Once again the same ill-informed utter and complete bilge about "proactively seeking staff" rears its ugly head. Proof of any such obligation?
-
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
eoff
Member
I asked a Scotrail employee about this and I think she said it was basically a fare available in some circumstances when they chose not to sell other fares.
I don't think there are any regulations covering how TOCs price their tickets but happy to learn about it if there is.
That almost certainly would constitute a breach of UK consumer protection legislation.
Under what reasoning, and where's that written please?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
This thread has extensive discussion of the reasons Scotrail cannot introduce a civil penalty scheme like Penalty Fares, which would be most relevant here.
The railway is plagued by grifters and ScotRail should be commended for their actions. I would turn this on its head - the obligation doesn't need to be proven - the regulations mean ScotRail are free to charge the minimum fare to anyone who has boarded the train without paying. They should do so to anyone who cannot prove they have taken urgent and specific action to pay. If the 1 in 10,000 who isn't a grifter wishes to start Court of Session proceedings to demonstrate they are not a grifter, then that is fine in my book.
Last edited:
Just because there are some people who seek to avoid their fare, that doesn't mean it is fair to penalise everyone, including those who have legitimately boarded without a ticket because they were unable to buy their intended ticket with their intended method of payment.
That is not what the NRCoT say. But feel free to make up your own version of them!
There is no need to challenge it in the Court of Session, it would go to the Sheriff Court due to the value. Waiting for a member of staff to come round does not make someone a grifter, that has been the routine for decades for those entitled to pay onboard.
tumbledown
Member
Once when I wanted to pay the guard stayed in the other unit for my entire journey.
The regulations state "you must, as soon as you are reasonably able, buy an appropriate Ticket to complete your journey". I am not sure sitting down in a train, rather than seeking out the member of staff to pay, counts as reasonable. Infact, I would say it is rather unreasonable and evidence of grifting.
cadder toad
Member
- Joined
- 2 May 2015
- Messages
- 164
My guess is that if I searched out a ticket collector then they'd tell me to take my seat and wait my turn as there other people to deal with first.
Which I think is fair enough, once you have been specifically told that then you can sit down.
Prior to the introduction of ticket machines at many smaller stations, people on my local line used to get very annoyed at people searching out the guard to pay, seeing them as queue-jumpers (and people didn't want to still have not bought a ticket by Leeds as there was a long line to buy them there).
It has never been interpreted that way in the past and decades of custom and practice would heavily influence what "reasonable" is interpreted as meaning. So would the fact that the NRCoT state you only need to use a ticket office at an interchange station if there is enough time, so in other words, you don't need to inconvenience yourself to make "reasonable" efforts.
You are clearly just making this up to suit your own agenda.
Do you really want groups of people walking through busy trains to find staff because the ticket machine was out of order that morning? Let them do their job, wait for them to come through and buy your ticket when they do.
The trains in Scotrail do have pockets of antisocial behaviour but they are not full of "grifters" as you suggest. There has been a noticeable increase in onboard revenue staff in the past while. You are very likely to see a ticket examiner or conductor on your train on ScotRail, people know this, and sitting down to wait for them is not unreasonable.
It's not how they've ever been interpreted even in court, so this is your opinion which doesn't reflect the actual situation. You don't even have to delay yourself at a connecting station to purchase one.
What would you like, a queue of 20 people at the back cab, or for the guard to just do their job and come round and sell tickets?
So your own evidence-free ranting opinion/prejudices, huh? Guess what, Court precedence says otherwise, so...
The amount of people this applies to is, at best, a handful - I doubt many people even know what a Promise to Pay ticket is.
And what would happen if you were in the "wrong" unit on a non-gangwayed double set and thus can't find the guard. Minimum fare for you?
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
You’re quite right. Unless you put your foot in the door and prevent the guard from closing it until they’ve sold you a ticket, you’re just a nasty grifting grifter.
They will struggle to get a Promise to Pay when the ticket machine isn't working. Unless the trains are rammed staff are regularly coming through checking tickets. I use ScotRail trains a lot and I don't recognise the situation you are describing. Maybe years ago before barriers were installed, but not these days.
If they can't get a Promise to Pay then they can pay the minimum fare - ultimately there are plenty of options to buy before you board. As for enforcement, it depends extensively on route. Still plenty of non-payers on the North Clyde line, which seems effectively free for use unless getting off at one of the few barriered stations. Personally I think the minimum fare is far too low to act as a real incentive but at least it is a start.
Fortunately ScotRail staff are likely to follow their own policy and sell you the ticket you need as the machine wasn't working. Maybe have a thought that people using cash don't always have the greatest levels of privilege.
What I think this policy is reducing is the strategy of getting on the train and buying your ticket from the last station stopped at rather than where you boarded, whether that is being done with cash or a last minute app purchase.
I support the intent to reduce fare evasion, but I think improving it is better done by making it a near certainty your ticket will be checked instead of increasing the minimum fare. They could have a chat with Edinburgh Trams who seem to be quite good at this.
Having a debit, credit or charge card is not "greatest levels of privilege", it is the absolute norm for 98%+ of the populace.
eoff
Member
The trams in Nice are mostly open access (no ticket barrier) but I always saw ticket collectors not only out to catch people without tickets but without tickets validated for the journey underway.
In Hamburg all metro stations I used were open access and I don't think I ever saw ticket inspectors.
But I agree, the railway facilitated the problem of people not purchasing tickets, my station used to have a ticket office, as did many in the past and I'm often on a train where there is no ticket inspection.
So people who don't have access to one are particularly disadvantaged then. And yet if they only have cash, you'd charge them a minimum fare even if the ticket machine literally wasn't working.
Thankfully this is just your personal fantasy, because as much as I'd like to see ticket grifters squashed, having a policy which unjustly penalises particularly disadvantaged people is not on.
eoff
Member
In any case ScotRail are being more generous than they need to be in allowing for people who prefer to pay with cash, even if that is not their only form of payment.
I don't think you can extrapolate people using cash as particularly disadvantaged. They are just as likely to be grifters using it as an excuse to avoid payment. I have seen it myself where grifters try to use - "oh, I only have a £50 note - oh, you can't change that? Best I ride free then".
Perhaps it is better in England (although not from what I see in Avanti with all sorts of chances and grifters trying to ride in First Class without paying) but in Scotland there is a real problem. This policy was brought in to reduce the estimated £11million in lost revenue. It is far better to deal with that than pander to the "cash" users.
Perhaps it is better in England (although not from what I see in Avanti with all sorts of chances and grifters trying to ride in First Class without paying) but in Scotland there is a real problem. This policy was brought in to reduce the estimated £11million in lost revenue. It is far better to deal with that than pander to the "cash" users.
To be very clear, it is the people who literally do not have access to a bank card who are particularly disadvantaged, and it is those people you will be penalising under your idea.
318266
Member
I travel with ScotRail frequently, and perhaps I view society differently than you, but most "grifters" I see just stonewall the inspector and get off at an unstaffed station, taking advantage of the woeful state of the BTP and the unwillingness of staff to hold services for one miscreant travelling from Cardonald to Bishopton. The minimum fare would probably not stop him.
The minimum fare is moreso intended to catch out people who may take part in spontaneous fare evasion, for example by getting on a train at Paisley Gilmour Street without a ticket, and asking at the barriers for a single from Cardonald. In this case, you would now be charged the Minimum Fare (single or day return) - you would therefore be better off buying the ticket in the first instance at Paisley.
To stop people using cash as an excuse from stations where such fare evasion is common, Promise to Pay Notices were introduced, where you must select the fare (including destination, railcard, route, class and type) before travelling. Payment would then be expected in full. The notices are valid for 4 hours from time of issue, and should be exchanged at first realistic opportunity (you cannot reasonably expect all cash users to run to the inspector, this would probably violate the Equality Act amongst several others that other forum members will be well versed in).