I am horrified at how strict the rail operators are

[BongoStar]

It appears that a large number of people are under the wrong assumption that everyone is PFed or prosecuted. This is not the case.

If anything, a lot of inspectors are reasonable people and show discretion where they can. In most instances they issue PF, unless the nature of offense usually implies there could be more instances, in which case a TIR is made. Even in those cases, the passenger is invited to give their version of events and more often than not, if one engages with the ToC investigation, a settlement is reached. We have on this forum recent cases where only the differential excess was charged for genuine mistake. We even have cases, where despite deliberate evasion attempts, an out of court settlement was offered. Obviously, if one does not engage, it will end up with prosecution - and I have no sympathy for anyone who didn't engage.

Usually where someone is using a non existent railcard or an expired one, there is a fair assumption that they have done it previously. In this case, it would take a lot of leniency on part of the inspector to not submit it for TIR. the recent case falls in this category.

If the railcard expired yesterday and someone is travelling today, then a PF is most likely to be issued if caught, because it is obvious the user would not have had other instances. But if it expired 2 months ago, there needs to be an investigation of how many times the user has committed this offense. Same for someone using an 11am ticket at 9am, there needs to be investigation to recover all the evaded fares.

Much as the media tries to make ToCs look like villians, the truth is far from that. Good cases don't get reported, only bad ones do.

And the most recent one had all the signs of an informed evasion than a genuine mistake - but that's being discussed in another thread, so will leave it here - having explained why his offer to buy a new ticket or pay excess or PF was not acceptable from a procedures perspective.

 

[johncrossley]

So that’s already an offence. Next.

No criminal record for that, surely?

 

[40875704]

I didn’t realise there were so many “types” of mistake. Honest, simple, humblest, genuine, deliberate, railcard! A mistake is a mistake, just like a fact is a fact. Genuine mistakes are as troublesome as true facts. When people talk about true facts they tend to be the ones that invite immediate disbelief!

 

[fandroid]

It does boil down to the complexity of the fares & ticket system. That dramatically increases the likelihood of three things: (1) mistakes (2) people taking chances on cheaper tickets (3) staff having far fewer clear-cut decisions to make concerning discretion.

All this stuff about people should be reading all the terms and conditions is quite unrealistic. The fares system should be simple enough to be readily understood even by a newcomer on the basis of a short introduction. And the word Advance should be eliminated, especially as many are no now more "advance" than most flexible tickets.

The railway should itself accept the risk associated with introducing loads of fancy fares and the possibility of them being wrongly exploited. Having only normal debt recovery remedies for wrong ticket types being held might make them somewhat more realistic and to see the advantage for them and their staff of sticking to plain and simple fares.

 

[Sonic1234]

That is true, but parking tickets are fixed penalties with formal ways to appeal, instead of threats to prosecute under the criminal law with no appeal process. And if you forget to pay, or the post goes to the wrong place, you don’t get a criminal record and £500 to pay. The worst case is almost always a CCJ.

And no investigation into how often you might have transgressed either.

Leave your car for half the day in a 1 hour bay, no one goes through CCTV to see how often you've done it (not being caught is a real possibility outside of the London councils, large cities and tourist hotspots where parking enforcement is often minimal). The penalty can be as low as £25 as well.

 

[Pompey00]

Evening all,

I have been working on the railway for a couple years now and see people play the system.

For example- they book a ticket in advance and try leave earlier in the day. Even had a customer try leave a day before.

But because they have certain tickets and restrictions times they have to follow t&c’s of the tickets unless their service is cancelled they can get the one before or one after. Unless it’s the last train of the day can use it for the day after or if other tocs allow ticket acceptance.

Sometimes your able to pay the difference to go on the next service due in. but if they don’t want to pay the difference or can’t afford it they have to stick to originals time whether it’s advanced, off peak , evening out, super off peak etc as it stops you getting fined.

A fellow member of staff informed me that if they board a different service other than the original booked one and something happens to the train like a crash or fire and a injury/death occurs you are not insured as you got the wrong service whether that’s true idk as sometimes they have to get another train if something is wrong with their original one so not sure if it transfers or what?.

Same with rail cards people play the system still months after expiration of their railcard or selecting they have a railcard when they don’t until they get caught.

Mainly they railcards for younger people or job centre as it’s cheapest they can get it as it’s the most % of.

So personally I believe if they are playing the system and get caught then they get what they deserve.

 

[signed]

Surely the easiest way without rethinking anything would be to have a prosecution threshold. If your known (over lifetime) evasion is under like £100, you can't get prosecuted full-stop, or if you have been stopped more than like 4 or 5 times, then you get prosecuted

 

[nanstallon]

Few people would want deliberate fare dodgers to get away with it, but the present system is unfair. Somebody who loses his ticket while on the train is guilty of an offence of not showing his ticket when asked to do so, and can be prosecuted with all that that means for his career etc even if he can prove that he had bought the ticket. So, no dishonesty, but still prosecuted. There is no obligation on the TOC to consider issues of proportionality, or public interest, before prosecuting. And they know that they have got the customer over a barrel when demanding payment of the full fare (no allowance for what has already been paid) plus a hefty fee for investigation. All in all, the railways have an over-privileged position, dating from Victorian times when fares were far less complicated.

 

[fishwomp]

Every time I see a thread like this, it should be remembered that it works both ways - discretion is often shown and people do get away with travelling without a valid ticket sometimes. If there is no enforcement, for some people there’s no incentive to ensure a valid ticket is held.

Has there ever been a fine for the railway companies selling tickets that are not the cheapest ones available for the requested journey?

On several occasions I have found ticket machines failing to offer the correct fare: That should come with the criminal consequences for the company, you can bet they'd find it possible to fix the system and machine then.

 

[Darandio]

A fellow member of staff informed me that if they board a different service other than the original booked one and something happens to the train like a crash or fire and a injury/death occurs you are not insured as you got the wrong service whether that’s true idk as sometimes they have to get another train if something is wrong with their original one so not sure if it transfers or what?.

It's a nonsense. Considering some staff members like to make up rules to suit this isn't entirely surprising!

 

[BongoStar]

Has there ever been a fine for the railway companies selling tickets that are not the cheapest ones available for the requested journey?

On several occasions I have found ticket machines failing to offer the correct fare: That should come with the criminal consequences for the company, you can bet they'd find it possible to fix the system and machine then.

Is that a serious question?

What exactly do you define as selling cheapest fare?

The ToCs cost + a small margin, or the cheapest available fare they offer.

If it's the former, then you will be surprised to know that the railways as a whole receive subsidy, so if they start charging what it actually costs them, fares will go up.

If it's the latter, surely you know that cheaper fares are available if you search for them. If you can't be bothered to look at all fare options, what is the ToCs supposed to do? Unless you are under the assumption that some cheap tickets are tucked away in the bottom drawer of some counter and issued secretively.

 

[yorkie]

So personally I believe if they are playing the system and get caught then they get what they deserve.

How do you know if someone is "playing the system", how do you define "playing the system" ?

Also, what do you think about staff who incorrectly charge passengers?

What exactly do you define as selling cheapest fare?

It is the lowest priced fare that is valid for the journey the customer intends to make.

It should be offered (and is mandatory to be offered, if the point of sale is impartial) but is not always offered in practice.

The ToCs cost + a small margin, or the cheapest available fare they offer.

I don't understand what you mean by this; if you are suggesting the answer to your question is a binary choice between either of these answers, then that isn't correct.

If it's the former, then you will be surprised to know that the railways as a whole receive subsidy, so if they start charging what it actually costs them, fares will go up.

That's a whole new topic.

If it's the latter, surely you know that cheaper fares are available if you search for them. If you can't be bothered to look at all fare options, what is the ToCs supposed to do? Unless you are under the assumption that some cheap tickets are tucked away in the bottom drawer of some counter and issued secretively.

If the customer is performing a search, or is asking at a ticket office for a fare for a journey, then they should be offered the lowest priced valid fare for the journey.

Am I the only person on here who takes the view that the TOCs including TFL are far too strict and merciless when simple mistakes are made?

No

Some of these “just expired railcard mistakes” or “taking different trains because of unreliability“ cases are appalling and the traveller should not be fined/prosecuted.
Firstly, the ticketing system is a minefield and even I managed to book a wrong ticket from York to Leeds on the system the other day and I am retired railwayman!

Exactly; people who buy the wrong ticket should be treated in a fair and appropriate manner. They usually are, but sadly there are numerous instances of passengers being mistreated on an industrial scale which happen on a daily basis..

Secondly, the railway is not 100 per cent reliable and most people are cynical and mistrustful of services. This leads to making what might appear to be irrational and hasty decisions.
Lastly, and most important of all, we all make mistakes. Young people can be particularly “scatter brained” and forgetting their keys, leaving lights on etc. To give you a classic example of my stepson, after I had parked my car (we had gone to the Yorkshire Dales for a walk) he returned to it to get his water bottle. Upon returning after a long walk we found he had left the car door wide open! Not a thing was taken luckily!!
We are all human but the railway companies take the view that the humblest mistake should be punished. I know there is a lot of deliberate fare evasion but clearly some people on here deserve leniency. I am surprised that the media has not picked up on this because I do think there is a lot of injustices taking place. What do others think?

Some train companies appear to take the view that customers are potential criminals, and have no choice but to use the railways so should be dealt with harshly.

I see no end to this in sight; DfT appears to encourage and/or reward such behaviour.

Indeed some train companies, such as Northern, are so anti-customer that their revenue protection staff are acted to act incorrectly towards customers, under certain circumstances.

It really is unbelieveable what goes on; I am privvy to more than what gets posted here and even then it is just the tip of the iceberg.

Most railway staff are good people and do not behave in an anti-passenger way, nor do they attempt to justify anti-passenger attitudes by train companies and/or railway staff.

Sadly a small minority of railway staff actually defend such behaviour; fortunately they are very much in a minority (and are typically the sort who are keen to criticise their employer under other circumstances, such as when it comes to staff T&Cs!) however, it is the behaviour of the minority, that is most noticeable and sticks in the memory.

 

[fishwomp]

Is that a serious question?

What exactly do you define as selling cheapest fare?

The ToCs cost + a small margin, or the cheapest available fare they offer.

If it's the former, then you will be surprised to know that the railways as a whole receive subsidy, so if they start charging what it actually costs them, fares will go up.

If it's the latter, surely you know that cheaper fares are available if you search for them. If you can't be bothered to look at all fare options, what is the ToCs supposed to do? Unless you are under the assumption that some cheap tickets are tucked away in the bottom drawer of some counter and issued secretively.

I'm meaning when machines offer incorrect fares. I've seen it plenty of times over the years, still see it today.

 

[Pompey00]

It's a nonsense. Considering some staff members like to make up rules to suit this isn't entirely surprising!

Probably is but surprised

 

[BongoStar]

How do you know if someone is "playing the system", how do you define "playing the system" ?

By reporting the offender via TIR perhaps? Those who are routinely doing this "mistake" will be identified and those who did a one-off could be given treated differently. The issue here is that many believe a TIR itself is over the top.

If the customer is performing a search, or is asking at a ticket office for a fare for a journey, then they should be offered the lowest priced valid fare for the jojourney.

In my experience, the customer is offered the fare based on the search criteria. If I have searched Reading to London at 7:30am, I will be offered fares for that.

Should the system alert me that if I travel at 11am, the fare will be cheaper and go even further by suggesting I get a railcard to reduce the cost further? Possibly, would be a great option. Any of the authorised resellers can come up with an algorithm for this - perhaps a gap in the market to be capitalised on. But from a search functionality, you are getting a fare quote for what you asked.

I'm meaning when machines offer incorrect fares. I've seen it plenty of times over the years, still see it today.

I don't think this happens. The fares are always correct for the journey as inquired.

Are they always the cheapest possible fare for that journey? definitely not. (Dare I say never? )
Could they do better, yes.
Are they required to do better? No

But coming to the main discussion, why should they be prosecuted for that? Unless they are claiming that they are providing the cheapest possible ticket for the journey, what would the allegation be?

 

[Adam Williams]

I don't think this happens. The fares are always correct for the journey as inquired.

I think even this is a statement that cannot consistently be made!

There are many examples, but the obvious one that comes to my mind are the TIS suppliers who seem to have a very lackadaisical attitude to .. actually keeping up-to-date with the fares data and monitoring their deployed kit to ensure that it updates properly.

 

[yorkie]

By reporting the offender via TIR perhaps? Those who are routinely doing this "mistake" will be identified and those who did a one-off could be given treated differently. The issue here is that many believe a TIR itself is over the top.

It is over the top for a simple mistake

You are entitled to your opinions.

In my experience, the customer is offered the fare based on the search criteria. If I have searched Reading to London at 7:30am, I will be offered fares for that.

But you won't necessarily be offered the cheapest fare for the journey you want to make in all cases.

I will ask you a question: If you search for Newcastle to London at around 7am in January, will you be certain of being offered the cheapest fare for the journey?

Should the system alert me that if I travel at 11am, the fare will be cheaper and go even further by suggesting I get a railcard to reduce the cost further? Possibly, would be a great option. Any of the authorised resellers can come up with an algorithm for this - perhaps a gap in the market to be capitalised on. But from a search functionality, you are getting a fare quote for what you asked.

Not always.

I don't think this happens. The fares are always correct for the journey as inquired.

Always? Really?

Are you sure you don't want to revise that to "usually"?

Are they always the cheapest possible fare for that journey? definitely not. (Dare I say never? )
Could they do better, yes.
Are they required to do better? No

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here?

 

[BongoStar]

But you won't necessarily be offered the cheapest fare for the journey you want to make in all cases.

I will ask you a question: If you search for Newcastle to London at around 7am in January, will you be certain of being offered the cheapest fare for the journey?

I don't know for certain to be honest. For any journey I don't make on a frequent basis, I search for the fare on ToCs website, XC app, this site and then compare them. On a complete like for like, I have never found a difference, but there have been 2 occasions where I was offered a cheaper route than what I had searched for, which was cheaper.

Not always.

Always? Really?

Are you sure you don't want to revise that to "usually"?

I think even this is a statement that cannot consistently be made!

There are many examples, but the obvious one that comes to my mind are the TIS suppliers who seem to have a very lackadaisical attitude to .. actually keeping up-to-date with the fares data and monitoring their deployed kit to ensure that it updates properly.

Okay, I will graciously accept that the use of word always is not correct. Others have had a different experience and there could be a possibility that the cheapest possible is not always provided.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here?

I was referring to the original post where it was mentioned that ToCs have to provide the cheapest or face prosecution. Just highlighting that despite the gap between where they are now and where they could be, there is no legal requirement for them to do any better. So on what basis is the prosecution being suggested.

 

[yorkie]

I don't know for certain to be honest. For any journey I don't make on a frequent basis, I search for the fare on ToCs website, XC app, this site and then compare them. On a complete like for like, I have never found a difference, but there have been 2 occasions where I was offered a cheaper route than what I had searched for, which was cheaper.

OK, well it may not surprise you to learn that LNER make it difficult by releasing their own tickets early, denying other retailers the opportunity to show their own tickets, and at the same time choosing not to show other operators trains:

x.com

x.com

@LNER why does your website not show the 07:57 Lumo NCL-KGX service? It is cheaper than any of your trains, at only £27.20. Isn't your site supposed to impartially show all operators' services? @LumoTravel
@DavidHorne

LNER replied with misleading information:

Hello, this is because LUMO haven't released their tickets for this date yet.

LNER were then corrected:

Lumo are selling tickets at £27.20 for their 07:57 service, so they have released tickets.

LNER are now looking into this:

My apologies, I thought you said the 06:57. Bear with me while I look into this for you.

I don't think we'll get a straight and perfectly honest answer, though.

Okay, I will graciously accept that the use of word always is not correct. Others have had a different experience and there could be a possibility that the cheapest possible is not always provided.

Indeed; now you see the problem?

I was referring to the original post where it was mentioned that ToCs have to provide the cheapest or face prosecution.

I certainly wish there was a more level playing field

Just highlighting that despite the gap between where they are now and where they could be, there is no legal requirement for them to do any better. So on what basis is the prosecution being suggested.

There certainly are legal and contractual requirements they need to follow, for example rules of impartiality (which can vary depending on the sales method), as well as adhering to contract and consumer laws and ensuring that information provided is not misleading. They are also required to adhere to all other relevant laws, for example TOCs who are in a dominant market position must not abuse that position, and yet some appear to be doing that.

There are all sorts of examples of the rules not being followed, for example passengers being denied (Super) Off Peak tickets on the basis that they are not valid, when in fact they are; or passengers who are attempting to use such tickets being delied travel and/or charged additional or excess fares to use their perfectly valid tickets.

It's not lawful behaviour, however the remedies are not sufficient in my opinion; it would be great if there could be a more level playing field, which may force train companies to behave differently.

Train companies such as Northern even have glaring errors in the handbooks they issue to their revenue protection staff, which include instructions to incorrectly charge passengers Penalty Fares under inappropriate circumstances. We know that Northern read this forum, and that Northern have been known to threaten people for saying things they do not want to be published, and yet they choose not to get their own behaviour in order under circumstancws where their poor behaviou has been highlighted on here.

I don't have any realistic hope of suitable changes being made, nor that train companies would introduce appropriate safeguards, nor that relevant mystery shopping will be carried out, nor that regulation will be effective, and so on...

I am not very happy when I see any attempt to downplay the seriousness of the systematic maltreatment of customers, which is happening on an industrial scale. I will robustly challenge any assertion that downplays the seriousness of what is going on.

 

[fishwomp]

[.]

I don't think this happens. The fares are always correct for the journey as inquired.

It does happen. If you honestly think that, for example https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/northern-ticket-machines-part-2.252319/page-2#post-6410581 has a photo of the machine trying to overcharge me last year. I've seen other examples, but not reported them.

We've also seen examples on this forum in the last few days where people have been forced to pay a full new ticket instead of an excess - which is not correct in many circumstances as per the Conditions of Carriage.

Are they always the cheapest possible fare for that journey? definitely not. (Dare I say never? )
Could they do better, yes.
Are they required to do better? No

Yes, they are.

But coming to the main discussion, why should they be prosecuted for that? Unless they are claiming that they are providing the cheapest possible ticket for the journey, what would the allegation be?

For the same reason that they believe passengers should be prosecuted for mistakes, or even for repeat offences. Misrepresenting the price that should be charged and pocketing the extra sounds very like fraud to me. What's so hard to understand? There is a one-sided system that allows mistakes on one side to go unpunished but not the other.

 

[BongoStar]

It does happen. If you honestly think that, for example

Yes, I have corrected myself there now. See #48 above.

For the same reason that they believe passengers should be prosecuted for mistakes, or even for repeat offences. Misrepresenting the price that should be charged and pocketing the extra sounds very like fraud to me. What's so hard to understand? There is a one-sided system that allows mistakes on one side to go unpunished but not the other.

I think we will have to disagree here. A customer is provided with a fare quote which they are free to accept or reject. There is zero obligation to use the train if you think the fare is unreasonable.

It is one sided and they have an upper hand, fully agree there, but this being a prosecutable offense - no. There is no legal basis for that.

Besides the two comparisons of mistakes is not appropriate either. In the case of customer, the passenger has benefited from service they haven't paid for (whether in error or deliberate) but in the second scenario, no transaction has occurred till the fare is voluntarily accepted.

 

[crablab]

A customer is provided with a fare quote which they are free to accept or reject. There is zero obligation to use the train if you think the fare is unreasonable.

That's not the point being made here.
There is an obligation on the retailer (contractually & legally) to show the customer the correct prices for their journey, and by extension the correct fares.

Failing to show valid fares, either through negligence or deliberately (as Yorkie has suggested above) is questionable.

I believe there is a case working its way through the courts where it's suggested that consumers were systematically mischarged a higher fare when they were not offered boundary zone tickets, such that they purchased additional tickets to cover validity they already held (eg. in a season ticket). As I understand it, part of the claim has been settled and part awaits judgement.

It's been referred to extensively on here and is perhaps a good example of alleged miselling.
I don't think anyone would suggest that the ticket office staff who, perhaps through insufficient training, allegedly inadvertently erred in understanding the terms of the tickets and selling the customer the most appropriate & valid fare for the journey requested, should face criminal sanction.

 

[LUL1970]

Rail fares are a nightmare to understand

1. I frequently use split ticketing to reduce travel costs and find I have to tell the ticket office staff which is the cheapest fare for each leg of the journey. For example the existance of an Avanti Super Off Peak return from Milton Keynes Central to Euston was not known about at Wolverhampton.

 

[RJ]

Has there ever been a fine for the railway companies selling tickets that are not the cheapest ones available for the requested journey?

On several occasions I have found ticket machines failing to offer the correct fare: That should come with the criminal consequences for the company, you can bet they'd find it possible to fix the system and machine then.

People do have the option for bringing legal proceedings against the railways for breach of contract, if the Conditions of Travel are not upheld. Usually if action is taken against TOCs that is upheld then changes will be made to prevent a reoccurrence.

 

[Alex C.]

People do have the option for bringing legal proceedings against the railways for breach of contract, if the Conditions of Travel are not upheld. Usually if action is taken against TOCs that is upheld then changes will be made to prevent a reoccurrence.

There’s no criminal sanctions though - if we’re so keen to penalise mistakes why isn’t the employee responsible getting a criminal record?

 

[Surreytraveller]

It's a nonsense. Considering some staff members like to make up rules to suit this isn't entirely surprising!

And then other staff go and believe what others have told them

 

[Lockwood]

So that’s already an offence. Next.

It is an offence with variable enforcement, and local authorities able to make their own rules. (Some councils give private hire cars "authorised bus lane user" stickers, TfL has different rules to the boroughs, some authorities have a much higher prosecution rate than others.

If the customer is performing a search, or is asking at a ticket office for a fare for a journey, then they should be offered the lowest priced valid fare for the journey.

I don't think it is reasonable for ticket office staff to be able to offer the cheapest fare all the time. Ie I ask for a return from A to D, but the cheapest option is an anytime single from A to B, an anytime single from B to C, an off peak return from C to D, an evening single from C to B and then an evening single from B to A.
Ok, maybe if they have a booking system that can find that for them (and that journey is extremely time sensitive with the peak hour window) - but certainly no expectations for them to be able to answer "I want to get from A to D and get to D around 11 am and come back after 7. What is the best fare?" with something that detailed. Maybe an anytime single from A to D and an evening single from D to A, rather than an anytime return.

 

[RochdalePioneers]

I think there are two parts to the issue:

1) A ticketing system which a best is obtuse and difficult to navigate and at worst is deliberately complex and confusing with the intention that the passenger pays the most possible even if cheaper tickets exist, and
2) An “our passengers are criminals” mentality which pervades some staff / operators.Needlessly complex tickets is bad enough - made far worse when some rail staff seem deliberately ignorant of basics such as NRCoT or even the ticket restrictions of their own company-issued tickets

Ultimately, this is an area which GBR is going to have to fix because it is bringing the industry into disrepute. I know quite a few people who have simply given up using the train - too expensive, too unreliable, too risky.

 

[Skymonster]

It is over the top for a simple mistake

But how does anyone know whether its a simple mistake or serial attempts at evasion. A TIR allows an investigation to take place. Your argument would be better if you suggested that if the investigation uncovered no previous offences some leniency might be applied. Passengers need to appreciate and accept that their online purchase history is a massive digital fingerprint - and should expect that when they come to the attention of the authorities their fingerprint will be checked for other transgressions. If they want to lessen the scope of the investigation they should not leave their fingerprints but wear gloves (buy paper tickets and use cash).

People who claim there is no correlation to things such as checking back on motoring offences or in retail beware - with technology it’s coming to cars and already some people are seeing hikes in insurance rates because of their (perceived as poor) driving style. No arguments - it’s pay more or go elsewhere. Soon it will be checking back on speeding using GPS, etc. and that will open the door to things such as ignoring no turn / no stopping signs. And supermarkets already use CCTV to help identify suspected shop lifters

 

[Tedb]

The messaging on anytime tickets is misleading at best. I’ve contacted ToC who is currently looking to prosecute my son for an 85p underpayment (railcard used before 10am)…it was a mistake and first time he’d made a mistake as shown by his purchase history they reviewed. When referring to the ticket being misleading they said I should call Trainline. I did and Trainlain told me it’s the ToC who I need to speak to. They put me through to ToC who kindly advised I should speak to Trainline. Processes and messaging need to change. People who continue to cheat the system should be the ones that are prosecuted