Discussion
Evening Folks,
Mrs has recieved a Penalty Fare Notice from Nottingham Express Transit for failing to produce a valid ticket when requested to do so. Problem is, she actually did.
Basically she buys the tickets through the NET website (They don't have an app), the ticket then requires activating once you get onto the Tram.
She purchases the ticket whilst at work then boards the tram, issue is she has no phone signal where she boards so activates at the earliest opportunity. This hasn't been an issue for over 5 years.
Today the Ticket Inspector though notes she didn't activate her ticket until a couple of stops into her journey (No price difference) and because of this they won't accept her ticket. She is marched off the Tram (In a rather rough area of Nottingham, yes, there are many), told she must provide ID or Police would be called and then issued with a £50 Penalty and not allowed back on that Tram.
I've told her to appeal and I'm rather irritated they kicked her off, on her own, in a crappy part of town. Appealing for several reasons. I can't see how that penalty can in anyway be fair and I want to waste as much of their time and money as possible for dumping my Mrs in a crappy area.
Any advice on wording or points of appeal?
Thanks everyone.
Mrs has recieved a Penalty Fare Notice from Nottingham Express Transit for failing to produce a valid ticket when requested to do so. Problem is, she actually did.
Basically she buys the tickets through the NET website (They don't have an app), the ticket then requires activating once you get onto the Tram.
She purchases the ticket whilst at work then boards the tram, issue is she has no phone signal where she boards so activates at the earliest opportunity. This hasn't been an issue for over 5 years.
Today the Ticket Inspector though notes she didn't activate her ticket until a couple of stops into her journey (No price difference) and because of this they won't accept her ticket. She is marched off the Tram (In a rather rough area of Nottingham, yes, there are many), told she must provide ID or Police would be called and then issued with a £50 Penalty and not allowed back on that Tram.
I've told her to appeal and I'm rather irritated they kicked her off, on her own, in a crappy part of town. Appealing for several reasons. I can't see how that penalty can in anyway be fair and I want to waste as much of their time and money as possible for dumping my Mrs in a crappy area.
Any advice on wording or points of appeal?
Thanks everyone.
If I understand this correctly, validation is mandatory before boarding. A Penalty Fare will be levied if you fail to do so.
From your post she was well aware of the lack of phone signal at the tram stop.
Therefore the question that she must deal with in any appeal is how come she couldn't have made the validation at a location where there was one (e.g. at work) before she boarded?
The fact that she has succeeded in getting away with not doing so however many times previously will unfortunately cut little ice with NET and is best not mentioned.
While the Penalty Fare can be justified according to the Conditions of Carriage, ISTM that turfing her off the tram is well OTT.
You might want to delve a bit deeper into that aspect to find out whether the TI has acted ultra vires.
If it had happened to my O/H I would be taking it up in writing with this guy. I'm sure he wouldn't want any negative PR (i.e. social media/local press).
From your post she was well aware of the lack of phone signal at the tram stop.
Therefore the question that she must deal with in any appeal is how come she couldn't have made the validation at a location where there was one (e.g. at work) before she boarded?
The fact that she has succeeded in getting away with not doing so however many times previously will unfortunately cut little ice with NET and is best not mentioned.
While the Penalty Fare can be justified according to the Conditions of Carriage, ISTM that turfing her off the tram is well OTT.
You might want to delve a bit deeper into that aspect to find out whether the TI has acted ultra vires.
If it had happened to my O/H I would be taking it up in writing with this guy. I'm sure he wouldn't want any negative PR (i.e. social media/local press).
Red Devil said:
If I understand this correctly, validation is mandatory before boarding. A Penalty Fare will be levied if you fail to do so.
From your post she was well aware of the lack of phone signal at the tram stop.
Therefore the question that she must deal with in any appeal is how come she couldn't have made the validation at a location where there was one (e.g. at work) before she boarded?
The fact that she has succeeded in getting away with not doing so however many times previously will unfortunately cut little ice with NET and is best not mentioned.
While the Penalty Fare can be justified according to the Conditions of Carriage, ISTM that turfing her off the tram is well OTT.
You might want to delve a bit deeper into that aspect to find out whether the TI has acted ultra vires.
If it had happened to my O/H I would be taking it up in writing with this guy. I'm sure he wouldn't want any negative PR (i.e. social media/local press).
Thanks for the information. From your post she was well aware of the lack of phone signal at the tram stop.
Therefore the question that she must deal with in any appeal is how come she couldn't have made the validation at a location where there was one (e.g. at work) before she boarded?
The fact that she has succeeded in getting away with not doing so however many times previously will unfortunately cut little ice with NET and is best not mentioned.
While the Penalty Fare can be justified according to the Conditions of Carriage, ISTM that turfing her off the tram is well OTT.
You might want to delve a bit deeper into that aspect to find out whether the TI has acted ultra vires.
If it had happened to my O/H I would be taking it up in writing with this guy. I'm sure he wouldn't want any negative PR (i.e. social media/local press).
Asked Mrs and she says she was under the impression she couldn't active the ticket before boarding as they would simply say the ticket isn't valid as its time stamped before she could have possibly boarded the tram. (Takes her 15 minutes from office to Tram on foot). She has been getting the tram 6 years so no idea where she got this info from.
If it's against the rules, fair enough, it's only £50 and lesson learned but I'd like some clarification from them as to what is expected of her given the situation.
I've sent them a Tweet simple asking for their Duty of Care Policy and they sent me a generic link about customers using the crossings etc. Nothing about their duty. So I'll see if that leads anywhere. She had more than enough money in her NET account to cover 5 return journeys so I'm even more annoyed they threw her off! Reckon I'll end up complaining about that.
CoreyDog said:
Today the Ticket Inspector though notes she didn't activate her ticket until a couple of stops into her journey (No price difference) and because of this they won't accept her ticket. She is marched off the Tram (In a rather rough area of Nottingham, yes, there are many), told she must provide ID or Police would be called and then issued with a £50 Penalty and not allowed back on that Tram.
If that happened as written, I'd be pretty upset, to say the least. It was in Nottingham that a girl was raped after not being allowed on a bus. The bus company said the driver didn't follow procedure.Sheepshanks said:
CoreyDog said:
Today the Ticket Inspector though notes she didn't activate her ticket until a couple of stops into her journey (No price difference) and because of this they won't accept her ticket. She is marched off the Tram (In a rather rough area of Nottingham, yes, there are many), told she must provide ID or Police would be called and then issued with a £50 Penalty and not allowed back on that Tram.
If that happened as written, I'd be pretty upset, to say the least. It was in Nottingham that a girl was raped after not being allowed on a bus. The bus company said the driver didn't follow procedure.Not really bothered about the fine, it's what it is and isn't a huge amount, if she has made a mistake, fair enough, we will pay but I'd like to know what she should have done instead.
It's fact they kicked her off and left her. Lizzie has told me aswell the Ticket Inspector even suggested she didn't stand where she was as people would spit on her from the bridge above! Clearly they knew it was a bad area, why the hell leave a women on her own there! Sorry, making me angry thinking what if.
CoreyDog said:
Asked Mrs and she says she was under the impression she couldn't active the ticket before boarding as they would simply say the ticket isn't valid as its time stamped before she could have possibly boarded the tram. (Takes her 15 minutes from office to Tram on foot). She has been getting the tram 6 years so no idea where she got this info from.
Where on earth did she get that idea from? The rules explicitly state that is exactly what is required.https://www.thetram.net/using-the-tram.aspx
https://www.thetram.net/buy-before-you-board.aspx
'Kin 'ell. She's being using the system for 6 years and didn't know that? I'm amazed she hasn't been caught before now.
In fact I'm pretty sure every UK tram network that uses similar technology has the same requirement to validate prior to boarding.
The one I'm familiar with, London Trams (formerly Croydon Tramlink), definitely does.
CoreyDog said:
Not really bothered about the fine, it's what it is and isn't a huge amount, if she has made a mistake, fair enough, we will pay but I'd like to know what she should have done instead.
I take it you mean in the situation she found herself in rather than following the rules. I would have stood my ground, called the TI's bluff, and waited for the cops.I really do think your O/H (having sucked up the Penalty Fare) should make a formal complaint directly to the CEO.
This the brutal rape mentioned by Sheepshanks - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9320...
If she doesn't get a satisfactory response, have another go at the CEO and send him a copy of the Torygraph article.
That should get him off his comfy chair.
Thank you guys and girls for the advice and support.
Lizzie has now put a formal complaint in about being ejected and has appealed the Penalty (Though don't reckon will get too far there).
I've spoken to a friend of mine who has got back from holiday who just happens to work in the control room for NET. Said he was surprised she was fined as they don't usually do that on a first offence but he says it was s**t they removed her. Said they sometimes do it for GDPR purpose as they are asking for details but they didn't do this with Mrs, just took her Driving License and copied details from that. Didn't realise the GDPR could override customer safety!! Also said they may argue the area is covered by CCTV but that's no good really if someone had attacked her or attempted to rob her.
Have given him the penalty number and he says will get his 'drinking buddy' to take a look at it.
I got hold of the Email for the CEO on Saturday and fired off a reasonable but rather forceful message. Will see what he comes back with. Basically said will drop all complaints etc if Lizzie gets an apology and they can guarantee that their staff with get reminders about doing adequate risk assessments when removing passengers.
Lizzie has now put a formal complaint in about being ejected and has appealed the Penalty (Though don't reckon will get too far there).
I've spoken to a friend of mine who has got back from holiday who just happens to work in the control room for NET. Said he was surprised she was fined as they don't usually do that on a first offence but he says it was s**t they removed her. Said they sometimes do it for GDPR purpose as they are asking for details but they didn't do this with Mrs, just took her Driving License and copied details from that. Didn't realise the GDPR could override customer safety!! Also said they may argue the area is covered by CCTV but that's no good really if someone had attacked her or attempted to rob her.
Have given him the penalty number and he says will get his 'drinking buddy' to take a look at it.
I got hold of the Email for the CEO on Saturday and fired off a reasonable but rather forceful message. Will see what he comes back with. Basically said will drop all complaints etc if Lizzie gets an apology and they can guarantee that their staff with get reminders about doing adequate risk assessments when removing passengers.
Pjhuk33 said:
That is truly harrowing reading..... Where has society gone so wrong as to turf anyone off transport and leave them by the wayside... Hope the bus driver never gets a moment's rest again....
I despair of some people.....
It's Nottingham not Los Cabos. https://www.uber.com/global/en/cities/nottingham/I despair of some people.....
It seems that there has been a mistake here but, in general, why let someone who hasn't paid continue to use the service?
CoreyDog said:
You can purchase tickets from the machines (When they actually work) but ones bought online are activated through your mobile.
Not sure that can be correct - there is no requirement to carry or even own a phone?Aaah - just seen the buy before you ride for mobile online! Ignore me.
It does say all tickets are required before you get on the tram, though.
Was in Nottingham this weekend as my daughter wanted to see the uni, quite liked the trams!
Edited by aclivity on Monday 9th September 11:08
Graveworm said:
It seems that there has been a mistake here but, in general, why let someone who hasn't paid continue to use the service?
She had paid and had activated her ticket. I suppose they might argue that she only activated it when she saw the inspector, but anyway, once activated she'd paid so no reason not to let her continue. Issuing a penalty for not activating early enough is a different matter.
Sheepshanks said:
Graveworm said:
It seems that there has been a mistake here but, in general, why let someone who hasn't paid continue to use the service?
She had paid and had activated her ticket. I suppose they might argue that she only activated it when she saw the inspector, but anyway, once activated she'd paid so no reason not to let her continue. Issuing a penalty for not activating early enough is a different matter.
T&c do say you must activate BEFORE boarding but why they chucked her off i’ve no idea.
Be warned though, if appeal fails then the next time she gets caught could well end up as a prosecution if trams work the same way as trains by-laws.
Graveworm said:
It seems that there has been a mistake here but, in general, why let someone who hasn't paid continue to use the service?
I'm not sure you have read the first post on this thread correctly. OP said:
She purchases the ticket whilst at work then boards the tram
That means in plain English it had been paid for. Thus there was no loss to NET. The issue here is a rule breach due to her activation after boarding. Accordingly the imposition of a penalty for non-compliance is not unfair per se. However, it is quite possible that it was a breach of policy/guidelines to chuck her off.
I once broke the rules in a similar way on a train when going to collect my car from a specialist garage.
His premises were 6 miles from the station with no bus service so I had arranged for him to collect me.
I had a Travelcard but that only covered me to the Greater London Zone 6 boundary and my destination was beyond that.
Strict compliance within the rules would have meant detraining, buying another ticket at the last station in the zone, and waiting for another train onwards.
To my dismay, I realised too late that the train I was on didn't stop at the relevant station! I needed a Plan B pdq.
So I sought out the travelling TI, explained why I didn't have a ticket valid for the whole journey, and asked him to sell me an extension (zone boundary to my destination).
As I was technically in breach he could have written me up for a Penalty Fare but by being upfront with him I clearly wasn't trying to bilk the TOC.
Common sense used and applied. Both parties satisfied with the outcome.
Sheepshanks said:
She had paid and had activated her ticket.
I suppose they might argue that she only activated it when she saw the inspector, but anyway, once activated she'd paid so no reason not to let her continue. Issuing a penalty for not activating early enough is a different matter.
The payment is taken as soon as she requests the ticket, it's already paid for by the time it's activated, basically they are getting her for not following a rule, not actually avoiding a fare. I suppose they might argue that she only activated it when she saw the inspector, but anyway, once activated she'd paid so no reason not to let her continue. Issuing a penalty for not activating early enough is a different matter.
She is still lost as to why this is an issue now as for 6 years, no other ticket inspector has an issue with it. Apparently once she was taken off the tram (Grrrr) the ticket inspector told her to appeal and even what information to include to be successful!! Only found this out today. Am I smelling quotars to be filled?
Been having a rather heated back and forth with the Customer Manager at NET who, for some reason, I needed to keep reminding that been spat on was an assault even though she was determined it was ONLY antisocial behaviour. Basically they are saying they followed all their policies to the letter so tough! She also mentioned they can use other means like moving the passenger to a quieter section to take details etc yet won't answer why this wasn't carried out. Assuming discretion of the inspector.
I haven't even mentioned the penalty with the manager as that has become a complete none issue in comparison. They did send me the Risk Assessment their Inspectors must follow but appears to me it was very loosely followed but certainly not to the letter. Given they seem so determined their passengers stick to every single rule, I'm annoyed they don't seem to be able to do that themselves.
Red Devil said:
Graveworm said:
It seems that there has been a mistake here but, in general, why let someone who hasn't paid continue to use the service?
I'm not sure you have read the first post on this thread correctly. OP said:
She purchases the ticket whilst at work then boards the tram
That means in plain English it had been paid for. Thus there was no loss to NET. The issue here is a Graveworm said:
It seems that there has been a mistake here but, in general, why let someone who hasn't paid continue to use the service?
Hence in general. Again in general - If someone only activated the ticket once an inspector boarded they are not paying for the service, in any way that most would understand it, as every uninspected journey is evaded. Edited by Graveworm on Monday 9th September 18:06
Oh maybe someone could help with this question.
I'm considering a request to find out how many passengers they remove, the reason for removal (without any details, just generic) and how many of these passengers were deemed vulnerable.
Been a private company though, seems to be a grey area as to whether they have to comply under the Freedom of Information Act. Some say as they are providing a public transport service, they do. Some say as they are private they don't. Does anyone know for sure?
Thanks.
I'm considering a request to find out how many passengers they remove, the reason for removal (without any details, just generic) and how many of these passengers were deemed vulnerable.
Been a private company though, seems to be a grey area as to whether they have to comply under the Freedom of Information Act. Some say as they are providing a public transport service, they do. Some say as they are private they don't. Does anyone know for sure?
Thanks.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff