A "cooling off" period for Penalty Fares?

[CNash]

Forgive me for asking what may be a naïve question, but is there a reason why Penalty Fares must be accepted at the time of their offering, or else the offer is withdrawn and a prosecution is likely brought?

It's just that I've seen so many threads on this forum where the passenger has been offered a Penalty Fare by a revenue officer, only to decline it because they believe it to be an admittance of guilt or an undue punishment. They're not made aware (or if they are, not sufficiently) that a Penalty Fare is a one-time offer and that the consequences of refusal are likely to be greater than accepting it and appealing later.

So, with this in mind, why not allow a "cooling off" or "grace" period? The revenue officer takes down their name and address, they walk away with the form, and are given... say, five working days to pay? That way, they have the chance to get home, relax, read the conditions of the penalty fare, seek advice from this forum, and decide with the full benefit of knowledge whether to pay it and then appeal, or to decline it and fight their corner in court.

 

[CallySleeper]

This is a great point. The fact of the matter is that there is, I believe 21 days for the person to pay though this might differ from TOC to TOC.

My question though - are those who get a penalty fare aware of this? Do they assume that they have to?

Therefore, is "I don't have the means to pay on the spot" being misconstrued by RPIs as "I won't accept this or pay this outright"? Is being unaware of the above causing people to reject penalty fares outright?

 

[island]

A Penalty Fare is a lesser sanction that can be applied if a passenger cooperates. Non-cooperative passengers who have chosen to commit an offence are liable to be dealt with more severely.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
One should also consider the frequency of which, and motivations to, supply false details.

 

[WelshBluebird]

A Penalty Fare is a lesser sanction that can be applied if a passenger cooperates. Non-cooperative passengers who have chosen to commit an offence are liable to be dealt with more severely.

The point the OP is making (and I made in another thread) is that most people do not know a penalty fare is a lesser sanction. Indeed the very name (penalty, meaning punishment) certainly does not give the impression it is a lesser punishment that does not carry the "admission of intended guilt" that it is often seen to carry by those not in the know.

 

[CNash]

A Penalty Fare is a lesser sanction that can be applied if a passenger cooperates. Non-cooperative passengers who have chosen to commit an offence are liable to be dealt with more severely.

I'm aware of this. The point I'm making is that if the passenger knew the consequences of refusing to accept the Penalty Fare, they would be more "cooperative"! Or rather, they're only "non-cooperative" because the details of what a Penalty Fare means and why it's issued aren't adequately explained.

In addition, a confrontation on a busy station concourse is not the best atmosphere in which to make rational decisions; those without detailed knowledge of the railway ticketing system, or those who are unable to stay cool and not get flustered, are at a distinct disadvantage. Being able to go away and think about what to do in a more relaxed setting would help a great deal.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
One should also consider the frequency of which, and motivations to, supply false details.

I fear that that's it's own problem; someone who's predisposed to giving false details would do so anyway, regardless of the level of sanction being applied. I'd also wager that people who tend to give false details are split between regular fare evaders (to whom the Penalty Fare scheme shouldn't apply) and people who aren't aware that revenue officers can verify names and addresses right there and then!

This is a great point. The fact of the matter is that there is, I believe 21 days for the person to pay though this might differ from TOC to TOC.

Off the top of my head, I believe that you do have to pay at least part of the Penalty Fare (thus accepting it) in order to have the 21 days, or however long, to pay the remainder of the balance. It functions a little like a Permit to Travel voucher.

 

[Clip]

The point the OP is making (and I made in another thread) is that most people do not know a penalty fare is a lesser sanction. Indeed the very name (penalty, meaning punishment) certainly does not give the impression it is a lesser punishment that does not carry the "admission of intended guilt" that it is often seen to carry by those not in the know.

And yet again we go down the route that a poster tries to claim ignorance as a defence.

It doesn't matter how you wrap it up, twist it, try and poke holes in it, the penalty fare scheme is robust and has been in force for nearly 3 decades. I guarantee you that people have tried it on as some sort of barrack room lawyer and most if not all have failed.

Have a problem with the penalty fare scheme? Write to your MP.

Its getting tedious now.

 

[CNash]

Neither I nor WelshBluebird are "defending" those who receive Penalty Fares, just arguing that if their intended purpose is to deal with "honest mistakes", people should be adequately informed of this and given the chance to think over their decision to accept or decline the Penalty Fare - instead of being forced to make a snap judgement in the face of an antagonistic revenue officer on a busy station concourse!

Nothing I've suggested would serve to get them out of their sanction; on reflection, they would either pay the Penalty Fare, refuse to pay (and chance a prosecution) or pay then appeal, exactly as it is now.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Perhaps it's time for ATOC to update the Penalty Fares warning posters to include the consequences if you turn down a PF or are unable to pay at least the undiscounted fare due.

 

[b0b]

Perhaps it's time for ATOC to update the Penalty Fares warning posters to include the consequences if you turn down a PF or are unable to pay at least the undiscounted fare due.

perhaps its time to rename "penalty fare" to something more "honest customer" friendly, such as a "no ticket convenience surcharge".

to the regular person thats caught out by circumstance, the whole "penalty fare" system appears on its face to be extremely heavy handed and I can see why someone would easily think they didn't "deserve" it and turn down paying the PF, not realizing/being aware that the next step could be a court summons.

I'd personally probably suspect the people that seem to willingly pay PFs are actual professional fare dodgers.

 

[anme]

And yet again we go down the route that a poster tries to claim ignorance as a defence.

It doesn't matter how you wrap it up, twist it, try and poke holes in it, the penalty fare scheme is robust and has been in force for nearly 3 decades. I guarantee you that people have tried it on as some sort of barrack room lawyer and most if not all have failed.

Have a problem with the penalty fare scheme? Write to your MP.

Its getting tedious now.

No one has argued that ignorance is a defence in a court of law. It isn't. The thread is about changing the system in a way that would give people longer to accept a penalty fare as an alternative to other action. You might think that's a good idea or not, but it has nothing to do with barrack room lawyers, or letting people escape the consequences of their actions.

Personally my first reaction is that I would be in favour of this change, or other measures to make the consequences of declining a penalty fare clear before that option is removed from the table.

 

[island]

What incentive do TOCs have to make Penalty Fares more likely to be accepted, given that the alternative is likely to be an out of court settlement of several times the PF amount?

Genuine question.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Incentive?
How about a little thing called "Goodwill"?

It's hard to obtain, easy to loose, and an invaluable asset.

To be clear - I'm talking about in cases of "genuine" mistake.

 

[Tetchytyke]

the penalty fare scheme is robust and has been in force for nearly 3 decades.

It is legally robust, sort of, thanks to the badly-drafted Byelaws, but it is ethically robust? I'm not convinced. Not least because the "independent appeals body" is anything but.

I think what we're seeing on this form is what I predicted last year, when Northern were allowed to invent their own "Penalty Fare" scheme- with cooperation from TfGM- far in excess of the statutory scheme. TOCs don't want to use the statutory scheme anymore because they know the statutory scheme will only give them £20 but the Northern pretend scheme will give them £80+. So TOCs will find any reason they can to ignore the statutory scheme and use the pretend scheme instead.

And the TOCs know they will get away with it. Northern have TfGM on board as a stakeholder. ATOC will blithely claim it's for "customer convenience". DafT will do Fanny Adams and Passenger Focus are about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

I'd happily have Penalty Fares of £80, though, if a) all TOCs had to abide by the terms of it- including ticket office staffing- and b) there was a truly independent Ombudsman for rail.

 

[bb21]

Incentive?
How about a little thing called "Goodwill"?

It's hard to obtain, easy to loose, and an invaluable asset.

To be clear - I'm talking about in cases of "genuine" mistake.

What's hard to obtain?

perhaps its time to rename "penalty fare" to something more "honest customer" friendly, such as a "no ticket convenience surcharge".

to the regular person thats caught out by circumstance, the whole "penalty fare" system appears on its face to be extremely heavy handed and I can see why someone would easily think they didn't "deserve" it and turn down paying the PF, not realizing/being aware that the next step could be a court summons.

I'd personally probably suspect the people that seem to willingly pay PFs are actual professional fare dodgers.

It makes no difference what you call it. A £20 (soon to go up to £50 or £80 depending on who you believe) "surcharge" will be seen as a penalty.

 

[ian959]

Incentive?
How about a little thing called "Goodwill"?

It's hard to obtain, easy to loose, and an invaluable asset.

To be clear - I'm talking about in cases of "genuine" mistake.

There is no such thing as "goodwill" with respect of the railways so why would any TOC be concerned about it. You want to travel from point A to point B you either take their train or use the bus/car - they don't particularly worry about it. Under any franchise arrangement, goodwill is anything but an invaluable asset anyway - you cannot really sell it despite what the accountants like me might say, more especially so under the privatised railway where after a specified period of time you lose the franchise unless you happen to be successful in reapplying for it.

The only real thing wrong with the existing Penalty Fare system is that it is not compulsory across the whole network and the advice of the scheme to the public on the posters is perhaps not as expansive as it could be.

 

[jkdd77]

Off the top of my head, I believe that you do have to pay at least part of the Penalty Fare (thus accepting it) in order to have the 21 days, or however long, to pay the remainder of the balance. It functions a little like a Permit to Travel voucher.

I understand that a passenger must pay at least the full single fare upon demand, in part payment of the PF.

I have seen threads where OPs have been given a binary choice of paying the entire amount of a PF, up front, or instead be reported for prosecution for the substantive offence, with any attempt by the passenger to make part payment of the single fare at the time being flatly refused by the RPI. This seems, at the very least, to go against the spirit of the rules requiring only a full single fare at the time and giving 21 days to pay the balance.

 

[30907]

If we want a new name, I've seen the bus equivalent called a Standard Fare. However that would probably get confused with standard class...

 

[bunnahabhain]

I'd happily have Penalty Fares of £80, though, if a) all TOCs had to abide by the terms of it- including ticket office staffing- and b) there was a truly independent Ombudsman for rail.

Personally I'd go for the Swiss method where the penalty is approximately the same as the price for a 1 or 2 month all zones ticket for your local area. Doubles the second time you do it, and so on.

 

[yorkie]

How about a little thing called "Goodwill"?

It's hard to obtain, easy to loose, and an invaluable asset.

To be clear - I'm talking about in cases of "genuine" mistake.

Penalty Fare TOCs give out goodwill by issuing Penalty Fares if a passenger makes a genuine mistake under certain circumstances.

Other TOCs charge a 'normal' fare.

If you believe all TOCs should charge a 'normal' fare then you effectively want the PF scheme to be abolished, so your best bet is to write to your MP and also ask Passenger Focus to launch a campaign.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If we want a new name, I've seen the bus equivalent called a Standard Fare. However that would probably get confused with standard class...

Indeed, and Anytime fares, given the old name for Anytime was Standard Open and the old name for Anytime Day was Standard Day.

Many people still use the old "Standard Open" or "Saver" names!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

... and b) there was a truly independent Ombudsman for rail.

A truly independent ombudsman with powers? And the ability to fine and/or prosecute TOCs for breaches of the TSA, NRCoC etc? No chance of this ever happening. The TOCs won't stand for it, and the toothless DfT doesn't have the appetite for it. It's not a level playing field, and the TOCs like it that way and aren't going to let that change.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have seen threads where OPs have been given a binary choice of paying the entire amount of a PF, up front, or instead be reported for prosecution for the substantive offence, with any attempt by the passenger to make part payment of the single fare at the time being flatly refused by the RPI. This seems, at the very least, to go against the spirit of the rules requiring only a full single fare at the time and giving 21 days to pay the balance.

Agreed, but I'm not sure how this practice can be stopped.

 

[CNash]

Penalty Fare TOCs give out goodwill by issuing Penalty Fares if a passenger makes a genuine mistake under certain circumstances.

The problem is that many people don't recognise that a Penalty Fare is "goodwill" at all...

 

[yorkie]

The problem is that many people don't recognise that a Penalty Fare is "goodwill" at all...

Ha! Well, in some cases it arguably isn't, while in others it actually is!

I'm not content with the idea that Chiltern can charge a Penalty Fare to a passenger holding an LM Only ticket, while a passenger holding a via High Wycome ticket would be charged potentially a couple of quid for a change of route excess if they used LM or Virgin. The former clearly isn't "goodwill" at all!

Yet the same 'penalty' is often applied to people who are blatantly trying to avoid purchasing any sort of ticket whatsoever, and for whom a Penalty Fare is not appropriate and shouldn't be charged, but the TOC doesn't have the resources to do anything else.

Unfortunately there's no easy solutions I can think of, although if it was up to me, I'd remove some of the circumstances in which a PF can apply.

 

[furlong]

just arguing that if their intended purpose is to deal with "honest mistakes",

Where is the evidence to back up this claim?

On the contrary, penalty fares never were intended for honest passengers.

I've quoted from the SRA 2002 guidelines in other posts, but I repeat:

A penalty fares scheme reverses the normal ‘burden of proof ’ which would apply if a person was prosecuted for not paying their fare.
...
For this reason, we [SRA, 2002] see our main role as making sure that the interests of honest passengers are protected

And here are some quotes from one of the Parliamentary debates for the original bill:

There have been arguments that the penalty fare will make criminals of honest passengers. This is just not so.

The innocent are protected by the Bill, but it is only fair that the dishonest traveller should be caught. However, even when he is caught he is not a criminal

One of the social benefits of this Bill is that it will take most ticketless travel outside the scope of the criminal law and will free the hard-pressed magistrates' courts to deal with other serious business.

If, however, a passenger on a train is not in possession of a ticket, he is not to be treated as a criminal under this Bill. He is simply asked to pay a penalty fare, which is a civil penalty and not a criminal one. If there are good reasons why he has not been able to obtain a ticket before travelling, not even this civil penalty will be due. Only if there is evidence of an intent to avoid payment may the passenger be liable to prosecution.

The objective is that no passenger should have to queue for more than three minutes to purchase a ticket at normal times.

Where there are inordinate delays a deferred fare authority [Permit to Travel] can be purchased to avoid the penalty fare, and from unstaffed stations no penalty fare will be payable provided the passenger proffers his fare to the ticket examiner or guard as soon as possible after joining the train. For example, let us suppose that there was an unusually long queue at a ticket office at a small station where no deferred fare authority machine [PERTIS] was provided. In this case a passenger could certainly challenge any request for a penalty fare. If it were not possible to resolve the issue on the train the passenger would be issued with a penalty fare notice requiring payment within 21 days. He would have ample time to set out his case to the designated railway manager who, if he agreed, after checking with the station concerned, would thereupon withdraw the penalty fare notice.

 

[Tetchytyke]

And that is a lesson in how Government works. The policy intention when Penalty Fares were brought in in the 1980s will have been to discourage fraudulent travel- £20 was a lot of money back then. But very quickly commercial companies will seek to exploit the law for profit, hence why TOC-only and Advance tickets are treated as "no ticket" rather than "wrong ticket", for instance.

It's clear now that the TOCs are not interested in honesty or dishonesty, they're simply interested in as much cash as possible. The Byelaws only help them with this, thanks to strict liability, and the acquiescence of successive Governments of every colour.

The desire for profit is seen best with Northern. Rather than incur the cost and obligations of the statutory Penalty Fare scheme- something they already operated in Airedale and Wharfedale, and chose to abolish- they simply exploited the Byelaws to create a pretend scheme. Thanks to strict liability legislation, they know that they can charge what they want because, if a passenger takes it to court, the passenger will lose, even if the ticket office had only one window open and a queue thirty-deep. The other TOCs have seen them get away with it and have followed suit, hence why we're seeing far more silly stuff get "reported for prosecution". Why charge a £20 Penalty Fare when you can ching someone for £120?

 

[Yew]

I think that when someone declines a penalty fare, it should be made extremely clear that the letter they will receive, will not be asking for a penalty fare, but escalating it towards a court summons..

I think this whole ombudsman idea, I might have to write to my MP

 

[bb21]

Where is the evidence to back up this claim?

On the contrary, penalty fares never were intended for honest passengers.

I think there is confusion between the terms "honest mistakes" and "honest passengers". The legislation is intended for "honest mistakes", ie. one with no intention to defraud. I wouldn't even know how to define the term "honest passenger".

Most interesting remarks, especially those on queue times.

I think this whole ombudsman idea, I might have to write to my MP

Good luck. You will need it.

You are not the only one to have campaigned / wanting to campaign for it.