ScotRail to introduce £10 minimum fare for those not buying before boarding

[Tetchytyke]

Because if it hasn't got a slot for coins and notes it's more than a bit obvious that it doesn't take cash?

That's merely an assumption. The wording is that the machine would not accept cash, not that you thought it wouldn't accept cash. I'm probably just being pedantic.

In reality, I'd expect anyone with cash would be sold a normal ticket, not a £10 special.

Being blunt, I am not confident given the performance of too many TOCs that Scotrail will have done their legal homework.

I don't think there's much legal homework to do. If you don't buy when you can then you will only be sold a full fare single. That full fare single is now £10.

The only real edge case is someone who only has cash and chooses not to print off a Promise to Pay. In reality, Scotrail's TEs tend to be sensible folks; the lack of a Promise to Pay probably wouldn't make them charge a tenner cash, but presenting a card to pay probably would.

 

[furlong]

But only if cash is their only available method of payment:

Unenforceable. Scotrail cannot prove the negative.

Several train companies South of the Border have discovered at enormous cost what can happen when you don't take your legal obligations seriously. Why take any chances? Just create a solid legal foundation for whatever scheme you come up with. And please publish it as soon as possible so you can take into account external feedback about possible loopholes prior to implementation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's merely an assumption. The wording is that the machine would not accept cash, not that you thought it wouldn't accept cash. I'm probably just being pedantic.

If a machine does not have any slot into which cash will be inserted, then it categorically does not accept cash. It is not an assumption, it is fact. You don't have to use it to see that it neither has a coin nor note slot and thus cannot accept cash, you just have to look at it.

And judging by the trends in the industry away from, not towards, cash, if it didn't accept cash yesterday because it didn't have the requisite slots it probably won't today either (though that is an assumption).

In reality, I'd expect anyone with cash would be sold a normal ticket, not a £10 special.

The PTP is mostly a modern version of a Permit to Travel. Thus if the passenger asks for a ticket from the previous station when it's patently obvious that that's not where they boarded, at that point it would be requested and £10 charged.

Indeed it's in part a guard against short faring - no point doing so if it's going to be £10 anyway!

It's quite clever in quite a few ways to be honest - it deals with the most common forms of short distance fare evasion without being so expensive that you wouldn't just take it on the chin if you were not a fare evader but were in a massive rush. Basically exactly the same as the tram, but with the option for a longer distance fare to go above £10 because the railway has plenty of fares above that whereas the tram doesn't.

A very small number of MoneySavingExpert types (often found on here) might legally challenge it if charged because they don't think it's legal (though to be honest I do think it is legal). Even if successful, "neds" at whom this is aimed won't. They are barely literate enough to even write a strongly worded letter of complaint. They will either cough up £10, be put off by the risk and so not go by train (not likely they will pay) or just do as before, not pay and run away when challenged. And people who are a bit more literate but short faring will be caught, cough up once and pack it in.

It will work.

The only real edge case is someone who only has cash and chooses not to print off a Promise to Pay. In reality, Scotrail's TEs tend to be sensible folks; the lack of a Promise to Pay probably wouldn't make them charge a tenner cash, but presenting a card to pay probably would.

Or blatently short faring.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Unenforceable. Scotrail cannot prove the negative.

They can if you try and pay the TE by card. Same as south of the border.

If you're sensible and pay cash and say you only have cash on you then, no, they can't really prove the negative.

The PTP is mostly a modern version of a Permit to Travel.

Yeah, basically. It's only free, compared to 5p for the old Permit to Travel, because the purpose of card-only TVMs is to remove the cost and hassle of cash handling.

It's quite clever in quite a few ways to be honest - it deals with the most common forms of short distance fare evasion without being so expensive that you wouldn't just take it on the chin if you were not a fare evader but were in a massive rush.

Yep. High enough to be dissuasive but not so high that you'd be entering into arguments about whether a £10 special is a genuine fare.

 

[35B]

I'm of the belief that if catches even 10% of people who would otherwise have travelled ticketless then it will have paid for itself. I mean, what has it cost - some posters and an update to the T&Cs file on a web server?

Unless and until someone does go to law, and Scotrail find that it's built on sandy ground so collapses when tested robustly.

Which then brings me back to whether the fares regulation permits Scotrail to raise fares by several hundred percent to make the mechanism being suggested viable under the law as it is.

And therein lies the test for @Bletchleyite and others who see challenge as supporting fare evasion - it isn't support of evasion but a deep held belief that those who enforce the law must also abide by it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unless and until someone does go to law, and Scotrail find that it's built on sandy ground so collapses when tested robustly.

Which then brings me back to whether the fares regulation permits Scotrail to raise fares by several hundred percent to make the mechanism being suggested viable under the law as it is.

And therein lies the test for @Bletchleyite and others who see challenge as supporting fare evasion - it isn't support of evasion but a deep held belief that those who enforce the law must also abide by it.

I'd probably put this kind of thing in an "auditor" type bracket. It is to all law-abiding passengers' benefit if this scheme works, because in all cases the right thing to do objectively is to purchase a ticket before boarding the train if you have a suitable means to do so. So why challenge it and take up a big load of Court time in looking at the minutiae of it?

 

[81A]

I don't even think it's worth writing that into the NRCoT since if I'm paying for a ticket that is £51 then it's perfectly reasonable to pay with a £50 note. (Same goes for a £101 fare and a £100 note).

It is worth writing in if they are not accepted in practice! The very fact it is reasonable to use them for some tickets is why I think they should be accepted (the obvious course of action) or if not, have some warning given so people are not caught out.

 

[35B]

I'd probably put this kind of thing in an "auditor" type bracket. It is to all law-abiding passengers' benefit if this scheme works, because in all cases the right thing to do objectively is to purchase a ticket before boarding the train if you have a suitable means to do so. So why challenge it and take up a big load of Court time in looking at the minutiae of it?

No, it's not an "auditor" type thing - that approach to suspected misbehaviour is what has given rise to scandals inside and outside the railway. When the police do it, it's called "noble cause corruption" - and cases have rightly been thrown out.

To repeat, I like the idea of this scheme in its simplicity and elegance. I want it to work. What I find interesting is the lack of clarity about the legal basis for it when considered in the context of the overall legal structure inhabited by the railways.

 

[redreni]

Why is there such strong support for fare evasion here, or at least seemingly so?

There isn't.

It is no more or less punitive than any other situation where the TOC treats the Anytime fare as the "full, undiscounted single fare" at a time when an off-peak ticket would be valid.

Well, arguably it is. It's certainly distinct from other cases in that the fare has been set at a certain level specifically to give a punitive option if people don't buy before they board when they should.

And I wouldn't want anyone to think I agree with charging peak fares at times when off-peak is valid as a form of punishment, or indeed of calculating the railway's alleged losses from alleged fare evasion on the basis of the peak fare if the journeys happened at times when off-peak tickets were valid. I certainly don't.

 

[Belperpete]

Which then brings me back to whether the fares regulation permits Scotrail to raise fares by several hundred percent to make the mechanism being suggested viable under the law as it is.

As this is Scotland, am I correct in thinking that it is the Scottish government that is in charge of the relevant fare regulation? In which case, the question is does ScotRail have the authority from the Scottish government for this change?

If not, then yes in theory there could be a legal challenge. However, this is not the same as cases in England where TOCs were taking people to court, and so a court case was needed to correct the situation. It would be purely a complaint about a fare being incorrectly increased. Who is going to bring a court case about that? I suspect that if a complaint were raised about it, the Scottish government would pretty soon approve the fare increase to regularise the situation. And this all assumes that they haven't agreed it in the first place.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The £50 pound notes discussion seems to be going away from the potential minimum fare loophole... Maybe best to start a new thread in general discussion. Back to the minimum fare discussion, I do wonder if the minimum fare tickets will be possible to accidentally buy (say from a non journey planning TVM).

I suspect so but why would you pay more than necessary?

To avoid confusion it might be worth putting a restriction code on the Off Peaks with "Valid by any train" as the text so that shows on such machines. If you can't have a restriction code with no validity information, just put "not valid 25/12 between 0300 and 0301" or something in the machine readable information, or something similarly meaningless.

Would suggest that some groups of them (maybe not the “average”) are far more likely to have them - though not to proffer them.

The criminal fraternity rather than the classic teenage "ned" yes but those sorts of people are much more likely to assault staff than cough up their fare when asked, whether it's £3 or £10.

 

[81A]

I suspect so but why would you pay more than necessary?

I know some people who will just buy the anytime if in any doubt about the correct fare (due to the belief the restrictions are confusing and may catch them out). So there would probably be some people buying them to be "safe" when there is nothing to be safe from.

 

[Hadders]

Moderator Note - discussion about £50 and £100 notes along with coins is taking this thread off-topic so posts discussing this have been moved to a separate thread:

Unusual notes and coins/wages paid in cash discussion

How do things stand if the ticket machine accepts cash but not the specific cash you have? For example, let's say I turn up with a £50 note, 2 2p coins and a penny for a £50.05 fare. The ticket machine does not take £50 notes or copper coins. I have perfectly reasonable cash to pay for the...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[teaspoon]

I noticed on BRFares that there are now new £10 'Min Fare Single' and 'Min Fare Return' fare types - for example:

Purchase flexible walk-up fares for any British train journey

Purchase flexible single/return tickets & Travelcards – in 3 clicks. Full details of all British rail fares shown, with built-in Season Ticket Calculator.

www.brfares.com

(link to brfares for Glasgow Central to Argyle Street, which includes the above-mentioned fares)

I assume these now exist for every trip where the regular undiscounted fare is under £10.

 

[Watershed]

I noticed on BRFares that there are now new £10 'Min Fare Single' and 'Min Fare Return' fare types - for example:

Purchase flexible walk-up fares for any British train journey

Purchase flexible single/return tickets & Travelcards – in 3 clicks. Full details of all British rail fares shown, with built-in Season Ticket Calculator.

www.brfares.com

(link to brfares for Glasgow Central to Argyle Street, which includes the above-mentioned fares)

I assume these now exist for every trip where the regular undiscounted fare is under £10.

As we expected then - they are taking the law into their own hands. If they had changed the Anytime fares to £10 then this would at least somewhat arguably have been enforceable. As it stands they are proposing to charge a penalty (the ticket type codes are PES and PER) without any legal basis.

 

[styles]

As we expected then - they are taking the law into their own hands. If they had changed the Anytime fares to £10 then this would at least somewhat arguably have been enforceable. As it stands they are proposing to charge a penalty (the ticket type codes are PES and PER) without any legal basis.

I'm not very experienced in the legislative side of rail ticketing, so forgive my naivity, but how would this be taking the law into their own hands? Rail is a devolved matter in Scotland so if they want to price minimum fares, is there actually anything which prohibits that?

In the absence of feasible private prosecutions in Scotland, this seems like a reasonable measure. In the absence of it, there is barely any incentive to buy a ticket before travelling unless wanting to use a Railcard.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suspect £10 is low enough that they could justify it on the grounds of the cost of the administration of issuing it being that. After all the railway justifies far higher settlements to "cover the costs" of investigating MG11s.

 

[styles]

I suspect £10 is low enough that they could justify it on the grounds of the cost of the administration of issuing it being that. After all the railway justifies far higher settlements to "cover the costs" of investigating MG11s.

And even then, it's not actually a £10 administration cost, it's £10 minus what the standard fare would be. In the Argyle St - Glasgow Central example, that's £8.20, which is on the high side as it's a mere one station stop journey. In the case of say Gorebridge to Waverley, the difference with the normal fare (£7.90) is a mere £2.10.

 

[Watershed]

I'm not very experienced in the legislative side of rail ticketing, so forgive my naivity, but how would this be taking the law into their own hands? Rail is a devolved matter in Scotland so if they want to price minimum fares, is there actually anything which prohibits that?

It has been discussed at length in previous posts in this thread, but I will summarise it below.

The NRCoT sets out the potential outcomes for boarding without a ticket (where it was possible to buy beforehand). These are:

• being charged 'the full undiscounted single fare to a station directly served by the train that you are on'
• being issued with a Penalty Fare (not applicable as the Penalty Fares Regulations do not apply to Scottish internal journeys or services)
• being reported for prosecution.

Being charged an arbitrary sum of £10 is not one of the outcomes stated in there so there is no contractual or other legal basis for charging it. £10 is clearly not 'the full undiscounted single fare' - which the Information box below condition 9.5 helpfully states "will normally be the Anytime fare for the journey concerned". ScotRail can't pretend otherwise simply because they have created a penalty-like flat fare in the fares data.

The NRCoT applies to ScotRail just as much as it does to all other British TOCs so this isn't a fully devolved matter. They would need the DfT and other operators across the industry to agree to a change to the NRCoT. They could absolutely change the Anytime fare to £10 and then it would be more legitimate - but clearly they realise that will make them look silly and will result in some people accidentally buying £10 tickets instead of the correct fare. They are trying to have their cake and eat it by introducing an unregulated, made-up "minimum fare".

In the absence of feasible private prosecutions in Scotland, this seems like a reasonable measure. In the absence of it, there is barely any incentive to buy a ticket before travelling unless wanting to use a Railcard.

Don't get me wrong, I agree it is a reasonable principle - but you can't simply introduce it without a legal basis. To do so leaves ScotRail wide open to claims down the line from people who have (effectively) been overcharged.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jun 2026 ==

I suspect £10 is low enough that they could justify it on the grounds of the cost of the administration of issuing it being that. After all the railway justifies far higher settlements to "cover the costs" of investigating MG11s.

There is no grounds for arbitrarily charging more than the 'full undiscounted single fare', administration costs or not (and, let's be real, there are none in this case).

 

[styles]

It has been discussed at length in previous posts in this thread, but I will summarise it below.

The NRCoT sets out the potential outcomes for boarding without a ticket (where it was possible to buy beforehand). These are:

• being charged 'the full undiscounted single fare to a station directly served by the train that you are on'
• being issued with a Penalty Fare (not applicable as the Penalty Fares Regulations do not apply to Scottish internal journeys or services)
• being reported for prosecution.

Being charged an arbitrary sum of £10 is not one of the outcomes stated in there so there is no contractual or other legal basis for charging it. £10 is clearly not 'the full undiscounted single fare' - which the Information box below condition 9.5 helpfully states "will normally be the Anytime fare for the journey concerned". ScotRail can't pretend otherwise simply because they have created a penalty-like flat fare in the fares data.

The NRCoT applies to ScotRail just as much as it does to all other British TOCs so this isn't a fully devolved matter. They would need the DfT and other operators across the industry to agree to a change to the NRCoT. They could absolutely change the Anytime fare to £10 and then it would be more legitimate - but clearly they realise that will make them look silly and will result in some people accidentally buying £10 tickets instead of the correct fare. They are trying to have their cake and eat it by introducing an unregulated, made-up "minimum fare".

I see, this makes sense, thank you for explaining.

I wonder then what a passenger could do to challenge this? It is such a small amount that it would take a very determined passenger to take it to court, having admitted that they themselves breached the NRCoT contract by boarding without a valid ticket. I am assuming that a passenger who refused to pay the minimum fare would just be kicked off at the next station?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wonder then what a passenger could do to challenge this? It is such a small amount that it would take a very determined passenger to take it to court, having admitted that they themselves breached the NRCoT contract by boarding without a valid ticket. I am assuming that a passenger who refused to pay the minimum fare would just be kicked off at the next station?

As I note above, the typical "ned" who this is aimed at is not going to mount legal challenges. It seems mostly about making it not worth short faring.

 

[Watershed]

I see, this makes sense, thank you for explaining.

I wonder then what a passenger could do to challenge this? It is such a small amount that it would take a very determined passenger to take it to court, having admitted that they themselves breached the NRCoT contract by boarding without a valid ticket.

They would be legitimately entitled to pay just the actual fare due but if there are barriers in place, they may face the choice between paying the £10 or pushing through them. No doubt in the event the BTP are present they would back up the barrier/revenue staff (even though they would be wrong to do so).

If the £10 was paid there would be a right to take ScotRail to Court afterwards but as you say, I can't imagine many people will either be aware they have the right to do this, and even those that do will probably conclude it is not worth their time.

It will probably take a class action - if such a thing is even possible in these circumstances (I don't pretend to know the answer to that) - or political impetus for anything to change.

I am assuming that a passenger who refused to pay the minimum fare would just be kicked off at the next station?

If they refused to pay onboard the train that's certainly one possibility. As long as they were prepared to pay the correct fare due under the NRCoT then I think ScotRail would be the ones in breach of contract - the NRCoT doesn't say you can be kicked off merely for boarding without a ticket.

As I note above, the typical "ned" who this is aimed at is not going to mount legal challenges. It seems mostly about making it not worth short faring.

Agreed. But that doesn't make it legitimate. It's troubling that ScotRail feel they can get away with (essentially) acting in an extrajudicial manner.

 

[styles]

They would be legitimately entitled to pay just the actual fare due but if there are barriers in place, they may face the choice between paying the £10 or pushing through them. No doubt in the event the BTP are present they would back up the barrier/revenue staff (even though they would be wrong to do so).

If the £10 was paid there would be a right to take ScotRail to Court afterwards but as you say, I can't imagine many people will either be aware they have the right to do this, and even those that do will probably conclude it is not worth their time.

It will probably take a class action - if such a thing is even possible in these circumstances (I don't pretend to know the answer to that) - or political impetus for anything to change.

I accidentally bought a Railcard-discount ticket on ScotRail recently and the guard let me off with paying the excess (helped by my offer to show previous ScotRail purchases without a Railcard!)

I wasn't charged a £10 minimum fare.

I suspect it would be reserved for people who are deemed a bit 'sus'. People who intentionally don't buy tickets I suspect are unlikely to go rumbling drums bringing class actions.

So my prediction is this will just go ahead without challenge, rightly or wrongly.

If they refused to pay onboard the train that's certainly one possibility. As long as they were prepared to pay the correct fare due under the NRCoT then I think ScotRail would be the ones in breach of contract - the NRCoT doesn't say you can be kicked off merely for boarding without a ticket.

Aye but this relies on people knowing the NRCoT - most passengers just buy a ticket, and if they don't buy a £5 ticket and get slapped with a £10 ticket will just accept it.

Interesting side thought though - if you board a train without a ticket, you haven't necessarily agreed to the NRCoT, so in that case, could the fare really be restricted to what's specified in 9.2?

 

[blimmo]

As I note above, the typical "ned" who this is aimed at is not going to mount legal challenges. It seems mostly about making it not worth short faring.

If I was ScotRail I would be concerned about someone who gets annoyed with ScotRail for unrelated reasons and then intentionally boards without a ticket, pays the £10, then tries to get ScotRail in legal trouble. I agree that the people it is aimed at aren't going to challenge it but that's not really the risk imo.

 

[81A]

I suspect £10 is low enough that they could justify it on the grounds of the cost of the administration of issuing it being that. After all the railway justifies far higher settlements to "cover the costs" of investigating MG11s.

This doesn’t seem much different to TFL charging £7.00 for a "cash single" while Oyster/Contactless is £3.00 in zone 1. One purchase option is easier/cheaper for the operator so they charge extra to use the less convenient (for them) option. Unless there is some difference in Scottish law that would make it different, I would think it would have been challenged in the TFL "cash single" case already (if there are indeed grounds to)?

 

[35B]

This doesn’t seem much different to TFL charging £7.00 for a "cash single" while Oyster/Contactless is £3.00 in zone 1. One purchase option is easier/cheaper for the operator so they charge extra to use the less convenient (for them) option. Unless there is some difference in Scottish law that would make it different, I would think it would have been challenged in the TFL "cash single" case already (if there are indeed grounds to)?

The difference is over the means rather than circumstances of payment. The penalties for non-payment are the same.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jun 2026 ==

I suspect it would be reserved for people who are deemed a bit 'sus'. People who intentionally don't buy tickets I suspect are unlikely to go rumbling drums bringing class actions.

Isn’t that precisely what is causing grief in Northern land due to the inconsistency of guards treatment of passengers.

 

[furlong]

So we are still awaiting their legal basis! In the absence of one, the starting point for a passenger would be to raise with the DfT/Scotland Office that ScotRail appears to be acting unlawfully to force the civil service to bring them into line. Anyone who paid such a fare ought to be entitled to a refund and you could anticipate a requirement for them to set up and advertise a scheme to provide refunds.

As we've indicated repeatedly, an update to the NRCoT would appear to be most straightforward way of achieving their apparent objectives.
The catch is that there'll need to be safeguards for passengers and I can well imagine those, together with the overlap with Penalty Fares, becoming the sticking point making NRCoT changes difficult in practice.

Either way, if shouldn't happen if it's not written into the contact in some form. This should be high up the agenda of Transport Focus, to the point of considering all legal options including even an injunction, possibly with the assistance of the DfT.

(Central government lawyers should intervene to prevent this from happening until ScotRail provides a lawful basis for its actions.)

 

[island]

They would be legitimately entitled to pay just the actual fare due but if there are barriers in place, they may face the choice between paying the £10 or pushing through them. No doubt in the event the BTP are present they would back up the barrier/revenue staff (even though they would be wrong to do so).

The fare is due before boarding, unless an exception applies. The BTP would be perfectly entitled and right to take the details of the offender with a view to prosecuting them. In the event the BTP were not present/did not act then...

If the £10 was paid there would be a right to take ScotRail to Court afterwards but as you say, I can't imagine many people will either be aware they have the right to do this, and even those that do will probably conclude it is not worth their time.

Agreed.

It will probably take a class action - if such a thing is even possible in these circumstances (I don't pretend to know the answer to that) - or political impetus for anything to change.

I don't believe Scots law allows for class actions.

If they refused to pay onboard the train that's certainly one possibility. As long as they were prepared to pay the correct fare due under the NRCoT then I think ScotRail would be the ones in breach of contract - the NRCoT doesn't say you can be kicked off merely for boarding without a ticket.

But Railway Byelaw 24 does.

 

[HighlandStorm]

So we are still awaiting their legal basis! In the absence of one, the starting point for a passenger would be to raise with the DfT/Scotland Office that ScotRail appears to be acting

It’s got naff all to do with DfT or the Scotland Office - which should have ceased to exist in 1999.

(Central government lawyers should intervene to prevent this from happening until ScotRail provides a lawful basis for its actions.)

They can go to the Court of Session and try and get an interdict against ScotRail - but they can’t just stop something happening!

For what’s it’s worth, I don’t agree with the minimum fare policy. It’s putting up a barrier to rail travel wether real or perceived, and we should be looking to remove, not add to these.

 

[styles]

The fare is due before boarding, unless an exception applies. The BTP would be perfectly entitled and right to take the details of the offender with a view to prosecuting them. In the event the BTP were not present/did not act then...

They would, but the COPFS doesn't bother with such trivial matters, and bringing a private prosecution in Scotland is notoriously difficult.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jun 2026 ==

For what’s it’s worth, I don’t agree with the minimum fare policy. It’s putting up a barrier to rail travel wether real or perceived, and we should be looking to remove, not add to these.

I'd be interested how you'd encourage people to buy fares before boarding in the absence of this policy. For the cases where the fare is a couple of quid, there's otherwise no incentive to actually pay before boarding, because given it's Scotland, the worst that would otherwise happen is you'd be asked to pay the fare you were obliged to to begin with (except no Railcard etc discounts).