Great Western Coffee Shop

According to recent postings ive seen around Facebook and other railway forums the Penalty Fare is increasing to ^50 or 4 times the single fare from April 2014.

I have not seen any legislation or SI to enact this yet, which I thought had to happen to increase it.

What are peoples views on this?

I have expressed my views on penalty fares before. 

They send the wrong sort of message. Our customers are all on the make and we do not trust them one inch.

If fare evasion is the problem then put more staff on revenue protection duty to ensure they pay the correct fare.

What customer focused business puts so much effort into trying to criminalise its customers.

Disagree completely.

Its not hard to buy a ticket, and by that I include buying a ticket for the appropriate class of travel where you choose to sit/stand.

What message does it send to your customers who cough thousands and thousands of pounds a year and then see fare evaders just asked to buy a ticket.

Its the same as shop lifting pure and simple.  And 'customer focused businesses' don't seem to have a problem enforcing that - both operationally and morally.

In the case of blatant travel without valid tickets, when a ticket could have been readily purchased, then I support penalty fares.

I am however concerned at the antics of one TOC (not FGW) who seem to regard maximising penalty fare income as being more important than running trains.

IME, FGW are generally reasonable in their enforcement, I have seen a couple of cases of excessive zeal when the letter of the rule took precedance over common sense, but not many.

Applied with a bit of common sense, penalty fares are a useful weapon against ticketless travel.
Applied unreasonably, they can put the honest of rail travel for life.

I know of people who drive for journies that could be better made by rail because they consider that rail travel is "hugely expensive, extremely complicated, and full of traps whereby fines* of hundreds of pounds may be extracted from the unwary"

*a penalty fare is not of course a fine, in law, but is normally regarded as a fine in practice.

I agree.  I also think that they are a dangerous attempt to use civil law to solve a criminal problem.   I am all for catching fare evaders, but they should be prosecuted by independent criminal authorities with all the proper safeguards in place (regarding burden of proof etc).  Revenue protection officers are employed by the rail company they are not independent they should not therefore be handing out punishments.  tescos doesn't hand out fines to shoplifters it reports them to the proper independent authorities for prosecution.

Absolutely,  TOCs are not independent enough to be trusted with handing out punishments.   But then again, I don't think that a private company really ought to be trusted with setting fares either. 

Agree, penalty fares are a fine in all but name, but enforced by a private company, not the courts.

The comparison with Tesco is interesting, as pointed out above they are not allowed to "fine" those who steal from them. Of course they can and do report dishonesty to the proper authorities.

Whilst many penalty fares are properly applied and a useful deterent, I have my doubts about somes cases.
A cynic like me might even suspect that TOCs prefer imposing their own "fines" to use of the court system because they know or suspect that a court would fail to convict.

NickB says it is not hard to pay a fare.
It is often the case around here, at Hanborough. There is a single ticket machine that cannot cope with the numbers that would use it at morning peak hours and it is often out of order, usually because it has run out of tickets or more likely, a ticket jam. The last occasion I tried to buy a ticket to Evesham, the computer part was working but the card slot refused to drop the barrier to enable the card to be inserted and the machine has been adapted so as not take cash after it was broken into.
On the train, we did not see a conductor on either the down journey to Evesham or the return home and as it was an evening journey, Evesham booking office was closed with, as far as I am aware, no ATM as an alternative. There seems to be a lot of ticketless travel at the western end of the Cotswold Line because there is no controlled exit or entry at Evesham, Pershore or Worcester. Only once in 15 years of travelling to Worcester Foregate Street have I ever seen a ticket check, alyjough I understand that FGW does occasionally draft in the revenue protection staff to tackle the problem. It has been said that under the cap and collar regime, employing more revenue protection staff was not financially attractive as most of any extra revenue was lost in the cap and collar regime. Hopefully in the new franchise there will be a better incentive.
Enforcement at the eastern end of the line is better as there are barriers at the main stations and at morning perak times there are long queues at Oxford of people needing to buy tickets to go through the barrier. At Reading, the enforcement staff treat ticketless travellers as potential criminals.

Whilst supermarkets do not have the power to bring criminal prosecutions in their own name, they are able to use civil recover methods, or prosecute via the Crown.

Penalty fares are also a civil matter. The are, after all, a fare.

Where there is a major difference is that a TOC is free at an time to cancel a penalty fare, refund any monies paid, and then instigate prosecution in their own name if they believe that is appropriate. Tesco et al can't do this if they've opted for civil recovery.

I don't think the railways have many issues with the court system. I suspect Penalty Fares are used because they are a quick disposal for both the TOC and person on the receiving end. A Penalty Fare also has a predetermined cost (in both administration and fine), whereas going to court does not.

What I don't think it satisfactory is the IPFAS being run by Southeastern. This should be given to a truly independent organisation of the TOCs.

Is a Penalty Fare increasing to ^50 the right thing? Well TfL's Penalty Fare has been ^80 for a few years now, and their fares are arguably low in the first place. A ^50 Penalty Fare might avoid the ridiculous situation where you have regular commuters walking up to the revenue staff with ^20s at the ready (as happened when it was ^10 too).

Absolutely,  And we know of instances where a TOC has taken a passenger to court over a ticketing issue and failed to convict and even instances where a court has found that a TOC has been in the wrong by refusing to honour a perfectly valid ticket. http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/10704098.Commuter_wins___2_000_in_FCC_season_ticket_overcharging_case/?ref=rc (http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/10704098.Commuter_wins___2_000_in_FCC_season_ticket_overcharging_case/?ref=rc)

On that evidence TOCs simply cannot be trusted to decide on ticketing matters without independent oversight.  Penalties fares are one of the ways in which that oversight is removed.  

[[Written earlier before recent posts - but still perhaps useful points / examples]]

Headline - I strongly disagree with fraudulent (unpaid or underpaid) travel, and anyone who travels in this way, knowing that he/she is doing so, should face severe consequences.

But

1. It can be a nightmare knowing what is the right ticket. The rules are complex, to the extent that even the staff don't always get it right, and Jo Public may not realise this.  I was sold a Filton Abbey Wood to Melksham Weekend First Upgrade on a Tuesday - price (10 pounds) seemed about right. Correct stations on ticket.  And I was then given a ticking off for not having a valid ticket

2. There are times that the rules may be regarded as being unreasonable - long queue at booking office, no TVM, train comes in.  Miss it and wait 140 minutes (an example from the other day), or ask if you can buy one from the conductor (who said 'no' prior to boarding)

3. It can be very hard to buy a ticket. TVM at Hungerford out of action. Train Manager's machine broken.  Had to queue (for 30 minutes!) at the "sin bin" counter at Paddington to get out of station, was late for appointment as result.

I don't know what the solution is ... but if it consistent, easy, straightforward, understandable  and fair for people to be ticketed ahead of their journey then the whole need to be worried about the penalty fare system would be reduced.

I think you summary is a very fair reflection of the situation.

The whole fare system is a total mess and needs a drastic overhaul. How can anyone cope with a system where there are at least 3000 plus restrictions on tickets. Plus the problems with connections and advanced purchase tickets, errors in the routing guide etc. Plus of course it's now extremely difficult to turn up and buy a ticket as many stations are now unmanned and don't have TVMs or it's not working.

One way of avoiding problems is to not only to have a ticket but an itinery which spells out what trains you can travel on and which way you can go which is given out with the ticket or better still printed on the ticket.

Yes penalty fares have their place for blatant fare dodging, but unless the system is obvious then for other infringments they are too draconian.

May I asked is there any rail staff on the board that can say with absolute certainty that they know every restriction on every ticket that might be issued for a journey on FGW let alone for a multi TOC ticket.

The DfT's last consultation on altering the PF value of 'Rail' PFs started off ages ago under Labour.  There was never a publicly available conclusion to that round of consultation, I've searched high and low for it before.

ISTM that if there is to be a PF scheme on the railway generally, then the same value PF should be charged by TfL, TOCs and everyone else operating a similar scheme such as on Metrolink, Tyne Wear Metro etc.  With the same rules so everyone knows where they stand.   Especially given the significant overlap between TfL and TOCs in the London area, with in some cases the PF charged varying between alternate trains in parts of South London...

Paul

I agree with the fact that TOCs should not be able to take out private prosecutions against people. The Railway laws date back to the 1800's . Byelaws are strict liability so they do not need to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" and as such the customer is already on the back foot.
I know that a certain London based TOC actually pays to have magistrates trained in fare evasion (not to do it but what it is) and then uses that same magistrate to convict. I do not know of a fare evasion case that has been pushed to crown or appealed to crown.

An interesting case regarding the two differences. You travel on FCC and then get stopped at Blackfriars by TfL, what PF do they charge you?
In this case they charged the ^80 PF and the person won because the wrong PF was charged and the person was wrongly and illegally not informed of the correct route of appeal.


Im all for Penalty Fares, seeing many people openly admitting "cba to buy a ticket" on my travels. But truly independent safeguards need to be built in and not IRCAS which is owned by Southeastern.

I agree entirely that the present system of fares and ticketing is unduly complex, just look at some of the long and complex threads on these forums about the validity or not of a ticket, or proposed use of a ticket.

I have previously suggested that there should only be 3 fares for any journey (in each class if more than 1 is provided)
It clearly makes sense to charge higher fares at busy times and lower fares on less well patronised services, but I see no need for more than 3 fares.

Likewise I see no merit whatsoever in charging different fares for the same journey according to when the ticket was purchased, rather than according to the time/date of travel.

The fare between ABC and XYZ should in my view be ^100 in the peak, and say ^60 in the off peak, and say ^30 in the extreme off peak (very early morning or late night services, or rush hour journies made against the main flow)
This would apply no matter if the ticket was purchased 10 minutes or 10 weeks before travel.

Colour code the tickets and the timetables.

The exact fares payable could be fine tuned, but still only 3 different fares for each single journey.
Returns to be issued at say 5% discount, so in the example above, an off peak return from ABC to XYZ would cost  ^114

There is this one but it is TfL buses, which is a bit different in legal terms:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7564267.stm

The approximate cost to TfL for their ultimately failed prosecution was ^10k.

The TOC will still have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you were travelling without a valid ticket ticket, it's just that there is no need to prove any intent to do so. A conviction for a byelaw offence is a relatively minor thing and won't result in a criminal record. The much more serious offence contrary to the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, which carries higher penalties and will result in a criminal records, requires proof of intent to avoid the fare.

I agree with many of the comments:

1. Travel without paying is wrong and there should be a criminal penalty for blatant fare evasion.
2. TVMs are not fit for purpose because:
     a) they are unreliable
     b) they either not not have all the fares on them or make it too difficult to find the fare you want
     c) they do not advise on the correct fare (got to Bristol TM on a Sunday and ask for a ticket to Swindon and the first option is an anytime fare - no guidance to say an off peak fare is ok)
     d) they often do not take cash
     e) Arriva Trains Wales sometimes locks them up out of hours (e.g. Cathays).
3. It is surprisingly difficult to sometimes to but a ticket on a train when there was no possibility at the starting station (I too have had a long wait at Paddington after a journey from Bedwyn).
4. The fare system is so monumentally complex that it is all too easy to have the wrong ticket without knowing it.
5. Given all the above, it is wrong that the TOC does not need to show intent. Is this unchallengeable under the Human Rights Act?
6. The appeals system is not seen as impartial. Is this also unchallengeable under the Human Rights Act?
7. TOCs seem to use this as an excuse to not bother with revenue protection on trains.   
8. The whole system leaves some railway staff with the view their job is to treat every customer as probably a criminal to be tolerated if necessary rather than a customer who has paid often a huge amount of money to use a service they offer.

 

But will anyone want to push it far enough or have the money to make a test case??
In regards to IPFAS sarfeastern claim its a separate business unit with separate managers and separate accounts. I do not know who (ultimalty) owns IRCAS

The byelaw offence certainly isn't a breach of the ECHR, strict liability offences aren't that uncommon, certainly not nowadays anyway. I'm not sure there have been any cases on the matter in front of the ECtHR, but there would have been plently of opportunities to bring one. The two relevant articles are:
Article 6-Right to a Fair Trial
Article 7-No Punishment Without Law
The general principles are that it is a breach of your Human Rights to be convicted of an offence which isn't/wasn't an offence when committed (Article 7) or to not have a fair, independent public hearing in determination of your civil rights or criminal liability (Article 6).

Again I imagine the opportunity to challenge IRCAS under Article 6 would have arisen by now, that's if it even invokes Article 6, which I'm not sure it would. I don't think IRCAS being run by Southeastern is at all desirable though; justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done.

If you buy the incorrect ticket (although with right start & end stations), can you be penalty fared? I don't think you can, as you have made an attempt to buy the correct ticket....all thety can do is to excess you to the correct fare? Isn't that right?

I do think that 4 x single fare is just too high. That can easily be circa ^200 on a ^50 single (peak) fare...

Generally, no you can't be penalty fares in those circumstances. The exception is if you have bought a Railcard discounted ticket and don't have it, in which case you can be penalty fared, or if you have bought a Standard Class ticket and you are travelling in First Class. If you are travelling at a time when your ticket isn't valid, or not travelling on a permitted route then you can't be charged a penalty fare.

I can see the rationale for all those exceptions, except travelling 1st class with a Standard ticket. Assuming its valid on the train on which it is used, an excess up to 1st is surely the correct route? It seems that this rule is purely to deter those hoping not to be checked. In which case, surely its forcthe TOC to ensure it IS checked & excessed?

I heard an hour ago that the rise in penalty fare has been put on hold. Hopefully for the reason given earlier. That the maximum is just too high

Well I expect it's mainly a problem on DOO trains in the London where ticket checking is by and large by barriers and on train checks are very rare. Having a greater deterrent to stop people just chancing it is therefore needed.

I agree with most points on here. Having IPFAS owned by Southeastern is IMHO a complete conflict of interest. They are also absolutely useless and from experiences friends and family have had with them seem very keen to reject a genuine appeal. My cousin had an issue with First Capital Connect where she tried to buy a ticket and was unable to do so. When she got to the barriers she asked for a First Class Return and voluntarily supplied the request for a First Class ticket. She ended up with a Penalty Fare despite her reasons for not having a ticket being well covered under the NRCoC. Now surely an RPI when presented with such a request might have thought that it was a genuine case? Anyhow it went on for a very long time and eventually FCC gave in when the facts of her case were proved meritable beyond all reasonable doubts.

---

Using the word "Penalty" does imply it is a civil matter. But my understanding of the Law is that you cannot have Civil AND Criminal Cases brought against you for the same offence. Much is the same in the Civil Recoveries industry.

A couple of years ago I had dealings with Store Security in a national chain store (I won't name it). The Security Staff were unhappy with who I said I was. Their background checks failed to identify me. Turned out they were spelling both my first and surname wrong, They also didn't like that I didn't give my middle name, Being Autistic they never asked for it so I never thought to give it. I remember one of the security staff saying "If you don't cooperate, we can make this the worst day of your life if we wanted..." (Considering some of the things I've seen, one of which is on this very forum, she was up for a very tall order...)

Anyhow the Police were summoned and they concluded that although my actions leading up to my "detainment" were not that well thought out, there was no case to answer whatsoever and the Sergeant told me the matter was closed. The Sergeant also knew me from another project I am associated with and was just as mift as I was when he found out about the spelling errors of my name. The Security Staff were rather red faced when they ran the check through again and found that it was almost certainly who I said I was (Or a very good double act ;D )

That didn't stop an organisation specialising in Civil Recoveries contacting me about the matter and trying to extort money out of me for the whole affair, around ^200, for the stores "Loss of staff time, Contacting the Police and using resources to build a case for the Old Bill".

I did some research on the organisation and realised they were a specialist in Speculative Invoices and like to think they are Judge, Jury and Executioner over a civil matter. Consequently I invited their "client" to bring criminal charges against me but warned them that the Police said there was no case to answer. I received a letter back that was very cleverly worded but reading between the lines basically said "There was no criminal case as you didn't steal anything, but you cost us money and we want it back"

I am going seriously off topic so I'll sum up what happened, I invited them to bring a Civil Case against me but warned I would vigorously defend but if I lost they'd get ^1 a month for the life of penalty due to receiving Disability Benefit. Cases exist where a defendant is in receipt of DLA Alone and got repayment orders for ^1 per month. That seemed to upset them and they offered to drop the penalty to ^100 for closure of the matter. That told me they had nothing on me so I just stopped communicating with them and wrote a strongly worded letter to the national chain's head office and demanded a WTF (What the flipping heck is all this about - polite version ;) ) explanation. The matter was then dealt with and a senior head office manager personally wrote to me with a formal apology, retraction of all negative statements about me, GWG Compensation, Store Voucher and confirmed that I had no case to answer.

The Civil Recoveries Industry along with Bailiff and Debt Collection has a very ugly head. If there is no criminal case and store staff are paid to make sure such events don't happen. A store should not be able to claim for their staff' time when they employ them regardless. Unless of course the likes of Tesco et al, ASDA etc want something for their money other than staff just reading newspapers and looking at TV Screens all day :D

(Disclaimer: I am not a legally trained professional, Apologies for the stereotypical actions of security staff, I work with some though and there is a competition as to who can eat the most donuts in a shift...........)

At the risk of keeping this off topic...


How can anyone mis-spell 'the' and 'trout'?  :D

Some really good points shown here, personally I believe that some fares/restrictions are too complicated. Yes, having 3 fares would make things simpler but not as much as people may think especially when you take in railcard restrictions, time restrictions as well as certain routing and ticket easements. As much as we want simple to understand tickets, it will never happen.

FYI there's a new railcard coming in a few months. This one is an off-peak only card and is valid after 0930. (More confusion!   ::) )

I'd quite like to see an ^80 penalty fare. ^20 is low in comparison to other countries and I believe we really need to deter deliberate ticketless travel. ^20 can encourage people to try their luck knowing that they afford to do it if they're only being found out once or twice a month.

---

Moderator note: Subsequent discussion about the Two Together Railcard has been split off into a new topic: http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=13533.msg147232#msg147232

This is my first posting on here, but I wanted to share my own experiences of the Penalty Fare scheme. I hope I have not fallen foul of any house rules, please let me know if I do.

I have fallen foul twice of the penalty fare system through, I consider no fault of my own.

The first time was back in the early 00's, when I was in London and the oyster card system was gradually being rolled out on the various tocs in regards to using oyster cards on the over-ground trains, some had at that time implemented it, some hadn't.
Not being a regular traveller to London, I checked the map in regards to which overground trains had or had not rolled out oyster. To my cost I found even the map being issued at the time was not correct.
One nameless toc that hadn't rolled it out on their trains at that time were handing out penalty fares with some relish at London Bridge, even though the map said they could be used.
I did not appeal at that time, as that in itself is a hassle.
There-in lies the first crux of the issue with this scheme ^ they will rely on 99% of people not challenging the scheme in the first place and pay up on receipt of the penalty fare.

The second time I fell foul of the system was when with only 10 minutes until the train left, the ticket office was shut (due to staff shortages - their fault, not mine) and the only ticket machine was broken.
Again not to name the toc involved, due to the short platforms the guard was not available to pay the fare so I was accousted by an RPO on the train who refused to allow me to buy the ticket for the journey being made on the train. I repeated my willingness to pay the fare that I would otherwise had done, but the RPO point blank refused.
He accompanied me off at that station and issued a penalty fare, despite my protests and willingness to pay for the ticket for the journey being made. There was no "grey area" or mitigating circumstances. He kept chanting ^Penalty Fare^ like some kind of mantra. When he wrote the incorrect spelling of my address on the ticket , he then could not confirm the address I had given him was a geniune address.
(Because he had mis-spelt my address). And then guess what, he then blamed for for deliberately mis-leading him!

This time I appealed, but the appeal system is a joke, there is no recourse to appeal, the standard response is "either pay up" or be threatened with heavier penalties/fines.
Even though I had set out clearly the dates/times, trains taken, and even photo evidence that the ticket office was closed, any evidence was pretty much ignored, dismissed out of sight.
"Please pay up or face heavier fines/penalties when we pass your refusal to pay up to out debt collection agency."
The "Debt Collection Agency" they pass the non-payments of penalty fares to share the same office as the Penalty Fare Administration scheme. Hmmm.
On further investigation, the executive or non-executive directors of the said "penalty fare administration" scheme are all ex-directors\managers of various tocs that have or are about to outsource their revenue protection business to the penalty fare administration scheme. Hmmm.
Shockingly one of the "non-executive" directors of the penalty fares scheme also sits on the DFT executive board so has lobbying powers at the highest level of government. Not good.
In my opinion the whole thing is a revenue raising exercise and a scam.

Disgustingly, the people these schemes are aimed at, who go out of their way to commit fare evasion, wont have the means to buy a ticket anyway, let alone pay the fine, so they will continue to flout the rules and continue to travel without a ticket, give false addresses etc. So raising the amount is not going to stop this.

Therefore in conclusion, the only way to pay for the administration of this scheme will be to further trip up and encapsulate more and more genuine passengers into the penalty fare system to pay for it, and of course up the cost.

Sorry for the long-windedness of post, but I felt I needed to share my experiences of this very unfair system. As someone has already alluded to on this thread, this is the wrong path for the railway system to punish and penalise genuine fare paying passengers, given that the most experienced of us can fall foul of the complexities of the ticket system (nearly being mis-sold the wrong ticket the other week by a clerk, I had to correct her as to which ticket I needed) or genuine mistakes or circumstances that can arise (ticket offices closed, broken ticket machines, lack of ticket machines, queues, etc. etc.).

Welcome to the forum - you are completely within house rules as far as I can see.  Also, we take the view that any "oopsies" such as copyright issues are going to be accidents, as people shouldn't be expected to be legal experts, etc; we can help tidy up if it ever were to happen ... which is unlikely.   Welcome!


It certainly looks that way as you describe it ... personally I'm a supporter of taking a strong line against deliberate fare evaders, but it should not be at the expense of fining (for that's what it is in practise) innocent or accidental transgressions, nor at the expense of sending people who have made those innocent mistakes, or who actually are completely within the rules and the RPIs are uninformed, to hell and back.

Just yesterday I posted about Northern Rail, where their MD was saying "we give people every chance to buy tickets" ... on the very day that I had been unable to purchase what I needed, during a 14 minute change of trains there ...

Whilst properly applied penalty fares can be a useful weapon against ticketless travel, I find the tendancy towards outsourcing these schemes somewhat worrying.

At least enforcement by the railway industry is hopefully going to be done with the best interests of the railway industry in mind.

A private subcontractor acting in effect as the police and courts is more worrying. A penalty fare IS a fine in all but name, and can be enforced without legal process.
I fear that penalty fares enforcement will go the way of parking and related enforcement, which long ago ceased to be anything to do with keeping roads clear, but is simply a money making scam.

I can forsee private agencies seeking to maximise the income they raise from "fines" rather than seeking to minimise ticketless travel.

S10 excludes double liability. So I think if they charge you civilly and then proceed with criminal they have to give you the civil money back.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1994/576/regulation/10/made (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1994/576/regulation/10/made)


No such memo has been sent out by FGW revenue yet.

A Penalty Fare can be cancelled, any money paid refunded, and a Railway Byelaw or Regulation of Railways Act prosecution started.

That would normally only be the case when new evidence comes to light showing that, for example, the original reason for the PF wasn't an honest mistake. It does happen though, usually when someone challenging a Penalty Fare talks themself into a more serious offence. I've seen stories of people who've challenged a Penalty Fare on the grounds that what they were caught doing is something they'd done before.

I think any new evidence that differentiates between the civil 'balance of probabilities' and the criminal 'beyond reasonable doubt' would have to be fairly conclusive to avoid the risk of a criminal prosecution failing as an abuse of process.

So penalty fares are design to penalise those who make honest mistakes then?

Pretty much.

Provable dishonesty should mean either a Byelaw or RoRA prosecution. Although I suspect some folk 'get away' with a PF when they should really be prosecuted.

So your customer makes an honest mistake and you issue a penalty fare against him/her.  Really excellent customer service! Must havbe learnt that in the Ryanair school of customer care.

Such honest mistakes include:

Not realising a ticket is out of date; travelling with TOC A on a ticket only valid with TOC B; boarding a train at a station where facilities existed, under the misapprehension that it is okay to pay on board; leaving a railcard at home.

Many of the honest mistakes represent a loss of revenue if not detected, so I think there is justification for issuing a PF rather than just saying, "Never mind, what ticket do you want?" Although PF's aren't primary legislation, I think that, like the law, ignorance shouldn't be a defence. There are also many other areas of law and legislation where an honest mistake can lead to a financial penalty or even criminal prosecution.

Penalty Fares have been around since the days of Network South East and are, in many cases, a preferable alternative (for both parties) to criminal prosecution. Ultimately it is the passenger's responsibility to ensure they have a valid ticket or other authority to travel.

I don't always agree that the contract between passenger and train company is balanced. I've said before that the deck is often stacked in favour of the train companies, but the laws and regulations are what they are. If you want one example of what I think is a worrying approach - look at Northern Rail. They don't operate a Penalty Fares scheme. They instead are issuing 'Administrative Penalties' of ^80 for ticketing irregularities, both for honest mistakes and those which could be tried under the Bylaws or RoRA. This is being done as an alternative to taking people to court. These penalties are not backed by legislation or regulation. At least the Penalty Fares rules are in the public domain, people can check whether they've been fairly applied, and there's a codified appeals procedure. An 'Administrative Penalty' to be paid on threat of prosecution may just about be legal, but it could be, with no regulatory oversight, open to abuse.

Current Penalty Fares Regulations have been around since 2002; Byelaws, in their current guise, since privatisation; and the Regulation of Railways Act since 1889. There's been no concerted public outcry at the supposed unfairness of any of these.

With honest mistakes there is always room for discretion. I've seen it applied to both a potential PF and UFN. Each case has it's own individual characteristics.

If honest mistakes are always accepted, no one would bother to remember their railcard, for examplw, would they?

It can certainly seem rather harsh, but I suspect that a lot of so called honest mistakes are in fact deliberate attempts to evade full proper payment, but that there is no way to prove this.

Purchasing a discounted ticket that needs a railcard to make it valid, and forgetting said railcard is a mistake.

Purchasing a discounted ticket clearly marked "booked train only" and useing a different service MIGHT be a mistake, or might be deliberate to save a lot of money.

Unless the same passenger has been caught repeatedly, it would hard to prove dishonest intent. But a penalty fare can be and probably would be levied.

I don't have a problem with that - it is quite definitely the passengers responsibility to ensure they remember the restrictions and / or railcards used when purchasing said ticket. Forgetting is *not* an honest mistake it's similar to getting a speeding fine, in that forgetting is no defence

Interesting case of 'discretion' last Saturday on an XC service from B'ham New Street to Bristol Temple Meads.  The gentleman in the seat behind me had boarded the train 30mins before his booked advanced ticket allowed.  The Train Manager carefully explained that it was a 'booked train only' ticket and the time of the train it was valid on. The man apologised and the conversation ended without surcharge.

Only later did I remember that when booking my off peak return (any time on Saturday) that it was cheaper than the Advance fare.  I wonder if that was the cause of the clemency shown?  Or the lightly loaded train? Or just being in a good mood?

(I don't believe this a Penalty Fare service, but I hope the illustration helps.)

Don't they have the same rights as anyone to bring a private prosuction?  I haven't seen anything that restricts them to going through the CPS.

Something not yet noted in this thread - the increase in PF comes with an early-payment 'discount' of 50%. No idea just how long the period is for this discount though.

Prob the same as TfL I would suspect to *cough* 'harmonise' *cough* the system. So within 21 days including the day of issue gets you the 50% discount. 22 days and it doubles, or goes to the main figure and IPFAS slap a ^20 admin charge on it for sending you a reminder letter.