'Hedge fund manager in ^42,550 train fare dodge' - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[devon_metro]

I now live in London, and the DLR^▸ (Docklands Light Railway) is effectively a free railway for the dishonest - I see it daily.

I'm always bemused when exiting my station (which is a terminus) by the amount of people who don't touch out!

[Brucey]

I now live in London, and the DLR^▸ (Docklands Light Railway) is effectively a free railway for the dishonest - I see it daily.

I'm always bemused when exiting my station (which is a terminus) by the amount of people who don't touch out!

Passengers with a valid Travelcard on Oyster^▸ (Smartcard system used by passengers on Transport for London services) do not need to touch out and obviously cannot touch out with a paper Travelcard. That assumes everyone who see not touching out holds a Travelcard...

[TaplowGreen]

There's this press release from ATOC^» (Association of Train Operating Companies See - here) suggesting ^240m a year or 120000 journeys a day.

http://www.atoc.org/media-centre/atoc-press-releases/2013/06/17/240m-cost-of-fare-dodging-on-the-railways-top-10-dodgy-excuses-revealed/

The question is how much should be spent in order to try to put a sizeable dent in that ^240m?  If you were to have a combination of barriers at all stations and revenue staff on all trains then it would cost a lot more than that per year I suspect, so it's about getting the balance right.

That's an incredible figure - I note on another thread that the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) are taking a joined up approach to addressing the presumed issue of fraud on delay/repay claims which will surely be dwarfed by the figure of ^240 million............so why can't a joined up approach be taken on this issue too? And please don't hit me with the "well fares will have to go up to pay for it then" angle, if the TOCs are already leaking quarter of a billion then this is a good way of investing in the short term to increase their profits!!!

[ChrisB]

It'll cost more than they'll save....

[grahame]

There's this press release from ATOC^» (Association of Train Operating Companies See - here) suggesting ^240m a year or 120000 journeys a day.

That's an incredible figure

There are over 2,500 stations on the network ... the busiest of which has over 240,000 journeys per day.   So whilst  this is an awful lot of revenue being lost, it (the ATOC estimate) isn't as high as I might have expected. Sadly, I would put their figure as being quite conservative though I'm not sure if their figures are for intentional, premidated evasion, opportunistic evasion, or avoidance of payment because there was no opportunity to pay.

[TaplowGreen]

^..it would be interesting to know how much the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) currently spend on Revenue protection^..additionally surely there is a strategy to target vulnerable areas for ticket fraud (ie busy but unbarriered stations) ^ for example there used to be a college for which Langley station was the nearest stop, however it was unbarriered and many  students who used Taplow, Burnham and Iver stations would never buy tickets to Langley as the chances of being caught were minimal and even if it did happen, the penalty fare (which rarely seemed to be enforced) was more than offset by the vast majority of days when they enjoyed ^free^ travel ^ it was a well known dodge, frequently reported to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) by paying passengers but sadly it was rare than anything seemed to be done about it.

I^m sure there are numerous other examples of this across the network, as opposed to those with (manned) barriers which present a considerable deterrent to all but the more determined?

[Steve Bray]

The Dorking Advertiser has a half-page round-up of those people who have committed motoring offences, or who've not paid their TV Licence - that sort of thing, and one of the headings is Rail Fares. The courts are heavily fining those who have been caught travelling without a ticket. For instance, an 18 year old who had not paid a ^7.40 fare was fined ^400, ordered to pay the ^7.40 fare, court costs of ^160 and a victim surcharge of ^40. The highest fine was ^500, presumably because the offender gave a false name and address and he was avoiding a ^3.50 fare.

[LiskeardRich]

The Dorking Advertiser has a half-page round-up of those people who have committed motoring offences, or who've not paid their TV Licence - that sort of thing, and one of the headings is Rail Fares. The courts are heavily fining those who have been caught travelling without a ticket. For instance, an 18 year old who had not paid a ^7.40 fare was fined ^400, ordered to pay the ^7.40 fare, court costs of ^160 and a victim surcharge of ^40. The highest fine was ^500, presumably because the offender gave a false name and address and he was avoiding a ^3.50 fare.

My local paper in cornwall has the same. Typical fines are ^400-500 compensation of unpaid fare plus costs and victim surcharge.

[Brucey]

The sentencing guidelines for a Regulation of Railways Act conviction (see page 80 of the PDF) suggest a starting point of a Band A fine for "Failing to produce ticket or pay fare on request" or Band B fine for "Travelling on railway without having paid the fare or knowingly and wilfully travelling beyond the distance paid for, with intent to avoid payment".

Band A is typically 50% of weekly income, with a discretionary range of 25-75%.  Band B is 100%, with a range of 75-125%.  In serious cases, the Band A can be increased to Band B; and the Band B increased to Band C (150% of weekly income).  This can then be reduced for a guilty plea, mitigating reasons, etc.

I believe a basis of ^350 weekly income can be used where the defendant does not supply adequate information to the court about their income.  On this basis and also the typical income of an 18-year-old, I would guess that a fine of ^400-500 would suggest these cases are at the more serious end of the spectrum.

It does make me wonder whether the fines are disproportionately too large.  For example, would someone guilty of theft of a ^3.50 item from a retail store be fined ^500 plus considerable costs?  Also I wonder whether "on the spot fines" (i.e. a larger penalty fare but with an independent appeals process) would actually be more of a deterrent as people would see their fellow passengers being dished out with "fines", rather than just having their details taken.

[thetrout]

Band A is typically 50% of weekly income, with a discretionary range of 25-75%.  Band B is 100%, with a range of 75-125%.  In serious cases, the Band A can be increased to Band B; and the Band B increased to Band C (150% of weekly income).  This can then be reduced for a guilty plea, mitigating reasons, etc.

That is a very interesting read. Allow me to open a very large tin of worms. This is an entirely different Kettle of Fish... But lets look at someone who is in receipt of State Welfare benefits as a sole income.

The payment rate of "This is the amount the Law says you need to live on" Which is the exact word for word statement on a Benefit Entitlement letter such as Job Seekers Allowance and Employment & Support Allowance.

I can't see how any financial penalty can be imposed in such cases?! The obvious answer is DO NOT avoid payment of your fare! But it would be spurious to suggest that such extreme cases do not occur.

So I do wonder how such things would be dealt with. Frankly, I cannot see a Court imposing a payment order of 50% which could very well be 100% of a defendants Housing Benefit. 50% of weekly income for someone on State Benefit would cause extreme hardship.

Purely for speculation, playing devils advocate and some light heartedness:

"Greedy Train Company receives award from Fare Dodgers Housing Benefit"

Would be a lovely Daily Wail headline...

When looking at Civil Consumer Credit Act Debts such as Unsecured Personal Loans, Credit Cards etc. If a debtor falls into genuine financial difficulty and resorts to State Benefits. It's well known that Courts have awarded ^1 per month to the creditor in such cases.

So are such cases dealt with by means of suspended judgement until circumstances improve (if ever) or more harsher punishments given such as prison sentences?

[ChrisB]

Dedected from benefit payment at a small ^10/^20 per week generally

[rogerw]

As someone who deals with these sorts of matters I will throw a few things into the hat.  If a defendant does not give any information as to their income this is assumed as ^400/week.  A fine of ^400 pounds suggests that the defendant had not even contacted the court and the matter was dealt with in absence.  As far as those on benefits are concerned, income is assumes as ^110/week with housing benefit not being taken into account.  Payment rates in those cases are generally ^5/per week

[devon_metro]

I now live in London, and the DLR^▸ (Docklands Light Railway) is effectively a free railway for the dishonest - I see it daily.

I'm always bemused when exiting my station (which is a terminus) by the amount of people who don't touch out!

Passengers with a valid Travelcard on Oyster^▸ (Smartcard system used by passengers on Transport for London services) do not need to touch out and obviously cannot touch out with a paper Travelcard. That assumes everyone who see not touching out holds a Travelcard...

Interesting, do I need to touch in when travelling in the morning? (I travel to a mainline terminus with barriers)

[Brucey]

Interesting, do I need to touch in when travelling in the morning? (I travel to a mainline terminus with barriers)

Provided your journey stays entirely within the zones covered by your Travelcard, then no.  In these cases, Oyster^▸ (Smartcard system used by passengers on Transport for London services) just acts as a medium on which a season ticket is stored.