Northern Penalty Fares.

[ainsworth74]

I noticed today that on their on-board electronic screens, Northern describes the £100 PF as a "fine"...

I believe the war, such as it was, on this subject has been well and truly lost. See also Railway Station vs Train Station, QR code vs Aztec code, etc etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I believe the war, such as it was, on this subject has been well and truly lost. See also Railway Station vs Train Station, QR code vs Aztec code, etc etc.

I don't get why people get so finiticky about this one. It isn't even wrong per-se. A fine simply means a financial penalty - the first three letters of "financial" are where it comes from, plus the E on the end to make it clear how to pronounce, as otherwise it might be pronounced wrongly as per a shark's swimming appendage. A penalty fare is a financial penalty and thus is, in the vernacular, a fine.

If describing a Court fine, I'd say "a Court fine".

Contractual penalties are described as fines in lots of contexts, e.g. for the late return of library books.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't get why people get so finiticky about this one. It isn't even wrong per-se. A fine simply means a financial penalty - the first three letters of "financial" are where it comes from, plus the E on the end to make it clear how to pronounce, as otherwise it might be pronounced wrongly as per a shark's swimming appendage. A penalty fare is a financial penalty and thus is, in the vernacular, a fine.

If describing a Court fine, I'd say "a Court fine".

Contractual penalties are described as fines in lots of contexts, e.g. for the late return of library books.

This.

It only matters on here so we know exactly what we are dealing with when people ask for help with their “fine”. It is of no consequence to the vast majority of the public.

 

[Starmill]

It's not the services it's the infrastructure, any station operated by Mersyrail shouldn't be enabled.

Unsure what you mean here, as as others have already said, loads are. For example stick Birkdale to Stockport into the LNER app. Won't fulfil to anything other than eticket. Have a look if you don't believe us.

All of the Northern-set products from Southport, Kirkby (Merseyside) and Ormskirk have been enabled for a couple of years. Of course, if the customer actually does board a Merseyrail train at Birkdale and revenue are onboard, they'll be issued a Penalty Fare.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jun 2023 ==

I don't get why people get so finiticky about this one. It isn't even wrong per-se. A fine simply means a financial penalty - the first three letters of "financial" are where it comes from, plus the E on the end to make it clear how to pronounce, as otherwise it might be pronounced wrongly as per a shark's swimming appendage. A penalty fare is a financial penalty and thus is, in the vernacular, a fine.

If describing a Court fine, I'd say "a Court fine".

Contractual penalties are described as fines in lots of contexts, e.g. for the late return of library books.

Nobody has any difficulty with the concept of a lawful fine decided by a relevant Regulator rather than a Judge or Magistrate. What in truth sets one of those apart from a penalty charge or liquidated damages as set out in a contract?

 

[Wallsendmag]

RDG guidlines are not to enable any flows onto Mersyrail infrastructure, obviously the LNER App will sell whatever other TOCs have enabled.

 

[Starmill]

RDG guidlines are not to enable any flows onto Mersyrail infrastructure, obviously the LNER App will sell whatever other TOCs have enabled.

Indeed but other people are trying to point out that said guidelines don't actually have very much influence on what happens in real life, and ultimately aren't enforceable anyway. See also Trainline issuing tickets to wherever they feel like as eticket, and Avocet devices which are in offline mode issuing any ticket to eticket.

Of course, neither trainline nor ticketkeeper will fulfil Birkdale to Stockport to eticket so I'd question if you're saying they're both wrong?

 

[ricoblade]

Very sensible and customer friendly conductor on my Northern service this mornng. A lady was having trouble downloading her ticket on her phone, he gave her time, came back, still no go. He asked if she had a receipt, which she had on her phone and showed him. He looked at it carefully then said "That's good enough for me, thanks". Not sure RPIs would have talken the same course.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Very sensible and customer friendly conductor on my Northern service this mornng. A lady was having trouble downloading her ticket on her phone, he gave her time, came back, still no go. He asked if she had a receipt, which she had on her phone and showed him. He looked at it carefully then said "That's good enough for me, thanks". Not sure RPIs would have talken the same course.

This, I think, is what is colloquially know as the 'attitude test'.

 

[Bluejays]

I went into Leeds from my local station today. To meet some former colleagues for lunch. The station is unstaffed and has one ticket machine. Although arriving in good time I was unable to access the machine as the woman using it was unfamiliar but was determined to use it. A queue had built up when the train arrived. When the guard opened the doors I mentioned the problem to which his response was to encourage everyone to get on board and he subsequently issued tickets on the train. He was a jovial chatty sort of chap and I couldn't help thinking how good his customer service was.

Approximately the same time one of my colleagues was boarding a train at Garforth. The booking office was shut and he couldn't access the machine, but again no problems buying a ticket from the guard.

Shortly afterwards another colleague boarded a train at Garforth. The guard never came round so she went to the excess fares office by the barriers, intending to buy a return ticket there. However the staff there wouldn't let her pay, accused her of being a fare dodger, and made her pay a £100 penalty fare.

Surely this is disgusting?

The first 2 examples (yourself and 1 colleague) mention problems purchasing a ticket at the station, and guards responding by selling a ticket onboard. Interestingly, the third scenario mentions no issues in purchasing a ticket at the station, followed by a penalty fare being received for not having a ticket.

Maybe this is actually a case of reasonable discretion being used when buying a ticket before boarding was hard/impossible, yet a penalty fare being issued when there was no excuse for not having a ticket.


Unless there is something missing from the 3rd scenario?

 

[AdamWW]

Unless there is something missing from the 3rd scenario?

The difference is that in the 3rd scenario the guard didn't come round, not that they issued a penalty fare instead of selling a ticket.

 

[Bluejays]

The difference is that in the 3rd scenario the guard didn't come round, not that they issued a penalty fare instead of selling a ticket.

I didn't say the guard issued the penalty fare. The penalty fare was issued at the station, as we both know from the op.

 

[AdamWW]

I didn't say the guard issued the penalty fare. The penalty fare was issued at the station, as we both know from the op.

OK so reading what you said again, are you suggesting that the act of discretion was the guard leaving the rear cab in the first two scenarios?

Is that unusual on this route?

 

[AlterEgo]

OK so reading what you said again, are you suggesting that the act of discretion was the guard leaving the rear cab in the first two scenarios?

Is that unusual on this route?

Indeed a guard can’t issue a Penalty Fare so they cannot have used “discretion” here.

 

[AdamWW]

Indeed a guard can’t issue a Penalty Fare so they cannot have used “discretion” here.

I think the suggestion was that the act of discretion was selling tickets on the train rather than staying in the rear cab so that anyone finishing their journey at Leeds without a ticket would end up being PF'd at the excess fares window.

 

[ainsworth74]

The difference was that guards can only sell tickets they cannot issue PFs so as there were no RPIs on those first two trains they sold tickets. There was no element of discretion involved in that action beyond perhaps whether they sell the full range of tickets including appropriate discounts rather than just Anytime with no discounts as they should do for boarding at station with working ticket issuing facilities (though in the first example I'd hope they'd sell the full range as it was obvious people were unable to use the machine due to the queue).

In the third example, for whatever reason, the guard did not exit the rear cab to sell tickets. This could be because their ticket machine was broken, it could be that they were cashing up (perhaps their shift had run long?) or it could just be that they didn't want to do revenue. There's no suggestion that the ticket issuing facilities were inoperative at the station where the passenger boarded therefore a Penalty Fare was due.

Northern conductors should be checking and selling tickets between stations stops but sometimes they do not for myriad reasons.

In all three cases if there had been RPIs on the trains then Penalty Fares may well have been issued to all three passengers. Possibly not in the first example (depending on if the RPIs observed the queue, but I'm not convinced) and hopefully not in the second (depending on the reason why the TVM couldn't be used) but certainly in the third. But because there were no RPIs on the first two, no PFs were issued.

 

[Bluejays]

OK so reading what you said again, are you suggesting that the act of discretion was the guard leaving the rear cab in the first two scenarios?

Is that unusual on this route?

In the first scenario a normal price ticket was sold to a passenger who had a reasonable excuse not to have one.

The first scenario involves the op seeking out the guard before boarding the train, to let them know of the difficulties and the guard responding by 'ushering us on and selling tickets'.

2nd scenario mentions 'again, no problem buying from the guard'. Now admittedly that's not as clear as I first thought when reading, I read that initially as colleague 1 also seeking out the guard, although it may well be that the guard was just walking through doing a ticket check. So I've probably confused matters by taking the first 2 examples as being the same.

Scenario 3 involves someone who didn't appear to try and seek out the first member of staff capable of selling a ticket, and therefore ended up with the rpi's at the station.




Discretion was shown in regards to the buy before you board policy in the op's scenario. In a completely black and white policy, guards would be refusing to sell from that station ' buy before you board or speak to revenue'. Obviously that would be completely ridiculous if they did so and no decent guard would. The op took the reasonable step of speaking to the guard before boarding, and had the opportunity to buy a normal priced ticket.

Essentially those examples show 1 person who did the right thing and got the right result(normal fare).

One example which isn't as clear(my mistake in first message to assume it was).

And one example where no effort has been made to pay at first opportunity and has therefore been penalty fared.

I'd suggest that there does appear to be a clear difference between example 1 and 3 , that is enough to merit the different response that they received from 'the railway'.

 

[AdamWW]

In the first scenario a normal price ticket was sold to a passenger who had a reasonable excuse not to have one.

The first scenario involves the op seeking out the guard before boarding the train, to let them know of the difficulties and the guard responding by 'ushering us on and selling tickets'.

2nd scenario mentions 'again, no problem buying from the guard'. Now admittedly that's not as clear as I first thought when reading, I read that initially as colleague 1 also seeking out the guard, although it may well be that the guard was just walking through doing a ticket check. So I've probably confused matters by taking the first 2 examples as being the same.

Scenario 3 involves someone who didn't appear to try and seek out the first member of staff capable of selling a ticket, and therefore ended up with the rpi's at the station.




Discretion was shown in regards to the buy before you board policy in the op's scenario. In a completely black and white policy, guards would be refusing to sell from that station ' buy before you board or speak to revenue'. Obviously that would be completely ridiculous if they did so and no decent guard would. The op took the reasonable step of speaking to the guard before boarding, and had the opportunity to buy a normal priced ticket.

Essentially those examples show 1 person who did the right thing and got the right result(normal fare).

One example which isn't as clear(my mistake in first message to assume it was).

And one example where no effort has been made to pay at first opportunity and has therefore been penalty fared.

I'd suggest that there does appear to be a clear difference between example 1 and 3 , that is enough to merit the different response that they received from 'the railway'.

OK. Perhaps.

I would suggest that the reported events are also entirely compatible with the following interpretation:

When a guard encounters someone without a ticket they will happily sell one from the full range, with no questions asked (and no mention of the fact that the passenger should actually have bought before boarding).
If someone presents themselves at the execess fares window having boarded at a station with ticket selling facilities and not purchased on board, they are given a PF.

In this view nobody has exercised any discretion. A policy of always selling tickets involves no more discretion than one of never selling them unless you have to.

I have used plenty of trains where guards do act like this. I can't speak from personal experience about what happens if you encounter revenue protection in such circumstances but I've seen plenty of people having their details taken at barriered stations, presumably having arrived without a ticket.

(We also don't actually know if the booking office opened/ticket machine became available in the "short" time between scenarios 2 and 3.)

 

[Bluejays]

OK. Perhaps.

I would suggest that the reported events are also entirely compatible with the following interpretation:

When a guard encounters someone without a ticket they will happily sell one from the full range, with no questions asked (and no mention of the fact that the passenger should actually have bought before boarding).
If someone presents themselves at the execess fares window having boarded at a station with ticket selling facilities and not purchased on board, they are given a PF.

In this view nobody has exercised any discretion. A policy of always selling tickets involves no more discretion than one of never selling them unless you have to.

I have used plenty of trains where guards do act like this. I can't speak from personal experience about what happens if you encounter revenue protection in such circumstances but I've seen plenty of people having their details taken at barriered stations, presumably having arrived without a ticket.

(We also don't actually know if the booking office opened/ticket machine became available in the "short" time between scenarios 2 and 3.)

Except the guard didn't 'encounter ' the op. The op makes perfectly clear that he went to seek out the guard.
Anyway, I'm out.