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

[Starmill]

Thank you. I’m puzzled by the “matter of contract” aspect of that, as the English penalty fare legislation is not contract based.

I suspect it probably is, because if you board a train without a ticket but are charged a PF and then pay it, you have technically still paid for your journey. You haven't admitted to an offence by paying it, as you might be doing with the police issuing you a penalty for disorderly behaviour.

 

[AlterEgo]

I thought it was because if they charge you a penalty fare in Scotland there is no route to recover it because a scottish TOC can't bring a private prosecution.

That is also a barrier. There is no route to criminal prosecution and no route to civil recovery.

 

[blimmo]

Is there not an equivalent of a county court claim in Scotland?

 

[Starmill]

Is there not an equivalent of a county court claim in Scotland?

ScotRail (or anyone else running a service in Scotland) could make a claim in the Sheriff Court for their losses / costs against someone travelling without a ticket.

 

[eoff]

I asked the ticket examiner about the £10 fare today. She said it is a standard ticket sold at a new minimum price and their machines are setup to do it. She said that fare may or may not be charged depending on circumstances.
So perhaps the legal position is that ScotRail can set any price, or multiple prices for its own services.

 

[Sirius]

The Scotsman running an article on the £10 fare.

ScotRail reveals how many £10 minimum fares issued since new penalty introduced

Train operator says publicity over move triggered £400,000 ticket sales boost

www.scotsman.com

Headline: ScotRail reveals how many £10 minimum fares issued to passengers since new penalty introduced​

ScotRail said between July 1 and August 3, 14,336 minimum fare tickets were issued - an average of more than 400 a day.

The Scottish Greens are quoted in the article referencing it penalising people running late or travelling by rail for the first time.

The Scottish Conservatives highlight the cost of living and hoping honest people don’t pay the penalty with a further suggestion the money be reinvested in the railway.

 

[kkong]

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the origin and destination for these minimum fares.

 

[Coleridge]

The Scotsman running an article on the £10 fare.

I'd like to see TfW taking a similarly robust approach in Wales. At the moment, its train managers are quite happy to sell a ticket at the normal price to any passenger without one, even if it's clear that they're fare-dodging or short-faring.

 

[Starmill]

I'd like to see TfW taking a similarly robust approach in Wales. At the moment, its train managers are quite happy to sell a ticket at the normal price to any passenger without one, even if it's clear that they're fare-dodging or short-faring.

Some conductors in Scotland will do this too.

Conflict avoidance is unlikely to be going away any time soon.

 

[kkong]

These notices can now be seen at many ScotRail operated stations.

New rules for travelling without a ticket

If you have chosen not to buy a ticket before boarding the train, you will be charged a £10 minimum fare.*

If your fare is already more than £10, you will be charged the full fare and won't be eligible for any railcard or other discounts.

• Learn more at scotrail.co.uk/BBYB
• Ask at a station ticket office
• Ask at a station help point

* Full undiscounted fare. Exclusions apply.

 

[hexagon789]

These notices can now be seen at many ScotRail operated stations.

View attachment 211207

My local has had that for months now. It went up a fair while before the new minimum fare system came into effect.

 

[kkong]

I'm not sure what the purpose of the asterisk and accompanying text are.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm not sure what the purpose of the asterisk and accompanying text are.

It seems to try and imply the £10 minimum is what "full undiscounted fare" means in the NRCoT under 9.2.

 

[redreni]

It seems to try and imply the £10 minimum is what "full undiscounted fare" means in the NRCoT under 9.2.

Which it can't possibly be, of course, for several reasons already discussed. But, I guess, they're gambling the kind of person who would actually go to court rather than pay this 'minimum fare' is probably not the sort of passenger who would find themselves being asked to pay it to begin with.

 

[JamieL]

Which it can't possibly be, of course, for several reasons already discussed. But, I guess, they're gambling the kind of person who would actually go to court rather than pay this 'minimum fare' is probably not the sort of passenger who would find themselves being asked to pay it to begin with.

Why do you think it can't be within NRCoT 9.2?

Special Scotland Provision (Clause 9.2.4): For train services operating wholly within Scotland, operators are permitted to charge a specific minimum fare. This is calculated as the higher of either the full undiscounted single fare to your destination or a set penalty sum not exceeding £20

 

[Deerfold]

Why do you think it can't be within NRCoT 9.2?

It's a penalty, now?

 

[CyrusWuff]

It's a penalty, now?

No. The actual wording of Condition 9.2.4 is:

9.2.4 For services operating wholly in Scotland, to charge you a minimum fare which will be the higher of (a) the full undiscounted single fare to your destination; or (b) a sum not to exceed £20.

 

[redreni]

Why do you think it can't be within NRCoT 9.2?

I'm not saying the minimum fare regime is not within the NRCoT, I'm saying "minimum fare" and "full, undiscounted fare" are different.

This poster appears to try to say the former is the latter, which it isn't. Having introduced that unnecessary confusion, it then does a terrible job of trying to explain the circumstances in which you will be charged more than £10 (which is where the "full, undiscounted fare" as defined in the NRCoT is more than £10, not when "your fare" (whatever that means) is "already more than £10".

 

[Belperpete]

I'm not sure what the purpose of the asterisk and accompanying text are.

My reading of the first bit is they are saying you won't get a discount on the £10 fare, e.g. if you have a Railcard.

The "exclusions apply" bit presumably is referring to the situations where the £10 fare doesn't apply, presumably if there is no means of purchasing a ticket.

They seem to have tried to rewrite the convoluted NRCoT legalese into plain, simple English. So, for example, "your fare" is a more readable way of saying "the fare for your journey ". It may.be less precise, but the more words, the less people are likely to read something.

 

[redreni]

My reading of the first bit is they are saying you won't get a discount on the £10 fare, e.g. if you have a Railcard.

I'm not asking for more words, I'm suggesting they should be more precise.

The bit about no Railcard discounts crops up in the sentence about "if your fare is already more than £10". They could have easily written it so it applies unambiguously to any situation where you choose not to buy before boarding.

The "exclusions apply" bit is redundant as the exclusions apply in situations where the passenger can't buy before boarding, not situations where they choose not to, so that part of the wording was fine and doesn't need the footnote.

They seem to have tried to rewrite the convoluted NRCoT legalese into plain, simple English. So, for example, "your fare" is a more readable way of saying "the fare for your journey ". It may.be less precise, but the more words, the less people are likely to read something.

But if the passenger knows what the fare normally is and has been accustomed to being able to buy it on board, they're likely to think "your fare" means that fare, and this poster is not doing a good job of telling them that there is a higher fare that would never normally be charged which is what they mean by "your fare".

The idea that there is a higher fare that only applies when you don't pay before boarding is a counter-intuitive concept that needs to be explained if passengers are to have a hope of understanding it. Ascribing the term that is given to that fare in the NRCoT to something else (the minimum fare) and then using the term "your fare" to describe what the NRCoT calls the "full, undiscounted fare", without explaining what you mean, is unhelpful imho.

If you want fewer words and less detail, just say "You are expected to buy a ticket before you board where facilities exist at the station where you start your journey. If you choose not to, you will need to buy a ticket on board. This will be more expensive. See the National Rail Conditions of Travel for further details."

 

[Belperpete]

I'm not asking for more words, I'm suggesting they should be more precise.

The bit about no Railcard discounts crops up in the sentence about "if your fare is already more than £10". They could have easily written it so it applies unambiguously to any situation where you choose not to buy before boarding.

Except it doesn't apply to any situation.

The "exclusions apply" bit is redundant as the exclusions apply in situations where the passenger can't buy before boarding, not situations where they choose not to, so that part of the wording was fine and doesn't need the footnote.

You are using a very narrow interpretation of the word choose, that I doubt many people would appreciate. Some choices can be forced upon us. For example, if there are no ticket issuing facilities available, I could choose not to travel, or I could choose to travel and board before I buy a ticket. In the latter chojce, the exclusions apply.

But if the passenger knows what the fare normally is and has been accustomed to being able to buy it on board, they're likely to think "your fare" means that fare, and this poster is not doing a good job of telling them that there is a higher fare that would never normally be charged which is what they mean by "your fare".

The idea that there is a higher fare that only applies when you don't pay before boarding is a counter-intuitive concept that needs to be explained if passengers are to have a hope of understanding it. Ascribing the term that is given to that fare in the NRCoT to something else (the minimum fare) and then using the term "your fare" to describe what the NRCoT calls the "full, undiscounted fare", without explaining what you mean, is unhelpful imho.

If you want fewer words and less detail, just say "You are expected to buy a ticket before you board where facilities exist at the station where you start your journey. If you choose not to, you will need to buy a ticket on board. This will be more expensive. See the National Rail Conditions of Travel for further details."

So your way of helping people understand this counter-intuitive higher fare is not to explain it all, just refer them to the NRCoT?!!

They are trying to explain the NRCoT legalese in layman's terms, that people might actually read.. To do so by simply referring them to the NRCoT would be counter productive. You might just as well put up a poster that just says "Read the National Rail Conditions of Travel".

 

[Mainline421]

These notices can now be seen at many ScotRail operated stations.

View attachment 211207

Unless it is only being displayed at stations with a cash accepting TVM and/or ticket office that's open to the last train, that poster needs to be taken down. It seems to deliberately imply you must download the Scotrail app to travel...

 

[Belperpete]

Unless it is only being at stations with a cash accepting TVM and/or ticket office that's open to the last train, that poster needs to be taken down. It seems to deliberately imply you must download the Scotrail app to travel...

They have given the QR code for downloading the app, but I can see nothing that implies you have to. I can see nothing that even suggests that their app is the only way to buy tickets.

 

[JamieL]

I'm not saying the minimum fare regime is not within the NRCoT, I'm saying "minimum fare" and "full, undiscounted fare" are different.

This poster appears to try to say the former is the latter, which it isn't. Having introduced that unnecessary confusion, it then does a terrible job of trying to explain the circumstances in which you will be charged more than £10 (which is where the "full, undiscounted fare" as defined in the NRCoT is more than £10, not when "your fare" (whatever that means) is "already more than £10".

I think you are overthinking this. The message is clear and in plain English. The measure is also desperately needed - the railway is plagued by grifters and non-payers - and there is no credible reason for not purchasing a ticket prior to boarding. The key of course is enforcement and that still seems to be sorely lacking.

 

[35B]

I think you are overthinking this. The message is clear and in plain English. The measure is also desperately needed - the railway is plagued by grifters and non-payers - and there is no credible reason for not purchasing a ticket prior to boarding. The key of course is enforcement and that still seems to be sorely lacking.

I completely agree. The poster is clear and, now that the NRCOT has been amended to provide for this, seems entirely compliant.

 

[Bill57p9]

I think you are overthinking this. The message is clear and in plain English. The measure is also desperately needed - the railway is plagued by grifters and non-payers - and there is no credible reason for not purchasing a ticket prior to boarding. The key of course is enforcement and that still seems to be sorely lacking.

Respectfully I do disagree with your assertion that "there is no credible reason for not purchasing a ticket prior to boarding" having been in that precise position on multiple occasions.

Examples I have personally experienced tend to be centered around the fare I wish to purchase not being available from a TVM or online. Examples I have experienced (over may years, so may have changed):

• Through Northern fares to Ravenglass & Eskdale Railway
• GWR - Devon & Cornwall Rover (Ticket office was shut due to staff shortages. Turned out the conductors could sell them on the train, but this isn't what the GWR website states!)

ScotRail have quirks too:

• Kids for a Quid not available through the (old) app or (IIRC) online
• YoungScot discounted fares cannot be purchased through TVMs, but can be purchased online and collected from a TVM. Unsure about the apps.

I applaud any initiative to reduce ticketless travel, however there are legitimate circumstances where customers (and I use that word very deliberately) have been prevented from purchasing the appropriate ticket before travel.

My experience of ScotRail is that they are really hot on onboard ticket checks, which I very much welcome. Equally I have always found their onboard conductors and ticket inspectors approachable and pragmatic.

 

[redreni]

Except it doesn't apply to any situation.


You are using a very narrow interpretation of the word choose, that I doubt many people would appreciate. Some choices can be forced upon us. For example, if there are no ticket issuing facilities available, I could choose not to travel, or I could choose to travel and board before I buy a ticket. In the latter chojce, the exclusions apply.

I think you're overthinking the term "choose". It neatly encapsulates that there are exceptions to the buy before boarding principle when the non-purchase of a ticket before boarding wasn't the passenger's choice.

So your way of helping people understand this counter-intuitive higher fare is not to explain it all, just refer them to the NRCoT?!!

I have explained it, I have said choosing to buy on board is more expensive than buying before boarding. And I've done so without needing to distinguish between, and therefore without conflating, minimum fares and full, undiscounted fares.

They are trying to explain the NRCoT legalese in layman's terms, that people might actually read..

And they're getting it wrong.

To do so by simply referring them to the NRCoT would be counter productive. You might just as well put up a poster that just says "Read the National Rail Conditions of Travel".

You don't think the message boils down to buy before you board or it'll cost you extra?

 

[eoff]

These notices can now be seen at many ScotRail operated stations.

View attachment 211207

First, it is clearly wrong as Scotrail say you can still expect to pay by cash and should you not be able to do so then they will not charge this new minimum fare.

Then there is the wording. I think a summary of the real situation is...

If you board a train without a ticket when the opportunity to purchase a ticket with your chosen form of payment was available then you will not be able to purchase disccounted tickets and will be charged full fare or £10, whichever is higher.

I suppose they couldn't resist getitng in a plug for an app.

 

[JamieL]

First, it is clearly wrong as Scotrail say you can still expect to pay by cash and should you not be able to do so then they will not charge this new minimum fare.

I am not sure what the cash element really has to go with anything. If someone really can only pay by cash, they get a Promise to Pay ticket and then can seek out the ScotRail staff as soon as they board. Anyone who boards with such a note but then sits down and awaits the staff, rather than proactively trying to find them, loses the entitlement to the actual fare (if under £10) and must pay the minimum fare.

 

[Watershed]

I am not sure what the cash element really has to go with anything. If someone really can only pay by cash, they get a Promise to Pay ticket and then can seek out the ScotRail staff as soon as they board. Anyone who boards with such a note but then sits down and awaits the staff, rather than proactively trying to find them, loses the entitlement to the actual fare (if under £10) and must pay the minimum fare.

There is no obligation to proactively seek out staff when legitimately boarding without a ticket. The introduction of minimum fares doesn't change anything about passengers' obligations, it just introduces a new potential penalty that can be applied (at least on paper).

It will be interesting to see if there is any legal challenge on the use of what is explicitly described as a penalty clause.