Discussion about "Train ticket enforcement must be fair and proportionate, watchdog warns"

[styles]

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...must-be-fair-and-proportionate-watchdog-warns

ORR criticises ‘inconsistent outcomes’ across Britain’s network with some passengers punished for honest errors

Gwyn Topham Transport correspondent

Wed 4 Jun 2025 00.01 BST

Some train operators have excessively prosecuted alleged fare dodgers, according to the rail regulator, which has called for clearer tickets and a fairer system to avoid penalising mistakes.

A report by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) said passengers who boarded trains without a valid ticket faced “inconsistent treatment and outcomes” across the network, with “disproportionate action” sometimes taken over small errors.


The review, commissioned in November by the then transport secretary, Louise Haigh, said fare evasion cost Britain’s railways hundreds of millions of pounds every year and undermined the sense of fairness among paying passengers.

However, the ORR also said it was vital that measures to tackle fare-dodging were “applied appropriately and fairly”.

Cases it noted included a passenger who was threatened with prosecution for accidentally selecting a ticket linked to the wrong railcard – even though the discount and fare paid were the same – and another who faced legal action after a water-damaged printout could not be scanned, despite them later providing proof of the valid ticket.

The regulator urged the Department for Transport to ensure passengers get clearer information about tickets and their restrictions, and to introduce consistent standards for how passengers are treated when ticket issues arise.

Stephanie Tobyn, the ORR’s director of strategy, policy and reform, said: “Effective revenue protection is essential for a sustainable railway, but it must be fair and proportionate for passengers.

“The legal framework and enforcement processes are increasingly complex and appear weighted towards industry, leaving some passengers who make innocent errors vulnerable to disproportionate outcomes. But meanwhile, fare evasion remains a significant problem, and rigorous action should be taken against those who intentionally seek to defraud the railway.”

Peter Hendy, the rail minister, said privatisation had “created a mess of deep-rooted issues across our railway”, and the creation of Great British Railways would “establish oversight and … end inconsistent prosecutions and making sure passengers are treated fairly”.


He added: “Deliberate fare-dodging costs the taxpayer up to £400m annually and must be dealt with, but ham-fisted prosecutions that punish people who have made an innocent mistake is not the way to do this.”

A spokesperson for the Rail Delivery Group, which represents operators, said it welcomed the ORR’s “sensible recommendations”.

They said: “We need to strike the right balance addressing genuine, honest mistakes made by customers and taking firm action against those who deliberately and persistently seek to exploit the system.”

The watchdog Transport Focus called for a “yellow card” system for passengers who travel without the correct ticket on a national database.

Will see if any real reform comes from this but I think calling it out is welcome. I'm against fare evasion as much as the next person, but with such a complex ticketing system I do think fare enforcement is sometimes over the top, e.g. the example given in the article of somebody selecting the wrong Railcard when the discount and travel terms with their actual Railcard would be exactly the same - it's obviously a mistake and needs a proportionate response.

 

[Kite159]

The hardest part is trying to determine what is an honest mistake (selecting the wrong date on an flexible ticket where the cost is the same) and an intentional action, such as 'accidentally' selecting the wrong date/time when buying an advance ticket to get a cheaper fare.

 

[AlterEgo]

The hardest part is trying to determine what is an honest mistake (selecting the wrong date on an flexible ticket where the cost is the same) and an intentional action, such as 'accidentally' only buying a Birmingham - Duddeston ticket and travelling to Sutton Coldfield.

I think those two examples though are quite clear cut aren’t they? Especially with the loss involved.

 

[KirkstallOne]

A striking inclusion:

5.24 In February 2025, the Chief Magistrate ruled on whether an unsuccessful penalty fare appeal provided protection from prosecution for certain fare evasion offences. He ruled that criminal prosecutions can be brought following a penalty fare appeal being rejected.

Anyone have any idea of the details of this ruling?

 

[AlterEgo]

A striking inclusion:



Anyone have any idea of the details of this ruling?

This would be good to know, given the law specifically disbars the prosecution of most fares offences (but not all, IIRC).

 

[jthjth]

There is a more detailed report here

Independent review of train operators' revenue protection practices | Office of Rail and Road

A report to the Secretary of State for Transport.

www.orr.gov.uk

A report to the Secretary of State for Transport

Executive summary​

Introduction​

1. Fare evasion is a crime and costs Britain’s railway hundreds of millions of pounds every year, denying train operators legitimate revenue and undermining fare-paying passengers’ sense of fairness in the system. Less industry revenue means higher fares, higher taxpayer subsidy and less money for investment to improve services.

2. It is therefore right that there are measures in place to deter and hold to account those who deliberately evade their fare. However, it is vital that these are applied appropriately and fairly, and in a way that maintains trust in the system.

3. During 2024, the media reported on a number of cases of train operators appearing to take disproportionate action against passengers who, on the face of it, had made genuine errors with their tickets. This led, in some cases, to prosecution.

4. These cases involved individuals being penalised for seemingly unintentional or minor transgressions of fares and ticketing rules, including where:

• there was no possible revenue loss to the industry; and
• a rule had technically been broken, but the circumstances were such that the passenger’s error appeared to have been made innocently and without them realising. For example, where the terms and conditions (T&Cs) of a railcard may not have been clear to a passenger when purchasing their ticket.

5. In addition, in August 2024, the Chief Magistrate quashed six fare evasion convictions that had been prosecuted incorrectly using the fast-track ‘Single Justice Procedure’ (SJP). This then led to just over 59,000 similar convictions being quashed. While this was on the grounds of a specific procedural error by train operators (rather than a fundamental problem with the case for prosecution), it raised concerns about the oversight and assurance of the processes for prosecution within both the train operating companies (TOCs) involved and the court system.

6. In response, on 13 November 2024 the then Secretary of State for Transport commissioned the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) to conduct an independent review of train operators’ revenue protection practices. Her overriding priority in doing so was to ensure that fare evasion was being addressed, but in a way that was fair to passengers and in line with the correct procedures.

continues on referenced website……

 

[KirkstallOne]

This would be good to know, given the law specifically disbars the prosecution of most fares offences (but not all, IIRC).

Well, that is what we have presumed, and that is what Greater Anglia’s and Northern’s barristers accepted in 2024 but clearly they have had another bite of the cherry here.

I note the report clearly says this ruling is not binding, and the Chief Magistrate was reluctant to even comment in 2024 (precisely because it would not be binding), so I am very keen to find who brought this case and what the argument was.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jun 2025 ==

I’m actually due on 5 live in about an hour to discuss this which is why I am up early wading through the details!

 

[jthjth]

There is a more detailed report here

Independent review of train operators' revenue protection practices | Office of Rail and Road

A report to the Secretary of State for Transport.

www.orr.gov.uk

A report to the Secretary of State for Transport

Executive summary​

Introduction​

1. Fare evasion is a crime and costs Britain’s railway hundreds of millions of pounds every year, denying train operators legitimate revenue and undermining fare-paying passengers’ sense of fairness in the system. Less industry revenue means higher fares, higher taxpayer subsidy and less money for investment to improve services.

2. It is therefore right that there are measures in place to deter and hold to account those who deliberately evade their fare. However, it is vital that these are applied appropriately and fairly, and in a way that maintains trust in the system.

3. During 2024, the media reported on a number of cases of train operators appearing to take disproportionate action against passengers who, on the face of it, had made genuine errors with their tickets. This led, in some cases, to prosecution.

4. These cases involved individuals being penalised for seemingly unintentional or minor transgressions of fares and ticketing rules, including where:

• there was no possible revenue loss to the industry; and
• a rule had technically been broken, but the circumstances were such that the passenger’s error appeared to have been made innocently and without them realising. For example, where the terms and conditions (T&Cs) of a railcard may not have been clear to a passenger when purchasing their ticket.

5. In addition, in August 2024, the Chief Magistrate quashed six fare evasion convictions that had been prosecuted incorrectly using the fast-track ‘Single Justice Procedure’ (SJP). This then led to just over 59,000 similar convictions being quashed. While this was on the grounds of a specific procedural error by train operators (rather than a fundamental problem with the case for prosecution), it raised concerns about the oversight and assurance of the processes for prosecution within both the train operating companies (TOCs) involved and the court system.

6. In response, on 13 November 2024 the then Secretary of State for Transport commissioned the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) to conduct an independent review of train operators’ revenue protection practices. Her overriding priority in doing so was to ensure that fare evasion was being addressed, but in a way that was fair to passengers and in line with the correct procedures.

continues on referenced website……

Some key paragraphs here:

Overview of our findings​

21. We have found that current revenue protection practices in rail are not working as well as they need to and require improvement in the interests of passengers, the rail industry and taxpayers.

22. Fare evasion and revenue loss are increasing, despite new technology that can aid detection. In response, enforcement action by TOCs has become more frequent and robust within the context of the strict liability framework. And process changes – such as the introduction of the SJP – have made it easier for TOCs to prosecute passengers.

23. However, passenger safeguards have not kept pace with these developments, and current revenue protection practices are largely weighted towards the industry. This may result in unfair or disproportionate outcomes with passengers being penalised for innocent or minor mistakes.

24. Action needs to be taken to improve fairness, consistency and transparency while ensuring that TOCs are able to deal with deliberate and persistent fare evaders robustly. Our recommendations to address this are set out below.

 

[SuspectUsual]

22. Fare evasion and revenue loss are increasing, despite new technology that can aid detection

Is it? Or are they now just able to positively detect more of it?

 

[jthjth]

In respect of prosecutions here are the relevant paragraphs:

Recommendation 3: Introduce greater consistency and fairness in the use of prosecutions​

Prosecution decisions should consider fair, evidence-based criteria and only be taken when clearly justified and in the wider public interest.
Prosecution policies vary considerably across train operators. This includes decisions on whether to bring charges against an individual (the test for prosecution); the choice of law and legal procedure; use of third-party agents; the approach to out of court settlements; and the use of digital tools that quicken and streamline the prosecution process. This means that passengers can face significantly different outcomes and treatment for similar issues depending on which TOC they travel with.

Actions​

• Short-term – Introduce a consistent test for prosecution, including guidance on weighing public interest factors in favour of (or against) prosecution.
• Short-term – Develop best practice principles applying to the use of out of court settlements, including the basis of calculating the settlement fee.
• Longer-term – Undertake a wider review of revenue protection legislation to simplify, clarify and provide greater consistency across the rail sector, including the use of railway byelaws, where currently a passenger can be prosecuted for travelling with an invalid ticket, even when a genuine mistake has occurred.

37. Our review found that prosecutions for ticketing offences have been increasing. Charges brought against passengers under the Railway Byelaws 2005 have risen by 52% in recent years (2023 compared to 2019), while passenger numbers have fallen by 7%. However, the extent to which each TOC uses prosecution varies considerably, even when normalised for passenger numbers.
38. Prosecutions should only be undertaken where it is appropriate to do so, given that a conviction is a serious and potentially life changing matter.
39. Crown prosecutors in England and Wales (private prosecutions are very rare under Scottish Law, and so this section focuses on England and Wales) must meet key criteria both to ensure there is sufficient evidence of a crime to secure a conviction and that it is in the public interest to prosecute. This is known as the ‘Full Code Test’. TOCs, as private prosecutors, are not obliged to follow this test but there are good reasons for them to apply or align with it.
40. While it was reassuring to find that many TOCs apply a test that is similar to the Full Code Test, this is not the case for all the TOCs that prosecute. There were six TOCs for whom we either did not see evidence of a formal test or where it was unclear what test they were applying in practice. And more broadly, we saw scope for improvement in the tests that some TOCs applied.
41. The lack of a consistent robust and transparent decision-making framework across the industry risks prosecutions being undertaken where they are not in the public interest, as well as arbitrary treatment depending on which TOC a passenger travels with. There is evidence both from our Call for Evidence and from Transport Focus research that passengers have been prosecuted (or faced prosecution) where it would not be in the public interest.
42. Instead of pursuing a prosecution, TOCs can offer passengers the opportunity to settle out of court. This can sometimes serve the public interest better than a prosecution and provide a better outcome for the passenger. However, it is important that TOCs do not use the prospect of prosecution to leverage an unfair settlement.
I thought the settlement offer and threat of court was unfair and heavy handed, considering the nature of the offence and impact it had on myself. I do not think the case would pass the public interest test for [prosecution].
Call for Evidence respondent
43. While we found the policies of several TOCs to be reasonable in terms of how they calculate out of court settlements, and some examples of good practice that could be adopted more widely, the policies of other TOCs were less clear.
44. There were also some TOCs whose written policies state they may pursue out of court settlements even where there is insufficient evidence to prosecute. We have been unable to clarify this point owing to the time constraints of the review and therefore have no clear evidence that it is happening in practice. However, if TOCs were doing this while leaving passengers under the impression that they will be prosecuted if they do not pay, we consider this would be without basis and unreasonable.
45. TOCs that prosecute need to have fair, evidence-based criteria and should only proceed when it is clearly justified and in the wider public interest. Equally, TOCs need to have similarly clear best practice principles for using out of court settlements.

 

[KirkstallOne]

This is a pretty damning section:

5.81 Another TOC’s policy listed the criteria to meet the standard for prosecution as including the question:

“Is there sufficient evidence to prosecute? If the answer is no, then a settlement will be offered.”

5.82 We do not know how such requests for settlement or financial payments are communicated to passengers in practice and have not requested this information due to the time constraints of our review. However, if a TOC has assessed that it does not have sufficient evidence to prosecute, we consider that it would be unreasonable and without basis to request a financial settlement from a passenger who is under the impression that they may be prosecuted if they do not settle.

 

[jfollows]

As well as “fair and proportionate“, the word “consistent“ appears quite often, and I think that’s key. It’s not reasonable that, on one day, passengers are allowed to buy tickets on the train when they should have bought before boarding, but on the next day someone with an otherwise valid off-peak ticket is threatened with prosecution rather than being asked to pay an excess fare.
I think this comes down to poor staff training, lack of clear direction from rail operators to staff, and unsuitable staff being given jobs. Amongst other things.

 

[OneOfThe48]

I think this is a good report, albeit one potentially a bit too idealistic/naive for my liking.

There’s a lot of emphasis on clear information needing to be provided to customers on ticket restrictions, validity, T&Cs and policies without much thought put into whether people would read all that information (I don’t think they will!) or whether upon providing that information it becomes solely the passengers fault if they break a rule along the way.

I think they will always say it’s too confusing to understand and they are easy/honest mistakes

As well as “fair and proportionate“, the word “consistent“ appears quite often, and I think that’s key. It’s not reasonable that, on one day, passengers are allowed to buy tickets on the train when they should have bought before boarding, but on the next day someone with an otherwise valid off-peak ticket is threatened with prosecution rather than being asked to pay an excess fare.

That is though a by-product of inspectors/guards/investigators showing discretion, and you would equally get complaints of blanket policies being enforced without consideration for their specific circumstances etc

 

[KirkstallOne]

They just cancelled the interview in case anyone was waiting to hear it

 

[Titfield]

As well as “fair and proportionate“, the word “consistent“ appears quite often, and I think that’s key. It’s not reasonable that, on one day, passengers are allowed to buy tickets on the train when they should have bought before boarding, but on the next day someone with an otherwise valid off-peak ticket is threatened with prosecution rather than being asked to pay an excess fare.
I think this comes down to poor staff training, lack of clear direction from rail operators to staff, and unsuitable staff being given jobs. Amongst other things.

There are examples where the remedy (as laid out) is not being applied consistently and that is a training matter.

However there are loads of examples of other situations resolved inconsistently and as I have mentioned on numerous occasions one persons "discretion" is another persons "inconsistency". Discretion and consistency are mutually exclusive.

 

[Kilopylae]

They just cancelled the interview in case anyone was waiting to hear it

That's a shame, I had 5Live on in anticipation. Hearing from the East Midlands mayors claim that growth won't come from London is a lot less interesting!

Is it? Or are they now just able to positively detect more of it?

It does feel like there's been a social shift towards it being more normalised, but one never knows if these intuitions are illusory.

 

[yorkie]

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...must-be-fair-and-proportionate-watchdog-warns


Will see if any real reform comes from this but I think calling it out is welcome. I'm against fare evasion as much as the next person, but with such a complex ticketing system I do think fare enforcement is sometimes over the top, e.g. the example given in the article of somebody selecting the wrong Railcard when the discount and travel terms with their actual Railcard would be exactly the same - it's obviously a mistake and needs a proportionate response.

It's almost as if they have been reading this forum

Train companies will never comply with this, at least not fully. Absolutely no chance; who is going to make them?

There is no organisation or individual that has the understanding of the scale of what's going on, and understanding of the issues, and both the power and desire to do anything about it.

 

[Titfield]

It does feel like there's been a social shift towards it being more normalised, but one never knows if these intuitions are illusory.

I am convinced that it has become more normalised because there is far more "chat" (guidance) how to do it on forums etc mainly inhabited by young persons. The idea that "loads of people are dong it" by its very nature normalises it.

Train companies will never comply with this, at least not fully. Absolutely no chance; who is going to make them?

I think that GBR will review the whole situation and there will be a standardised set of guidelines issued. BUT I think when the politicians speak to level headed individuals with some knowledge they will see that resolving this "bxggxrs muddle" is far more complex not least because deciding what is what is not an honest mistake is very challenging indeed.

At a very simple level what would a fair and proportionate action to (a) a railcard expired by 2 weeks? (b) a railcard expired by 3 months and has been used previously when expired (c) a ticket dated for tomorrow used today.

Passengers have to take responsibility for "simple" issues such as railcards being within their validity period, tickets being correctly dated. This type of getting the details correct is a common requirement across a whole host of personal and domestic admin. We should not need to rely more and more on "reminders" being issued by third parties.

 

[Benjwri]

Is it? Or are they now just able to positively detect more of it?

Almost certainly yes. It’s exactly what we hear from staff on the railway, and you can see it just from the amount of people pushing through barriers compared to 10 years ago.

 

[fandroid]

There is a mistake that is a direct result of technology combining with stricter policies concerning onboard sales by TOCs. That is where passengers buy online after boarding a train. We see many who thought they were doing the right thing, then being upset when they get hit with a Penalty Fare (even though there is real doubt about the validity of that) or a report for potential prosecution. One area that could be addressed is the potential for the value of a ticket already bought to be subtracted from new fares demanded in cases where intent to cheat cannot be reasonably deduced. That would address the general public's idea of "fairness" when confronted with the consequences of a mistake. Ignoring payments already made has a random element to it that should not be tolerated.

Edit: deleted the stray "can" after "cannot"

 

[jthjth]

Invalid railcard penalties are out of all proportion to the financial loss to the railway (around £30 per year, ie the railcard cost). Something like being forced to buy a backdated railcard at face value for up to a month out of date, then forced to buy a backdated one at twice the cost thereafter. Yes, some will still get away with it, but that’s an argument for better inspection. You’d never get away with the existing penalties in a civil court, where actual loss has to be demonstrated.

 

[AlterEgo]

There is a mistake that is a direct result of technology combining with stricter policies concerning onboard sales by TOCs. That is where passengers buy online after boarding a train. We see many who thought they were doing the right thing, then being upset when they get hit with a Penalty Fare (even though there is real doubt about the validity of that) or a report for potential prosecution. One area that could be addressed is the potential for the value of a ticket already bought to be subtracted from new fares demanded in cases where intent to cheat cannot can be reasonably deduced. That would address the general public's idea of "fairness" when confronted with the consequences of a mistake. Ignoring payments already made has a random element to it that should not be tolerated.

Requiring a person to buy a ticket before boarding (absent any legal defences) is really simple. People habitually chance getting away with not paying, and only buy when they see an inspector, or barrier. They'll have the app fully loaded and on the payment screen.

 

[Titfield]

Invalid railcard penalties are out of all proportion to the financial loss to the railway (around £30 per year, ie the railcard cost). Something like being forced to buy a backdated railcard at face value for up to a month out of date, then forced to buy a backdated one at twice the cost thereafter. Yes, some will still get away with it, but that’s an argument for better inspection. You’d never get away with the existing penalties in a civil court, where actual loss has to be demonstrated.

The problem with that is all the admin surrounding it which comes at a cost.

The simplest answer is to issue a PF for £100 reduced to £50 if they pay up within the deadline.

A lot simpler than fannying around checking booking and travel records.

 

[kkong]

Is the following inclusion in the report really correct?

If so, this is contrary to the the opinions and advice frequently posted on this forum, which has been that it is only a requirement for the railcard to be valid while travelling.

3.57 Another T&C of railcards is that they must be valid both when buying a ticket and when travelling. However, there is currently no way of checking whether a railcard is valid when a passenger purchases a ticket with a railcard discount online, or even whether a passenger holds that railcard at all.

 

[jfollows]

Is the following inclusion in the report really correct?

If so, this is contrary to the the opinions and advice frequently posted on this forum, which has been that it is only a requirement for the railcard to be valid while travelling.

The terms and conditions ( https://www.senior-railcard.co.uk/help/railcard-terms-conditions/ ) state something like

2.5. You may be asked to show your Railcard when purchasing discounted tickets.

and

2.8. You must carry your valid Railcard with you on your journey. When asked by rail staff, you must show a valid ticket and valid Railcard within its period of validity when you travel.
2.8.1. If you have a physical Railcard, it must be signed by you and should be legible so staff can read it, as further detailed in the NRCoT.
2.8.2. If you have a digital Railcard, you must be able to show it on a mobile device throughout your journey.

but no actual requirement to hold a railcard when buying a ticket.

 

[Titfield]

Is the following inclusion in the report really correct?

If so, this is contrary to the the opinions and advice frequently posted on this forum, which has been that it is only a requirement for the railcard to be valid while travelling.

The assertion made that a railcard must be valid when buying a ticket is incorrect. The ts and cs do not state this.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Is the following inclusion in the report really correct?

If so, this is contrary to the the opinions and advice frequently posted on this forum, which has been that it is only a requirement for the railcard to be valid while travelling.

Erm, in true railway style it's a bit vague and messy tbh.

The 16-17 Saver T&C's state:

2.5 You cannot buy discounted tickets unless you can produce your 16-17 Saver.

The 16-25 Railcard T&C's state:

2.5. You may be asked to show your Railcard when purchasing discounted tickets.

The 26-30 Railcard T&C's state:

2.5. You may be asked to show your Railcard when purchasing discounted tickets .

The Disabled Persons Railcard T&C's state:

2.5. You may be asked to show your Railcard when purchasing discounted tickets.

The Family and Friends Railcard T&C's state:

2.5. You may be asked to show your Railcard when purchasing discounted tickets.

The Network Railcard T&C's state:

2.5. You may be asked to show your Railcard when purchasing discounted tickets.

The Senior Railcard T&C's state:

2.5. You may be asked to show your Railcard when purchasing discounted tickets.

The Two Together Railcard T&C's state:

2.5. You may be asked to show your Railcard when purchasing discounted tickets.

The Veterans Railcard T&C's state:

2.5. You cannot buy discounted tickets unless you have your Railcard.

So mainly a vague "may be asked to show your Railcard" with no actual explicit indication of if you will or will not still be sold a discounted ticket if you cannot show your Railcard. Even the ones which state you must have/produce your Railcard don't explicitly state that you must show a valid Railcard (pedantic I know...)

 

[Watershed]

Is the following inclusion in the report really correct?

If so, this is contrary to the the opinions and advice frequently posted on this forum, which has been that it is only a requirement for the railcard to be valid while travelling.

It's both right and wrong in a sense. Taking the 16-25 Railcard conditions as an example, it says:

2.5. You may be asked to show your Railcard when purchasing discounted tickets.

And so it follows that you would not be entitled to buy a Railcard-discounted ticket if you haven't bought your Railcard yet.

In practical terms, there is no penalty if you manage to buy a Railcard-discounted ticket before you buy the Railcard, but people wouldn't really have grounds for complaint (in a legal sense) if there were online verification of Railcards before being allowed to apply the discount.

 

[Titfield]

Given the % of tickets sold online this condition is virtually worthless.

 

[Watershed]

Given the % of tickets sold online this condition is virtually worthless.

At the moment, yes, but there is an increasing push for verification of Railcards before they can be applied. In one fell swoop, it almost entirely solves the problem of expired Railcards.