Penalty Fare to increase to ^50 or 4 times standard fare.

[whole diary]

[SDS]

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?

[ellendune]

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.

[NickB]

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.

[broadgage]

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^▸ (Train Operating Company) (not FGW^▸ (First Great Western)) who seem to regard maximising penalty fare income as being more important than running trains.

IME^▸ (in my experience), 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.

[Tim]

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.

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.

[Tim]

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^▸ (Train Operating Company) (not FGW^▸ (First Great Western)) who seem to regard maximising penalty fare income as being more important than running trains.

IME^▸ (in my experience), 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.

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. 

[broadgage]

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^▸ (Train Operating Company) prefer imposing their own "fines" to use of the court system because they know or suspect that a court would fail to convict.

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

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^‡(resolve) 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^▸ (First Great Western) 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.

[JayMac]

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^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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.

[Network SouthEast]

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^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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^» (Transport for London - about)'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).

[Tim]

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^▸ (Train Operating Company) prefer imposing their own "fines" to use of the court system because they know or suspect that a court would fail to convict.

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

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.  

[grahame]

[[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^▸ (Ticket Vending Machine), 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.

[eightf48544]

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^▸ (Ticket Vending Machine) 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^▸ (First Great Western) let alone for a multi TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) ticket.

[paul7575]

Is a Penalty Fare increasing to ^50 the right thing? Well TfL^» (Transport for London - about)'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).

The DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)'s last consultation on altering the PF^▸ (Penalty Fare) 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^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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

[SDS]

I agree with the fact that TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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^▸ (First Capital Connect) and then get stopped at Blackfriars by TfL^» (Transport for London - about), what PF^▸ (Penalty Fare) 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.