Penalty Fares

[arabianights]

I have been leafing through the magistrate sentencing guidelines (nothing to do with a railway offence - a neighbour did something to a member of my family and I have been trying to figure out likely sentence) and I happened to notice that penalty fares are listed under "Annex B: Offences for which penalty notices are available".

Does this suggest perhaps that, whatever their original intention, the legal fraternity, like I think your average person on the street, tends to consider penalty fares are, well, penalties - and not really tickets in the sense of higher priced ones for people who have made a genuine mistake, which is my understanding of what they technically are supposed to be according to ATOC? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

 

[First class]

I have been leafing through the magistrate sentencing guidelines (nothing to do with a railway offence - a neighbour did something to a member of my family and I have been trying to figure out likely sentence) and I happened to notice that penalty fares are listed under "Annex B: Offences for which penalty notices are available".

Does this suggest perhaps that, whatever their original intention, the legal fraternity, like I think your average person on the street, tends to consider penalty fares are, well, penalties - and not really tickets in the sense of higher priced ones for people who have made a genuine mistake, which is my understanding of what they technically are supposed to be according to ATOC? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Penalty Fares are PENALTIES. Nobody tries to disguise that. They aren't FINES.

Train Operators can apply for statutory permission to impose penalties in certain circumstances.

You are issued a Penalty Fare, when you make a genuine mistake, as opposed to prosecution for deliberate evasion.

The Sentencing Guidelines you refer to are more in relation to police/council Fixed Penalty Notices, rather than Penalty Fares.

 

[arabianights]

Penalty Fares are PENALTIES. Nobody tries to disguise that. They aren't FINES.

Train Operators can apply for statutory permission to impose penalties in certain circumstances.

You are issued a Penalty Fare, when you make a genuine mistake, as opposed to prosecution for deliberate evasion.

The Sentencing Guidelines you refer to are more in relation to police/council Fixed Penalty Notices, rather than Penalty Fares.

Thank you, it seems I have indeed got the wrong end of the stick!

 

[furlong]

Does this suggest perhaps that, whatever their original intention, the legal fraternity, like I think your average person on the street, tends to consider penalty fares are, well, penalties - and not really tickets in the sense of higher priced ones for people who have made a genuine mistake, which is my understanding of what they technically are supposed to be according to ATOC?

Terminology like "genuine mistake" is best avoided as it is open to different interpretations (and I can find no legal basis for it).

Penalty Fares do not entail an admission of guilt and offer a convenient out-of-court disposal for people who could otherwise have been prosecuted for deliberate fare evasion (under RoRA). Recall that a scheme mandates the presence of sufficient warnings such that lack of a valid ticket can be deemed dishonest automatically (albeit subject to various documented safeguards).

I believe the guidelines you mention indicate that if someone is prosecuted without first being offered a Penalty Fare where a scheme applies, it is open to the court to conclude that the sentence should match what the Penalty Fare would have been had it been offered and not to award costs. Or in other words, prosecutors are encouraged to reserve the courts system for serious cases (such as persistent offenders).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You are issued a Penalty Fare, when you make a genuine mistake, as opposed to prosecution for deliberate evasion.

I can find no basis for any such distinction.

As far as I can see, where a scheme applies, both Penalty Fares and prosecution only cover deliberate evasion - lack of a valid ticket can automatically be deemed to be deliberate because of the mandated warning notices, and without that assumption of deliberate evasion, there would have been no basis for the ability to charge a Penalty Fare.

 

[island]

I don't think one can safely conclude that penalty fares are only issued to deal with deliberate evasion.

Consider a passenger with a Southern Only ticket who travels on a Thameslink train for whatever reason. Or a passenger who travels to Dartford to find nowhere to touch out his Oyster card. Or a passenger who falls asleep and inadvertently overtravels. Or a non-passenger who inadvertently strays into a compulsory ticket area whilst seeing off a family member but without acquiring the necessary platform ticket. I don't think any of those people could seriously be said to be deliberately evading fares, but each is eligible for a Penalty Fare.

 

[LexyBoy]

The stated intention of Penalty Fares is to be a penalty for people who do not hold the correct ticket in some way, but are not suspected of deliberate wrongdoing (presumably the idea being to put people who don't have an encyclopaedic grasp of ticket rules off travelling by train, who knows).

It is my belief that the real reason is to act as a deterrent to would-be fare evaders: if you dodge a £5 fare, you would have to succeed at least four times for every time you're caught to be worthwhile. Most similar schemes abroad are upfront about this aim (and have correspondingly higher fines).

Penalty Fares are PENALTIES. Nobody tries to disguise that. They aren't FINES.

They are synonymous to most people: a fine being a financial penalty (as opposed to, e.g. a penalty spanking, which might be frowned upon).

 

[talltim]

And on the EMT train I was on a couple of nights ago, the guard/TM/whatever referred to them as fines.

 

[Greenback]

It is my belief that the real reason is to act as a deterrent to would-be fare evaders: if you dodge a £5 fare, you would have to succeed at least four times for every time you're caught to be worthwhile. Most similar schemes abroad are upfront about this aim (and have correspondingly higher fines).

I agree with this interpretation. I remember when Penalty Fares were first introduced. It was said that it was a deterrent to people who would only pay when challenged at a time when staff numbers were being reduced and people would otherwise take advantage of this to only buy a ticket when the opportunity presented itself on board the train.

 

[furlong]

I don't think one can safely conclude that penalty fares are only issued to deal with deliberate evasion.

Passengers bear the responsibility of reading the warning signs and checking and understanding the validity of their ticket. If they fail to do this, perhaps you would argue their fare evasion was not 'deliberate' but a line has to be drawn somewhere.

When the burden of proof is reversed as it is with Penalty Fares, some situations that appear unfair are probably inevitable, but you would expect discretion and the appeals process to deal with these adequately. Where they don't, individuals affected should take it up with the DfT to try to persuade them to amend the rules.