they cannot enforce the admin fee as there is no legislation empowering them to do this.

 

However, it is worth remembering that, if they become entrenched in this case, they can always cancel any administrative settlement option and issue a Summons alleging that your wife was on a train without a valid ticket when the facilities were available for her to buy one before boarding contrary to National Railways Byelaws 18. This is a strict liability matter.

[MARTIN3030]

Yes its a bit of a catch 22.

Strange how they were so quick to offer to reduce to £20

 

Only you can decide here...

[matthieu]

Thanks for the feedback guys!

 

hmmm tricky one. If it had been a penalty fare I would have to raise my hands and just pay it but the fact that they are acting like it is a penalty and demanding the money within 10 days just seems plain rude.

 

I might try pushing it a bit more because let's face it! Even banks don't charge £40 admin fees!

[MARTIN3030]

Nope-although I did have some for £38.

 

If you are up for the fight-then go for it.

These organsisations are not used to being challenged-and that makes the difference.

I am certain that they would not be able to substantiate 40 quid as a genuine pre estimate.

Keep us posted.

[Stigy]

Something strange going on here, judging by what has occured. As has been said, just paying the £5.50 fare will surfice. Even with an Unpaid Fare Notice (UFN) you only have to pay the fare itself, unless the 10-day limit lapses!

[Old-CodJA]

Something strange going on here, judging by what has occured. As has been said, just paying the £5.50 fare will surfice. Even with an Unpaid Fare Notice (UFN) you only have to pay the fare itself, unless the 10-day limit lapses!

 

 

From what the OP has said, it seems to me that what the TOC appear to be doing here is offering an 'administrative penalty' as an alternative to taking action for the strict liability matter of the breach of Byelaw.

 

However, they have not said so directly unless this is referred to in their letter.

 

What I find strange in this case is the inference that they are trying this procedure, despite the fact that it seems the whole matter arose because of their staff members machine failure.

 

Assuming the OPs third party explanation is factually correct, the member of staff had already agreed to accept the fare without question, but was prevented from doing so because of the failure of his equipment.

 

It seems a bit harsh for the TOC to proceed to this level in my view and collection of the fare within a short time ought to have been appropriate unless there are factors in the exchange that we are not party to here.

 

At the very most I would have expected the bill to be £20.00 made up of the fare, plus a contribution toward administration costs for having to collect it making a total equal to the minimum penalty fare.

 

This would be justified because the traveller had failed to use the facilities to buy a ticket at the station where she boarded.

 

.

[RPI]

If a UFN was issued then the customer would have been handed an Unpaid Fare Notice which the customer is supposed to pay within the 10 days, you only get a letter if you don't pay within the 10 days.

One question, when you "paid" the £5.50 did you send a cheque and if so has it been cashed? If not, and the company decide to cancel the UFN then it may not look so good if you had been given the option to pay the fare within 10 days.

 

I'm presuming that this is on FGW as they introduced Penalty Fares on loads of routes on the 5th April, mostly in the westcountry.

 

As for the card declined problem, it is a (known) fault with the card issuers that certain cards will be declined unless they are used at a terminal that has a direct connection for authorisation, which on train Avantix machines don't.

[timbo58]

If this was a case of switch solo/visa electron then FGW doesn't (IME) accept these as valid payment types and this is published in their timetables etc, so therefore the passenger would not be able to argue they had a valid means of payment.

I still can't see how if it was definitely the advantix at fault how this occurred?

i.e. unless the passenger had passed up a valid means of obtaining the ticket before?

[RPI]

before, it was acceptable to swipe the card if declined by C&P but FGW were gettin too many charge backs, therefore now it's c&p only

[matthieu]

Some conductors still swipe cards. I know my card is visa debit I think hers is too.

 

On the FGW site I can only find that they dont accept solo, electron and diners cards but I presume this is for online payments?

 

After a bit of researching and coming from an IT/Retail support background it appears that visa debit don't authorise offline transactions. Thinking about it, I should've known all of this. So basically the transaction was declined on the grounds that the card doesnt process offline trans NOT that there were insufficient funds which is what the conductor assumed.

 

But still the conductors are in consistent as they will still regulary swipe my card?

 

He did not hand her a UFN. FGW have not mentioned the word 'fee' once. Just administration charge.

 

I'll send them a nice letter saying that I've sent them the £5.50 fare and give them a detailed breakdown of what I have found out and say in future she will buy a ticket beforehand or if boarding at the unmanned (no ticket machine) station then she will have appropriate cash

[Old-CodJA]

I'll send them a nice letter saying that I've sent them the £5.50 fare and give them a detailed breakdown of what I have found out and say in future she will buy a ticket beforehand or if boarding at the unmanned (no ticket machine) station then she will have appropriate cash

 

I hope it works out OK

 

Just one more thing, if your daughter is over 18 it is best that the to the TOC letter comes from her as it will be she who is reported.

 

There's nothing to stop you writing the letter, but the reply should be her response to the report of her travel irregularity.

[RPI]

Firstly, you say that the conductor has "assumed" that there is no money in the account, they haven't, the card has been declined so they cannot accept it, FGW have just introduced new C&P machines which are far more reliable and all staff now told that under no circumstances must C&P cards be swiped EXCEPT in the event of a machine failure, the conductor has followed protocol in this incident.

[timbo58]

solo/electron are NOT accepted at stations or on trains either AFAIAA.

[RPI]

solo/electron are NOT accepted at stations or on trains either AFAIAA.

they are now with STAR and the shidt and bachmann TVM's

[matthieu]

Her card is visa debit. As is mine and yesterday I personally saw a conductor manually enter someones card details when it wouldn't process via C&P.

 

And in the conductors report. He said the card failed due to insufficient funds

[Old-CodJA]

Her card is visa debit. As is mine and yesterday I personally saw a conductor manually enter someones card details when it wouldn't process via C&P.

 

And in the conductors report. He said the card failed due to insufficient funds

 

Re the observation regarding someone else: that maybe the case, but we don't know the reason that the payment was being accepted in such a situation.

 

The traveller always has an obligation to pay the appropriate fare before boarding where facilities are available as in the case of your wife. There may not have been available facilities where the passenger you saw being charged got on the train.

 

That aside, if your wife's card was declined, the conductor is not able to take it. That's the card providers decision, not the member of staff.

 

He should have reported the indication that he got at the time and that can be confirmed later by checking the record of the attempt.

 

Put yourself in his position:

 

1. Your wife boarded without a ticket at a station where facilities were available to get one. That is a strict liability breach of Byelaw offence. (National Railways Byelaws 18.1 (2005) Any 'jobsworth' would have made out the appropriate travel irregularity report immediately.

 

2. As I have said, the conductor could have immediately reported the allegation of an offence or, could have applied a Penalty, but did neither. He gave the benefit of the doubt and allowed an opportunity to pay the fare.

 

3. In attempting to collect the fare, he gets an indication that the card is declined and then it appears, he quite rightly makes out a report to that effect. The card provider's record of the attempted transaction will show what was indicated.

 

The letter that you have received advising that they are prepared to accept a reduced administration penalty of £20 is exactly equal to the minimum statutory penalty fare where a single rail fare is less than £10.

 

.

Edited June 21, 2010 by Old-CodJA