Fare evasion [original topic]

[whole diary]

[chrisoates]

Just look at the fiasco surrounding the attempted use of Electron Cards for ticket purchase on trains. 

Aren't they probably stolen or fake anyway - Googling 'Electron' doesn't produce many current results (mostly up to 2005).
Seems Chavs choice of card.
I get many mailshot offers of card but never Electron.

[willc]

Best non-existent ticket I have ever been issued was a Moreton-in-Marsh to Oxford peak day return, with a Cotswold Railcard discount applied - try finding that one in the fares manual - issued at the barrier at Oxford by a revenue protection inspector using a Portis machine. He refused to sell me a CDR^▸ (Off Peak Day Return [ticket type] (formerly 'Cheap Day')) - "and I really shouldn't give you any discount either" saying that spending 10 minutes stuck behind a queue of people at moreton booking office who didn't know what ticket they wanted and not having seen the conductor throughout the journey was no excuse not to have a ticket.

I don't know what he would have said to anyone from Hanborough - this was in the days before the ticket machine arrived there - and the regular barrier staff always issue a CDR with the railcard discount, no questions asked.

[G.Uard]

Electron/Solo cards have a slightly unfair stigma attached to them.  They enable those who cannot get a standard debit card, (for a variety of reasons), to partake in the cashless revolution, (up to a point) and to buy stuff on line.   

When I returned to the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) some years ago, I took a temp job as a Customer Relations Manager with a department store chain.  We had frequent complaints from customers who couldn't use Electron for purchases, but a call to the bank and a minor software revision cleared the way almost overnight.

These cut-down cards are available to minors and I believe that they have a special numbering system, which can alert licensed premises if they are offered in payment for alcohol.

However, I can only speculate why Avantix^▸ (Ticket Issuing System used on board trains) will not process these cards, perhaps a security risk has been identified.

[Tim]

However, I can only speculate why Avantix^▸ (Ticket Issuing System used on board trains) will not process these cards, perhaps a security risk has been identified.

My understanding is that with Electron and Solo unlike credit cards you can't spend money that you don't have, and unlike ordinary debit cards you can't spend into your overdraft (they are attached to a "basic" account without overdraft factilities).  They tend to be used by people who don't want to go into debt (or who the banks don't want to go into debt) either because they are under 18 or deemed a bad credit risk.

The only way that the POS terminal can ensure that you are in credit is by dialing through to the bank in real time and checking your account before authorising the sale (the trade mark "Electron" is supposed to allude to electrons wizzing down the wire to authorise your purchase).  No problem at stations with fixed phone lines, but on trains it would require a reliable wireless signal at all times (including in tunnels etc).  I suspect that this is why Advantix doesn't process them ().  Alternatively FGW^▸ (First Great Western) may have decided to to accept them because the card fee being charged by the bank is too high (this is the main reason why American Express is not as widely accepted as Visa, although I note FGW take Amex)

[Tim]

I get many mailshot offers of card but never Electron

This is because unlike credit cards you can't go into debt on them and thereby earn lots of interest for the banks.  They tend to offer them to folk who they don't want to lend to.  They must deem you an acceptable credit risk

[G.Uard]

I should have explained that Avantix^▸ (Ticket Issuing System used on board trains), when in card mode, (as used on FGW^▸ (First Great Western)), is Bluetoothed  to a Dionne Chip & Pin reader which seeks authorisation for each transaction and will decline cards if necessary.

Problem is that the Dionne is a temperamental pile of ****. The system can however, be over-ridden in case of (frequent), failure, by swiping the magnetic strip on a card through the actual Avantix machine and 'theoretically' obtaining telephone authorisation for the transaction.  I have done this a few times when processing a high value transaction via swipe.  It takes ages.

I guess the lack of an overdraft buffer as explained above and the reluctance of operators to seek authorisation for a small transaction is one reason why these cards are not accepted on trains

[super tm]

I should have explained that Avantix^▸ (Ticket Issuing System used on board trains), when in card mode, (as used on FGW^▸ (First Great Western)), is Bluetoothed  to a Dionne Chip & Pin reader which seeks authorisation for each transaction and will decline cards if necessary.

This is a common misconception.  The Dionne Chip & Pin redaer does not seek authorisation.  It merely checks that the pin is correct.  It will decline cards against a list it holds in its memory which is updated each time the advantix is returned to the base station.

That is why is still works going through a tunnel !!

[super tm]

alcohol.

However, I can only speculate why Avantix^▸ (Ticket Issuing System used on board trains) will not process these cards, perhaps a security risk has been identified.

As in my previous post to process an electron card you must have authorisation from the bank for each purchase which Advantix cannot do.  Hence they cannot be used on train.

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) do accept them at ticket offices however.

[G.Uard]

Thanks STM, that explains a lot. I now have another wrinkle.

Still doesn't help with the issue of fare evasion when customers proffer these cards for payment in full awareness that they are not valid for on-train ticket purchase though.

[super tm]

 

(They cannot be processed by Avantix^▸ (Ticket Issuing System used on board trains) at present although they are acceptable in some TVMs^▸ (Ticket Vending Machine) and at booking offices). Unfortunately, it is clear that Scrotes in the know proffer these on a daily basis. However, it is difficult to prosecute and almost impossible to prove intent as it would be unreasonable to expect passengers to research enough to find the limitations on Electron, (and Solo) cards.

Yes but what revenue do is give a warning the first time they try to buy the ticket on the train with such cards.  Keep the details and then the next time they prosecute.  The passenger cant reasonbly say that they did not know because they have already been warned.

[G.Uard]

OK for the RP teams but we get this on a daily basis, often from the same Scrote and usually for a stupidly small fare. There is a memo from RP, (explaining the legal perspective), on the wall of GCR^» (Gloucester - next trains) depot telling us to treat all incidences of this problem as ticket irregularity.

[vacman]

Firstly, FGW^▸ (First Great Western) don't use the CPS to prosecute, they are the only TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) that has it's own prosecutions unit, based at Reading, they also prosecuted for Transpennine express, most fare evasion cases wouldn't be touched by the CPS as they are to minor.

As for the Electron or Solo scam, well you CAN be prosecuted for only having this as a means of payment if joining from a staffed station or infact a station with an operational TVM^▸ (Ticket Vending Machine), good old byelaw 18 which is something like "any person who joins a train for the purpouse of travelling, from a station which has ticket issuing facilities must be in possession of a valid ticket before joining" so TECHNICLY anyone from a manned station without a ticket can be done for that one, I think Penalty fares ride on the back of this byelaw, obviously you couldn't prosecute everyone and it wouldn't be right to do so anyway BUT it is handy for the scrotes with solo/electron cards, however, this byelaw is a "lazy" one as you don't need to prove any intent so the BTP^▸ (British Transport Police) usually use it for scrotes as it saves the paperwork..problem is, as it's a byelaw then you'll never get more than a ^50 fine and you won't get a criminal record!

[G.Uard]

The Theft Act 1968  relies on intent and any prosecution under it must satisfy that criteria.  By-law offences are a little different as pointed out, but whilst making some aspects of this problem clear, the extent of the minefield is shown by the responses this thread has generated.

I have managed to get hold of a Dine manual BTW^▸ (by the way).  These beasts can operate in polling or online mode and have the capability to contact card issuers in real time from a remote location.  Frankly I am puzzled why pins are accepted and transactions declined because although the terminal will store all transaction info until it is connected to the bank at end of shift, there does not appear to be any facility to store dodgy card details.  The PDA can do this though.  I need to ask around.

[vacman]

Persons suspected of fare eveasion are prosecuted under section's 5.3 a, b and c of the regulation of railways act 1889 and not the theft act, it is a quite serious offence being level 3 (so is imprisonable).
Proving the intent of fare evasion is not as difficult as people may think, when RPI^▸ (Revenue Protection Inspector (or Retail Price Index, depending on the context))'s do a barrier block i've seen them outside the station beyond the booking office so that anyone coming off a train who they catch there has proved the intent by walking past the booking office (their last chance to pay) and when they are stopped they have left without paying thus the intent is proved "if you had not been stopped then how would your fare have been paid?" if they say "i'd have paid later" then they are admitting that they would not have paid before leaving railway property.

[G.Uard]

Update on the Dione, (for anyone really interested) .  To be used on-line, they need a SIM, which sits inside the battery compartment like a GSM phone.  As ours don't have the SIM, it means that they don't dial out, (just as STM explained above), and thus operate in polling mode only.  I believe, though am not certain, that the bank info is held on the PDA and not the Dione itself.  These 2 chat via Bluetooth during transactions.  As this is a highly arcane area, it is possible that my info is not 100% accurate, but this is really a side theme to the main event of fare evasion.  Thanks tho to STM for putting me on the right track re credit card authorisations.


With regard to the legal position, a little research has shown that minor prosecutions can be and are generally, though not exclusively, brought under s5 RRA 1889 by competent in house staff or the CPS, depending on the franchise.  However these are for summary offences, i.e. 'basic' fare evasion, (triable only by Magistrates).  Nevertheless, a conviction under s5 does result in a criminal record, so the standard of proof, (which will include reasonableness), is set correspondingly high.

I am therefore happy to concede that vacman had the most of the right of this debate, but in my defence I was originally looking to illustrate the concept of reasonableness. 

A little more internet research throws up that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) are not alone in having a prosecutions unit, (for summary offences). TFL^▸ (Transport for London) and I believe parts of London Midland also have this facility, although it seems that across all these units, prosecutions are not encouraged unless 'nailed on', due to the costs and complexity of appeals procedures etc. 



Finally...

The Theft Act 1978, especially Sections 2 and 3, can be used where there is evidence of premeditation, or persistence, or repeat offending, or large loss by the transport authority. Where tickets have been forged, altered or defaced resulting in a charge under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, the matter would have to be referred to Crown Prosecution Service or the Rail Company will need to engage appropriate legal representation as these are "either or offences" for which any person accused may elect to trial by jury.