Discussion About Whether Fare Evasion Should be Decriminalised

[Cloud Strife]

Mod Note - split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...what-are-the-rules.291760/page-5#post-7463730

You can refuse to provide details though that's opening up to a criminal prosecution under RoRA as you do have a legal duty to provide name and address when asked. Though whether the BTP would attend to deal with someone is an open question. This is one of those sorts of scenarios where the real scoundrels who are totally non-cooperative get away with things that the more obliging people don't.

I think this is one reason why it's important to decriminalise fare-related issues. It's nonsense that someone can be potentially subjected to legal action without having a chance to have legal representation present, and I wouldn't be offering a single piece of information to an RPI without checking the legal situation first. If I knew that I was in the right, there's absolutely no way that I'd provide my name and address to an RPI or anyone else except the police.

Can a passenger "refuse" to accept a Penalty Fare?

Strictly speaking, no, but they need a name and address. By refusing to provide this, you can essentially decline the penalty fare. I wouldn't recommend it unless you know you're absolutely in the right, such as with a RPI trying to give you a penalty fare without considering the circumstances. Essentially, it's a test of "what will the BTP or otherwise think if they turn up?". The BTP aren't going to be too happy at being called to someone who just needed a few minutes to find their railcard, especially if the passenger held a perfectly valid ticket at the time.

While they can theoretically detain you, I would be very surprised if any company actually authorises their staff to detain someone against their will over ticketing issues. They might try and block you from leaving the seat, but this could easily escalate out of control and with other passengers at risk of harm in the process.

But it's as @ainsworth74 says: obliging people get themselves into legal trouble, whereas simply being straightforward "no" leads to nothing.

I've had a run-in with an RPI before who demanded my name and address despite having a valid ticket, and I told him politely, but firmly, that I wouldn't be providing such details without legal representation present, and that furthermore, I'm now recording the situation for use in my defence at a later date. The trick is not to escalate the situation, but rather to shut the situation down by being calm and firm. While theoretically, I should have provided my name and address, I had no interest in wasting my personal time on a ticket dispute when I knew the ticket was valid and without question.

 

[Hadders]

I think this is one reason why it's important to decriminalise fare-related issues.

The law around ticketless travel and fare evasion needs urgent reform but I'm not sure decriminalising it is the answer.

Someone who doesn't engage with the process currently ends up with a byelaw conviction or at worse a conviction under the Regulation of the Railways Act, for most purposes the criminal record is spent after a year.

Make it a civil matter and someone not engaging ends up with a County Court Judgement. Then try getting any form of credit for the next six years. Is that really better?

 

[styles]

The law around ticketless travel and fare evasion needs urgent reform but I'm not sure decriminalising it is the answer.

Someone who doesn't engage with the process currently ends up with a byelaw conviction or at worse a conviction under the Regulation of the Railways Act, for most purposes the criminal record is spent after a year.

Make it a civil matter and someone not engaging ends up with a County Court Judgement. Then try getting any form of credit for the next six years. Is that really better?

The CCJ can be erased if paid within a month of the judgement though, then they have a completely clear record.

Many (most?) employers routinely run DBS checks against new employees, very few are in a position to run credit checks.

 

[Hadders]

The CCJ can be erased if paid within a month of the judgement though, then they have a completely clear record.

Many (most?) employers routinely run DBS checks against new employees, very few are in a position to run credit checks.

But how many actually do that? People who engage with the process almost always end up with an out of court settlement. Currently someone not engaging is prosecuted under the Byelaws or RoRA. If they then don't engage it's a conviction which will have a collection order for the fine and a pretty minimal impact, especially if it's a byelaw conviction.

Ignore county court proceedings and the consequences are far greater. I'm not sure if that's better or worse, but when people say that fare evasion should be decriminalised they're often unaware of the consequences of what can happen following a county court judgement.

As I've consistently said over the years, the whole legal framework around fare evasion needs urgent reform.

 

[styles]

But how many actually do that?

Not sure there's public data on that. It's clearly mentioned on the paperwork though. I remember from when I got CCJs.

People who engage with the process almost always end up with an out of court settlement.

Almost. Not really good enough. If you're unlucky enough to get caught by TfL, out of court settlements aren't an option. Also if you put up a defence because you genuinely didn't think you did wrong, but the TOC disagrees, your chances of an out of court settlement are reduced. It's far from guaranteed, even for those who cooperate. In fact I think it's scandalous that a simple mistake on TfL can land you with a criminal conviction.

Currently someone not engaging is prosecuted under the Byelaws or RoRA. If they then don't engage it's a conviction which will have a collection order for the fine and a pretty minimal impact, especially if it's a byelaw conviction.

Pretty minimal unless you fancy emigrating and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act doesn't apply so the conviction will show up on police records for the rest of your life. Or if you fancy getting a visa to a country like Canada who are very strict about criminal convictions. Or if you need to apply for a job or DBS renewal a year after the conviction. Or if you need a Standard or Enhanced DBS check which shows even spent convictions. Etc etc.

Ignore county court proceedings and the consequences are far greater.

I disagree. As mentioned, pay within a month and it disappears completely. Won't show on a DBS, won't bar entry to another country, won't affect credit, etc.

I'm not sure if that's better or worse, but when people say that fare evasion should be decriminalised they're often unaware of the consequences of what can happen following a county court judgement.

Perhaps, but I also think framing a CCJ as worse than a criminal record is a bit of a stretch. There are more circumstances where a criminal conviction will show up, and in some cases it will be permanently declarable, whereas a CCJ can be written off within a month, or satisfied after which its effect on getting credit reduces over time until 6 years when it no longer shows up.

As I've consistently said over the years, the whole legal framework around fare evasion needs urgent reform.

Agreed on that.

Personally I would decriminalise fare evasion, not least because at the moment it's strict liability and people making genuine mistakes with Railcards and the like can end up getting convictions. I would keep the criminal offence of failing to provide details to an officer of the railway though - for any enforcement action to be effective, the staff need the authority to require details. As the ORR notes also, the enforcement action needs some form of standardisation. People being prosecuted for selecting a 16-25 railcard instead of a 26-30 railcard would be dropped by any sensible person, but this was a real case where one TOC threatened prosecution.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would like to see casual evasion become a Penalty Fares matter rather than just "honest mistakes". Serious stuff can and should be prosecuted under the Fraud Act via the BTP and CPS. I see no reason why RoRA or Byelaw offences on fares should exist other than where necessary to enable Penalty Fares. PFs should keep their special legal status in a similar way to Council issued parking tickets.

I don't think there should be any enforcement in any case where there has not been a loss to the railway, e.g. overtravelling where the fare would be the same or selecting the wrong Railcard where the discount is the same.

As an aside I think it should be possible to charge a base Penalty Fare (no fare component) for other minor on board infractions, such as playing music out loud, feet or pets on a seat, occupying a reserved seat that isn't yours and refusing to move from it when asked, or carrying a bicycle on a train from which they are prohibited. This would ease enforcement of these minor antisocial behaviour issues, and I believe Merseyrail have called for this in the past.

As to private prosecution settlements, I see this as extortion, and would like to see legislation banning the use of the threat of a private prosecution as a means of obtaining a financial settlement, if not an outright ban on private prosecutions as in effect exists in Scotland. Settlements should only be applicable to civil legal cases i.e. those which exist purely to obtain a financial settlement.

 

[Hadders]

As I've said I believe there needs to be urgent reform, I'm not sure what the future should look like but some of the things that need to be considered are:

• People engaging in deliberate fare evasion arguably should be prosecuted and be given criminal records. Otherwise where is the deterrent.
• Genuine mistakes shouldn't be criminalised but there's then the issue of what is a genuine mistake and what is something more deliberate. This isn’t always clear cut.
• If there is a role for Penalty Fares, what sort of issues should they be used for? It's easy to issue a PF for something in the monent but how should previous instances (that a data search would reveal) be dealt with? This is particularly relevent with things like expired railcards.
• In what circumstances should out of court settlements be offered?
• If a case is dealt with through the criminal system and results in a conviction for most purposes this is spent after a year. Ordinarily byelaw convictions aren't recorded but they are criminal convictions. There are some scenarious where a conviction needs to be disclosed after it is spent.
• If a case is dealt with through the civil courts then there is no criminal conviction. But if a county court judgement is not settled then it can have unintended consequences for many years - examples include obtaining credit (even a mobile phone contract), a mortgage or even renting a property.

 

[Sonic1234]

how should previous instances (that a data search would reveal) be dealt with? This is particularly relevent with things like expired railcards.

There's no previous data search for parking offences. Leave your car all day for weeks on end in a 1 hour bay (as shopkeepers in some small towns do!), get caught once, you'll only pay the one ticket (which can be as low as £25). No search or reviewing CCTV to see if you're a repeat offender, and no need to pay the going parking rate on top of the ticket.

Data searches penalise people who buy online. If you present a ticket with an invalid railcard discount bought at the station, then there is no data to search.

 

[mikeg]

No, fare evasion should probably not be decriminalised. What would probably work better in the interests of the genuine passenger is to decriminalise honest mistakes. The Regulation of Railways Act 1889 s5 has served us well and for a long time, the byelaws brought in in 2005 are a whole different matter. It's the strict liability that needs to go. By all means have penalty fares and new tickets sold at the anytime rate etc. but do not criminalise honest mistakes. However those who deliberately evade fares should feel the full force of the law, but it's up to the TOCs to prove this.

 

[styles]

As I've said I fo believe there needs to be urgent reform, I'm not sure what the future should look like but some of the things that need to be considered are:

• People engaging in deliberate fare evasion arguably should be prosecuted and be given criminal records. Otherwise where is the deterrent.

The deterrent would be paying a financial penalty. Failing to pay that penalty may result in a CCJ.

• Genuine mistakes shouldn't be criminalised but there's then the issue of what is a genuine mistake and what is something more deliberate. This is always clear cut.

Penalty fares (in lowercase, as these may take a different form to current Penalty Fares) can deal with deliberate and accidental fare evasion. For cases where a passenger persistently evades fares or defrauds the railway, the Fraud Act has this covered, and requires intent.

• If there is a role for Penalty Fares, what sort of issues should they be used for? It's easy to issue a PF for something in the monent but how should previous instances (that a data search would reveal) be dealt with? This is particularly relevent with things like expired railcards.

Generally, penalty fares should be the default outcome for fare evasion, whether deliberate or accidental. They should be enforced through civil means.

• In what circumstances should out of court settlements be offered?

By doing away with criminalisation of fare evasion, there would be no real need for out-of-court settlements. Your penalty fare is £100. You can pay it, or not, in which case it'll go to civil court. The railway could still offer leniancy and have appeals mechanisms for penalty fares to have them cancelled, but there should be a single body responsible for deciding a consistent policy on this and potentially a single body handling appeals.

• If a case is dealt with through the criminal system and results in a conviction for most purposes this is spent after a year. Ordinarily byelaw convictions aren't recorded but they are criminal convictions. There are some scenarious where a conviction needs to be disclosed after it is spent.

I think this underplays the seriousness of a criminal conviction, even one which is spent after a year. Spent convictions show up on Standard and Enhanced DBS checks (and Scotland equivalent) until they are filtered, which is typically 11 years. They are indefinitely disclosable when applying for roles like a solicitor or police officer, and to extra-territorial bodies, e.g. immigration and visa departments in foreign governments, which can affect the ability to travel, work, or live in other countries. It shouldn't be this way, and having to rely on the good grace of TOCs to dispose of the prosecution in favour of an out-of-court settlement, and the pot luck of which TOC that happens to be as in the case of TfL for example, such settlements aren't offered.

• If a case is dealt with through the civil courts then there is no criminal conviction. But if a county court judgement is not settled then it can have unintended consequences for many years - examples include obtaining credit (even a mobile phone contract), a mortgage or even renting a property.

Sounds like a good deterrent to me.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Sep 2025 ==

No, fare evasion should probably not be decriminalised. What would probably work better in the interests of the genuine passenger is to decriminalise honest mistakes. The Regulation of Railways Act 1889 s5 has served us well and for a long time, the byelaws brought in in 2005 are a whole different matter. It's the strict liability that needs to go. By all means have penalty fares and new tickets sold at the anytime rate etc. but do not criminalise honest mistakes. However those who deliberately evade fares should feel the full force of the law, but it's up to the TOCs to prove this.

Those who have clearly shown intent can be prosecuted under the Fraud Act already. In most cases they aren't, but only because it's far easier to prosecute the strict liability offence. There's no need for a separate offence specifically for railways.

 

[redreni]

I take the point that the way civil matters are dealt with can be deeply unfair to people who dispute that they are liable and can have a big impact on people's access to credit, and so on.

What we shouldn't tolerate is the status quo where people get threatened with criminal prosecution but can pay a bribe to the prosecutor to have the matter dropped. That is just obviously improper, in my opinion.

And that's what the settlements TOCs offer are: bribes. And bribes they actively solicit and even extort from people, at that. They are the prosecuting authority and they are supposed to decide to prosecute or not on the basis of the strength of the evidence and the public interest, not on the basis of whether somebody pays them.

If the railway wants to recover money from people it suspects of fare evasion then the threat of criminal prosecution must go.

Or, stick with the criminal route and pass legislation enabling and encouraging the criminal courts to impose fines on people commensurate with the fares evaded (maybe on similar lines to the way settlement offers are calculated now) upon conviction. Once passenger rail operations are nationalised, of course, the distinction between paying a settlement to GBR or paying a fine to the Court Service will become moot.

 

[Gaelan]

But how many actually do that? People who engage with the process almost always end up with an out of court settlement. Currently someone not engaging is prosecuted under the Byelaws or RoRA. If they then don't engage it's a conviction which will have a collection order for the fine and a pretty minimal impact, especially if it's a byelaw conviction.

Ignore county court proceedings and the consequences are far greater. I'm not sure if that's better or worse, but when people say that fare evasion should be decriminalised they're often unaware of the consequences of what can happen following a county court judgement.

As I've consistently said over the years, the whole legal framework around fare evasion needs urgent reform.

Huh, this got me thinking: how do out-of-court settlements work for private prosecutions in a criminal matter? I assume the TOC in question agrees not to bring a private prosecution as part of a settlement, but surely I'm still guilty of a crime and the government could choose to prosecute me if they so chose? (This would be an absurd waste of prosecutorial resources, so I'm sure there's very little risk of this ever coming up in practice.)

 

[styles]

Huh, this got me thinking: how do out-of-court settlements work for private prosecutions in a criminal matter? I assume the TOC in question agrees not to bring a private prosecution as part of a settlement, but surely I'm still guilty of a crime and the government could choose to prosecute me if they so chose? (This would be an absurd waste of prosecutorial resources, so I'm sure there's very little risk of this ever coming up in practice.)

The CPS (well, its Director, strictly speaking) retains the right to take over a private prosecution or even bring a private prosecution to an end. So in theory yeah the CPS could decide to continue with a prosecution. I suspect that it would fail the public interest test though, being such a minor offence and having been settled between the private prosecutor and the defendant.

I'm not sure what would happen to the settlement money in such an event though - if it happened to me I'd be wanting a refund!

 

[Hadders]

Huh, this got me thinking: how do out-of-court settlements work for private prosecutions in a criminal matter? I assume the TOC in question agrees not to bring a private prosecution as part of a settlement, but surely I'm still guilty of a crime and the government could choose to prosecute me if they so chose? (This would be an absurd waste of prosecutorial resources, so I'm sure there's very little risk of this ever coming up in practice.)

An out of court is basically the TOC saying 'pay us some money and in return we won't prosecute you'. TOCs like out of court settlements because they get to keep all of the money. If a case goes to court and someone is fined then the Treasury gets the value of the fine. All the TOC gets is compensation for the fare avoided, which is normally just the offence on the day when they were caught, plus a contribution towards their court costs, normally £150-ish.

Out of court settlements also take lots of cases out of the criminal justice system, which is at breaking point already and probably can't handle many more cases without a serious amount of additional resource which being realistic the Government isn't going to provide. People who are dealt with through a settlement don't have a criminal record or county court judgement.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Sep 2025 ==

The CPS (well, its Director, strictly speaking) retains the right to take over a private prosecution or even bring a private prosecution to an end. So in theory yeah the CPS could decide to continue with a prosecution. I suspect that it would fail the public interest test though, being such a minor offence and having been settled between the private prosecutor and the defendant.

I'm not sure what would happen to the settlement money in such an event though - if it happened to me I'd be wanting a refund!

If a train company isn't prosecuting someone then I don't see how the CPS can take it over.

 

[styles]

An out of court is basically the TOC saying 'pay us some money and in return we won't prosecute you'. TOCs like out of court settlements because they get to keep all of the money. If a case goes to court and someone is fined then the Treasury gets the value of the fine. All the TOC gets is compensation for the fare avoided, which is normally just the offence on the day when they were caught, plus a contribution towards their court costs, normally £150-ish.

Out of court settlements also take lots of cases out of the criminal justice system, which is at breaking point already and probably can't handle many more cases without a serious amount of additional resource which being realistic the Government isn't going to provide. People who are dealt with through a settlement don't have a criminal record or county court judgement.

I think @Gaelan's point is that, while the private prosecutor (the TOC) may decide to settle out of court and drop the prosecution, does anything prevent the CPS from picking the case up instead?

To which I believe the answer is no, nothing prevents the CPS picking it up, except that it being such a minor offence and having been settled with the aggrieved party to their satisfaction, it might fail the CPS' public interest test. The chance of them pursuing it is practically non-existent, at least except perhaps the most egregious examples of persistent fare evasion.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Sep 2025 ==

If a train company isn't prosecuting someone then I don't see how the CPS can take it over.

Because the CPS retains the right to do so under the Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985:

S6 (2)Where criminal proceedings are instituted in circumstances in which the Director is not under a duty to take over their conduct, he may nevertheless do so at any stage.

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985

An Act to provide for the establishment of a Crown Prosecution Service for England and Wales; to make provision as to costs in criminal cases; to provide for the imposition of time limits in relation to preliminary stages of criminal proceedings; to amend section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981...

www.legislation.gov.uk

There is also nothing preventing the CPS being the body to initiate proceedings, even if no private prosecutor has done so.

 

[blimmo]

It's easy to issue a PF for something in the monent but how should previous instances (that a data search would reveal) be dealt with?

Seems easy to do the data search after the fact (issue a penalty fare *and* report to back office) and then if the search reveals sufficient evasion that a prosecution under the Fraud Act / RoRA is warranted then that can go ahead. The only reason this doesn't happen at the moment is that the ToCs want an unresolved bylaw offence to threaten them with.

I think we've accidentally ended up with a system that is incredibly harsh with strict liability offences because of a perceived failure to enforce the previous laws. The general public is blissfully unaware of this situation and assumes that the worst they'll get is a penalty fare (not helped by the statutory advertising of penalty fares but very little mention of bylaw 18). Then when a case of someone being prosecuted for a (believably) honest mistake becomes well known the public demand that discretion is shown.

I would prefer strict liability civil penalty fares, ideally with a ratcheting penalty in order to ensure that buying a ticket is always cheapest in expectation (keeping in mind the likely poor enforcement). Prolific evaders could still be prosecuted under non-strict liability offences (although with the penalty fares set at the right level and with sufficient enforcement this wouldn't even be necessary). Most importantly though I would like to remove the option of discretion on behalf of the RPO. If everyone knows that you *always* get a penalty fare for no ticket (or an excess for route etc.), you'll be able to appeal if it is incorrect, and that the penalty is only really harsh if you make enough mistakes I think this would make the system much fairer and more easily understood. The current system means you are completely at the whims of the particular inspector.

 

[styles]

Seems easy to do the data search after the fact (issue a penalty fare *and* report to back office) and then if the search reveals sufficient evasion that a prosecution under the Fraud Act / RoRA is warranted then that can go ahead. The only reason this doesn't happen at the moment is that the ToCs want an unresolved bylaw offence to threaten them with.

I think we've accidentally ended up with a system that is incredibly harsh with strict liability offences because of a perceived failure to enforce the previous laws. The general public is blissfully unaware of this situation and assumes that the worst they'll get is a penalty fare (not helped by the statutory advertising of penalty fares but very little mention of bylaw 18). Then when a case of someone being prosecuted for a (believably) honest mistake becomes well known the public demand that discretion is shown.

I would prefer strict liability civil penalty fares, ideally with a ratcheting penalty in order to ensure that buying a ticket is always cheapest in expectation (keeping in mind the likely poor enforcement). Prolific evaders could still be prosecuted under non-strict liability offences (although with the penalty fares set at the right level and with sufficient enforcement this wouldn't even be necessary). Most importantly though I would like to remove the option of discretion on behalf of the RPO. If everyone knows that you *always* get a penalty fare for no ticket (or an excess for route etc.), you'll be able to appeal if it is incorrect, and that the penalty is only really harsh if you make enough mistakes I think this would make the system much fairer and more easily understood. The current system means you are completely at the whims of the particular inspector.

Agree with most of this.

Perhaps don't agree with removing the discretion to initially issue the penalty fare though. If the UK had a simpler ticketing system I may feel otherwise, but the sheer number of genuine mistakes we see on the network means we would probably end up alienating a lot of passengers from the railways because they make a simple mistake like using a 16-25 Railcard ticket at half 9 in the morning, or misunderstanding their onward travel rights when disrupted on one leg of a split ticket journey, etc.

Perhaps a system of recording 'warnings' given could strike the balance, but I'm sure some privacy rights groups would protest.

 

[blimmo]

The whole system would be infinitely easier if there was a mandatory national ID scheme here.

I agree that the complexity does make removing discretion somewhat problematic. I like your warnings idea and this could just be implemented as £0 penalty fares. We already have a list of ticket problems that are dealt with via excess in NRCoT 9.5, we could perhaps extend this with other similar problems although I appreciate that may swing too far the other way of making it too easy to effectively pay on demand.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Sep 2025 ==

To address the concerns of @Hadders with regard to decriminalisation potentially making the penalty worse, I think the main difference is that it isn't possible to extort someone for more than the claimed debt with civil action. With a threat of bylaw prosecution there's no particular amount you can pay to make the threat disappear and hence the ToCs can (and do) extort significantly more than the amount the regulations specify for penalty fares or the loss to the railway.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think if the government announced all low level theft would be decriminalised and replaced with county court recovery there would be an outcry because a CCJ is far less consequential than a criminal record. It doesn't stand to reason that this would be a greater punishment at all.

Imagine you get caught stealing £50 of shopping. You can either get a conviction for theft, a fine, costs and a surcharge or you can simply have the £50 taken off you at the county court plus a nominal charge for costs. And if you settle it straight away there's no CCJ. The vast majority of people are settling when given the opportunity so it is not a case of poverty preventing justice.

People should not face even the potential consequences of the magistrates court for failing to show their railcard.

On the flip side, more people should be taken to court for fraud on the railway. There are plenty of people who have been flagrantly dishonest and who often work in regulated professions where the public ought to have trust in their integrity. That so many cases are settled by monied accountants, doctors, and solicitors who escape public and regulatory scrutiny for what is *fraud* is gross and makes a mockery of train companies claiming public interest. It is a bad system which serves almost nobody well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think if the government announced all low level theft would be decriminalised

It might as well be at the moment!

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think if the government announced all low level theft would be decriminalised and replaced with county court recovery there would be an outcry because a CCJ is far less consequential than a criminal record. It doesn't stand to reason that this would be a greater punishment at all.

The prosecution of an isolated case of low level theft will not, by and large, meet the public interest test for the CPS to prosecute. And that's even if the police investigate it at all which, given their own resource issues, they probably won't. So low level theft effectively is already decriminalised, and rightly so. If everyone who accidentally or "accidentally" forgets to scan a £3 item at Tesco were to be prosecuted, the entire criminal justice system would grind to a halt (even more than it already has).

Comparing railway prosecutions to theft isn't always helpful, either. You don't commit a theft offence at Tesco until you walk out of the door having knowingly not paid for an item. That isn't the case on the railway; you commit an offence on the railway if you're running a bit late and buy your ticket on an app having boarded the train. The fact that paying for your ticket still leaves you open to prosecution is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

As for a criminal record, low level fare evasion offences don't really attract a criminal record anyway. It is a criminal conviction but it is not recorded anywhere.

I don't agree that a CCJ is far less consequential than a Byelaws conviction; the CCJ is recorded, for one thing, unless it is settled in full within 28 days and the respondent obtains a certificate of satisfaction from the Registry. A CCJ will seriously impact your ability to do things. The only thing I would say is that the impact of CCJs isn't cumulative, unlike with a criminal record; ten CCJs won't really impact you much more than one CCJ would. Clearly ten previous criminal convictions is a different matter.

But in terms of enforcement of the amount owed, there isn't really that much difference between the enforcement mechanisms in the criminal court and the civil court for these types of offences. In both cases bailiffs will be appointed and in both cases those bailiffs have very similar powers; whilst there is a theoretical right for bailiffs to force entry to recover a criminal debt (which they can't for most civil debts), in practice this power can't be used without the consent of the Magistrates Court. The only enforcement mechanism open to the criminal court that isn't open to the civil court is a direct deduction from benefits.

 

[fandroid]

There have been good points made here.

I would reform Penalty Fares so that they could be imposed retrospectively, and would be the default if investigations showed no pattern of previous fare avoidance. TfL should be told to move over to Penalty Fares as the normal enforcement mechanism.

I would also get rid of the automatic imposition of Anytime Single fares as the fare element of any unpaid fare recovery. It's too variable and unpredictable a punishment. That might be less relevant if Penalty Fares were used more as that provision already applies.

Zero actual losses to the railway should never be prosecuted, and there ought also to be a minimum loss whereby prosecution is impossible, say £25. That wouldn't preclude prosecution where accumulated losses went above that, or perhaps double that.

Thinking on the hoof here - if Penalty Fares could be issued retrospectively, do people think there should be a time limit on each one, or a maximum number of Penalties that could be imposed after one investigation revealed multiple offences?

 

[redreni]

I think if the government announced all low level theft would be decriminalised and replaced with county court recovery there would be an outcry because a CCJ is far less consequential than a criminal record. It doesn't stand to reason that this would be a greater punishment at all.

Imagine you get caught stealing £50 of shopping. You can either get a conviction for theft, a fine, costs and a surcharge or you can simply have the £50 taken off you at the county court plus a nominal charge for costs. And if you settle it straight away there's no CCJ. The vast majority of people are settling when given the opportunity so it is not a case of poverty preventing justice.

Given the consequences of not settling, I imagine a lot of people go into debt to raise the funds for the bribe - sorry - settlement.

On the flip side, more people should be taken to court for fraud on the railway. There are plenty of people who have been flagrantly dishonest and who often work in regulated professions where the public ought to have trust in their integrity. That so many cases are settled by monied accountants, doctors, and solicitors who escape public and regulatory scrutiny for what is *fraud* is gross and makes a mockery of train companies claiming public interest. It is a bad system which serves almost nobody well.

Agreed. This is what comes of calling bribes settlements. If they were called bribes, professionals (take solicitors, for instance) would be less willing to pay them in order to escape accountability, in case it emerged that they had done so.

Although, there are two sides to this, a solicitor who makes an honest mistake and a solicitor who deliberately and systematically engages in short-faring will both settle - for almost any amount necessary within reason - to avoid anything happening that they would have to declare to their regulator.

 

[blimmo]

Although, there are two sides to this, a solicitor who makes an honest mistake and a solicitor who deliberately and systematically engages in short-faring will both settle

This is an important point I think: the system (and not just an RPI in the moment) needs to distinguish between these two cases and proving the more serious possibility should happen in court.
Simultaneously all honest mistakes (and possibly some less egregious evasion that is less clearly intentional) need to be dealt with away from court (and without the criminal threat).

 

[Hadders]

Simultaneously all honest mistakes (and possibly some less egregious evasion that is less clearly intentional) need to be dealt with away from court (and without the criminal threat).

We all talk about honest mistakes not being criminalised and I'm sure we all agree with this. But how do we define an honest mistake?

Doughnutting - clearly not honest
Railcard expired yesterday - clearly honest mistake
Railcard expired last month - Hmmm. What if they travel every day - 20+ occasions?
Railcard expired last year - not honest. What if it's Aunt Mabel making her once a year trip to see her nephew?
Purchased ticket onboard the train - tricky - how long after departure.
Travelling with an Advance on the wrong train - is it an honest mistake or did the person deliberately select the cheapest train when they booked and just chanced it

There are loads more examples. But what should happen in any of these sort of cases. If you just allow someone to pay the difference then there is no incentive to buy the correct ticket to start with. But if you impose a penalty people feel aggrieved for what they percieve was an honest mistake.

Let's not pretend all of this is down to a complicated ticketing system. While ticketing does have its complexities (and always will do) the scenarios I've listed above are nothing to do with ticketing complexities, yet we see loads of these cases in Disputes & Prosecutions.

Then also consider that staff have got to make decisions in the moment. If you decide to deal with cases in the back office (even just to check) then this adds cost. Who should bear that cost?

It's not easy.....

 

[island]

Many (most?) employers routinely run DBS checks against new employees, very few are in a position to run credit checks.

It's the other way around if anything. Credit checks are cheaper and take a matter of seconds.

 

[fandroid]

I'll reiterate my preference for expanding the Penalty Fare system, especially to include its retrospective application. The latter would only work if all passenger facing staff, on train and at gates, were trained to take details and knew the basics. The PF system doesn't imply criminality and it has fairly generous appeals procedures. It ought to be the method for dealing with at least 95% of cases and definitely for all no-loss cases such as buying an online ticket on the train. The penalty element is hefty enough to be a deterrent for all but the most determined criminals.

It could do with reform so that its application better met each "offence", and possibly have a modest varying cale of Penalties to go with those.

 

[blimmo]

But how do we define an honest mistake?

Generously. Doughnutting and short fareing can definitely be prosecuted. Where there's doubt there should be a civil penalty that increases the more times a person is caught. If the person has repeatedly been warned and is still doing it then perhaps the more borderline cases can also be prosecuted.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Sep 2025 ==

But if you impose a penalty people feel aggrieved for what they percieve was an honest mistake.

I think people would feel less aggrevied if it was consistently applied. At least personally I would be happy to pay a penalty fare for an honest mistake if I knew that everyone else in that situation also would, but in my experience there are plenty of people who will just be sold a new ticket.

 

[Cloud Strife]

It's not easy.....

It's not easy at all, and it's why it should be dealt with via penalty fares and an independent system of appeal, rather than prosecution. One option could be to impose a small penalty on first time offenders who have made an honest mistake, but then apply a standard sliding scale where the penalties get increasingly harsh as they mount up. The option could be there for the offender to choose the criminal court route instead, so if they're confident in the penalty fare being wrongly issued, they can choose the courts rather than appealing the penalty fare. This method would also mean that the TOC would have to be certain, as otherwise they'd be on the hook for the costs of the defendant.

Generously. Doughnutting and short fareing can definitely be prosecuted. Where there's doubt there should be a civil penalty that increases the more times a person is caught. If the person has repeatedly been warned and is still doing it then perhaps the more borderline cases can also be prosecuted.

The problem with prosecutions as a whole is that private prosecutions can and will be abused. The RSPCA were a textbook case of this, and we all know how TV Licencing behave with their powers. It's why I would rather that such things are dealt with via penalty fares, although they could be considerably higher in the first instance for things like doughnutting where it's proven beyond any doubt that this is what has happened. Generally speaking, I think it's much more effective to apply a 1000 pound penalty fare on serious wrongdoing (like doughnutting), rather than allowing the TOCs to bring prosecutions to court.

I think people would feel less aggrevied if it was consistently applied. At least personally I would be happy to pay a penalty fare for an honest mistake if I knew that everyone else in that situation also would, but in my experience there are plenty of people who will just be sold a new ticket.

I think one of the problems is that there's a lot of disparity in how these situations are handled. It's nonsense to charge someone a 100 quid penalty fare for travelling 10 minutes too early on a railcard where they've got a valid ticket, and someone who presents a railcard-discounted ticket without the accompanying railcard should be simply sold a full price ticket. There needs to be consistency, but also fairness. If someone travels once before 10:00 (or whatever) on a railcard that isn't valid with a given ticket, then there's no reason why they shouldn't be sold a new full price ticket along with a 0 penalty fare, which acts as a warning to the person that the next time will be a monetary penalty.

To address the concerns of @Hadders with regard to decriminalisation potentially making the penalty worse, I think the main difference is that it isn't possible to extort someone for more than the claimed debt with civil action. With a threat of bylaw prosecution there's no particular amount you can pay to make the threat disappear and hence the ToCs can (and do) extort significantly more than the amount the regulations specify for penalty fares or the loss to the railway.

This is the issue if you ask me. This ability to demand a bribe to avoid prosecution shouldn't exist. There also needs to be a clear differentiation between something that can be perceived as a mistake by "the man in the pub" and something deliberate and systematic.

There is a space for the TOCs to cooperate with the BTP on blatant and repeated cases of fare evasion or fraud. There isn't a space for the TOCs to demand a couple of hundred quid for something that was a minor mistake from people just to avoid a day in court and a criminal record.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Then also consider that staff have got to make decisions in the moment. If you decide to deal with cases in the back office (even just to check) then this adds cost.

We are seeing a lot of cases now where Penalty Fares are being issued and then, afterwards, the prosecution team are doing a sweep of the recipient's online purchase history and seeking larger settlements for other travel. So they are already having two bites of the cherry.

You have to give your name and address for a Penalty Fare to be issued, IIRC. So the TOCs know who is receiving them. The TOCs also have the right to rescind a Penalty Fare and prosecute instead.

So I don't see why the default on-train option shouldn't be the Penalty Fare and then the back office can deal with it where someone is on their tenth Penalty Fare in the last two years.

I really don't like the current situation where railway staff might issue a Penalty Fare or they might decide to write you up for prosecution, depending on whether they like the cut of your gib or not. That is the source of a lot of the current issues. Some people who forget or "forget" their railcard will get a Penalty Fare and some will get reported for prosecution; the consequence for the same error or "error" can either be £50 or it could be £400, depending on what mood the RPI is in. That isn't right.

It's an issue precisely because the TOC can't go back and retrospectively issue a Penalty Fare, and the TOC won't generally tie the settlement amount to what a Penalty Fare would have been either.

I don't think the on-train staff should have the discretion to choose Penalty Fare or prosecution. IMO they should only be allowed to do the former and then the back office can escalate it further if required.