Perhaps not the one you are wishing for, but in the scale of things it’s hardly a big worry.
Not yet it isn't. I expect the fact many TOCs in England were prosecuting people under SJPN when it was unlawful thought it was no biggie - after all:
They claim they are losing money to fraud and are trying to address it.
- a laudable aim! Of course TOCs should attempt to do this. And there are loads of ways they can do so. In Scotland, a prosecution or Penalty Fare is not possible as there is no legal basis to do either of these things meaningfully, but the passenger contract can actually be changed; the NRCoT has had dozens of revisions (most recently, last month, *after* Scotrail had this idea) and the insertion of a clause, like:
9.2.4. To charge you a minimum fare, which may in addition to any undiscounted single fare to a station served by the train you are on. Information about the minimum fare must be made available to the passenger through notices at the stations served by that Train Company.
or similar, would be very easy to do! Look, it's just a sentence! And that provides the lawful basis to charge a minimum fare.
Alternatively, the prices of Anytime fares could simply be adjusted which makes the actions comply with 9.2.1, but that hasn't happened yet.
Perhaps they are showing contempt for NRCOT, or perhaps not.
Yeah, who even cares what the law says?
It may have to be argued in court but show me where it stated there can only be a single arbiter of a change?
I don't understand this angle. Are you saying "changes to the passenger contract can happen outwith the NRCoT"? Because that would render them meaningless; that is the passenger:train company contract, and a train company cannot make up its own conditions to the detriment of the customer and to the advantage of itself. It's been explained already that the NRCoT outline very clearly what the train company may do to ticketless passengers. This means they cannot just make up their own charges.
They can create their own legislation if required, and often do,
It's actually very difficult under Scots Law to make a change to the legislation. In Scotland, companies can't prosecute offences and they can't issue arbitrary penalties. So there isn't really much leeway for Scotrail to do this. Indeed, the minimum fare can't be seen as an arbitrary penalty like a pseudo-penalty fare, which is partly why it is so low - but it must therefore also be part of the fare structure.
If you don't know what mechanism Scotrail are using to provide lawful authority to do this, that's fine. Just say you don't know, or don't contribute to the discussion.
But it's important that Scotrail get this right.
Firstly, yes - the Central Belt and the suburbans have a huge amount of fare evasion on short trips from people just chancing it. And it's important that the company takes steps to safeguard a service we all pay for either through the farebox or subsidy through taxation. What you really don't want is a rushed change where the company decides to act in a way which is later deemed not to be lawful, which would result in thousands of people who were chancing their arm at a free ride getting their tenners back. That will cause the industry to look very bad and cause political ripple effects. In England, the unlawful or unprofessional behaviour of some TOCs in pursuing fare evasion has resulted in central government curtailing some of their activities. That's not actually a positive change; down here, a vast amount of what would be - in any other arena - criminal fraud, is being committed by passengers against train companies. The decision to lower the consequences for these people by not prosecuting them while keeping sanctions for passengers who have made a genuine mistake is not protecting the railway's interests, nor is it delivering justice.
