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

[whole diary]

[broadgage]

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

[didcotdean]

I do not know of a fare evasion case that has been pushed to crown or appealed to crown.

There is this one but it is TfL^» (Transport for London - about) buses, which is a bit different in legal terms:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7564267.stm

A passenger fined ^90 for failing to pay a 90p bus fare, despite having enough money on his Oyster^▸ (Smartcard system used by passengers on Transport for London services) card, has won an appeal.
Tom Usher, 37, from Harlesden, north-west London, was fined and ordered to pay ^100 court costs for not validating his card properly on a bendy bus.
But Kingston Crown Court ruled that he had a "reasonable excuse" as he was unaware his fare had not been deducted.
Mr Usher was "overjoyed", but said "it shouldn't have come to this".
He had ^1.60 on his Oyster card when challenged by an inspector on a bendy bus in December last year.

Mr Usher said he was unaware of his error as it was a new card, but Transport for London (TfL) successfully prosecuted him in Wimbledon Magistrates Court.
His sentence was quashed on Friday when the court noted that bus passengers were not warned to check for a green light and a beep when touching their cards onto the reader.

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

[Southern Stag]

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.

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.

[ellendune]

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^▸ (Ticket Vending Machine) 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^‡(resolve) 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^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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.

 

[SDS]

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

[Southern Stag]

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.

[ChrisB]

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...

[Southern Stag]

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.

[ChrisB]

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^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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

[Southern Stag]

Well I expect it's mainly a problem on DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) 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.

[thetrout]

I agree with most points on here. Having IPFAS owned by Southeastern is IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) 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^▸ (National Rail Conditions of Carriage). Now surely an RPI^▸ (Revenue Protection Inspector (or Retail Price Index, depending on the context)) 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^▸ (First Capital Connect) 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 )

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

(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...........)

[trainer]

At the risk of keeping this off topic...

Turned out they were spelling both my first and surname wrong

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

[The Tall Controller]

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^▸ (for your information) 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

[reso18]

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^▸ (Department for Transport) 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.).

[grahame]

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.

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!

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

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^▸ (Revenue Protection Inspector (or Retail Price Index, depending on the context)) 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 ...