Prosecution for travelling outside Oyster PAYG area (St Albans)

[island]

I do wish "Penalty Fares" were called something else.

"Penalty" suggests something penal, a punishment for doing something wrong. A fine.

People resist because they don't like the implication that they were avoiding paying a fare when they made an honest mistake. I suspect in many cases it's not the amount that's the problem, but the principle of being "fined".

As for the dishonest, I don't think calling it a "penalty" makes any difference - it's just a gamble. So nothing to be lost by a name change.

Metrolink, as well as Dublin Bus and Luas trams across in Ireland, call it a "standard fare".

 

[34D]

What was the resolution ?

It should be a forum rule that posters have to complete a story

 

[30907]

It should be a forum rule that posters have to complete a story

See post #19. OP is entitled not to be more specific.

 

[Romilly]

On the question of what penalty fares should be called, although I suspect that the name comes from the legislation, there is no obvious reason why the industry shouldn't call them something else on a day-to-day basis, so long as the smallprint of the paperwork makes it clear that it is a penalty fare for the purpose of the legislation.

And I do think that more penalty fares would be paid on the spot if such a fare was called an "Honest mistake fare" or "Travel regularisation fare" or "Ticket regularisation fare" or "Fare where valid tickets not held" or "Fare to resolve disputed ticketing" or .....

 

[Ianigsy]

Presumably on the same grounds that supermarkets threaten you with a "parking charge notice" or similar- I think it was successfully argued several years ago that a private company has no power to levy a fine.

 

[221129]

Presumably on the same grounds that supermarkets threaten you with a "parking charge notice" or similar- I think it was successfully argued several years ago that a private company has no power to levy a fine.

That is incorrect. Penalty Fares are backed by supporting legislation.

 

[Envy123]

Do Thameslink make announcements? I was on the Southern MK train yesterday and a very clear announcement was made on arrival at Watford - LM normally don't, though.

GN does announce "If you're travelling with an Oyster card, please leave the train at the next station". I thought that Thameslink would have done the same.

 

[najaB]

GN does announce "If you're travelling with an Oyster card, please leave the train at the next station". I thought that Thameslink would have done the same.

For all we know there may have been just such an announcement but the OP missed it. "There wasn't an announcement" quite often really means "I didn't hear the announcement".

 

[ainsworth74]

Just a reminder that if people wish to discuss whether or not Penalty Fares should be renamed there is now a thread here on which to do this.

 

[jon0844]

GN 317s now do it, but 365s don't and 313s don't. The system isn't always used either, so it's probably more likely you won't hear/see the warning.

It is quite clever in that it will warn you at Finsbury Park on the semi-fast trains, if that is the last stop within the zones. On other services it warns at other stations.

Better than a dumb system that might just say tickets aren't valid beyond Hadley Wood, although maybe some people might hear Finsbury Park one day and not realise it was only for that train.

 

[lpdanno]

After an initial suggested month-long adjournment, as Govia had not received my original written response and were awaiting my appeal by email, I've been contacted today to be informed that they are taking no further action. No PF to pay, no costs, not even the original fare. Needless to say I'm very happy with the outcome.

Thank you to all those contributors that gave me an insight into how the rail networks would be viewing this transgression, it was very helpful in pulling my evidence and clear case for clemency together.

However, I would say that there are a large number of contributors who are quite blind to the actual behaviours of the people that use your service. We are not paid by the companies to understand all rules and regulations; we do not see how and why a lot of these terms and conditions exist as we don't set out to actively abuse them, nor indeed see the consequences of their being abused. We in fact pay enormous sums of money year in, year out, to use a service quite passively - we walk in at A and assume we will be able to alight at B. We do not actively seek out routemaps and smallprint on entering our local station every time we step onto a train. We do not know, nor do we care, whether the train we step onto is a 313, a 317 or a 365.

You are in an extremely rare position where you can fine and even take your customers to court. Seemingly quite regularly and disproportionately from my individual experience. With great power comes great responsibility - I trust many of you are aware of this, but I think you have to be mindful that not everyone will wear it as well as you.

There have been a number of very sensible recommendations on this thread, particularly around the wording of 'penalty fare'. The excellent suggestion of 'standard fare' would have, I'm quite sure, led to a successful and immediate outcome of my mistake on the day. All I could hear was 'penalty fare' and the guard's repeated assertion that I had evaded my fare. Acceptance of a penalty inferred to me, rightly or wrongly, that this was an admission of guilt, and I was entirely innocent of fare evasion in my mind.

As it was, this not only led to a stand-off between both parties on the day, but also the cost to the network of having to deal with both mine and the guard's mistake (he had three clear chances to take my money for the fare and refused them all), and ultimately left Thameslink with no fee paid whatsoever for the journey, given today's news (I'd assume some sort of retainer fee or some sort of operating cost for the prosecution costs / lawyer etc). Whichever way you look at it, this isn't a system that is above reviewing.

I very much doubt I will be seen on the forum again (don't judge me!) - I've had a close shave and have no expectations that I will be speaking to a railway's prosecution department as long as I live - but I would urge those voices of the customer, and those employees that champion these voices too, to be heard above the naysayers. For every customer's 'harbinger of doom' on here I've had more 'beacons of hope' respond and send me PMs with advice. Be a beacon.

Customers will continue to use your service whether departure times move up or down a percentage point, when fares go up, when services are cancelled due to lack of drivers or trains can't be boarded because they're only formed of four coaches rather than eight at rush hour. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some introspective responsibility from the railway services to look at some of their anomalous or idiosyncratic practices. From a customer's, not a shareholder's, point of view.

As for life outside of the heady world of penalty fares, I'm happy to report that the little one celebrated her 3rd birthday this week in some style. She is as carefree and mental as any other 3yr old and is expected to have a perfectly normal and full life.

Have a great weekend. I'm not going to St Albans.

 

[bb21]

Good to hear. I wouldn't be surprised if they lost track of the case, but nonetheless I am pleased that this has been resolved.

You do have some good suggestions. You may want to contact your MP to get something done about it. As someone directly affected, your words will probably carry more weight than ours.

Good to hear your 3-y-old's well. Hope she enjoyed her cake.

 

[ainsworth74]

Thanks for coming back and letting us know the detail of what happened (we hardly ever get to hear what happened to someone after we helped them!) and I'm really pleased that you go such an excellent result.

I quite agree that the rules as currently written are complex and often nonsensical or counter intuitive and it's something that I think all of us would like to see changed to make things easier for both passengers and the staff that have to enforce the rules!

Please write to your MP about this as they and their colleagues are probably best placed to force the railway industry to actually do something about this.

I'm also very happy to hear your three year old is healthy again. It is, perhaps, worth remembering that there are more important things in life than the intricacies of railway law

 

[Antman]

After an initial suggested month-long adjournment, as Govia had not received my original written response and were awaiting my appeal by email, I've been contacted today to be informed that they are taking no further action. No PF to pay, no costs, not even the original fare. Needless to say I'm very happy with the outcome.

Thank you to all those contributors that gave me an insight into how the rail networks would be viewing this transgression, it was very helpful in pulling my evidence and clear case for clemency together.

However, I would say that there are a large number of contributors who are quite blind to the actual behaviours of the people that use your service. We are not paid by the companies to understand all rules and regulations; we do not see how and why a lot of these terms and conditions exist as we don't set out to actively abuse them, nor indeed see the consequences of their being abused. We in fact pay enormous sums of money year in, year out, to use a service quite passively - we walk in at A and assume we will be able to alight at B. We do not actively seek out routemaps and smallprint on entering our local station every time we step onto a train. We do not know, nor do we care, whether the train we step onto is a 313, a 317 or a 365.

You are in an extremely rare position where you can fine and even take your customers to court. Seemingly quite regularly and disproportionately from my individual experience. With great power comes great responsibility - I trust many of you are aware of this, but I think you have to be mindful that not everyone will wear it as well as you.

There have been a number of very sensible recommendations on this thread, particularly around the wording of 'penalty fare'. The excellent suggestion of 'standard fare' would have, I'm quite sure, led to a successful and immediate outcome of my mistake on the day. All I could hear was 'penalty fare' and the guard's repeated assertion that I had evaded my fare. Acceptance of a penalty inferred to me, rightly or wrongly, that this was an admission of guilt, and I was entirely innocent of fare evasion in my mind.

As it was, this not only led to a stand-off between both parties on the day, but also the cost to the network of having to deal with both mine and the guard's mistake (he had three clear chances to take my money for the fare and refused them all), and ultimately left Thameslink with no fee paid whatsoever for the journey, given today's news (I'd assume some sort of retainer fee or some sort of operating cost for the prosecution costs / lawyer etc). Whichever way you look at it, this isn't a system that is above reviewing.

I very much doubt I will be seen on the forum again (don't judge me!) - I've had a close shave and have no expectations that I will be speaking to a railway's prosecution department as long as I live - but I would urge those voices of the customer, and those employees that champion these voices too, to be heard above the naysayers. For every customer's 'harbinger of doom' on here I've had more 'beacons of hope' respond and send me PMs with advice. Be a beacon.

Customers will continue to use your service whether departure times move up or down a percentage point, when fares go up, when services are cancelled due to lack of drivers or trains can't be boarded because they're only formed of four coaches rather than eight at rush hour. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some introspective responsibility from the railway services to look at some of their anomalous or idiosyncratic practices. From a customer's, not a shareholder's, point of view.

As for life outside of the heady world of penalty fares, I'm happy to report that the little one celebrated her 3rd birthday this week in some style. She is as carefree and mental as any other 3yr old and is expected to have a perfectly normal and full life.

Have a great weekend. I'm not going to St Albans.

Wouldn't it have been simpler all round if they had just accepted your offer to pay from the oyster card boundary?

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm rather bemused by the idea that 'the guard made a mistake'...

Oh well, at least the OP was happy in the end.

 

[jimbo99]

Nice to hear the outcome.

But everyone's a loser really. It cost the railway considerable resources to have taken matters as far as they did. The OP - who seemed to me like an honest customer - spent considerable time and had considerable worry about this. A pity for everyone. At least it stopped where it did.

Funny this involved St Albans. A few years back, a friend of mine (who usually drives) wished to travel to East Croydon. He pressed the button on the machine which said "London [BR logo]" because he considered East Croydon to be London. There was a Travelcard button, but he didn't want bus/tube. There was a button for Gatwick and none for East Croydon. So he "assumed"....

At Croydon he was told that his ticket was only valid to London Bridge/Elephant & Castle. He got a penalty fare. Had he bought the correct ticket, it would have cost £20 instead of £18 (something like that - a small difference). He was very upset. It is pity he couldn't have been "let off" - it must have been obvious that there was no intention to fare dodge. It would have bought alot of goodwill. The penalty charge (plus its being called a penalty leaving my friend with a sense of guilt) seemed disproportionate in the circumstances.

So I'm with the OP about outside perceptions of the railway industry. In my friend's case, he hasn't used the railway since. He still feels a sense of shame because of what happened. It is a sick memory for him.

 

[Hadders]

Nice to hear the outcome.

But everyone's a loser really. It cost the railway considerable resources to have taken matters as far as they did. The OP - who seemed to me like an honest customer - spent considerable time and had considerable worry about this. A pity for everyone. At least it stopped where it did.

Funny this involved St Albans. A few years back, a friend of mine (who usually drives) wished to travel to East Croydon. He pressed the button on the machine which said "London [BR logo]" because he considered East Croydon to be London. There was a Travelcard button, but he didn't want bus/tube. There was a button for Gatwick and none for East Croydon. So he "assumed"....

At Croydon he was told that his ticket was only valid to London Bridge/Elephant & Castle. He got a penalty fare. Had he bought the correct ticket, it would have cost £20 instead of £18 (something like that - a small difference). He was very upset. It is pity he couldn't have been "let off" - it must have been obvious that there was no intention to fare dodge. It would have bought alot of goodwill. The penalty charge (plus its being called a penalty leaving my friend with a sense of guilt) seemed disproportionate in the circumstances.

So I'm with the OP about outside perceptions of the railway industry. In my friend's case, he hasn't used the railway since. He still feels a sense of shame because of what happened. It is a sick memory for him.

I empathise with jimbo99's friend. However if word gets out that they will 'let you off' if you have the wrong ticket guess what will happen. That's right pasengers travelling to East Croydon will simply buy a ticket to London and either ask to be 'let off' or pay the difference if challenged.

 

[Mag_seven]

At Croydon he was told that his ticket was only valid to London Bridge/Elephant & Castle. He got a penalty fare. Had he bought the correct ticket, it would have cost £20 instead of £18 (something like that - a small difference). He was very upset. It is pity he couldn't have been "let off" - it must have been obvious that there was no intention to fare dodge. It would have bought alot of goodwill. The penalty charge (plus its being called a penalty leaving my friend with a sense of guilt) seemed disproportionate in the circumstances.

Many argue on here that a penalty fare is for honest mistakes, like the one that your friend made. I believe it is a blunt "one size fits all" instrument that is equally about fining fare evaders as much as those who have made genuine mistakes. When penalty fares were fares introduced the associated advertising definitely gave the impression they were being introduced as a deterrent to fare evasion.

 

[Antman]

I empathise with jimbo99's friend. However if word gets out that they will 'let you off' if you have the wrong ticket guess what will happen. That's right pasengers travelling to East Croydon will simply buy a ticket to London and either ask to be 'let off' or pay the difference if challenged.

Why would somebody travelling from St Albans to East Croydon deliberately buy a ticket only to London? If they intended to bunk the fare surely they wouldn't buy any ticket and tailgate somebody else through the barriers at both ends? This for me just highlights the failings of the penalty fare system (and how confusing TVM's can be) where a passenger who has made an innocent mistake gets clobbered whilst the regular fare dodger who knows how to work the system gets away with it time after time.

 

[najaB]

Why would somebody travelling from St Albans to East Croydon deliberately buy a ticket only to London?

Because buying the wrong ticket can be claimed to be 'a mistake', not buying a ticket at all less so.

 

[Antman]

Because buying the wrong ticket can be claimed to be 'a mistake', not buying a ticket at all less so.

Well obviously if somebody arrives at East Croydon with the wrong ticket they are going to be challenged unless they slip through the barriers behind somebody else.

Clearly the incident quoted was a mistake.

 

[najaB]

Clearly the incident quoted was a mistake.

If you mean the OP's case then nobody has said otherwise. What Hadders said is that without rigorous enforcement of the Penalty Fare rules people will start to deliberately short fare and then expect to be 'let off' or 'given some slack'.

 

[talldave]

I empathise with jimbo99's friend. However if word gets out that they will 'let you off' if you have the wrong ticket guess what will happen. That's right pasengers travelling to East Croydon will simply buy a ticket to London and either ask to be 'let off' or pay the difference if challenged.

And if they pay the difference, where's the problem? The railway gets the correct money for the journey, the passenger gets where they wanted to be and pays the correct fare.

 

[najaB]

And if they pay the difference, where's the problem? The railway gets the correct money for the journey, the passenger gets where they wanted to be and pays the correct fare.

The issue is that they would only pay when - or rather if - challenged.

 

[Antman]

If you mean the OP's case then nobody has said otherwise. What Hadders said is that without rigorous enforcement of the Penalty Fare rules people will start to deliberately short fare and then expect to be 'let off' or 'given some slack'.

Not at all, they would expect to pay the excess fare from where their ticket expired
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The issue is that they would only pay when - or rather if - challenged.

They would be challenged at East Croydon unless they were intending to tailgate somebody else through the barriers in which case they may as well have not bought any ticket.

Look at it this way, if you were travelling from St Albans to East Croydon intending to pay as little as possible you would hardly buy a ticket from St Albans to central London

 

[island]

And if they pay the difference, where's the problem? The railway gets the correct money for the journey, the passenger gets where they wanted to be and pays the correct fare.

I was in Japan recently and this is the system they have in place there. The majority of stations are barriered and there is either a dedicated ticket office on the gateline or a window from the main ticket office onto it. Passengers unsure of their fare or who have a change of mind during a journey and decide to travel further can pay the difference on the train or at the destination. Similar rules apply to passengers using trains they are not entitled to use (Japan has higher fares for certain trains that make fewer stops). Honesty boxes are provided at small stations with no or part-time booking offices. Double-gating is unknown, even though it is far easier as the gates are below waist height.

This works because Japanese culture is one of personal honour and mutual trust. It would not even occur to most passengers to skip the fare. The culture here is pretty much the opposite and so the system would be bound to fail.

 

[jon0844]

I've been to Japan and that's it in a nutshell. Doing the honourable thing for you and your family.

It helps if your family wouldn't consider you a mug for doing the right thing and moan to the press if you're caught out.

 

[bb21]

Probably a bit better, but I wouldn't hold Japan as some sort of virtue of honesty. Nowhere in the world is. Not that long ago I read an article on fare evasion in Japan and the issue is starting to become more prominent. Not quite so much in rural areas but in Tokyo suburbs short-faring and double-gating are nowadays quite common issues. The lack of exposure also has something to do with the lack of acknowledgement that these problems exist in society.

That's all by the by. As for allowing people to just pay the excess when challenged, it won't work unless all stations are gated at all times. They aren't.

 

[tony6499]

If you're not going to gate or man every station then you need to have an adequate penalty to cater for the number of mistakes that seem to be made by travellers.

Maybe it's time the £20 standard PF was raised to £100 and enforced more strongly.

 

[Antman]

If you're not going to gate or man every station then you need to have an adequate penalty to cater for the number of mistakes that seem to be made by travellers.

Maybe it's time the £20 standard PF was raised to £100 and enforced more strongly.

Clearly it would not be cost effective to gate every station.

Passengers do inevitably make mistakes, TVM's can be baffling for the uninitiated and passengers do get on wrong trains or miss their station.

How do you propose to enforce penalty fares more strongly?