First Class Penalty on Southern

[najaB]

I would make this a strict liability offence!

Guilty as charged. *hangs head in shame*

 

[island]

I am unclear whether the OP was refused the opportunity to pay the £20 penalty fare within 21 days or is unwilling to make that payment.

If it can still be paid it would seem eminently sensible to do so without delay.

To prosecute a ticket holding passenger because they do not have the means to pay an unexpected £20 on the spot seems draconian

A passenger charged a Penalty Fare on a train must make a payment on the spot at least equal to the full single fare from where he started his journey to the next station. The OP said he told the Authorised Collector that he had no means to do so; therefore, the option of having the matter disposed of by way of a Penalty Fare was no longer open to the OP.

My thoughts:

• This case seems to me to be one where the much-quoted "attitude test" was failed, which failure may have contributed to the now threatened prosecution of the OP.
• I find it most difficult indeed to believe that someone would make a journey to London without any means whatsoever of payment for expenses expected (such as luncheon) or unexpected (such as a taxi fare) to arise during that day. (I cannot personally conceive of going beyond the end of my street without cash or a bank card.)
• I rarely travel in First Class but it is trivially true that passengers pay more to sit there so those without the correct ticket should make the effort to avoid using the section.

 

[LAX54]

and of course the RPI/TTI would have heard every excuse in the book a thousand times over, sadly the genuine ones are out-numbered by the 'cheats' and end up paying the cost.
There is a car-park near where I work, some would rather 'chance' a penalty ticket rather than pay, the theory in the thinking, is overall they will pay less in 'fines' than they would over time paying a daily charge.
same here, for all the RPI knows, this is just someone who maybe does it on a regualar basis, and has been caught, not helped by the 'attitude' issues, which of course tends to go with the territory when 'guilty' bods are caught !

At then end of the day he is a victim of the modern world where everyone seems to try and get something for nothing, the innocent get fined / charged the same as the 'regulars'

like others, I too would not venture anywhere near London with no funds at all !! scary or what ?:-?

 

[Magicake]

Just to see if I understand correctly - it seems that "intent" can be defined more broadly than I previously appreciated. It's not just a deliberate intent not to pay the correct fare, but also a lack of intent to pay the correct fare, even if that lack of intent might follow from a lack of knowledge that a fare was due (in this case because the OP accidentally sat in first class).

Is this correct?

Could this apply in other scenarios where a passenger makes a mistake? For example - passenger at station A buys a ticket from A to B, fully intending to travel to B. However, she accidentally gets on the wrong train and ends up travelling towards C. C is in the opposite direction to B, and not on a valid route; so her ticket has no validity on the train. Is she potentially liable to a Railways Act prosecution, on the grounds that she is on a train from A to C, but had no intention to ever pay the fare from A to C?

That is a very clear description of how intention seems to be defined.

Regarding your example I suspect that the customer is not committing a RoRA offence if he realises he is on the wrong train and intends to buy a ticket to cover the journey he ends up having made at station C. If, however, he is not aware of being on the wrong train then technically he does have intention not to pay 'his fare'.

 

[6Gman]

This is ridiculous. Anyone who's going on about "making sure you travel in the correct class of accommodation" (because no staff with Standard Class travel passes ever sit in First, do they?) clearly hasn't seen the train in question. It's exactly the same. Almost impossible to tell in some variations when there's already people sat down.

I've been travelling on Standard Class travel facilities for over 50 years (!). The only example of sitting in First I can recall was when the TM advised me to sit in First because, it appears, I was entitled to do so with that operator on that date.

 

[Andrewlong]

[*]I find it most difficult indeed to believe that someone would make a journey to London without any means whatsoever of payment for expenses expected (such as luncheon) or unexpected (such as a taxi fare) to arise during that day. (I cannot personally conceive of going beyond the end of my street without cash or a bank card.)
[/list]

Op carries oyster card and Id but no cash/card. I carry my wallet with me at all times. All very bizarre.

 

[DaleCooper]

I can believe that someone could sit in 1st class by mistake.

I can believe that a very small number of people travelling into central London carry neither cash nor cards.

Take these two together with the misfortune to have your ticket checked on a busy train and on such a short journey and I begin to wonder if the coincidences are beginning to stack up.

 

[6Gman]

I can believe that someone could sit in 1st class by mistake.

I can believe that a very small number of people travelling into central London carry neither cash nor cards.

Take these two together with the misfortune to have your ticket checked on a busy train and on such a short journey and I begin to wonder if the coincidences are beginning to stack up.

... and on the 7 minute journey he was so engrossed in his book that he didn't notice the First Class markings.

 

[NSEFAN]

This is ridiculous. Anyone who's going on about "making sure you travel in the correct class of accommodation" (because no staff with Standard Class travel passes ever sit in First, do they?) clearly hasn't seen the train in question. It's exactly the same. Almost impossible to tell in some variations when there's already people sat down.

How different does it need to be? Surely the only thing required is a notification that it is first class accommodation (such as on the doors/windows/seats?) On the southern network the point of first class is not to get a better seat, just to have a better chance of getting a seat at all! Apart from a simple notice why should there be a requirement to make it "look different"? Is it not reasonable for passengers to be at least moderately aware of their surroundings on a train?

This is strong evidence for why the Penalty Fares system is grossly unfair - it focuses on extracting revenue from passengers who've made mistakes and does almost nothing at all to deter the genuine fare evaders who are quite determined. If one of them did this, they would have gotten away with it unless there were police to detain them. Another RPI giving his employer a bad reputation by reporting for prosecution someone who admits they just made a mistake. And Southern not exactly covering themselves in glory with their utterly nonsensical approach to First Class.

You are right, penalty fares are about punishing honest mistakes. Let's be honest: the point of a commuter TOC like Southern is not to have good customer service and reputation. It is to get people in and out of London so they can work, whilst paying as much money as possible to HM Treasury. In that kind of world penalty fares make perfect sense: they are aimed at the easy targets because it's all just a numbers game. The L&SE commuter railway is able to carry on using old legislation in order to extract more money from people who make mistakes because passenger numbers aren't likely to go down if you start stringently issuing penalty fares and court summons.

The reason you don't usually get the same harsh attitudes on intecity TOCs is because many more of their customers are actually choosing to travel by that particular TOC, rather than a competing company or mode of transport. By comparison, L&SE commuters are "forced" to take the train because of where they live and the job they've chosen.

 

[clagmonster]

Last week I travelled on my Oyster card from Surbiton to London Victoria.
...
I have travelled almost exclusively on BR and later Southwest trains since I became a commuter 28 years ago.

One thing I would do is get an Oyster usage history from TfL, showing every touch you have made in the past 8 weeks. It won't make you any less guilty of the two offences you have committed (byelaw 19 and RoRA), but it may help in mitigation to prove that you were unfamiliar with Southern trains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Could this apply in other scenarios where a passenger makes a mistake? For example - passenger at station A buys a ticket from A to B, fully intending to travel to B. However, she accidentally gets on the wrong train and ends up travelling towards C. C is in the opposite direction to B, and not on a valid route; so her ticket has no validity on the train. Is she potentially liable to a Railways Act prosecution, on the grounds that she is on a train from A to C, but had no intention to ever pay the fare from A to C?

I think the safest thing to do legally is immediately, assuming there is one, attempt to find the guard, and offer explain the situation, offer to pay the fare and seek advice as to how to get back. If you find the guard before they find you, then surely:
a) you have demonstrated intent to pay the fare
b) as you have approached the guard, you haven't been asked to show a valid ticket, so you can't fail to show one as per byelaw 18

If found by the guard / TTI, then offering the fare would presumably nullify the possibility of an RoRA prosecution, but the byelaw offence would still exist.

 

[anme]

I think the safest thing to do legally is immediately, assuming there is one, attempt to find the guard, and offer explain the situation, offer to pay the fare and seek advice as to how to get back. If you find the guard before they find you, then surely:
a) you have demonstrated intent to pay the fare
b) as you have approached the guard, you haven't been asked to show a valid ticket, so you can't fail to show one as per byelaw 18

If found by the guard / TTI, then offering the fare would presumably nullify the possibility of an RoRA prosecution, but the byelaw offence would still exist.

But that's surely "pay with challenged", which I've seen claimed can result on a Railways Act prosecution?!

[My theory has not been assessed by someone with legal knowledge and may be invalid.]

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Byelaw offence is strict liability, whereas the RoRA offence requires intent, does it not? Someone who has got on the wrong train does not have that intent.

 

[anme]

The Byelaw offence is strict liability, whereas the RoRA offence requires intent, does it not? Someone who has got on the wrong train does not have that intent.

See posts #49 and #54 - this is based on information from DaveNewcastle, and some extrapolation from me (which is not confirmed by any legal expert). If I understand correctly, it seems the definition of "intent" can be quite broad, and includes cases where a passenger did not intend to pay the fare because they did not intend to incur liability for the fare (e.g. because they accidentally sat in first class, or accidentally got on the wrong train).

 

[steve a]

There is nothing odd about this situation.

You've got a season ticket. You have no expectation of spending any money/have no money to spend, so what's the point of taking your wallet and cards? However, it might be useful to have some ID - hence the driving license. Both the Oyster & license will fit in an Oyster wallet, so there you go.

Not defending sitting in 1st on a standard ticket (or getting huffy about season ticket costs), but just pointing out that some people will go out with a ticket for travel and no extra money for non-suspicious reasons.

Your cards and cash will also fit in the Oyster wallet, which can make things awkward when you leave them in the supermarket...

I can understand the OP's confusion. When I caught a Southern train, I thought the 2nd class seats looked like 1st! I had to double check, - but is it even worth sitting down on a journey from Clapham Junction to Victoria?

Also, in 30+ years of commuting, Victoria was the only place I got a Penalty Fare (for breaking my journey on a "not underground" season ticket from Surrey to Herts)

 

[Bletchleyite]

While DaveNewcastle does know his stuff, I just reread his posts and it seems very surprising, as to the layman that is definitely not "intent".

 

[Fare-Cop]

The Byelaw offence is strict liability, whereas the RoRA offence requires intent, does it not? Someone who has got on the wrong train does not have that intent.

That's not always the case of course

If your sentence said "Someone who has genuinely & accidentally got on the wrong train does not have that intent" I would agree with you

This is off the specific topic and I apologise for that, but is relevant in the general sense.

On some routes there are tickets where one TOC offers a cheaper fare for a slightly slower, or less 'comfortable' service than another.

We have seen many examples reported where travellers buy the TOC-specific cheaper ticket and then travel on the faster 'premium' service operated by a different TOC over the same route and these cases are being pursued.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . If I understand correctly, it seems the definition of "intent" can be quite broad, and includes cases where a passenger did not intend to pay the fare because they did not intend to incur liability for the fare (e.g. because they accidentally sat in first class, or accidentally got on the wrong train).

I'm not sure what 'accidentally got on the wrong train' has to do with Fare Evasion, nor what it has to do with billburns2's request for assistance.

On some routes there are tickets where one TOC offers a cheaper fare for a slightly slower, or less 'comfortable' service than another.

We have seen many examples reported where travellers buy the TOC-specific cheaper ticket and then travel on the faster 'premium' service operated by a different TOC over the same route and these cases are being pursued.

But as you very rightly point out, there can be circumstances . . . . and the framework is there to protect revenue if and where it is necessary

 

[GodAtum]

The Op should not get worked up about getting a penalty fare. It is in the same low category as a library fine and below points on your driving license.

 

[billburns2]

It would be wise to get an answer to this question before either side of the argument gets on their high horse.

Dale, it only happened on Wednesday and I've not heard anything yet.
An option to pay £20 within 20 days is not something that any of the other experts here have flagged as a possibility. The docket he gave me simply said "ticketing irregularity".

We'll wait and see

 

[Fare-Cop]

Dale, it only happened on Wednesday and I've not heard anything yet.
An option to pay £20 within 20 days is not something that any of the other experts here have flagged as a possibility. The docket he gave me simply said "ticketing irregularity".

We'll wait and see

Then you were not issued a Penalty Fare Notice.

Yes, all you can do is wait and see what, if any, letter you receive and that could be some weeks away dependent on how busy that office is at present

 

[anme]

I'm not sure what 'accidentally got on the wrong train' has to do with Fare Evasion, nor what it has to do with billburns2's request for assistance.

Perhaps you could check out your post #49 and my post #54? (I admit that it is straying off topic)

 

[najaB]

ck in the real world I come across many passengers who have made genuine mistakes almost every day in almost all cases their explanation is believed, their tickets endorsed, and they are allowed to make suitable arrangements to get them to where they are going without any further let or hindrance.

Just such a real-world example on the train I'm on. A young lady, I'd say about 14 or 15 years old, put on the train by her mother at Inverness - when the guard asked for her ticket she had the receipt and seat reservation but no ticket. In a certain members' world view naturally the greedy TOC demanded payment for an Anytime ticket or threatened prosecution. In reality, since she passed the 'attitude test', he came back 15 minutes or so later and endorsed the seat reservation to let her through the barriers at Queen Street.

 

[SickyNicky]

Just such a real-world example on the train I'm on. A young lady, I'd say about 14 or 15 years old, put on the train by her mother at Inverness - when the guard asked for her ticket she had the receipt and seat reservation but no ticket. In a certain members' world view naturally the greedy TOC demanded payment for an Anytime ticket or threatened prosecution. In reality, since she passed the 'attitude test', he came back 15 minutes or so later and endorsed the seat reservation to let her through the barriers at Queen Street.

That's a perfectly reasonable reaction. I hope most staff would act similarly.

Although having visited Inverness recently and experienced the rather strict gateline attitude there, I am slightly surprised that she managed to gain access without a ticket.

 

[najaB]

That's a perfectly reasonable reaction. I hope most staff would act similarly.

Although having visited Inverness recently and experienced the rather strict gateline attitude there, I am slightly surprised that she managed to gain access without a ticket.

I suspect her mother accidentally kept the ticket rather than giving it back to her. Alternatively, they often open the gates for the 17:30 Glasgow train after then 17:15 Aberdeen train leaves.

 

[CheesyChips]

I think what surprises people more is that in the 21st Century, a privately owned company is able to generate revenue for the benefit of shareholders by wielding the full might of the state to impose financial penalties in situations which are grossly unfair to passengers. On top of that, they do so in a manner which is inconsistent, opaque and seems designed to make sure that a TOC will get its money, no matter what, all thanks to a set of archaic Victorian bylaws.
In years to come, people will be agog that they got away with it for so long.

I couldn't have put it better myself !!!

 

[Clip]

This is ridiculous. Anyone who's going on about "making sure you travel in the correct class of accommodation" (because no staff with Standard Class travel passes ever sit in First, do they?) clearly hasn't seen the train in question. It's exactly the same. Almost impossible to tell in some variations when there's already people sat down.
.

Wehey another dig at rail staff, where ever the opportunity arises eh lad? Of course it never occurred to you that they may have asked beforehand to sit there?? But don't let that get in the way of another dig from you.

When the inspector began moralising to me about "First Class passengers who pay a lot of money for their seats" I confess to losing my temper with the man, telling him that the £2000 plus I paid in train fares every year was also a lot of money and that penalty fares were a disproportionate, petty and vindictive scheme to bleed money from otherwise law-abiding passengers (which they are) all of which he duly wrote down. .

Ahh yes, getting angry because you got caught and didn't like it and moralising about how much your fare costs. Actually the PF scheme is there for people who do make honest mistakes* but it seems your temper and inability to pay have got you into this situation.


*Please don't start with other operators and their mistakes please-its gone off topic far enough already.

 

[Deepgreen]

I definitely agree that would help. There is the standard yellow bar on the outside, but even that isn't prominent in some liveries.

If only the yellow bar was standard! More and more TOCs are abandoning it - Thameslink is very hard to identify from the outside, SWT uses ridiculous pale blue dots, FGW's new green livery has a pencil-thin silver sliver and even Southern has nothing on the 377/6s and 377/7s. The latter sub-class even has at least one unit still running around with no window stickers! The 377/6 and /7 anti-maccassars are pathetic - they appear on suburban workings, which are de-classified, and fail to appear on main line ones!

However, I despair at how unobservant people are becoming - glued to 'phones, e-readers, etc., as they walk through busy stations, onto trains, etc. If people can't be bothered to interact even briefly with their surroundings they deserve all they get.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I couldn't have put it better myself !!!

So, there should be no penalties for failing to pay for a service, and the nationalised railway never imposed such penalties??

 

[GodAtum]

If only the yellow bar was standard! More and more TOCs are abandoning it - Thameslink is very hard to identify from the outside, SWT uses ridiculous pale blue dots, FGW's new green livery has a pencil-thin silver sliver and even Southern has nothing on the 377/6s and 377/7s. The latter sub-class even has at least one unit still running around with no window stickers! The 377/6 and /7 anti-maccassars are pathetic - they appear on suburban workings, which are de-classified, and fail to appear on main line ones!

However, I despair at how unobservant people are becoming - glued to 'phones, e-readers, etc., as they walk through busy stations, onto trains, etc. If people can't be bothered to interact even briefly with their surroundings they deserve all they get.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


So, there should be no penalties for failing to pay for a service, and the nationalised railway never imposed such penalties??

I do find on Thameslink it is luck that I stand in the correct place for 1st class. I have had to run down a platform at rush hour and missed the train.

Also, on a Southern Brigton service, there did not seem to be any 1st class