In which case, I would be interested to know how this fits with the wider regulation of fares.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
ScotRail to introduce £10 minimum fare for those not buying before boarding
- Thread starter kkong
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Well, it would and it wouldn’t ( or could be argued that way). The penalty fare is “the fare” + a fixed penalty amount. The fixed penalty amount on its own doesn’t authorise you to travel - the fare element (paid at the right time) does.
Indeed - but if the argument is that this is the baseline fare, then that is an out of band price rise and redefinition of the fare.
On what legal authority?
This is a reasonable and sensible policy, but it is increasingly feeling like those parking cases where the failure to do things by the book bounces back and costs both money and credibility.
Ok, but it still fails the ‘duck test’ of actually being a fare.
It’s not a ticket you can buy in any other scenario than by failing to buy before you board. You can’t go to a ticket office and ask to buy a “Minimum Fare Single please”. No such penalty has ever been designated as ”the undiscounted full single fare” and I’m struggling to see how ScotRail would justify such a departure from the well-trodden custom and practice. If they are relying on this as their legal justification, it would be ‘brave’ to say the least.
Has this been established as a fact?
This is just supposition.
If I have time at the weekend I will attempt to buy one at Bathgate.
I see there is mention of a Minimum Fare Notice on the appeals page - I am intrigued to see this. I work in a regulated profession so I'm not too keen on the idea of deliberately boarding a train without a ticket to find out what one looks like.
And at the risk of pedantry, Scotrail are repeatedly referring to their "minimum fare policy". I would expect this to be a formal approved document but the only links I can find are to their Revenue Protection Policy (this even refers to the minimum fare policy). I'm wondering if I might FOI this.
I don't disagree with Scotrail tightening up on ticketless travel but it helps no-one if they don't do it competently.
Kite159
Veteran Member
I would imagine give it a couple of weeks and the only time those minimum fares will get dished out will be by revenue, guards & ticket examiners will go back to selling the regular fares when they come across someone who thinks payment is optional.
Just to avoid conflict
Just to avoid conflict
Everyone's opinion here is a supposition to use your terminology. It's a discussion forum, that's what you get. None of us are solicitors and even if we were, solicitors get things wrong too.
The appeals page is interesting as it states the reasons for appeal as:
This will absolutely end badly.
- Station unstaffed/No ticket office available
- Retail facilities unavailable
- Digital/App issues
- Accessibility issues
This will absolutely end badly.
Equality Act these days - how so, though?
“Accessibility issues” I’ve taken as being unable (for reason of disability) to use a TVM that is available.
I recognise other interpretations of “accessibility issues“ are available.
But that is a specific line of appeal, so I don't see the issue?
I don’t think disabled people should be required to jump through hoops to get their own money back.
The charging of the minimum fare contradicts their own policy.
The charging of the minimum fare contradicts their own policy.
Not believing a disabled person, which one TE inevitabiy will, and putting them through an appeal process to claim their own money back is problematic for what is ultimately an arm of the Scottish Government.
That situation can arise in official Penalty Fares schemes as well, so I don't really see it as an issue.
They aren't suggesting that every disabled person will be charged up, merely that it is a specific avenue of appeal if one does. If it wasn't, people would complain, rightly, that many disabilities aren't visible or able to be articulated at the time, and the appeals process should allow appeals on the grounds of accessibility.
What about all of this is contrary to the Equality Act?
Pushing even some disabled people down that avenue of appeal is a failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Only a matter of time before a ticket examiner simply doesn’t believe a disabled person and they’ll complain to Transport Scotland/Scottish Government and it’ll be all over the papers. Or parents of a disabled child who doesn’t have £10 on them goes to the papers about their child chucked off a train in the cold/dark/rain/snow.
Only a matter of time before a ticket examiner simply doesn’t believe a disabled person and they’ll complain to Transport Scotland/Scottish Government and it’ll be all over the papers. Or parents of a disabled child who doesn’t have £10 on them goes to the papers about their child chucked off a train in the cold/dark/rain/snow.
Indeed. Of course, if that were to happen in England, and the person had to appeal their £100 PF even though they'd given a clear explanation that their disability was the reason why they didn't have a ticket yet, I'd hope the poor person would be willing to for unlawful discrimination. No doubt anyone who did would be offered a payment of a few hundred pounds and a confidentiality agreement, which doesn't really cut it, but at least it would focus minds.
I think the point is that this evaluation already occurs.
For example, there is a ticket discount for wheelchair users who need to remain in their wheelchair during their journey, which doesn't require a Disabled Railcard (in fact the discount can even be better than using a Disabled Railcard): https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/tick...romotions/wheelchair-user-without-a-railcard/.
Most disability interactions in these sorts of circumstances are going to be case-by-case.
Crucially, in order to bring a claim on this basis, you'd need to show that not just hypothetical situations exist, but the reality. At the moment, it is pure speculation that this is going to lead to an increase in penalties being written up against disabled passengers, with no evidence that this is actually happening.
People are of course free to FOI ScotRail to ask for their impact equality assessment to see to what extent they've considered this. But I think it's a stretch at the moment to speculate that this will be unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act.
It is not the norm that this happens in England and Wales. Most inspectors will begin with an open mind and not jump straight to Penalty Fare enforcement. If the person is able to give disability as a reason for being unable to buy a ticket at an untaffed station they've travelled from, most inspectors would at that point move to charge the usual fare. I'm not saying never, just usually.
Exactly this. The only time that a ticket examiner would escalate the situation is if the person both fails the "attitude test" and claims that their inability to pay their fare before boarding was due to a disability that the inspector doesn't find believable.
It appears Scotrail has not published an equalities impact assessment for the new minimum fare arrangements. Given they have identified at least one group with protected characteristics who could be negatively affected (people with disabilities) then this should have been done, and the results are required to be published. This should have happened before the policy was implemented so that any person or organisation that had concerns could raise them. I suspect they also require a children's rights' assessment if they intend to apply the policy to anyone under 18 (for this reason as the UNCRC defines children as young people under 18).
I don't see anything yet that makes me wonder about unlawful discrimination, but I would be much more reassured if there were evidence of process around their public sector equality duties regarding this.
One thought is how someone with disabilities is able to appeal a minimum fare notice - there will need to be more options than an online form. I completely agree that Scotrail staff are fair and pragmatic when supporting people with disabilities, but something will happen at some point.
I don't see anything yet that makes me wonder about unlawful discrimination, but I would be much more reassured if there were evidence of process around their public sector equality duties regarding this.
One thought is how someone with disabilities is able to appeal a minimum fare notice - there will need to be more options than an online form. I completely agree that Scotrail staff are fair and pragmatic when supporting people with disabilities, but something will happen at some point.
It very much depends on the individual circumstances. If a person does not have a ticket, does not inform the company of their disability and hence inaccessibility and there is no good reason why the company's representative would think there is a disability in play, then nothing untoward has occurred.
I seem to recall that TfW ones do, but I might be misremembering. Regarding penalty fare Vs minimum fare is this not similar to Railcard minimum fares that apply before a certain time (or whatever the rules are). ScotRail TVMs (historically at least) even charged the minimum rate rather than just not applying the Railcard.
It only works if the person is believed every time. Which will be challenging when every habitual fare evader who boards at an unstaffed station cottons on and insists on claiming disability and paying by cash. Eventually a TE will make the wrong judgement call in a situation for which they are ill equipped.
On a separate note earlier today I checked the TVM at my local unstaffed station and the “promise to pay” isn’t available.