This mornings Northern Revenue Op - Liverpool Echo

[Merseysider]

Guards issuing PFs could be at risk of assault. But what I would do is the following.

1: Short term, any guard-sold ticket should be sold with a red ticket-shaped piece of card warning that "you got away with it this time, next time you might not".

2: Long term, Northern to move to a fully statutory Penalty Fares system with at least one TVM provided at every station, tickets not sold onboard at all, and a number of roving revenue gangs issuing statutory PFs.

Completely agree.

However, Northern providing a TVM at every station should not be a long term goal. The amount of £80 Penalty Snares they've been collecting could probably have already paid for this.

 

[185]

What he fails to mention in the article is that he was offered to purchase a ticket once at lime street, twice, but after both opportunities he ignored that and tried to blag through the barriers.

To me, this sounds like the more likely scenario, however Northern failing to mention this formally in their press office reply still leaves me in some doubt given their previous trap ops - Ops which have migrated from (proven) short fare declaration to the more controversial failure to purchase (often when pax couldn't).

 

[island]

Guards issuing PFs could be at risk of assault. But what I would do is the following.

1: Short term, any guard-sold ticket should be sold with a red ticket-shaped piece of card warning that "you got away with it this time, next time you might not".

2: Long term, Northern to move to a fully statutory Penalty Fares system with at least one TVM provided at every station, tickets not sold onboard at all, and a number of roving revenue gangs issuing statutory PFs.

The principles are all completely sound, but Northern has no incentive whatsoever to spend loads of money on signage and ticketing facilities and what have you only to get the right to charge people who don't buy a ticket a quarter of what it currently does. Penalty Fakes take far more money. Indeed, it would be illegal for the directors of Northern to bring in such a scheme, as the Companies Act requires them to act in the best interest of shareholders.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The principles are all completely sound, but Northern has no incentive whatsoever to spend loads of money on signage and ticketing facilities and what have you only to get the right to charge people who don't buy a ticket a quarter of what it currently does. Penalty Fakes take far more money. Indeed, it would be illegal for the directors of Northern to bring in such a scheme, as the Companies Act requires them to act in the best interest of shareholders.

How does that square with other TOCs with PFs?

 

[Tetchytyke]

How does that square with other TOCs with PFs?

Quite easily, as we saw with both First Capital Connect and Abellio Greater Anglia, who instead of issuing PFs reached straight for the MG11.

There are issues here that Northern need to address but calling it 'extortion' displays a clear lack of understanding of the underlying mechanics of these settlements.

I don't think it does, to be quite honest. Northern know that, for most people, the inconvenience of going to court will cost them more than £80, even if they are innocent and even if they win in court. Having to take a day's unpaid leave from work to attend court would cost me more than £80, not to mention the travel costs of actually getting to court, and those aren't costs that a defendant easily gets reimbursed if they are acquitted.

If I win in court and I'm still £100 out of pocket, then it's a pyrrhic victory.

So, yes, I think "extortion" is exactly the right word to use.

 

[najaB]

Indeed, it would be illegal for the directors of Northern to bring in such a scheme, as the Companies Act requires them to act in the best interest of shareholders.

Acting in the best interest of the shareholders doesn't necessarily mean pursuing maximum profit at the expense of all else. Introducing an official penalty fares scheme could be said to be acting in the best interest of the shareholders as it reduces the legal ambiguity surrounding their revenue protection activities.

 

[johntea]

They can put a TVM at every station, but if they don't take pounds and pence at some locations (Which in the majority of unstaffed stations they don't!) then people not wishing to pay via credit / debit card need another way to purchase their tickets.

Quite interesting actually how Manchester Metrolink have TVMs all across Manchester with cash facilities - so no excuse for not buying before you board (unless the machine is faulty and even then you have to telephone Metrolink to inform them as such before travelling) but Northern don't or have removed them in recent years due to people nicking the cash from them!

 

[185]

Quite interesting actually how Manchester Metrolink have TVMs all across Manchester with cash facilities

Not all take notes. Some incidents affecting 10-15% where the machines were being attacked.

I think for a start all of Northern's PTE area stations should have TVMs.

 

[Harpers Tate]

I find it interesting that the opinion of some expressed here is that the man in question may be a "serial offender". Yet it seems just as likely that Northern fail to provide sufficient resource at the origin station (and at countless others like it) on a serial basis, yet are guilty of nothing. One-sided? You bet!

I honestly believe the entire industry would benefit from a system that is far more "quid pro quo" and that any and every detected "mistake" made by a TOC (including its employees) rendered them just as liable for penalty sums and out-of-court settlements as their (sometimes) hapless unfortunate and fundamentally honest customers.

Refused access to a train at a peak time with an ACTUALLY VALID off-peak ticket? Too long a queue at a ticket office? An honest mistake - maybe - but a penalty due regardless? That would be closer to being equitable.

 

[terryc]

I use Northern on a regular basis. Sometimes the ticket office at my local station is unmanned (usually at weekends) and the TVM is always 'Card only', which I hate using (bad past experience of having a card jam in the machine)
So the solution is to wait 'mid point' on the platform, and see where the guard alights in order to dispatch the train. Usually max 4 cars, so I can normally reach him in a few seconds. A quick "I need to buy a ticket, mate" when boarding means that he will then seek me out.
I've always found the Northern guards to be genuinely nice, decent people, and very accommodating...
No need to then fall foul or the revenue gestapo.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To me, this sounds like the more likely scenario, however Northern failing to mention this formally in their press office reply still leaves me in some doubt given their previous trap ops - Ops which have migrated from (proven) short fare declaration to the more controversial failure to purchase (often when pax couldn't).

And also including, it seems, people who quite reasonably buy a "back" ticket at their destination, e.g. I board at Edge Hill (where unstaffed and no TVM) and travel to Manchester, but ask at the barrier for a ticket, permitting BoJ, from Lime St because I'm going back there. This is completely reasonable but seems to be being pulled up based on the idea that if you boarded at Lime St you walked past an opportunity to pay.

I think if I did that these days I would first state where I had come from and then what ticket I wanted and why, but it's quite reasonable that someone not familiar with the ins and outs of the railway might do otherwise.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I use Northern on a regular basis. Sometimes the ticket office at my local station is unmanned (usually at weekends) and the TVM is always 'Card only', which I hate using (bad past experience of having a card jam in the machine)

You *once* had a card jam in a TVM, and you won't use card TVMs as a result? Do you also refuse to use ATMs and only withdraw cash from in a branch?

Personally I'd call that an excuse and you'd get a PF or Anytime Single as appropriate. I use a card TVM for 99% plus of journeys I make and have *never*[1] had a card jam in one.

[1] Well, sort of. I have had an issue with SBB TVMs and a specific UK Visa card I used to have, caused by issues with SIX Card Services' terminals, in which the TVM appeared to keep the card for a very long time but did eventually return it as "declined". But the problem also occurred at manned ticket offices (and other places using those terminals like supermarkets and hotels), so I just had to give up using that specific card for any transactions using those terminals.

 

[Agent_c]

You *once* had a card jam in a TVM, and you won't use card TVMs as a result? Do you also refuse to use ATMs and only withdraw cash from in a branch?

I twice had a ATM eat money I was depositing, I won't use them for deposits.

Losing cash is a pain, but losing a card means you can't even take action at another ATM to get more out.

 

[terryc]

You *once* had a card jam in a TVM, and you won't use card TVMs as a result? Do you also refuse to use ATMs and only withdraw cash from in a branch?

Personally I'd call that an excuse and you'd get a PF or Anytime Single as appropriate. I use a card TVM for 99% plus of journeys I make and have *never*[1] had a card jam in one.

Whether I choose to use ATM's or not is my business. I choose not to use TVM's for the reason I've stated. The fact that you haven't had an issue is irrelevant. I have.
The issues I had in finally retrieving that card (and then having the inconvenience of having to renew it) was something I could have done without. If the TVM accepted cash, then I would use it. What if I didn't have a card or wasn't carrying one? Believe it or not some people are actually in that position, so please hold off the condescending tone.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Losing cash is a pain, but losing a card means you can't even take action at another ATM to get more out.

It is a good idea, because that can happen, to have more than one card. OK, more than one debit card is awkward, but a debit and a credit card is a good idea - settle the latter monthly and you can use it to get emergency cash without too much in the way of fees.

If not entitled to a credit card, and you don't have someone you could BACS some money to to draw it out for you / your bank requires a debit card reader for all BACS transactions, carrying a little more cash than otherwise is a good idea.

None of this is a reason not to use a TVM unless you know a *specific* TVM is faulty, in which case you should report it to the TOC and get acknowledgement in writing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What if I didn't have a card or wasn't carrying one?

If there is a card-only TVM and you intend to pay by card, you use it.

If you intend to pay by cash, the TVM does not constitute an opportunity[1] to purchase, so pay on board or at your destination. If, however, you pull out a card when asked to do so, expect quite rightly to be pulled up on the matter.

So if you *really* don't want to use the TVM, you would be best advised to always pay for your train journeys in cash.

[1] Some argue that having a card with you constitutes a responsibility to use it, but to me that is too complicated as you may not have funds on it etc, and in any case an RPI does not have the right to search you under any circumstances I know of, so just ensure it isn't visible when you open your wallet and it's irrelevant.

 

[Phil.]

There's not too much sympathy from other 'normals' for this bloke getting caught. Indeed, one comment suggests that he's quite possibly a serial offender...

What's this "normals" expression/description. Are Rail staff "special"?

 

[Merseysider]

What's this "normals" expression/description. Are Rail staff "special"?

'Normals' = people without a train brain, if you will.

 

[Phil.]

'Normals' = people without a train brain, if you will.

That'll be the general public then.

 

[Merseysider]

That'll be the general public then.

Yes Phil. That is the general public.

 

[Fare-Cop]

I find it interesting that the opinion of some expressed here is that the man in question may be a "serial offender". Yet it seems just as likely that Northern fail to provide sufficient resource at the origin station (and at countless others like it) on a serial basis, yet are guilty of nothing. One-sided? You bet!

I honestly believe the entire industry would benefit from a system that is far more "quid pro quo" and that any and every detected "mistake" made by a TOC (including its employees) rendered them just as liable for penalty sums and out-of-court settlements as their (sometimes) hapless unfortunate and fundamentally honest customers.

I have worked in this industry for just shy of 40 years and have always been a firm advocate of the idea that the travelling public are 'fundamentally honest'.

A loose assessment that ticketless travel across the railways nationally used to hover around the 1.5 - 2% mark would certainly support that view. However, recent revenue protection activity indicates that there has been a substantial change in many areas.

I believe that there is a case for TOCs being held to account for their actions and that redress for travellers who have been 'wronged' by TOCs staff's actions should automatically be compensated. Where it can be shown that this is of a repeated or systemic nature, very tough sanctions on the TOC can be justified, but recent exercises analysing what actually happens at a great many stations, particularly at peak times, suggests a substantial change in attitude toward purchasing valid tickets by a large percentage of the travelling public.

As an example, I quote a couple from the large number of stations surveyed by staff working with RP teams at platform entrances for full weeks over the past few months.

RP staff have been under instruction to send any person attempting to travel without valid tickets back to the ticket office or TVMs to correct any invalid ticket, or where no ticket was held, to buy in accordance with current Byelaws.

As an illustration of just two elements of the more detailed analysis that is conducted, a count of total numbers of travellers in & out is made and of the numbers of travellers sent back to ticketing facilities and of how many of those sent to buy do not then actually travel.

One, a major station served by Northern and other TOCs, has seen an increase in revenue at the ticket office of more than 30%. The vast majority of these travellers have arrived with ample time to go and buy a ticket, but simply didn't make any attempt to do so.

Another, not on Northern, which also has a staffed ticket office at peak times, has seen an increase in ticket sales of more than 80% when revenue staff have been present and more than 1% of those sent back to buy tickets have not then actually travelled

No business wants 'customers' who have no intention of paying.

During these checks no-one who has arrived more than 5 or 6 minutes before the train they intended to catch has missed that train.

There is a great deal more useful information that comes out of these checks, but the worrying trend is in the substantial numbers of people who now seem to think it's OK to get on and pay only if asked.

 

[Tetchytyke]

There is a great deal more useful information that comes out of these checks, but the worrying trend is in the substantial numbers of people who now seem to think it's OK to get on and pay only if asked.

That's very interesting analysis. It's just a hypothesis, but I wonder how the rail industry's reputation now as money-grabbing privatised fat cats affects this. Are people getting more dishonest, or are people simply "trying it on" against an organisation that they perceive as deserving it?

 

[Deerfold]

Thanks for the interesting look at how many people don't want to pay or only pay when challenged. However, without similar historical data from similar blocks I'm not sure it shows a trend. I'd certainly be surprised if fare dodging on the line I used to use in the 80s was as low as 1% (I only ever made one trip without paying when the machine at my outgoing station had been vandalised, I didn't see the guard and the ticket office at my arrival station had shut early).

 

[Fare-Cop]

Thanks for the interesting look at how many people don't want to pay or only pay when challenged. However, without similar historical data from similar blocks I'm not sure it shows a trend.

I agree, analytical information in comparable form 40 years ago was pretty well non-existent and some lines were much worse in parts.

There are hotspots now of course, but in some areas where full monitoring by these type of exercises takes place, it's the results from recent months that suggest a steady upward trend since checks of this type commenced two or more years ago.

Sorry, I should have made that clearer

 

[DaveNewcastle]

[apologies for responding a week after the original posts]

Extortion is something completely different.

There are issues here that Northern need to address but calling it 'extortion' displays a clear lack of understanding of the underlying mechanics of these settlements.

I don't think it does, to be quite honest. Northern know that, for most people, the inconvenience of going to court will cost them more than £80, even if they are innocent and even if they win in court. Having to take a day's unpaid leave from work to attend court would cost me more than £80, not to mention the travel costs of actually getting to court, and those aren't costs that a defendant easily gets reimbursed if they are acquitted.

If I win in court and I'm still £100 out of pocket, then it's a pyrrhic victory.

So, yes, I think "extortion" is exactly the right word to use.

It's unclear what facts you are analysing which lead you to this conclusion, or whether it is an unfounded opinion, so I'm not sure how to frame my rebuttal. But I do refute this conclusion.

Any passenger contesting a prosecution with any competence will be putting the prosecution's evidence to proof, and that will probably require at least one member of front line rail staff to have a day off duties, but a day paid for. Rail Companies, just like any other litigant, understand the great cost incurred by arguing the law or the facts in Court.

The great number of successful prosecutions are against fare evaders. People who have no defence of any merit, and whose prosecution don't require any arcane discussion about ticket validity or about opportunities to buy. The small proportion which involve arguable facts of the circumstances are regularly settled without involving the Courts. It seems to be a popular belief in this forum that Railway Companies regularly draw their innocent passengers to Court and thence to a criminal conviction, and that it is easy (and/or inexpensive) for them to do so.

That is not true.

The last time I asked on here for any examples of innocent passengers actually being convicted, only one person responded, and they responded reporting personal knowledge of 'several' ; but then adding "if the passenger is to be believed".

It beggars belief that any Railway Company would pursue a prosecution against a passenger where the simple facts of the matter wouldn't support the evidential requirements of a Criminal Conviction.

 

[Agent_c]

[apologies for responding a week after the original posts]It's unclear what facts you are analysing which lead you to this conclusion, or whether it is an unfounded opinion, so I'm not sure how to frame my rebuttal. But I do refute this conclusion.

Any passenger contesting a prosecution with any competence will be putting the prosecution's evidence to proof, and that will probably require at least one member of front line rail staff to have a day off duties, but a day paid for. Rail Companies, just like any other litigant, understand the great cost incurred by arguing the law or the facts in Court.

The great number of successful prosecutions are against fare evaders. People who have no defence of any merit, and whose prosecution don't require any arcane discussion about ticket validity or about opportunities to buy. The small proportion which involve arguable facts of the circumstances are regularly settled without involving the Courts. It seems to be a popular belief in this forum that Railway Companies regularly draw their innocent passengers to Court and thence to a criminal conviction, and that it is easy (and/or inexpensive) for them to do so.

That is not true.

The last time I asked on here for any examples of innocent passengers actually being convicted, only one person responded, and they responded reporting personal knowledge of 'several' ; but then adding "if the passenger is to be believed".

It beggars belief that any Railway Company would pursue a prosecution against a passenger where the simple facts of the matter wouldn't support the evidential requirements of a Criminal Conviction.

Just to echo that, Railway companies have no minister who wants to appear to be "tough on crime" pushing bad prosecutions, want to minimise their costs, and have no shortage of guilty persons to make an example of... Why would they need to make stuff up, or waste their time on a maybe?

 

[Tetchytyke]

DaveNewcastle, I didn't say that TOCs took the decision to prosecute lightly. I said they made the threats lightly, because they know that most people- even if innocent- will cough up rather than incur the cost and inconvenience of fighting on.

This is no different to practices in the private car parking industry, where they will issue demands lightly but not take most of them to court.

What would be a more interesting statistic is how many threats of prosecution via Penalty Fakes turn into actual prosecutions.

 

[70014IronDuke]

I have worked in this industry for just shy of 40 years and have always been a firm advocate of the idea that the travelling public are 'fundamentally honest'.

A loose assessment that ticketless travel across the railways nationally used to hover around the 1.5 - 2% mark would certainly support that view. However, recent revenue protection activity indicates that there has been a substantial change in many areas.

... , but recent exercises analysing what actually happens at a great many stations, particularly at peak times, suggests a substantial change in attitude toward purchasing valid tickets by a large percentage of the travelling public.

As an example, I quote a couple from the large number of stations surveyed by staff working with RP teams at platform entrances for full weeks over the past few months.

RP staff have been under instruction to send any person attempting to travel without valid tickets back to the ticket office or TVMs to correct any invalid ticket, or where no ticket was held, to buy in accordance with current Byelaws.

As an illustration of just two elements of the more detailed analysis that is conducted, a count of total numbers of travellers in & out is made and of the numbers of travellers sent back to ticketing facilities and of how many of those sent to buy do not then actually travel.

One, a major station served by Northern and other TOCs, has seen an increase in revenue at the ticket office of more than 30%. The vast majority of these travellers have arrived with ample time to go and buy a ticket, but simply didn't make any attempt to do so.

Another, not on Northern, which also has a staffed ticket office at peak times, has seen an increase in ticket sales of more than 80% when revenue staff have been present and more than 1% of those sent back to buy tickets have not then actually travelled

.... .

Regardless of whether the OP is correct about the trends or not, this is quite staggering. The station with an 80% increase in fares, was that also a "major" station - or a small place?

Either way, a 30% increase in takings at a a "major" station - I assume we are talking about, eg a place the size of Huddersfield or Wigan NW or some such - that must be a fair whack in terms of revenue over one year.

And even if the 80% place was just 10,000 passengers a year in the "official user figures" - over a year, that means the real figures would be more like 18,000 - not insignificant for the TOC, one would imagine.

This post should really be the beginning of another thread, rather than just in here on the Liverpool operation.

 

[All Line Rover]

...confusion is brought in if they *ever* sell him a ticket on board - the system needs to be consistent above all else - at the very minimum if he's sold a ticket on other occasions it needs to be sold with a clear leaflet stating "you've been lucky this time, punk, it could be £80 next time".

Yes, yes, yes! Arriva Trains Wales are equally bad at this. As is London Midland, depending on the guard.

 

[All Line Rover]

Acting in the best interest of the shareholders doesn't necessarily mean pursuing maximum profit at the expense of all else. Introducing an official penalty fares scheme could be said to be acting in the best interest of the shareholders as it reduces the legal ambiguity surrounding their revenue protection activities.

And in any case, section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 does not require directors to act "in the best interest of shareholders". It is more nuanced than that, despite what the directors of many companies like to claim in an attempt to justify questionable business practices or tax arrangements.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Regardless of whether the OP is correct about the trends or not, this is quite staggering. The station with an 80% increase in fares, was that also a "major" station - or a small place?

Either way, a 30% increase in takings at a a "major" station - I assume we are talking about, eg a place the size of Huddersfield or Wigan NW or some such - that must be a fair whack in terms of revenue over one year.

And even if the 80% place was just 10,000 passengers a year in the "official user figures" - over a year, that means the real figures would be more like 18,000 - not insignificant for the TOC, one would imagine.

This post should really be the beginning of another thread, rather than just in here on the Liverpool operation.

You are absolutely right, these are not insignificant results. The major station is bigger than Huddersfield or Wigan NW.

The station with an 80%+ lift isn't a huge town, but although your imagined user figures are a little low, not wildly inaccurate.

Any passenger contesting a prosecution with any competence will be putting the prosecution's evidence to proof, and that will probably require at least one member of front line rail staff to have a day off duties, but a day paid for. Rail Companies, just like any other litigant, understand the great cost incurred by arguing the law or the facts in Court.

The great number of successful prosecutions are against fare evaders. People who have no defence of any merit, and whose prosecution don't require any arcane discussion about ticket validity or about opportunities to buy. The small proportion which involve arguable facts of the circumstances are regularly settled without involving the Courts. It seems to be a popular belief in this forum that Railway Companies regularly draw their innocent passengers to Court and thence to a criminal conviction, and that it is easy (and/or inexpensive) for them to do so.

That is not true.

The last time I asked on here for any examples of innocent passengers actually being convicted, only one person responded, and they responded reporting personal knowledge of 'several' ; but then adding "if the passenger is to be believed".

It beggars belief that any Railway Company would pursue a prosecution against a passenger where the simple facts of the matter wouldn't support the evidential requirements of a Criminal Conviction.

Dave has it spot-on as usual.

Anyone who actually receives a Summons can be pretty sure that the company has a strong case.

Yes, we can all quote very occasional examples of a missed error in putting a case together, but they make up a miniscule fraction of the number of cases brought and successfully convicted by Magistrates under guidance of Courts Legal Advisors, or in some cases, by District Judges

Guards issuing PFs could be at risk of assault. But what I would do is the following

1: Short term, any guard-sold ticket should be sold with a red ticket-shaped piece of card warning that "you got away with it this time, next time you might not".

I also believe that Neil has this right too.

Where real pre-purchase facilities existed at a traveller's starting station and where a traveller is seen by other than a P.A.C.E. trained revenue protection inspector there should be greater consistency across the board.

Discretion should only exist for truly deserving reasons

On train staff should record the name and address of the traveller who is in breach of National Railway Byelaw 18.1 as required by N.R. Byelaw 23 and should issue a 'red card' along the lines suggested by Neil before selling a ticket.

Under the current climate none of this is likely to happen quickly and that retains the inconsistent approach to a serious problem, although one or two TOCs are now beginning to issue such warning cards and leaflets.

 

[daodao]

Neil W stated "Short term, any guard-sold ticket should be sold with a red ticket-shaped piece of card warning that "you got away with it this time, next time you might not".

That would be unfair for travellers from most small local stations, which do not have TVMs or ticket offices. Local examples include Ashley and Prestbury.

It would also apply to passengers from stations with ticket offices that have only restricted opening hours, e.g. Hale and Heald Green, who travel when these offices are closed.