[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Okoturo, R (on the application of) v London Tramlink [2012] EWHC 2800 (Admin) (10 February 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/2800.html Cite as: [2012] EWHC 2800 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		10 February 2012

1. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: The claimant seeks permission to challenge the decision of the Independent Penalty Fares Appeals Panel on 19 September 2011, dismissing his appeal against a penalty fare issued to him on 26 June 2011, for failing to have a valid Oyster card. On 29 June 2011, the claimant was travelling on a tram operated by the defendant in this matter, Tramlink London. He was unable to produce a valid Oyster card for his journey when challenged by a revenue officer, having unfortunately left his card at home. As a consequence and despite showing the officer the receipt for his Oyster card purchased on 26 June 2011, which showed that he indeed had paid for an Oyster card, he was issued with a penalty fare. The claimant subsequently made representations to Tramlink producing his Oyster card valid for the day in question and sought cancellation of the penalty. By letter, dated 13 July 2011, the defendant dismissed the claimant's appeal and declined to waive the penalty, concluding that any passenger not in possession of a valid ticket for his or her journey would be liable to pay a penalty fare if such a ticket was not produced when requested in the course of the journey. It was not sufficient for a ticket to be produced after the event under the rules. The claimant was permitted to pay the reduced penalty of £25 increasing to £50 if not paid within 21 days.
2. Naturally aggrieved by the defendant's decision, the claimant sought to appeal further, as advised in the letter of 13 July 2011. On 4 August 2011, the claimant's second appeal was considered, this time by Tramlink's Operational Director, but that, too, was dismissed for similar reasons as to the first appeal. Again, the claimant was given the option of paying the reduced penalty fare and further advised of his right to appeal to the Independent Penalty Fare Appeals Panel. By letters dated 10 and 12 August 2011, the claimant signified his intention to appeal to the Appeals Panel. The panel, chaired by a serving magistrate with two other panel members, a former chief executive of London Travelwatch and a representative of Transport for London, considered carefully the claimant's appeal on the papers.
3. The claimant made a request for an opportunity to appear in person or by counsel to make oral submissions but the Appeal Panel considered the matter on the material that they had. By letter, on 19 September 2011, the claimant was advised that having reviewed all the evidence the panel could find no extenuating circumstances and no reason for the claimant not to have his Oyster card with him. The penalty fare was upheld and the claimant was again requested to pay the penalty fare of £25, increasing to £50 if not paid within seven days.
4. The claimant contends: (i) that there was no evidence before the panel that he had no intention of paying for his journey and in fact he produced evidence showing he had in fact purchased an Oyster card on 25 June 2011 for weekly tram travel between 27 June 2011 and 3 July 2011 which was valid, therefore, on 29 June 2011, which was indeed his day of travel; (ii) that in breach of his rights under Article 6 of ECHR, Tramlink failed to permit the claimant to attend before the Independent Appeals Panel with a legal representative of his choice and as a consequence, he was deprived of his right to a fair and impartial hearing; (iii) the defendant erred in law and acted in breach of Article 6 by failing to produce reasons for the decision; and (iv) the inclusion of a member of TFL on the Appeals Panel constituted an unfair conflict of interest.
5. I have considered very carefully all the submissions that have been made in writing and by the claimant, Mr Okoturo today. In my judgment, this request for permission for judicial review must be dismissed. The rules relating to travel on public transport such as tube and Tramlink are very clear: one must have a ticket with an Oyster card or a card ticket with one and to be able to produce it when travelling. On this occasion, unfortunately, the claimant did not have such a ticket. The complaints that the claimant makes about the Appeal Panel have no substance. The procedure was entirely fair and proportionate to the issues in question. The claimant feels aggrieved because he had every intention to pay and indeed had paid but the rules are the rules and there is no reason in law why the decision of the Appeal Panel can be challenged.