Penalty fares vs prosecution

[Cantab26]

You cannot get a criminal conviction from a council for not paying for parking - they can only issue civil penalty charge notices, and even that is subject to some strict regulations, especially when using CCTV, which limits their ability to enforce the parking rules.

This isn’t necessarily correct: I have come across numerous instances where this can lead to criminal liability.

The same with not paying tolls or Road user charges.

This is generally under byelaws, just as on the railway.

 

[Richardr]

This doesn’t make me too comfortable…

So does this mean that any genuine mistake can result in prosecution at the whim of a train company? Like a person sitting in the first class with a second class ticket thinking it’s declassified, or travelling at peak times with an off-peak ticket or using a ticket which is valid only for journeys though X on a train that doesn’t go through X, or forgetting to tap in with a KeyGo?..

KeyGo is I think slightly different in that it is recognized that there will be missed tap ins / outs.

They state https://www.thameslinkrailway.com/help-and-support/contact-us/faqs/keygo:

If you have not touched in or out, we will email you to inform you of the missing tap. You can then log into your account to amend the incomplete journeys. You will have up to the Wednesday following the date of travel to add the missing tap, otherwise a £25 Incomplete Journey Charge will be applied to your account. You can complete 3 journeys online in a 28-day period. After this you should contact Customer Services.

Where possible, we try to auto-fill your journeys based upon your regular journey patterns and other tickets you hold on your Key Smartcard. If our system has auto-filled the wrong station, you can amend this through your online account.

 

[AlterEgo]

Speeding is, however, a strict liability offence.

As is driving without motor insurance, and many other driving offences are too. It is extremely easy - in fact arguably easier - to be criminalised driving your car than riding the train.

 

[MrJeeves]

KeyGo is I think slightly different in that it is recognized that there will be missed tap ins / outs.

If your smartcard is inspected and you have not tapped in, you are treated as not having purchased a valid ticket.

There are often missed tap in/outs when that data gets pushed to the backend servers at the end of each railway day, but the taps will still have been physically written to the card as a "transient ticket" when you actually touch in/out.

 

[AdamWW]

You cannot get a criminal conviction from a council for not paying for parking - they can only issue civil penalty charge notices, and even that is subject to some strict regulations, especially when using CCTV, which limits their ability to enforce the parking rules.

Weren't things like wrongly parking made into civil offences so that councils could deal with them rather than the police? A different approach to the railways.

While driving you don’t need to hold your driving licence, or proof of insurance or anything else on you - the police can check everything electronically if they need or issue a “producer” where you will need to present your documents within 60 days.

A bit different to the approach to forgetting your railcard.

Also, so far as I know the police are not allowed to randomly stop drivers to ask them to show a license - they can only do that if they have reason to do so.

Whereas rail passengers generally have to repeatedly demonstrate that they aren't fare evading.

 

[Hadders]

This is the explanation Chiltern Railways use to describe Penalty Fares (the leaflet pre-dates the new PF regulations but it's a reasonable explanation):

https://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/sites/default/files/files/timetables/Chiltern%20Penalty%20Fares.pdf

A Penalty Fare is a charge that Chiltern Railways is allowed to make under the Regulations and Rules. It is not a fine, and anyone who is charged one is not being accused of avoiding, or attempting to avoid, paying their fare. ‘Fare dodging’ is a completely different matter: it is a criminal offence and we treat it as such by prosecuting offenders.

 

[Haywain]

Also, so far as I know the police are not allowed to randomly stop drivers to ask them to show a license - they can only do that if they have reason to do so.

Most drivers manage to make that remarkably easy for the police, such are driving standards.

 

[spag23]

Also, so far as I know the police are not allowed to randomly stop drivers to ask them to show a license

Yes they are. See Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. No reason required.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Apart from simply being curious I am trying to protect myself from mistakes, either mine or those of railway staff members.

I have no intention to game the system - I have a season ticket that I use for my daily commute (I’ve asked some question about it here), so doing anything dodgy would make no sense to me. I don’t spend too much on public transport anyway, so even if somehow avoided paying for it altogether I wouldn’t gain much to justify the risk.

I have never had any issues with revenue inspectors - during my four years in London which includes a daily commute I’ve encountered them two or three times where they simply checked my card and moved on.

But we are all humans and we can make mistakes. I can mistakenly travel outside the validity zone of my season ticket by simply boarding a train, which is going to the same destination as mine from the same platform, but doesn’t stop at my station. I can touch in with a wrong card and then travel on a route where the card that I used to touch in is not valid, but the other card would be valid if I touched in with it. I normally travel in a declassified first class compartment with my second class ticket, which is OK, but if one day the declassification is cancelled or due to a disruption a train with a “legal” first class stops at my station I can travel there without realising I am legally in the wrong. Or even if I travel in a declassified first class, the display may still show “this area is only for first class ticket holders” and I think that there’s a change that an inspector may try to wrongfully issue a penalty fare.

And I have no desire whatsoever to get a conviction. I am in the UK on a visa and having troubles with the law enforcements is the last thing I need.

So I was under impression that I was protected from being disproportionally penalised for such mistakes. Apparently, I am not, and there’s nothing stopping a train company from launching a prosecution. Now I am trying to figure out what would be the best course of action if I ever get in troubles with an inspector if any of the situations above arises, especially if I think that they are in the wrong, not me. Should I just shut up and pay whatever they tell me? Should I dispute a penalty I don’t agree with or should I be more careful not to aggravate the situation? This is what motivated me to start this thread and ask follow up questions.

I don’t like walking in a minefield without knowing the chances of stepping on a mine and the damage it may cause.

Thanks for this: I am reassured of your bona fides.

Your core question seems to be 'how can I avoid getting into trouble when travelling by train?' As a response this may sound flippant but I am entirely serious when I say that you seem to have been travelling in London for four years without getting into trouble, so if you carry on doing what you have done for the last four years then I expect that you will continue to not get into trouble.

You're doing everything you should, so you don't need to worry about doing anything different!

 

[Dima]

You're doing everything you should, so you don't need to worry about doing anything different!

I appreciate your reply, and I agree with you that it’s unlikely that I will ever have any troubles. But, however low this probability is, it’s not zero as we all make mistakes, and given the seriousness of the matter (a potential criminal conviction with a possible impact on employment and immigration) I think it’s best to research about it as much as possible to know what to do should it happen.

For example, I haven’t had to call emergency services in the UK either, but it doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t know their number.

And on a side note, as a matter of principle I don’t like a situation where private companies have so much power over their customers, so knowing more about it puts me in a better position to help a change happen when/if the chance comes.

 

[Hadders]

Whilst it can be unnerving reading some of the reports on here one has to remember that billions of journeys are made on the railway every year, the vast, vast majority of these without any incident whatsoever. My advice would be to not over think things, as long as you buy a ticket before you board the train you will be fine.

 

[Gonzoiku]

Yes they are. See Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. No reason required.

That covers the random stop. Only. For pushbikes too. But no mention of showing the driving licence.

GZ

 

[Idiotic]

In a nutshell

Penalty fares are mainly there for those who make an honest mistake. Example: Not buying a ticket before you board due to time constraints, lost ticket, forgot railcard etc etc..

Prosecution should be there for those who deliberately avoid to pay the fare. Or who have already got previous penalty fares.

Once a penalty fare is issued and paid that is the end of the matter.

However it is known for some companies to take the MG11 route too easy.

 

[spag23]

That covers the random stop. Only. For pushbikes too. But no mention of showing the driving licence.

Once a driver has been stopped (randomly or otherwise) under Section 163, the next Section (164) gives police the authority to demand production of his driving licence.
The next stage (further searches of the vehicle) may be subject to "reasonable suspicion". But we're getting a bit OT here!

 

[AdamWW]

That covers the random stop. Only. For pushbikes too. But no mention of showing the driving licence.

GZ

No it doesn't. But it seems that I was wrong and the police do have the right to ask to see your license at that point.

https://www.gov.uk/stopped-by-police-while-driving-your-rights

The police can stop a vehicle for any reason. If they ask you to stop, you should always pull over when it’s safe to do so. You’re breaking the law if you do not stop.

If you’re stopped, the police can ask to see your:
driving licence
insurance certificate
MOT certificate

However in practise drivers aren't asked to show licenses in the way that rail passengers have to show tickets. Maybe it wouldn't be practical to do this enough to deter driving without a license in the way that ticket checks reduce fare evasion.

(I'd have thought lurking in supermarket car parks and asking to see a license as drivers got out, rather than stopping them the road, would be more efficient - but maybe they don't have that power).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Feb 2023 ==

In a nutshell

Penalty fares are mainly there for those who make an honest mistake. Example: Not buying a ticket before you board due to time constraints, lost ticket, forgot railcard etc etc..

Prosecution should be there for those who deliberately avoid to pay the fare. Or who have already got previous penalty fares.

Once a penalty fare is issued and paid that is the end of the matter.

However it is known for some companies to take the MG11 route too easy.

But of course outside penalty fare areas the only option they have is to ignore the offence or move straight to threats of prosecution even for obviously innocent mistakes.

 

[Haywain]

But of course outside penalty fare areas the only option they have is to ignore the offence or move straight to threats of prosecution even for obviously innocent mistakes.

As it isn't always the case that not having a ticket or the right ticket is actually an offence, there is also an option of issuing an Unpaid Fares Notice (where TOCs use them) or selling a (new) ticket. An MG11 is a very clumsy and expensive way of collecting a fare.

 

[AdamWW]

As it isn't always the case that not having a ticket or the right ticket is actually an offence, there is also an option of issuing an Unpaid Fares Notice (where TOCs use them) or selling a (new) ticket. An MG11 is a very clumsy and expensive way of collecting a fare.

And even where it is an offence, they have the option of just selling a new ticket. I meant the only way to get a "fine" out of the passenger is to move straight to threats of prosecution so if they want to penalise someone for an honest mistake, that's what it has to be because penalty fares aren't an option.

 

[Haywain]

And even where it is an offence, they have the option of just selling a new ticket. I meant the only way to get a "fine" out of the passenger is to move straight to threats of prosecution so if they want to penalise someone for an honest mistake, that's what it has to be because penalty fares aren't an option.

However, we shouldn't lose sight of the reality that the vast majority of passengers making honest mistakes do not get penalised at all, either because they go undetected or because the rail staff they encounter show discretion in dealing with the matter. Those cases will very, very rarely be seen on these forums for very obvious reasons.

 

[AdamWW]

However, we shouldn't lose sight of the reality that the vast majority of passengers making honest mistakes do not get penalised at all, either because they go undetected or because the rail staff they encounter show discretion in dealing with the matter. Those cases will very, very rarely be seen on these forums for very obvious reasons.

Very true.

 

[some bloke]

given the seriousness of the matter (a potential criminal conviction with a possible impact on employment and immigration) I think it’s best to research about it as much as possible to know what to do should it happen.

I'm wondering what research tells us it's serious in the first place.

Which employers and countries would refuse someone for such a conviction, outside rare cases where the person's application or character was considered borderline anyway?

An employer would be daft to employ someone else who seems significantly less suitable for a job, just because the preferred person had made a very minor mistake. People make mistakes in jobs all the time which are far more serious and far more of an indication of fitness for the job than ticketing mistakes. The person deciding on the job application may have a motoring conviction themselves.

We might hope that a similar thing applies to immigration decisions. People may assume that they won't get into the USA with a very minor conviction, whereas the reality is different.

We could wonder how many people in the UK have been convicted for a strict liability offence.

In any event, a large proportion of cases on here end up with a settlement. How many cases are on this forum where a person maintains it was an innocent mistake, and is convicted? (Perhaps prosecution departments recognise cases on here and are more likely as a result to settle them.)

Can a train company theoretically prosecute someone who...traveled beyond the validity of their ticket as they missed their stop?

Neither byelaw 18(1) nor 18(2) clearly make that an automatic offence.

Railway byelaws

Explains what the railway byelaws are, why they have been made and how they can be enforced and interpreted.

www.gov.uk

This offence is for deliberate action:

"knowingly and wilfully proceeds by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance, and with intent to avoid payment thereof"

- section 5(3)(b):

Regulation of Railways Act 1889

An Act to amend the Regulation of Railways Acts; and for other purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

.......


Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 doesn't say police can stop motorists randomly, or for no reason. It says that if uniformed or traffic officers require you to stop, you have to.

"(1)A person driving a [...mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform [...or a traffic officer]."
Road Traffic Act 1988
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/163

 

[AdamWW]

The person deciding on the job application may have a motoring conviction themselves.

And quite possibly the job application form required the appilicant to list all criminal convictions apart from motoring offences.

Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 doesn't say police can stop motorists randomly, or for no reason. It says that if uniformed or traffic officers require you to stop, you have to.

"(1)A person driving a [...mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform [...or a traffic officer]."
Road Traffic Act 1988
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/163

It doesn't say they can't either so perhaps one has to look elsewhere for the circumstances in which the police can do so.

Neither byelaw 18(1) nor 18(2) clearly make that an automatic offence.

Railway byelaws

Explains what the railway byelaws are, why they have been made and how they can be enforced and interpreted.

www.gov.uk

Surely once they've passed the last station that their ticket is valid to 18(2) applies as they don't have a valid ticket for that part of the journey?

I'm wondering what research tells us it's serious in the first place.

Which employers and countries would refuse someone for such a conviction, outside rare cases where the person's application or character was considered borderline anyway?

An employer would be daft to employ someone else who seems significantly less suitable for a job, just because the preferred person had made a very minor mistake. People make mistakes in jobs all the time which are far more serious and far more of an indication of fitness for the job than ticketing mistakes. The person deciding on the job application may have a motoring conviction themselves.

A good question. I suspect the problem is that these are or can be seen as crimes of dishonesty, which for some professions would be regarded as more serious than - say - a conviction for dangerous driving.

 

[Watershed]

Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 doesn't say police can stop motorists for no reason. It says that if uniformed or traffic officers require you to stop, you have to.

"(1)A person driving a [...mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform [...or a traffic officer]."
Road Traffic Act 1988
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/163

It doesn't require that the constable has any reason to stop you. Unlike the US and other countries where 'reasonable suspicion' of an offence is needed to stop someone, there is no requirement for British police to have a reason to stop motorists or to inspect their documents.

Surely once they've passed the last station that their ticket is valid to 18(2) applies as they don't have a valid ticket for that part of the journey?

I'm sure we've had this discussion before, but Byelaw 18(2) doesn't state that a valid ticket must be handed over. Therefore, if you board the train with a ticket that's valid at that point, and travel beyond your ticket's validity, there is no offence committed provided you didn't do so dishonestly, and hand over your ticket when asked.

Whether such an argument would be accepted in Court is another matter; it might be necessary to appeal.

 

[some bloke]

And quite possibly the job application form required the appilicant to list all criminal convictions apart from motoring offences.

Right, but that may be because those are more common (and easier to categorise) than strict-liability railway offences. It doesn't mean that the byelaw offence will be treated any more seriously than the "ignorable" motoring offence, and we might think that if a motoring offence has something to do with safety the byelaw offence is less of a concern.

It doesn't say they can't either so perhaps one has to look elsewhere for the circumstances in which the police can do so.

Yes - the point is that it doesn't in itself specifically confer unlimited power to stop.

Surely once they've passed the last station that their ticket is valid to 18(2) applies as they don't have a valid ticket for that part of the journey?

It doesn't say the ticket has to be valid, so the point seems to remain that it doesn't clearly make overtravelling a strict-liability offence.

I suspect the problem is that these are or can be seen as crimes of dishonesty, which for some professions would be regarded as more serious than - say - a conviction for dangerous driving.

Byelaw offences aren't offences of dishonesty. It wouldn't be responsible of an employer to make big assumptions about dishonesty as a result of a strict-liability offence.

It's clearly reasonable for employers to wonder whether a byelaw conviction is as a result of dishonesty, so asking questions related to that is reasonable.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Feb 2023 ==

It doesn't require that the constable has any reason to stop you. Unlike the US and other countries where 'reasonable suspicion' of an offence is needed to stop someone, there is no requirement for British police to have a reason to stop motorists or to inspect their documents.

Yes, it doesn't require a reason. But it is about the motorist's obligation, not about how wide or narrow the officer's powers are - which is a question determined by the presence or absence of other legislation.

 

[Watershed]

Yes - the point is that it doesn't in itself specifically confer unlimited power to stop.

Yes, it doesn't require a reason. But it is about the motorist's obligation, not about how wide or narrow the officer's powers are - which is a question determined by the presence or absence of other legislation.

I'm really not sure what you are getting at with the above points. The only limitations on an officer's powers would be if their actions constituted harassment or similar. For better or worse, they are perfectly entitled to exercise their powers in an arbitrary fashion if they so choose.

 

[some bloke]

I'm really not sure

I don't want to go too far off-topic; it was stated above that police are allowed to randomly stop drivers, and "See Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. No reason required". The point is simply that that section doesn't say no reason is required - it's only about the duty of the motorist. The points you are making are additional - it makes sense for police to have broad powers to stop vehicles.

 

[Titfield]

And quite possibly the job application form required the appilicant to list all criminal convictions apart from motoring offences.



It doesn't say they can't either so perhaps one has to look elsewhere for the circumstances in which the police can do so.


Surely once they've passed the last station that their ticket is valid to 18(2) applies as they don't have a valid ticket for that part of the journey?



A good question. I suspect the problem is that these are or can be seen as crimes of dishonesty, which for some professions would be regarded as more serious than - say - a conviction for dangerous driving.

Many professions have a "fit and proper person" test which those seeking to enter the profession or those within the profession must pass. Test is perhaps a misleading word as it means a standard. Convictions may mean that a person no longer meets the standard and thus they may lose their professional status or be barred from entering the profession.

Motoring offences tend to fall into a category all of their own. Driving offences can be an issue if one wishes to drive professionally (for example taxi driver, coach, bus or hgv driver, driving instructor) but also if driving may fall within the job specification for example sales representative or even just driving on company business. Fleet insurers may impose rules that for example drivers are not covered on the policy if they have 6 or more points.

If the role involves cash handling (or equivalent) or accepting or making payments in any other way then the companies insurers may not provide cash handling cover if the employee has certain convictions.

"People make mistakes in jobs all the time which are far more serious and far more of an indication of fitness for the job than ticketing mistakes" - the issue may well be not that the potential employer does not wish to employ, but because of the ts and cs of the insurance policy could not employ without taking on a risk they would not wish to take or may be a breach of other agreements with third parties.

 

[AdamWW]

It doesn't say the ticket has to be valid, so the point seems to remain that it doesn't clearly make overtravelling a strict-liability offence.

Well now I'm confused. I thought there was a strict liability byelaw offence of failing to show a valid ticket on request.

If that's not what 18(2) means (and to me it does just read as if it's saying you need to hand over a ticket if you have one) then where is the offence of failing to show a valid ticket? I can't see anything else.

Also the defenses in 18(3) don't really make sense if 18(2) is only requiring you to hand over any ticket you have, not to actually have a valid one in the first place.

 

[some bloke]

to me it does just read as if it's saying you need to hand over a ticket if you have one ... the defenses in 18(3) don't really make sense if 18(2) is only requiring you to hand over any ticket you have, not to actually have a valid one in the first place.

It seems reasonable to me to question the meaning of the text. At least part of the reason why I wrote "clearly", in "Neither byelaw 18(1) nor 18(2) clearly make that an automatic offence" is that 18(2) might be read as saying the ticket has to be valid.

Maybe 18(1) implies that 18(2) means a valid ticket:

"(1) in any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel

(2) a person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person"

But as 18(1) only says it requires a ticket valid for "travel" rather than "travel to their actual destination", if the person has a ticket valid for the start of the journey and overtravels, then have they not produced that "valid ticket entitling him to travel" in the same sense?

Maybe past cases of 18(2) prosecutions can clarify the approach(es) taken.

I'm not sure that the exceptions wouldn't make sense - they are just saying you don't need a valid ticket in specific circumstances.

If the role involves cash handling (or equivalent) or accepting or making payments in any other way then the companies insurers may not provide cash handling cover if the employee has certain convictions.

"People make mistakes in jobs all the time which are far more serious and far more of an indication of fitness for the job than ticketing mistakes" - the issue may well be not that the potential employer does not wish to employ, but because of the ts and cs of the insurance policy can not employ.

Is there evidence that it would be common for insurers to refuse to cover an employee convicted of a byelaw ticketing offence?

 

[AdamWW]

Maybe past cases of 18(2) prosecutions can clarify the approach(es) taken.

I'm not sure that the exceptions wouldn't make sense - they are just saying you don't need a valid ticket in specific circumstances.

I'm sure the interpretation of 18(2) has been well established by now.

As for the exceptions in 18(3) - they are specifically stated as exceptions to 18(1) and 18(2) and if 18(2) is just saying that if you have a ticket (valid or otherwise) you must hand it over, the exceptions don't make much sense to me.

I take the point though that they don't "clearly" say you must have a valid ticket at any point other than when boarding a train.

 

[ashkeba]

, more than once I’ve caught myself looking at the “£20 penalty fare” signs and thinking to myself why am I even bothering with tickets (though I’ve never acted on this).

The penalty fare signs are awful. " Warning. Have you paid?" Is not a hard hutting caution, is it? Could the signs have been made much more misleading, encouraging victims to sins, and still been allowed?