Train companies being overly harsh when people make mistakes

[Kite159]

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.

So a bit like in Scotland where some passengers will only buy a ticket if they get challenged by a member of on train staff (be it a guard or ticket examiner), especially if only travelling between unbarriered stations. Knowing the worse is being forced to pay the normal price they would have paid had they purchased the ticket beforehand (owing to the Scottish legal system making penalty fares harder)

The sort whom will walk past an open ticket office (with no queue), pass a bank of TVMs.

 

[jacksonbang]

Just call it an On-Board Fare. It's the word Penalty most people react negatively too because they see it as a fine.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Just call it an On-Board Fare. It's the word Penalty most people react negatively too because they see it as a fine.

I suspect that the additional £100 or £50 also has something to do with the negative perception.

 

[jacksonbang]

I suspect that the additional £100 or £50 also has something to do with the negative perception.

So why make it worse by calling it a "penalty"? Just leave it as an expensive option for those that require it.

 

[Haywain]

Just call it an On-Board Fare. It's the word Penalty most people react negatively too because they see it as a fine.

What do we call it when it's issued at the end of the journey at the station (Leeds, for example).

 

[Sonic1234]

Then nobody would ever buy the correct ticket, and would wait for the rare occasion to be challenged

The solution is to not make it a "rare occasion". If ticket checking was near 100%, and anyone with an invalid ticket had to buy a new one, those who try it on with no ticket, Railcards they don't have etc. would soon find it not worth it.

Instead we have a system that allows you to get away with it 99% of the time, and harsh penalties if you are unlucky enough to be caught.

 

[AlterEgo]

The solution is to not make it a "rare occasion". If ticket checking was near 100%, and anyone with an invalid ticket had to buy a new one, those who try it on with no ticket, Railcards they don't have etc. would soon find it not worth it.

Instead we have a system that allows you to get away with it 99% of the time, and harsh penalties if you are unlucky enough to be caught.

How do you propose not making it a rare occasion? It is almost impossible to get 100% ticket checking on our railway.

 

[Haywain]

those who try it on with no ticket, Railcards they don't have etc. would soon find it not worth it.

If they avoided payment one time in ten it would be considered worthwhile, and the increased ticket checking would just result in increased onboard sales. If you are on a 4 minute journey in a group of four or five or more it's easy to ensure that there isn't time to sell tickets to the whole group.

 

[bcarmicle]

The solution is to not make it a "rare occasion". If ticket checking was near 100%, and anyone with an invalid ticket had to buy a new one, those who try it on with no ticket, Railcards they don't have etc. would soon find it not worth it.

The only way I can see to do this would be to massively increase staffing across the railway. I hate to think what that would do to the average ticket price.

 

[AlbertBeale]

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.

But in many cases seen on this forum, there are lots of deliberate evasions which are clearly far from "mistakes". If these were dealt with by PFs, and prosecution was only for people who'd had lots of PFs, then on routes where it's easy not to pay, most people would continue not to, knowing how rarely they'd get picked up, and knowing how little would happen most of the time even if they were.

I accept that where there's a good chance that someone has made a genuine mistake, then a PF is appropriate (and where there's not even a mistake, but the railway messing up, then not even that of course). But surely there has to be much more than a PF when it's clearly not a mistake (and I'd include someone who just "didn't bother", as well as "professional evaders").

In the case which led to this thread, someone set off with a ticket for only part of their journey, and didn't then get a further ticket (nor tap in with an Oyster or bank card) when they changed trains where there initial ticket ran out. And then they complained about getting a PF. I reckon they were lucky to only get a PF.

 

[Tetchytyke]

But in many cases seen on this forum, there are lots of deliberate evasions which are clearly far from "mistakes". If these were dealt with by PFs, and prosecution was only for people who'd had lots of PFs, then on routes where it's easy not to pay, most people would continue not to, knowing how rarely they'd get picked up, and knowing how little would happen most of the time even if they were.

The biggest deterrent to fare evasion is regular and reliable inspection, and that means inspection by people as well as by machine.

£50/£100 is a fair chunk of money and if people knew they were likely to have to pay the PF then they’d be more likely to buy a ticket in the first place. Especially as the PF is (usually) in addition to the fare due.

A threat of a £200 penalty but knowing you’ll have your ticket checked on 5% of journeys is less of a deterrent than a threat of a £50 penalty knowing you’ll have your ticket checked on 80% of journeys.

As for the types of cases we see on here, most of the people posting say they made a mistake- they forgot their railcard had run out, or they rushed for a train instead of using the TVM, etc etc. Maybe you believe them, maybe you don’t. But that is the point I made- someone who, as a one-off or as an irregular rail user, naively walks past a TVM is indistinguishable from someone who does it every single day.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One of the problems with Penalty Fares is that they can't be issued retrospectively, so this leaves TOCs with the only options being court or a settlement if a report is made by e.g. a guard of a debatably valid ticket or similar, or they need to avoid conflict for their personal safety.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The only way I can see to do this would be to massively increase staffing across the railway. I hate to think what that would do to the average ticket price.

The industry reckon they lose £240m a year through fare evasion. I suspect the amount may be higher. Additional revenue staff should pay for themselves.

One of the problems with Penalty Fares is that they can't be issued retrospectively, so this leaves TOCs with the only options being court or a settlement if a report is made by e.g. a guard of a debatably valid ticket or similar, or they need to avoid conflict for their personal safety.

If a guard is being abused then the TOC should be prosecuting the abusive passenger. That’s why we have body-worn cameras. Although, in reality, if the guard is unable to issue a PF for safety then they’re unlikely to get a name and address either- not unless you think the passenger really is called *** off.

Which comes back to the initial point, aggressive people get away more than passive people.

As for instances where there is a debate and more than one reasonable interpretation, these should not be being prosecuted anyway.

I think what tends to happen is that someone argues their point and the guard gets the hump and decides to write it up instead of issuing the PF. We talk of the attitude test, and that shouldn’t be a thing- it should be a PF, no ifs and no buts.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

The biggest deterrent to fare evasion is the risk of regular and reliable inspection

Just suggesting a slight modification. If fare dodgers know that the 0830 always checks tickets, they won't use that train - they'll use the 0900 instead if that one never has inspectors on board. But if there are inspectors on the 0830 about half the time (and at random, so not always Monday/Wed/Fri) and on the 0900 half the time (also at random) then the fare dodgers know for both trains that they might well get picked up. So something like twice the impact (there'll always be some chancers who get away with it) for much the same cost in inspectors.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If a guard is being abused then the TOC should be prosecuting the abusive passenger. That’s why we have body-worn cameras.

Totally agree.

Although, in reality, if the guard is unable to issue a PF for safety then they’re unlikely to get a name and address either- not unless you think the passenger really is called *** off.

I think it's a lot easier to say "I need to take your details and you'll be sent a letter to pay what's due", which isn't a mistruth but does slightly misrepresent the situation in that it implies they'll just need to pay the fare, not a £150ish settlement, than "here's a Penalty Fare, it'll be £50 plus the Anytime fare if you pay promptly".

Plus guards now, with e-tickets, have the option to report a ticket for investigation without even telling the customer that they have done so. Previously that required the paper ticket to be withdrawn for investigation so hardly ever happened.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Just suggesting a slight modification. If fare dodgers know that the 0830 always checks tickets, they won't use that train - they'll use the 0900 instead if that one never has inspectors on board.

Absolutely.

I’d also like to see more human inspections. A lot of deliberate offences, such as doughnutting, are now so prevalent because the only ticket check most people will ever have is by an automatic ticket barrier.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jun 2024 ==

I think it's a lot easier to say "I need to take your details and you'll be sent a letter to pay what's due", which isn't a mistruth but does slightly misrepresent the situation in that it implies they'll just need to pay the fare, not a £150ish settlement, than "here's a Penalty Fare, it'll be £50 plus the Anytime fare if you pay promptly".

“I’ll need to issue this Penalty Fare, you have 14 days to pay it otherwise it costs you more. And if you think I’m wrong the appeal details are on the reverse” is exactly the same conversation, but is a lot more honest and transparent.

I do understand why some guards do it, but it’s not helpful.

I’d agree about being able to issue PFs retrospectively though, especially with electronic tickets.

 

[Cross City]

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

Somebody asking for help with their ticket has obviously made an honest mistake. If they were fare evading they'd just walked out of the station without seeking out any staff.

To give somebody a penalty fare for a mistake they've sought to rectify at the earliest opportunity is jobsworthiness of the highest order.

 

[Haywain]

We talk of the attitude test, and that shouldn’t be a thing-

It will always be a thing because it's about human nature - the person who is pleasant and cooperative will always get better results than the one who is argumentative, abusive and obnoxious. It's not a formal test in any sense, just a reaction.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Somebody asking for help with their ticket has obviously made an honest mistake. If they were fare evading they'd just walked out of the station without seeking out any staff.

Always hard to tell. Are they fronting up to their mistake because they’re honest, or are they doing it because there’s a revenue block and they think playing dumb is the best option? Both scenarios are identical.

Sometimes an honest mistake has a financial penalty. I recently lost track of time on my car parking and overstayed by 10 minutes, got a parking ticket and it cost me £60. I wasn’t chancing it, it was an honest error, but tough. It happens, it’s annoying when it does, but it’s why it’s so important that the railways are transparent and consistent in how they apply the penalty.

 

[Cross City]

Always hard to tell. Are they fronting up to their mistake because they’re honest, or are they doing it because there’s a revenue block and they think playing dumb is the best option? Both scenarios are identical.

I'd argue that having a ticket for a portion of the journey you've just taken, as in the OP, makes it obvious there was no intent to travel without a ticket.

I understand your point however, but in this case I think it was wrong to issue a penalty fare.

 

[simonw]

I'd argue that having a ticket for a portion of the journey you've just taken, as in the OP, makes it obvious there was no intent to travel without a ticket.

I understand your point however, but in this case I think it was wrong to issue a penalty fare.

Seems to me not buying a ticket for the full journey makes it more likely than not that there was intent to travel without a ticket for the full journey, especially when buying on an app where the final destination would be listed.

 

[bcarmicle]

The industry reckon they lose £240m a year through fare evasion. I suspect the amount may be higher. Additional revenue staff should pay for themselves.

I agree that in general additional revenue staff are likely to pay for themselves, but only up to a point - expanding it to the point where every traveller is checked on every journey (i.e. the 100% suggested) requires either every station entrance/exit across the country to be staffed or every train to carry a decent number of revenue staff. At that point it is unlikely to pay for itself.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'd argue that having a ticket for a portion of the journey you've just taken, as in the OP, makes it obvious there was no intent to travel without a ticket.

Or was there deliberate intent to short-fare, otherwise they’d have bought the ticket for their full journey?

I see your point, and as the OP told the story it does seem harsh, although I do wonder whether it was a revenue block and the OP was trying to blag out of touching the inspection device?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jun 2024 ==

I agree that in general additional revenue staff are likely to pay for themselves, but only up to a point - expanding it to the point where every traveller is checked on every journey (i.e. the 100% suggested) requires either every station entrance/exit across the country to be staffed or every train to carry a decent number of revenue staff. At that point it is unlikely to pay for itself.

A 100% inspection rate isn’t realistic, but 80%+ certainly is. £240m is a lot of money and would pay for a lot of staff.

 

[anothertyke]

Or was there deliberate intent to short-fare, otherwise they’d have bought the ticket for their full journey?

I see your point, and as the OP told the story it does seem harsh, although I do wonder whether it was a revenue block and the OP was trying to blag out of touching the inspection device?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jun 2024 ==


A 100% inspection rate isn’t realistic, but 80%+ certainly is. £240m is a lot of money and would pay for a lot of staff.

80 per cent of the traffic or 80 per cent of the revenue?

I can't see how you could cost-effectively achieve 80 per cent of the traffic on my local line (Leeds-Harrogate) with two stations within eight mins of Leeds.Not without parking the train up at Armley Jct!!

But actually the number in my head was 20 per cent. I don't think you would need anywhere near 80 to achieve the desired effect.

 

[ticketbuyer]

Always hard to tell. Are they fronting up to their mistake because they’re honest, or are they doing it because there’s a revenue block and they think playing dumb is the best option? Both scenarios are identical.

Sometimes an honest mistake has a financial penalty. I recently lost track of time on my car parking and overstayed by 10 minutes, got a parking ticket and it cost me £60. I wasn’t chancing it, it was an honest error, but tough. It happens, it’s annoying when it does, but it’s why it’s so important that the railways are transparent and consistent in how they apply the penalty.

You can't get prosecuted for parking fines.

The way the railway treat customers is a shambles and in return we get an awful service. I've seen far too many honest people be bullied and intimidated by railway workers and I don't care that they're abiding by the laws of the railway, the TOCs should train staff better and ultimately take responsibility for handling these situations in a more graceful way for the passengers.

And they wonder why people choose to drive and fly

 

[skyhigh]

You can't get prosecuted for parking fines.

Are you sure about that?

 

[Tetchytyke]

And they wonder why people choose to drive and fly

Make an honest mistake as to your understanding of the size of your cabin bag and EasyJet will relieve you of £50 at the gate to rectify it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jun 2024 ==

I can't see how you could cost-effectively achieve 80 per cent of the traffic on my local line (Leeds-Harrogate) with two stations within eight mins of Leeds

I bet the guard and an additional revenue inspector would make a damn good shot of it, though. They certainly used to back in the day when the peak Skipton-Leeds trains would often have a second person on board doing revenue, and that was back when they were selling tickets, not just checking them.

 

[Hadders]

How many staff checking tickets would be needed on each 12-car morning rush hour service between St Albans and St Pancras or Stevenage and St Pancras?

 

[Sonic1234]

Are you sure about that?

Only in the few areas that don't have decriminalised parking enforcement, and these areas effectively have no parking enforcement as the police focus on more important issues.

Obstruction is a different matter, but you're not getting a criminal record in the vast majority of the country for leaving your car too long in a 1 hour bay.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Only in the few areas that don't have decriminalised parking enforcement, and these areas effectively have no parking enforcement as the police focus on more important issues.

Obstruction is a different matter, but you're not getting a criminal record in the vast majority of the country for leaving your car too long in a 1 hour bay.

But this is surely just another example of the way that things which would be treated seriously as a crime in any other situation, suddenly becomes less serious if it involves a car. It's not that rail users are treated especially harshly; it's that motorists can get away with murder (literally).