Fare evasion or avoidance?

[najaB]

Is a passenger who regularly boards without a ticket at the leading unit knowing that he is unlikely to be sold a fare on board travelling legitimately or attempting to avoid/evade their fare?

Discuss.........

If the passenger knowingly boards the leading unit because they expect the guard won't be able to get to them, then that's demonstrating intent to evade paying and unquestionably illegal.

 

[simonw]

OK I'll throw this into the mix:-

A quiet service regularly operated with two units with no through connection, waiting shelter at the passenger's station is to the rear of the platform adjacent to the unit the guard is in. The exit at the passenger's destination is again to the rear of the platform. There are no facilities to purchase tickets at either station (to keep things simple). The guard normally travels in the rear unit.

Is a passenger who regularly boards without a ticket at the leading unit knowing that he is unlikely to be sold a fare on board travelling legitimately or attempting to avoid/evade their fare?

Discuss.........

Evasion. Or rather attempted evasion until the journey is complete, when it becomes straight evasion.

Next.

 

[neilmc]

Evasion. Or rather attempted evasion until the journey is complete, when it becomes straight evasion.

Next.

I did exactly this a couple of years ago on a journey from Highbridge to a suburban station in Bristol. Neither station had a ticket machine or staff and Great Western had obligingly provided two units for which there was no gangway connection. Guess where I sat? But I have sat in the front unit since my trainspotting days, it's my participation in these forums which led me to expect that I would not have to pay as I now know the train has to be given the rightaway from the rear unit, so you may argue I OUGHT to have deliberately sat in the rear unit to be honest.

If the guard had somehow managed to get into the first unit I would of course have had the means to pay and done so, but I literally had no opportunity to pay. On the return journey I of course still had no ticket and there was only one unit, but the guard appeared to be too busy to sell me a ticket anyway.

If I had been intending going to Temple Meads I could have alighted at Bedminster and caught a bus for the last couple of miles rather than pay on arrival at Temple Meads, would that have been a worse evasion? I wonder how may people alight at unstaffed stations close to a city centre if they have not had to pay for the journey so far!

My take is simply that the rail industry is fundamentally fraudulent and dishonest in its charging structure and the way it treats passengers so whatever you can do to regain the advantage without committing a criminal offence or telling lies is fair game - whether split ticketing, loophole tickets or strategic sitting!

 

[najaB]

I did exactly this a couple of years ago on a journey from Highbridge to a suburban station in Bristol. Neither station had a ticket machine or staff and Great Western had obligingly provided two units for which there was no gangway connection. Guess where I sat? But I would have sat in the front unit normally, my participation in these forums also led me to expect that I would not have to pay as I now know the train has to be given the rightaway from the rear unit.

If you chose to sit in the front unit because you expected not to pay, then that was evasion.

 

[Romilly]

but I literally had no opportunity to pay.

I disagree: you had the opportunity to join the part of the train where you knew/expected the guard to be, and having done that you would have had the opportunity to seek out the guard and ask to buy a ticket

(Edit: NB I don't want to re-open the debate about whether there is a duty in law to seek out the guard: I am simply saying that you did have an opportunity, whether or not it was one that you could be penalised for not taking advantage of)

so you may argue I OUGHT to have deliberately sat in the rear unit to be honest.

I would indeed so argue.

 

[67018]

Tax avoidance is as per the HMRC definition above.

Tax evasion is not paying the rightful tax due. E.g. not declaring interest on your tax return.

Investing in an ISA, putting money in a pension etc are classed as tax planning as they are using the tax system as the legislators intended.

Part of the confusion is that the definition of 'tax avoidance' has changed in recent years, for mainly political reasons. The financial crisis and the egregious use of tax planning devices by certain individuals and companies have given rise to widespread public anger, and so the consensus on what is and isn't morally acceptable has shifted in the last 10 years. HMRC have reflected the shift by publicising the definition quoted above.

It has been argued that, if the authorities don't like the way people use the letter of the law in violation of the spirit, the problem is with the letter of the law which the government has the power to change if it sees fit. The people who make this sort of argument haven't had the best of the debate lately!

There's also the oft-used quote:

Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands."

The railway equivalent is getting a cheap deal due to sloppy drafting or inconsistencies in the NRCoC or routing guide, to pay a fare that was less than what was intended. Unquestionably legal; whether it is morally legitimate is a subjective value judgement and so there will never be unanimous agreement.

 

[najaB]

Part of the confusion is that the definition of 'tax avoidance' has changed in recent years, for mainly political reasons...

Thanks for expressing what I was attempting to say, much more succinctly.

 

[Antman]

If the passenger knowingly boards the leading unit because they expect the guard won't be able to get to them, then that's demonstrating intent to evade paying and unquestionably illegal.

But only the passenger themselves can know why they travelled in the front unit of the train and doing so is not an offence in itself.

 

[najaB]

But only the passenger themselves can know why they travelled in the front unit of the train and doing so is not an offence in itself.

Actually it is an offence if it is done for the purpose of avoiding the guard. The issue is proving intent.

That's where consistently, repeatedly boarding the front unit comes into play. Doing it once can't be said to show intent, whereas a pattern of behaviour can.

 

[simonw]

Part of the confusion is that the definition of 'tax avoidance' has changed in recent years, for mainly political reasons. The financial crisis and the egregious use of tax planning devices by certain individuals and companies have given rise to widespread public anger, and so the consensus on what is and isn't morally acceptable has shifted in the last 10 years. HMRC have reflected the shift by publicising the definition quoted above.

It has been argued that, if the authorities don't like the way people use the letter of the law in violation of the spirit, the problem is with the letter of the law which the government has the power to change if it sees fit. The people who make this sort of argument haven't had the best of the debate lately!

There's also the oft-used quote:



The railway equivalent is getting a cheap deal due to sloppy drafting or inconsistencies in the NRCoC or routing guide, to pay a fare that was less than what was intended. Unquestionably legal; whether it is morally legitimate is a subjective value judgement and so there will never be unanimous agreement.

I'm not sure the definition of avoidance has changed. What has happened is globalisation which has allowed more opportunities to try and avoid tax. Some of the schemes I have seen described and seen in operation have no basis except to use a loophole in badly drafted legislation. There is now a requirement for individuals to disclosure avoidance schemes on their tax returns.

 

[Antman]

Actually it is an offence if it is done for the purpose of avoiding the guard. The issue is proving intent.

That's where consistently, repeatedly boarding the front unit comes into play. Doing it once can't be said to show intent, whereas a pattern of behaviour can.

It's impossible to prove intent

 

[najaB]

It's impossible to prove intent

Intent is demonstrated by actions.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Doing it once can't be said to show intent, whereas a pattern of behaviour can.

In that case there's no real way of proving intent. Sitting in the same carriage every day doesn't demonstrate intent of anything- I used to sit in the same carriage every day commuting into London.

Deliberately sitting away from the guard hoping to get off without paying is undoubtedly evasion, but in reality there's no way anyone could ever prove it.

 

[67018]

I'm not sure the definition of avoidance has changed. What has happened is globalisation which has allowed more opportunities to try and avoid tax. Some of the schemes I have seen described and seen in operation have no basis except to use a loophole in badly drafted legislation. There is now a requirement for individuals to disclosure avoidance schemes on their tax returns.

The attitude of the authorities has certainly changed (in response, at least in part, to public opinion). Active tax planning has been around for decades, but the idea that anything is acceptable if it is technically legal is much less tenable than it used to be. Many financial institutions have scaled back or shut down their operations in this area due to the associated reputational risk and pressure from regulators.

The requirement to disclose is relatively new and is one of the results of this change.

The same could happen with rail fares if there was a public outcry over people who use creative methods to reduce the revenue received by the railways, reducing the money available for investment or requiring higher taxpayer subsidy. Less likely, though, since (a) the amounts are probably not that significant, (b) it's a saving available to everyone, not just people who can afford expensive lawyers and (c) there are many more obvious causes for people to complain about the railways, as we see on this forum!

 

[pdq]

On the return journey I of course still had no ticket and there was only one unit, but the guard appeared to be too busy to sell me a ticket anyway.

In this scenario, if the guard had come round on your return journey, should one offer to pay for the morning's journey as well? No-one would, of course...

 

[yorkie]

In that case there's no real way of proving intent. Sitting in the same carriage every day doesn't demonstrate intent of anything- I used to sit in the same carriage every day commuting into London.

Deliberately sitting away from the guard hoping to get off without paying is undoubtedly evasion, but in reality there's no way anyone could ever prove it.

Indeed.

A good example will be that it's often we'll arrange to meet forum members on a train, and the easiest way to arrange this can be to say to meet in the front coach for example.

If someone admitted that they deliberately sat in the front coach for the purpose of avoiding an opportunity to pay the fare, then that is evasion. But they'd have to be pretty thick to admit that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In this scenario, if the guard had come round on your return journey, should one offer to pay for the morning's journey as well? No-one would, of course...

I tried that when doing Poppleton-Knaresborough, returning from Starbeck to Poppleton (to cycle the Ripley branch). I was sold a Knaresborough-Poppleton return ticket. I did consider asking for it to be re-issued but I thought that it would have made me look crazy, so accepted the incorrect ticket.

 

[bb21]

It's impossible to prove intent

Difficult? Yes, in the given circumstances.

Impossible? Almost certainly not.

 

[racyrich]

I think buying some obscure supercheap Goldcard is as close to avoidance as I can conceive. Involves premeditation.

 

[bb21]

My take is simply that the rail industry is fundamentally fraudulent and dishonest in its charging structure and the way it treats passengers so whatever you can do to regain the advantage without committing a criminal offence or telling lies is fair game - whether split ticketing, loophole tickets or strategic sitting!

It's called playing the game and playing it better than them.

If you can do it legitimately then all is fair game.

 

[najaB]

Deliberately sitting away from the guard hoping to get off without paying is undoubtedly evasion, but in reality there's no way anyone could ever prove it.

It would be difficult, but not impossible. In reality no TOC would put the effort into sustained surveillance that would be required.

 

[exile]

Difficult? Yes, in the given circumstances.

Impossible? Almost certainly not.

It could only be proved by forcing you to incriminate yourself, which is illegal.

 

[najaB]

It could only be proved by forcing you to incriminate yourself, which is illegal.

Or by sustained surveillance to build up a body of evidence indicating a clear pattern of behaviour. As I said, highly unlikely but not impossible. It would also require the passenger in question to slip up somewhat - for example not boarding the train if the guard happens to dispatch from the front carriage.

 

[yorkie]

Or by sustained surveillance to build up a body of evidence indicating a clear pattern of behaviour. As I said, highly unlikely but not impossible. It would also require the passenger in question to slip up somewhat - for example not boarding the train if the guard happens to dispatch from the front carriage.

Yes, a pattern of consistently boarding the portion the Guard wasn't in could be strong evidence.

This would be possible on TPE, but not Northern. No idea about Scotrail, but based on the post I would guess they either always have to dispatch from the rear, or that the station concerned requires it.

 

[exile]

Or by sustained surveillance to build up a body of evidence indicating a clear pattern of behaviour. As I said, highly unlikely but not impossible. It would also require the passenger in question to slip up somewhat - for example not boarding the train if the guard happens to dispatch from the front carriage.

A TOC that can't afford to pay staff to collect fares instead pays staff to watch where passengers sit?

 

[najaB]

A TOC that can't afford to pay staff to collect fares instead pays staff to watch where passengers sit?

Since you seem to have missed it:

As I said, highly unlikely but not impossible.

It has been done in the past where significant fare evasion was suspected.

 

[Antman]

A TOC that can't afford to pay staff to collect fares instead pays staff to watch where passengers sit?

Exactly, it would be make more sense just to have somebody in the front portion selling tickets!

 

[Tetchytyke]

It would be difficult, but not impossible. In reality no TOC would put the effort into sustained surveillance that would be required.

Sustained surveillance wouldn't prove anything, assuming an unstaffed station at both ends. I sat in the same carriage every day for 18 months commuting into London- because it had more seats- and I wasn't evading anything.

 

[najaB]

Sustained surveillance wouldn't prove anything, assuming an unstaffed station at both ends. I sat in the same carriage every day for 18 months commuting into London- because it had more seats- and I wasn't evading anything.

Did you travel from and to unstaffed stations, without a ticket every time? Did the carriage you boarded mean that you would be 'unable' to ever purchase a ticket? While boarding at an unstaffed station frees you from the threat of a Byelaw prosecution, there is no such protection from a RoRA prosecution.

It is highly unlikely they would pursue it (as the fare amounts would likely be low) but if the TOC can show that there is a pattern of behaviour that results in a loss then they can bring a prosecution. It would then be up to the court to decide if the passenger's actions are reasonable or demonstrate intent.

 

[exile]

Did you travel from and to unstaffed stations, without a ticket every time? Did the carriage you boarded mean that you would be 'unable' to ever purchase a ticket? While boarding at an unstaffed station frees you from the threat of a Byelaw prosecution, there is no such protection from a RoRA prosecution.

It is highly unlikely they would pursue it (as the fare amounts would likely be low) but if the TOC can show that there is a pattern of behaviour that results in a loss then they can bring a prosecution. It would then be up to the court to decide if the passenger's actions are reasonable or demonstrate intent.

If true, that's insane. Sitting in the same seat in a train every day is evidence of criminal intent?

 

[najaB]

If true, that's insane. Sitting in the same seat in a train every day is evidence of criminal intent?

No. Travelling by train every day without buying a ticket is evidence of criminal intent.