Unable to pay PF at the time. Why prosecution?

[EM2]

A number of times when reading threads in this section, we see that a customer has been issued with a PF, which, for any number of reasons, they were unable to pay at the time, e.g. http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=112721
It then appears that the company concerned will write to them advising of their intent to prosecute.

My question is, why are these not treated as a UPFN first, and then passed for prosecution if that is not paid?

 

[Bletchleyite]

My question is, why are these not treated as a UPFN first, and then passed for prosecution if that is not paid?

Aren't you meant to make a partial payment, even if that is just the fare you originally would have paid? Otherwise you didn't have the means to pay for the ticket you should have bought, which is a clear-cut prosecution case.

Question is, are RPIs making that clear?

 

[Clip]

PFs can be withdrawn at any time and a better cause of action can be taken you don't have the right to a PF.

 

[Bletchleyite]

PFs can be withdrawn at any time and a better cause of action can be taken you don't have the right to a PF.

If a PF is withdrawn in order to prosecute it has to be refunded (down to the unpaid Anytime ticket price, presumably), doesn't it? That being the case making a payment (any payment) increases the barrier to withdrawing it, does it not?

 

[First class]

You can still prosecute for an outstanding/overdue Penalty Fare, if only the minimum fare has been paid, without the need to refund that part.

The only difference is that at court, the Magistrates etc cannot award the fare as compensation.

Anyway, a Penalty Fare is an offer to decriminalise the customer's behaviour by a financial penalty. There is no obligation to offer one ever- and customers who are pushing their luck, or where it is believed that they have no intention to pay the Penalty Fare anyway, could be reported straight to prosecutors.

 

[CyrusWuff]

I'd suggest that having insufficient funds to pay at least the fare due is a slam dunk for the TOC when it comes to prosecution...quite possibly under The Regulation of Railways Act 1889 rather than the Byelaws.

 

[island]

A passenger issued a Penalty Fare is required to pay at least the anytime single fare for the journey made at the time of issue. A passenger who fails or refuses to make such a payment will often be considered to be travelling with the intent to avoid payment — the outcome of which being the passenger will be reported for prosecution.

A passenger is not entitled to be dealt with by way of a Penalty Fare as of right.

 

[cjmillsnun]

A passenger issued a Penalty Fare is required to pay at least the anytime single fare for the journey made at the time of issue. A passenger who fails or refuses to make such a payment will often be considered to be travelling with the intent to avoid payment — the outcome of which being the passenger will be reported for prosecution.

I disagree. From NRCoC

You will not have to pay the full single fare or full return fare under Condition 2 if a Penalty Fare is charged, but you will need a valid ticket from the next station at which the train stops. A Train Company which operates a Penalty Fares scheme will supply you with the rules about Penalty Fares and a summary of their scheme if you ask.

That being said, I can see a TOC's point of view in that if the passenger does not even have the fare available, then it is likely that they were deliberately evading the fare.

A passenger is not entitled to be dealt with by way of a Penalty Fare as of right.

I don't disagree with that statement.

 

[island]

My statement was correct. The PF Rules require a passenger to pay the anytime single fare on the spot if charged a PF. Passengers do not need to pay the full anytime fare under condition 2, but they need to pay it under the PF Rules.

 

[cjmillsnun]

My statement was correct. The PF Rules require a passenger to pay the anytime single fare on the spot if charged a PF. Passengers do not need to pay the full anytime fare under condition 2, but they need to pay it under the PF Rules.

Again, I disagree.

https://www.ircas.co.uk/docs/SRA - Penalty Fare Rules 2002.pdf

8.2 The authorised collector may require that person to make a minimum payment that is equal to the full single fare which they would have had to pay for their journey if penalty fares had not applied. The person must be given 21 days to pay the rest of the penalty fare, starting on the day that penalty fare is charged. If the penalty fare is not paid in full immediately, it must be paid in any way that is set out in the notice referred to in rule 8.3.

My boldface. Notice the use of the word may not the word must. In other words it is not compulsory but is down to discretion (just like charging a penalty fare instead of prosecution is down to discretion). That said, I go back to my statement where I can take the TOC's point of view that if they hold no ticket at all, and are not willing to pay anything, then is a PF really applicable? More than likely not.

 

[najaB]

That said, I go back to my statement where I can take the TOC's point of view that if they hold no ticket at all, and are not willing to pay anything, then is a PF really applicable?

Or, for that matter, able to pay anything...

 

[dviner]

Or, for that matter, able to pay anything...

I'd like to chime in and point out this situation:

I have a season ticket that I use to travel to and from work. There are occasions where I have gone to work without having any cash (or money available via card) on me. So there are situations where you can board without the means to purchase a ticket for the journey you are undertaking.

(Luckily, the day that I did forget to pick up my season ticket - my station is un-barriered - I did have enough on me to pay for a single to the next station. Once I'd walked home to pick up my season ticket, and got back to the station, they'd put a revenue block in place. Could have done with them earlier...)

 

[najaB]

So there are situations where you can board without the means to purchase a ticket for the journey you are undertaking.

I don't doubt it can happen quite easily, however if you don't have the ability to pay for your ticket, nor a PF (and assuming you don't pass the attitude test) the TOC is well within it's rights to proceed down the road of taking details with an eye to prosecution.

That said, I would like to think that had that happened to you, if you had written in with a copy of your season ticket they would have allowed you to pay the single fare and close the matter.

 

[dviner]

I don't doubt it can happen quite easily, however if you don't have the ability to pay for your ticket, nor a PF (and assuming you don't pass the attitude test) the TOC is well within it's rights to proceed down the road of taking details with an eye to prosecution.

That said, I would like to think that had that happened to you, if you had written in with a copy of your season ticket they would have allowed you to pay the single fare and close the matter.

I'd hope so too. I'm also glad that the service pattern for my station meant that it was quicker/easier to do what I did, rather than just wait for the next train back and get caught in the revenue block...

However, the reason for my post was more to try and stave off too many of the "I can't understand why anyone would get on a train without the ability to pay" comments.

 

[EM2]

Some interesting answers. But here's a 'what if'...
I have enough money to buy a ticket from A to B, which I do. I unfortunately fall asleep between the two, and do not awake to alight at B. Between B and C, I am awoken and asked for my ticket, I present the ticket I purchased, I am informed I have missed my stop and am asked to pay the fare to C. I cannot do so, as I have no more money or any other method of payment.
a] Would this be a PF (if in a PF area)?
b] If so, I cannot pay the fare demanded.
c] Would the case be sent for consideration for prosecution?

 

[cjmillsnun]

Some interesting answers. But here's a 'what if'...
I have enough money to buy a ticket from A to B, which I do. I unfortunately fall asleep between the two, and do not awake to alight at B. Between B and C, I am awoken and asked for my ticket, I present the ticket I purchased, I am informed I have missed my stop and am asked to pay the fare to C. I cannot do so, as I have no more money or any other method of payment.
a] Would this be a PF (if in a PF area)?
b] If so, I cannot pay the fare demanded.
c] Would the case be sent for consideration for prosecution?

One would have to ask, why don't you have a ticket in the first place?

 

[najaB]

a] Would this be a PF (if in a PF area)?
b] If so, I cannot pay the fare demanded.
c] Would the case be sent for consideration for prosecution?

It depends a lot on if the guard thinks you are genuine. If the guard doesn't believe you then, as I see, it: yes and yes. They could see it as a way to short-fare for a journey to C.

 

[EM2]

One would have to ask, why don't you have a ticket in the first place?

Er, I do...

I have enough money to buy a ticket from A to B, which I do....Between B and C, I am awoken and asked for my ticket, I present the ticket I purchased

 

[dviner]

It depends a lot on if the guard thinks you are genuine. If the guard doesn't believe you then, as I see, it: yes and yes. They could see it as a way to short-fare for a journey to C.

The "I don't want to go to C - I wanted to go to B. How am I going to get back there" bit might be convincing.

 

[najaB]

The "I don't want to go to C - I wanted to go to B. How am I going to get back there" bit might be convincing.

The problem is that, unless they personally escort you to the other train, they don't know if you're going to just walk out of the station at C.

 

[bb21]

I disagree. From NRCoC

That being said, I can see a TOC's point of view in that if the passenger does not even have the fare available, then it is likely that they were deliberately evading the fare.

I don't disagree with that statement.

You two were talking about two completely different types of "full single fare" in your posts.

The "full single fare" mentioned in Condition 4 with reference to Condition 2 refers to the full single fare for the journey which the passenger would be liable for for the whole journey where an opportunity to pay has been ignored.

The "full single fare" island was referring to was the minimum payment for the Penalty Fare that the passenger may be required to make on the spot as per the Penalty Fares Regulations you quoted in a later post.

 

[island]

You two were talking about two completely different types of "full single fare" in your posts.

The "full single fare" mentioned in Condition 4 with reference to Condition 2 refers to the full single fare for the journey which the passenger would be liable for for the whole journey where an opportunity to pay has been ignored.

The "full single fare" island was referring to was the minimum payment for the Penalty Fare that the passenger may be required to make on the spot as per the Penalty Fares Regulations you quoted in a later post.

Indeed. And to the extent that the requirement to pay the full single fare on the spot is an optional matter, it is at the option of the authorised collector (and not the offending passenger).

But we digress, as always...