Why do so many people want to avoid their fare?

[anme]

Yes, because private parking companies are shysters and yes. It is extortion. Try reading a bit on the subject. I`m not talking about those who own the car parks it`s the excuses that pass for companies who run them sticking on fines that should be illegal.

So you agree that I can park on your front garden for free?

 

[DaleCooper]

Yes, because private parking companies are shysters and yes. It is extortion.

Extortion is a serious offence and if a parking company has used force or threats to make you, or anyone else, use a car park against their will you really should report it to the police.

 

[Bertie the bus]

The other week I heard the following exchange on board:

Passenger: 'single from Harrogate to Leeds with this railcard'
Guard: 'you can't use that railcard - you should have bought a ticket at Harrogate'
Passenger: 'actually I came from Starbeck'

I don't doubt that if any of these people ended up on this forum they would have a tale of woe.

My personal favourite is:

‘Single to X’
‘From which station?’
‘The last one’

To be fair it wouldn’t surprise me if some of these people were so stupid that they really did forget which town they lived in which makes the comments from people about how fare dodgers are really crusaders for the common good fighting against the tyranny of the rail industry even more amusing.

 

[sarahj]

My personal favourite is:

‘Single to X’
‘From which station?’
‘The last one’

To be fair it wouldn’t surprise me if some of these people were so stupid that they really did forget which town they lived in which makes the comments from people about how fare dodgers are really crusaders for the common good fighting against the tyranny of the rail industry even more amusing.

My classic was working a hove shuttle. Punter jumps off the Littlehampton to London train onto mine. He came to me for a ticket.
'single to Brighton'
'Where from?'
'Hove'
'I just saw you get off the train to London, so where from?'
'Aldrington'
'Train did not stop there, try again'
'Errr...errr, Shoreham'
:roll:

 

[fowler9]

Every time I read the title of this thread I can't help but think "To get something for free with a risk they are willing to take".

 

[jon0844]

I think you'll find the Supreme Court has ruled that private parking charges very much are enforceable.

My understanding is that they still need to prove actual losses, so would likely not get what they asked for - and as such wouldn't even bother to go that far.

If it's true that more than 50% of people pay up, many getting concerned when letters come through and wanting the problem to go away, I doubt any company will waste money going to court when there's easy money to make fo the cost of getting an address from the DVLA and a stamp or two.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Another for the record:

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/15035459.Director_in_court_for_not_paying_rail_fare/

 

[sheff1]

Interesting that he only had to pay £30 in prosecution costs when it was a deliberate and blatant attempt to avoid paying.

Seems rather out of line with the suggested 'prosecution costs' often quoted on here where people have made mistakes rather than deliberately travelled fraudulently.

 

[najaB]

Interesting that he only had to pay £30 in prosecution costs when it was a deliberate and blatant attempt to avoid paying.

Seems rather out of line with the suggested 'prosecution costs' often quoted on here where people have made mistakes rather than deliberately travelled fraudulently.

It does seem low, but it was an absolute discharge rather than a conviction.

 

[35B]

It does seem low, but it was an absolute discharge rather than a conviction.

Would be interesting to know the bench' reasoning given the facts as presented- it suggests something going on in the background.

 

[najaB]

Would be interesting to know the bench' reasoning given the facts as presented- it suggests something going on in the background.

At a guess, the fact that it was such a low amount involved as compared to the potential impact of a criminal conviction on a company director.

 

[miami]

Another for the record:

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/15035459.Director_in_court_for_not_paying_rail_fare/

This person didn't arrive on this forum looking for help.

To quote the first post:

Every day there are new threads in this forum about people seeking advice as to how to minimise their guilt.

That's simply not true.

 

[DaleCooper]

This person didn't arrive on this forum looking for help.

To quote the first post:



That's simply not true.

You are taking it too literally, it was a figure of speech.

 

[Banana]

To quote the first post:



That's simply not true.

I contend it is.

Throw away the key

 

[al78]

How about it's it's 17:58, parking charges end at 18:00, and the car park is empty. Do you pay? Do you keep driving round wasting fuel and destroying the planet?

I either pay or drive around for another two minutes, which, in an urban area, probably equates to about half a mile extra driving. In the grand scheme of the typical Western lifestyle the extra fuel used and carbon footprint of this is negligable, and is certainly not sufficient to justify a something-for-nothing entitlement attitude. Or to put it another way, if you do decide to chance it, then accept there is a risk you will get caught, and if you do get caught, take responsibility for the consequences of your decision, and learn from it, instead of pouring out a load of pathetic weak excuses as to why the rules shouldn't apply to you.

More likely, if it is a local journey, I would leave my car at home and use my bicycle, then the parking is free, and the carbon footprint and fuel used is minimised.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Another for the record:

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/15035459.Director_in_court_for_not_paying_rail_fare/

Interesting that he only had to pay £30 in prosecution costs when it was a deliberate and blatant attempt to avoid paying.

Seems rather out of line with the suggested 'prosecution costs' often quoted on here where people have made mistakes rather than deliberately travelled fraudulently.

It does seem low, but it was an absolute discharge rather than a conviction.

Would be interesting to know the bench' reasoning given the facts as presented- it suggests something going on in the background.

At a guess, the fact that it was such a low amount involved as compared to the potential impact of a criminal conviction on a company director.

I am very surprised with this. There must have been more mentioned in court for the bench to sentence so far from the guidelines. I can only assume that the bench were convinced by the "innocent mistake" and the inability to find a Skipton-York ticket on the machine at Skipton.

 

[philthetube]

I either pay or drive around for another two minutes, which, in an urban area, probably equates to about half a mile extra driving. In the grand scheme of the typical Western lifestyle the extra fuel used and carbon footprint of this is negligable, and is certainly not sufficient to justify a something-for-nothing entitlement attitude. Or to put it another way, if you do decide to chance it, then accept there is a risk you will get caught, and if you do get caught, take responsibility for the consequences of your decision, and learn from it, instead of pouring out a load of pathetic weak excuses as to why the rules shouldn't apply to you.

More likely, if it is a local journey, I would leave my car at home and use my bicycle, then the parking is free, and the carbon footprint and fuel used is minimised.

The carbon footprint is actually large if we all take the same attitude on a decisions like this one, it could be argued that considering your pennies rather than the worlds future is a much bigger crime.

 

[Fare-Cop]

I am very surprised with this. There must have been more mentioned in court for the bench to sentence so far from the guidelines. I can only assume that the bench were convinced by the "innocent mistake" and the inability to find a Skipton-York ticket on the machine at Skipton.

Yes, there was much more. ( Personally I also thought it quite an 'interesting' sentence considering that he pled guilty to 'intent to avoid a fare'.)

 

[johntea]

Are the fares mentioned in the article railcard discounted? If so quite surprised he was only ordered to pay the railcard discounted fare for his 'missing' ticket!

Also funny how poor excuses can be, obviously I'm only going on the article rather than the actual case but amazing how he managed to find the button to apply his railcard discount on the TVM but not the button for 'More destinations'

 

[Puffing Devil]

Yes, there was much more. ( Personally I also thought it quite an 'interesting' sentence considering that he pled guilty to 'intent to avoid a fare'.)

Are the fares mentioned in the article railcard discounted? If so quite surprised he was only ordered to pay the railcard discounted fare for his 'missing' ticket!

Also funny how poor excuses can be, obviously I'm only going on the article rather than the actual case but amazing how he managed to find the button to apply his railcard discount on the TVM but not the button for 'More destinations'

It does show that you never get the complete picture in news reports. I'm guessing that Fare-Cop has insider knowledge of this case. Quite often the bench will get reports and other information that may not be read out in full in open court that have a major impact on sentencing.

Even mitigation before sentencing is not always fully, or correctly, reported. Frequently we just see the offender details, the offence and the sentence. The bench would have had to given reasons for their sentence, we're missing those and they would not be formally recorded in the Magistrates' Court, though they will be in the case file.

 

[Haywain]

Yes, there was much more. ( Personally I also thought it quite an 'interesting' sentence considering that he pled guilty to 'intent to avoid a fare'.)

Oh, do tell us more...

 

[Economist]

Would be interesting to know the bench' reasoning given the facts as presented- it suggests something going on in the background.

In the banking/accountancy world dishonesty convictions are taken really seriously, usually comes under gross misconduct. Any professional bodies take a dim view of such convictions as well.

One of my banking contacts also told me that an employee entering into an IVA outside their work goes under gross misconduct too.

 

[najaB]

One of my banking contacts also told me that an employee entering into an IVA outside their work goes under gross misconduct too.

That sounds a little fishy - I can't see how a completely legal, civil arrangement that doesn't concern work in any way could constitute gross misconduct.

I could only see a failure to notify work being in any way misconduct.

 

[Economist]

It definitely applies to roles with customer contact, so business relationship managers etc. The idea being that people who manage money for their customers must be able to manage their own money effectively. I presume there may be exceptions but I've seen it in contracts. I don't know if there are exceptions where there are genuine mitigating circumstances, at least I'd hope so.

Nonetheless a railway ticketing offence under RoRA '89 would almost certainly see someone working for a bank lose their job, or so ai believe.

 

[island]

I work in a bank.

A staff member with an IVA or the like will very often be fired or at best taken off customer facing duties, as they are deemed to have a heightened tendency to want to embezzle funds or do other naughty things.

 

[najaB]

I work in a bank.

A staff member with an IVA or the like will very often be fired or at best taken off customer facing duties, as they are deemed to have a heightened tendency to want to embezzle funds or do other naughty things.

Interesting. I wonder if that's actually legal: "You're fired because we think you might do something."

 

[Haywain]

Interesting. I wonder if that's actually legal: "You're fired because we think you might do something."

I believe that you will find that it is perfectly legal but is not based on what they might do but what they have done, and that is failing to either act honestly or to manage their own financial affairs correctly. It certainly was the case in the past that bank staff had no choice but to bank with their employer, and were not permitted overdraft facilities. This was balanced by advantageous mortgage and loan offers.

 

[island]

Yep, my contract requires me to manage my financial affairs properly and not to do anything that would be liable to bring the bank into disrepute.

 

[AlterEgo]

Interesting. I wonder if that's actually legal: "You're fired because we think you might do something."

Try holding a post with Security Clearance or Developed Vetting in the civil service then.

Past behaviours can be markers for future behaviours.

 

[najaB]

Past behaviours can be markers for future behaviours.

I accept that there are some posts where extra precautions need to be taken, but it was the assertion that someone could be fired because of a perceived "...tendency to want to..." after having done nothing illegal or immoral that caught my eye.