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

[whole diary]

[broadgage]

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.

[SDS]

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.

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

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

No such memo has been sent out by FGW^▸ (First Great Western) revenue yet.

[JayMac]

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^▸ (Penalty Fare) 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.

[ellendune]

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

[JayMac]

Pretty much.

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

[ellendune]

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.

[JayMac]

Such honest mistakes include:

Not realising a ticket is out of date; travelling with TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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^▸ (Penalty Fare) 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^‡(resolve). Each case has it's own individual characteristics.

[ChrisB]

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

[broadgage]

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.

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.

[ChrisB]

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

[trainer]

Interesting case of 'discretion' last Saturday on an XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) 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.)

[Zoe]

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.

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.

[ChrisB]

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

[SDS]

Prob the same as TfL^» (Transport for London - about) 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.