Train companies being overly harsh when people make mistakes

[Coolzac]

Moderator note: Split from

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-tapped-out-should-i-go-to-the-police.269851/

I must say, incidents like this really frustrate me. Someone who is clearly not trying to fare dodge gets the book thrown at them, but then I see all the time some people literally push their way through the barriers at underground and overground stations and the staff do absolutely nothing!

I appreciate staff not wanting to confront potentially dangerous people, but then if so it then seems cowardly to throw the book at someone asking for help.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I must say, incidents like this really frustrate me. Someone who is clearly not trying to fare dodge gets the book thrown at them, but then I see all the time some people literally push their way through the barriers at underground and overground stations and the staff do absolutely nothing!

I appreciate staff not wanting to confront potentially dangerous people, but then if so it then seems cowardly to throw the book at someone asking for help.

I can't get the link to work, but based on what you said, it appears best to be threatening and aggressive rather than cooperative. Which can't really be what the railways want to encourage. But whilst they try to always go for "easy pickings" it's what they get.

Shops have started finding the same, shoplifters get more aggressive are simply left alone to get on with it. The chances of the police turning up are small. Even less so at a station.

 

[HullRailMan]

Im
Not sure that someone boarding a train they know they don’t have a ticket for is really a ‘mistake’ or ‘clearly not fare dodging’. The best way to avoid having the book thrown t you is to ply by the rules.

That said, if I was working on a gate line I certainly wouldn’t tackle someone aggressively pushing through the barriers as you never know how the interaction may end - that’s for the relevant people to deal with. In my retail days I was trained not to tackle shoplifters as a bottle of gin is much easier to replace than a human life.

 

[AlterEgo]

Moderator note: Split from

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-tapped-out-should-i-go-to-the-police.269851/

I must say, incidents like this really frustrate me. Someone who is clearly not trying to fare dodge gets the book thrown at them, but then I see all the time some people literally push their way through the barriers at underground and overground stations and the staff do absolutely nothing!

I appreciate staff not wanting to confront potentially dangerous people, but then if so it then seems cowardly to throw the book at someone asking for help.

That poster realised they hadn’t tapped in only at Wapping, where the inspectors were. They probably wouldn’t have tapped out and I don’t think you can say it’s clear they weren’t fare dodging. It certainly wouldn’t have looked like that to the inspectors.

 

[jamiearmley]

The difficulty with cases like this is that it's very hard when you're stood on the ground, dealing with an individual instance, to make an objective and correct judgement as to the actual intent of the person that you're dealing with.

That's why we have the penalty fare system. It's by no means perfect, and it's certainly not something that I would wish to be part of my toolkit in my workplace - but it does at least mean that everyone is treated the same, and is asked to pay a higher than normal fare if they are found without a valid ticket at the point of inspection.

Fare evasion is endemic. It is certainly far more of a problem than any of the railway companies will admit. The figures bandied about as being ' lost to the industry through fare evasion' each year massively underestimate the problem that we see on the ground. The amount of ticketless travel as measured by surveys conducted by agencies on behalf of individual train operators - all of whom are targeted to reduce ticketless travel- are generally untrustworthy, with figures which show TOCS favourably in the main.

The penalty fare is a simple method of disposing of ticketless travel in a broadly fair manner where all are treated the same.

I agree this is an outlying case where someone has gone to ask for help. However, had this person been inspected by a revenue team on board the service prior to arriving at the station, they would have been charged a penalty fare. This is not much different to being charged a penalty fare at the barrier.

The system is not perfect but it is as it is. The way to change it is by taking meaningful action to raise awareness - such as the threads on this forum, which have directly contributed to the exposure of the incorrect procedures applied with the SJPN.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The problem is that "honest mistakes" and "deliberate fare evasion" are, in the vast majority of cases, indistinguishable from each other.

As @jamiearmley explains, the Penalty Fare scheme is really what should happen in all cases as it is the fairest and clearest way of addressing the matter. "You have made a mistake, this is the financial penalty for your mistake". You might not like it, but you can't say it is unfair.

If someone keeps making mistakes and keeps receiving Penalty Fares then that's the stage where the consequences need to ramp up.

Where I start having serious issues is where operators deliberately choose not to operate a Penalty Fares scheme and routinely write everyone up for prosecution. I have very serious issues relating to the behaviour of the likes of Transport Investigations who, because they are a private company, seem to be avoiding the public scrutiny being placed upon Northern in particular. What Transport Investigations do is nothing short of an extortion racket and I sincerely hope that the outcome of the SJPN scandal is that railway companies and associated bottom-feeders like Transport Investigations lose the right to bring criminal prosecutions at all.

Sadly we know that the likes of Transport Investigations will deliberately target the people who they know are largely compliant. People who aren't largely compliant don't pay the bloated and unjustifiable 'administration fees' which generates the huge profits. RPIs will also (sensibly) often back down when someone is aggressive towards them- although this can backfire when there's a revenue block backed up by the BTP.

 

[Benjwri]

I agree with the above posters that a penalty fare is a good response. I know an awful lot of people who like to plead ignorance when tickets are checked and get away with it. My local line in Oxfordshire has a reputation among locals for being free to use, because it’s ungated and DOO. In Bath last time I took a train to Westbury a couple was asked to pay for a ticket by the guard, and after they’d gone the couple said they’d travelled between two ungated stations in the area for years and that was the first time they’d had to pay.

In my opinion it’s absolutely crazy that the railways don’t invest in measures to make people pay before boarding. I’m not talking about penalty fares and the like, just things like gating stations. The best example of the benefits it would bring I can think of is Henley Regatta. You just have to take a train during it to see a crazy amount of people getting interviewed, and they are all kinds of people. But it’s also incredibly well known that it’s heavily RPIed along with BTP, and no fare evader would travel there intentionally, there isn’t a chance of getting away without paying. These are people who aren’t going to be pushing through barriers and the like, they just aren’t paying because no one ever asks them to.

 

[Northerngirl]

Imo there should be an opportunity to pay the Normal price for the journey before any fines, it's just another way of ripping of customers who 99% of the time have made a mistake.

 

[jamiearmley]

There i

Imo there should be an opportunity to pay the Normal price for the journey before any fines, it's just another way of ripping of customers who 99% of the time have made a mistake.

There is an opportunity to pay the normal price for the journey before any fines.

It's called buying the ticket before you get on the train.

 

[Benjwri]

Imo there should be an opportunity to pay the Normal price for the journey before any fines, it's just another way of ripping of customers who 99% of the time have made a mistake.

But if they can just pay normal price when challenged why would they buy a ticket in the first place? I’d say my ticket is check on maybe 25% of my journeys, so why should someone buy a ticket before boarding if the worst that’ll happen if they don’t is they may have to pay the same price?

If the rules have been followed properly they’ll have ignored at least one massive poster telling them they can get a penalty fare and probably a few announcements.

However circling back to my above point in my opinion tickets should always be checked in some way before getting on the train. A very worrying amount of people I know use trains without buying a ticket, however a tiny minority would ever bump a barrier or ignore a member of staff asking.

 

[swt_passenger]

Imo there should be an opportunity to pay the Normal price for the journey before any fines, it's just another way of ripping of customers who 99% of the time have made a mistake.

Why would anyone ever pay the normal price if that was the only sanction? 99% making a mistake is probably completely wrong anyway. More like 90% are trying it on, and do so day after day until caught…

 

[6Gman]

Imo there should be an opportunity to pay the Normal price for the journey before any fines, it's just another way of ripping of customers who 99% of the time have made a mistake.

And your evidence for this very precise figure is ... ?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I have very serious issues relating to the behaviour of the likes of Transport Investigations who, because they are a private company, seem to be avoiding the public scrutiny being placed upon Northern in particular. What Transport Investigations do is nothing short of an extortion racket and I sincerely hope that the outcome of the SJPN scandal is that railway companies and associated bottom-feeders like Transport Investigations lose the right to bring criminal prosecutions at all.

Sadly we know that the likes of Transport Investigations will deliberately target the people who they know are largely compliant.

I'm not sure that this argument stands up: my impression is that the TOCs actually check tickets and then pass the back-office work to TIL - which means that cases only reach TIL if the TOC's staff send them in. Could someone confirm this or correct me?

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm not sure that this argument stands up: my impression is that the TOCs actually check tickets and then pass the back-office work to TIL - which means that cases only reach TIL if the TOC's staff send them in. Could someone confirm this or correct me?

TIL offer a number of services which TOCs can pick and choose from, and one of those services is the provision of front-line revenue protection staff.

But yes, the most common service is the provision of the 'back office' prosecution administration. So what happens is the TOC stops the passenger, passes the referral to TIL, and TIL are the ones who send out their threats with menaces offers to settle the matter by way of administrative fee. My understanding- which may be incorrect- is that the TOCs don't cherry pick cases to send to TIL, they just bulk-refer everything.

My ire is two-fold: at the TOCs for taking the cheap option instead of setting up a proper Penalty Fares scheme, and at Transport Investigations Limited for taking it as a way of avariciously exploiting people who, in most cases, had simply made a mistake which should have been dealt with by way of £50 Penalty Fare.

ETA: I have additional ire at the likes of Chiltern Railways who, despite having a Penalty Fares scheme, seem to be the largest user of Transport Investigations. It's almost as though Chiltern and TIL know that a Penalty Fare is capped at £100- and that's only if the recipient is disorganised- but the amount you can charge as an 'administration fee' can be anything you want. It's why I think these administrative settlements should be outlawed, and the TOCs should lose the right to bring prosecutions. If it's serious enough to warrant prosecution then get the BTP in, if it isn't then stick to the Penalty Fare.

 

[Northerngirl]

And your evidence for this very precise figure is ... ?

Almost everyone I know

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jun 2024 ==

But if they can just pay normal price when challenged why would they buy a ticket in the first place? I’d say my ticket is check on maybe 25% of my journeys, so why should someone buy a ticket before boarding if the worst that’ll happen if they don’t is they may have to pay the same

That would incentives toc to get guards who are capable of doing their job

 

[Tetchytyke]

Imo there should be an opportunity to pay the Normal price for the journey before any fines, it's just another way of ripping of customers who 99% of the time have made a mistake.

Sounds like a good way of making sure nobody buys their ticket in advance and only pays up when their "mistake" is identified.

I don't have any issue with Penalty Fares. If you make a mistake then there is a financial consequence to that mistake, and that financial consequence is clearly identified and set out in advance.

 

[Benjwri]

That would incentives toc to get guards who are capable of doing their job

Most guards already can’t issue Penalty Fares, so the reality is this would be the case if TOCs made guards check tickets.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

TIL offer a number of services which TOCs can pick and choose from, and one of those services is the provision of front-line revenue protection staff.

But yes, the most common service is the provision of the 'back office' prosecution administration. So what happens is the TOC stops the passenger, passes the referral to TIL, and TIL are the ones who send out their threats with menaces offers to settle the matter by way of administrative fee. My understanding- which may be incorrect- is that the TOCs don't cherry pick cases to send to TIL, they just bulk-refer everything.

My ire is two-fold: at the TOCs for taking the cheap option instead of setting up a proper Penalty Fares scheme, and at Transport Investigations Limited for taking it as a way of avariciously exploiting people who, in most cases, had simply made a mistake which should have been dealt with by way of £50 Penalty Fare.

ETA: I have additional ire at the likes of Chiltern Railways who, despite having a Penalty Fares scheme, seem to be the largest user of Transport Investigations. It's almost as though Chiltern and TIL know that a Penalty Fare is capped at £100- and that's only if the recipient is disorganised- but the amount you can charge as an 'administration fee' can be anything you want. It's why I think these administrative settlements should be outlawed, and the TOCs should lose the right to bring prosecutions. If it's serious enough to warrant prosecution then get the BTP in, if it isn't then stick to the Penalty Fare.

Thank you.

 

[anothertyke]

The difficulty with cases like this is that it's very hard when you're stood on the ground, dealing with an individual instance, to make an objective and correct judgement as to the actual intent of the person that you're dealing with.

That's why we have the penalty fare system. It's by no means perfect, and it's certainly not something that I would wish to be part of my toolkit in my workplace - but it does at least mean that everyone is treated the same, and is asked to pay a higher than normal fare if they are found without a valid ticket at the point of inspection.

Fare evasion is endemic. It is certainly far more of a problem than any of the railway companies will admit. The figures bandied about as being ' lost to the industry through fare evasion' each year massively underestimate the problem that we see on the ground. The amount of ticketless travel as measured by surveys conducted by agencies on behalf of individual train operators - all of whom are targeted to reduce ticketless travel- are generally untrustworthy, with figures which show TOCS favourably in the main.

The penalty fare is a simple method of disposing of ticketless travel in a broadly fair manner where all are treated the same.

I agree this is an outlying case where someone has gone to ask for help. However, had this person been inspected by a revenue team on board the service prior to arriving at the station, they would have been charged a penalty fare. This is not much different to being charged a penalty fare at the barrier.

The system is not perfect but it is as it is. The way to change it is by taking meaningful action to raise awareness - such as the threads on this forum, which have directly contributed to the exposure of the incorrect procedures applied with the SJPN.

How confident are you that like cases are treated alike? I have been on Northern trains and seen people admonished for not having a ticket,get sold a single, issued with penalty fares and full details taken by RPOs. I think there is a perception that what happens to you is a lottery. Am I wrong?

 

[jamiearmley]

How confident are you that like cases are treated alike? I have been on Northern trains and seen people admonished for not having a ticket,get sold a single, issued with penalty fares and full details taken by RPOs. I think there is a perception that what happens to you is a lottery. Am I wrong?

You do realise that to issue a penalty fare full details have to be taken? What you see RPOs doing may be either issuing a penalty fare, or for those instances where a penalty fare is either inappropriate, - or not legally permitted for the infraction - submitting a travel incident report. (Which is not 'reporting for prosecution'. That's just one outcome - many TIRS only result in a request for the due fare - further costs only arise when this isn't paid).

It is a lottery, in one sense : the selling of a ticket, or a quiet word about buying before you board, is where you 'win'.

Careful what you wish for : my employer would dearly love to go full DOO and have penalty fare trained RPOs on every service. They believe - and I agree with them to an extent - that the railway doesn't want passengers who don't buy a ticket.

People can complain all day long that sometimes they get lucky : but would they really like the alternative?

I think not.

 

[jfollows]

When companies issue penalty fares to people with otherwise valid off-peak tickets during peak hours, as often reported here, then - yes - they are being overly harsh.

If rail staff were better trained then it would be less of an issue.

It seems as if some rail companies have a mentality which encourages issuing penalty fares and the like.

 

[Benjwri]

When companies issue penalty fares to people with otherwise valid off-peak tickets during peak hours, as often reported here, then - yes - they are being overly harsh.

However do so is against the NRCOT, and TOC policy, it is as you say a result of poor training and in some cases an abuse of power. It isn’t the TOCs themselves which are being overly harsh.

 

[Tetchytyke]

ou do realise that to issue a penalty fare full details have to be taken? What you see RPOs doing may be either issuing a penalty fare, or for those instances where a penalty fare is either inappropriate, - or not legally permitted for the infraction - submitting a travel incident report. (Which is not 'reporting for prosecution'. That's just one outcome - many TIRS only result in a request for the due fare - further costs only arise when this isn't paid).

I think the recent case of @KirkstallOne demonstrates that Northern's case management is very much a lottery.

A simple case of failing to purchase a ticket before boarding should be dealt with by way of Penalty Fare. This is a clear and transparent process and there is a clear appeals process.

However what we are seeing all too often is that, instead of issuing a Penalty Fare, Northern staff are issuing TIRs.

I'd agree that most TIRs are resolved with no further action, this is supported by the FOI stats obtained by @MrJeeves from TPE here. I do wonder if this is as a consequence of the fact that most guards cannot issue Penalty Fares and so they will reach for the TIR if they (rightly or wrongly) think someone is trying it on.

There are pros and cons to each approach. I prefer the clarity of the Penalty Fare scheme, but the downside of the clarity may be that some of those 'no further action' TIRs end up being converted into £50/£100 Penalty Fares.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jun 2024 ==

When companies issue penalty fares to people with otherwise valid off-peak tickets during peak hours, as often reported here, then - yes - they are being overly harsh.

If rail staff were better trained then it would be less of an issue.

At least the Penalty Fares scheme has clear rules and a clear appeals process. Yes, it is too often the case that you have to appeal to the final stage to get a sensible answer, but at least that final stage is there.

There's no such appeals process for the 'administrative settlement'.

 

[KirkstallOne]

I think the recent case of @KirkstallOne demonstrates that Northern's case management is very much a lottery.

I don’t think it was a lottery, seems they had a clear policy of unpaid penalty fares progressing to Section 5(1) prosecutions but being happy to settle at basically any point.

I just think I was the rare example of someone letting it get that far, pleading not guilty and then defending myself robustly. By far the most sensible course of action would have been to pay the £20 demanded but here we are 18 months later.

 

[sheff1]

The penalty fare is a simple method of disposing of ticketless travel in a broadly fair manner where all are treated the same.

If only it were.

Many many reports on here confirm beyond doubt that PFs are regularly issued in circumstances where the requirements of the PF regulations are not met. Notwithstanding other obvious reasons why a PF should not have been issued, I suggest that if someone instigated a forensic investigation the overwhelming majority of PFs would be found to have been issued in contravention of Regulation 6.

 

[fodphil]

Moderator note: Split from

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-tapped-out-should-i-go-to-the-police.269851/

I must say, incidents like this really frustrate me. Someone who is clearly not trying to fare dodge gets the book thrown at them, but then I see all the time some people literally push their way through the barriers at underground and overground stations and the staff do absolutely nothing!

I appreciate staff not wanting to confront potentially dangerous people, but then if so it then seems cowardly to throw the book at someone asking for help.

When working on commision, its called 'low hanging fruit'

 

[simonw]

I think there is a good chance that the person who's post lead to this new post failed the attitude test.

Remember they bought a ticket that didn't cover their full journey, didn't tap in and then ended up in a heated discussion with the inspector. From the inspectors side it could well look like they had no intention to pay, but then saw the inspector and attempted to avoid being penalised.

Ymmv.

 

[AlterEgo]

Imo there should be an opportunity to pay the Normal price for the journey before any fines, it's just another way of ripping of customers who 99% of the time have made a mistake.

Then nobody would ever buy the correct ticket, and would wait for the rare occasion to be challenged, only to pay the fare they ought to have paid at the start.

 

[Benjwri]

Then nobody would ever buy the correct ticket, and would wait for the rare occasion to be challenged, only to pay the fare they ought to have paid at the start.

In fact, this is what many, many people do regardless!

 

[jamiearmley]

Commission is not paid for penalty fares or MG11 / travel incident reports

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jun 2024 ==

When working on commision, its called 'low hanging fruit'

Commission is not paid for penalty fares or MG11 / travel incident reports