On 29 Mar, 14:26, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

...

A spokeswoman for SWT said: "While it is unfortunate this case has
been escalated to such an extent, it is our belief that it could have
been resolved by the customer long before it reached this stage." A
spokesman for Her Majesty's Courts Service said: "This matter has not
been brought to our attention previously. We would welcome details
from Mr Warwick so we can look into it."

I assume Mr Warwick complied with a request to provide his name and
address to the ticket inspector. *He must have known at that stage
that there was a debt owed to SWT. *Any reasonable person would have
done something about it rather than waiting for one year.

[uk.transport.london reinstated]

I wonder if he ever had a season ticket at all? *AIUI a visit to a ticket
office with his valid season would have immediately cancelled the UFN (but
there may be a limt to how often this can be done).

As is usual with these stories, we'll never get all the relevant info...

Paul S

None of it makes any sense, but then it's a story in the Standard.

There is no such thing as a £2 fine, or even a £2 penalty fare.

On the other hand, if SWT weren't going to accept £2 but insisted on
issuing a penalty fare and, when this was appeared to be disputed
(because correspondence not received), sold the punter to a debt
collection agency for the penalty fare plus enormous costs, one could
piece together a plausible story.

I don't agree that in the absence of correspondence asking for the £2
fare, having given name and address, it was for the punter to do
something about it. You can't just send off a cheque to the head
office of a company, in the hope that it will be associated with a
specific case, unless you have correspondence with reference numbers
etc.

It would also be reasonable for him to forget about it or assume that
they had deemed it to be too trivial.