Rail companies told to stop treating passengers like criminals

[whole diary]

[TaplowGreen]

http://metro.co.uk/2015/02/02/rail-companies-told-to-stop-treating-passengers-like-criminals-5046930/

[stuving]

Here is the announcement from Claire Perry:

The government has launched a consultation on proposals that will make the rail penalty fare system fairer for passengers.
Rail tickets
Appealing against penalty rail fares will become fairer and more open under new proposals unveiled by the Department for Transport today (3 February 2015).

Penalty fares can be charged by train operators if a passenger is found to be travelling without a valid ticket. A process already exists to enable those who think they have been charged incorrectly or unfairly to make appeals through 1 of 2 appeal bodies.

The government is launching a consultation on a number of proposals that will make the system fairer for passengers and more consistent across the industry.

Rail Minister Claire Perry said:

More people are using our railways than ever, and passengers rightly expect that we take strong action against fare dodgers. But passengers penalised through no fault of their own must be treated fairly.

That^s why we have listened to passenger groups and are working with the rail industry to improve the system so it is clearer, fairer and easier to use.

Currently passengers can appeal either through the Independent Revenue Collection and Support (IRCAS) or the Independent Penalty Fares Appeals Service (IPFAS).

Measures for public consultation include:

• requiring train operators to remove the reference to criminal sanctions in letters chasing penalty fare payment. Government will provide new guidance to train operators to make clear that the threat of criminal sanctions for non-payment of a penalty fare, which is a civil offence, is not appropriate. Criminal sanctions will still apply in suspected cases of deliberate fare evasion
  
• requiring all appeal bodies to adopt the ^stop the clock^ measure. This means that those appealing do not have to pay the penalty fare until a final ruling has been reached. The 21-day deadline for payment will be suspended when an appeal is received by the appeals body, and will only resume once a letter notifying the outcome has been issued. Only 1 of the 2 existing appeals bodies already uses ^stop the clock^
  
• requiring all appeals bodies to be independent of transport operators and owning groups. Currently, the IPFAS is owned by the Go-Ahead group, which runs Southeastern. IPFAS will need to be separated from its current owner to continue to consider appeals
  
• creating an independent appeals process to make final decisions. This will look at cases which have been considered twice by the appeals bodies and remain unresolved. This would give passengers further assurance their case has been fully and independently reviewed
  
• regular ^health checks^ of the system by government. We will ask train operators and appeals bodies to supply penalty fare and appeals information regularly to ensure that they are complying with the code of practice.
  

The public consultation will run from 3 February to 27 April 2015.

[Network SouthEast]

It's ridiculous that a TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) owner can run a penalty fare appeals body. I welcome anything that makes them truly independent.

[Brucey]

It's ridiculous that a TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) owner can run a penalty fare appeals body.

They aren't just another child company of the parent group either.  IPFAS is actually just a trading name of a TOC (London & South Eastern Railway Limited).  How they can call themselves independent is beyond me.

[broadgage]

I have seen a couple of cases of penalty fares being imposed unreasonably.
The worst was from Taunton to London, numerous passengers had advance tickets valid "on booked train only" they boarded what they believed to be the correct train.
On board they were told that in fact they were on an earlier train that was running late and that therefore stopped a few minutes after the time at which the correct train SHOULD have stopped.

Penalties were paid by the better behaved passengers, those in a more aggressive mood threatened to "deal with" the RPIs^▸ (Revenue Protection Inspector, or Retail Price Index, depending on context) and paid nothing.

This most unfortunate episode showed two things to the victims, firstly that large "fines" imposed seemingly at random are a hazard of rail travel, and secondly that threatening to thump the RPIs can save a lot of money.
One victim felt so strongly as to state that imposing a substantial "fine" for getting on what looked like the right train was in fact robbery and that the law permits the use of "reasonable force" in defence of ones person or property against robbers.
Many expressed the view that had they waited for the late running correct train, that they probably would have been "fined" for not getting the earlier one!

Such episodes are fortunately rare, but they can generate a lot a bad publicity and ill feeling.
I am not aware of any other industry that has the power to impose substantial "fines" on its customers.

I have only been penalty fared once, and reluctantly paid up as it WAS my fault for missing a restriction on the validity of my ticket (virgin, not FGW^▸ (First Great Western))

[stuving]

I am not aware of any other industry that has the power to impose substantial "fines" on its customers.

Really? What about car hire?

In fact, any kind of equipment hire will have penalties for damage or in some cases late return (even public libraries!). And then there are leases and tenancies. In a lot of these cases a substantial deposit is taken against your future penalty payment. I'm sure there are loads of others, if you start thinking of all those consumer contracts where you have to be trusted with or to do sosmething.

[ellendune]

I am not aware of any other industry that has the power to impose substantial "fines" on its customers.

Really? What about car hire?

In fact, any kind of equipment hire will have penalties for damage or in some cases late return (even public libraries!). And then there are leases and tenancies. In a lot of these cases a substantial deposit is taken against your future penalty payment. I'm sure there are loads of others, if you start thinking of all those consumer contracts where you have to be trusted with or to do sosmething.

I think you will find almost all of these must demonstrate that it is recompense for a genuine loss rather than a penalty.