TfL issues 69,000 penalty fares as fare evasion crackdown intensifies

Mawkie · 10 Jun 2026

Impressive figures from TfL, reported by Ian Visits.

Could someone remind me under what circumstances TfL issue Penalty Fares? Is Buses and Overground? TIA

In the year to March 2026, TfL says it increased the number of card checks by over 50%, to 6.9 million inspections. They also checked 3.3 million bus passengers, around 400,000 more than the previous year

As a result, just over 69,000 penalty fares were issued – up by 9% on the previous year, and 21,522 reports for possible prosecution. TfL also secured 14,406 fare evasion convictions during the year, 955 more than in 2024/25, helping to increase court awards by 24.6% to £2.6 million.

RailUK Forums

deltic · 10 Jun 2026

Suggests fare evasion rate of only 1%

Solweytracker · 10 Jun 2026

The Evening Standard online also have an article on the TfL release with a little more data here:

Fare dodging epidemic: Fines and prosecutions rise in crackdown as thousands jump barriers

Transport for London said it secured 14,406 convictions for fare evasion in 2025/26 - an increase of 955 on the year before

Fare dodging epidemic: Fines and prosecutions rise as thousands jump barriers

Transport for London said it secured 14,406 convictions for fare evasion in 2025/26 - an increase of 955 on the year before

www.standard.co.uk

Haywain · 10 Jun 2026

deltic said:
Suggests fare evasion rate of only 1%

No, it doesn't. Most fare evaders are unlikely to be presenting cards to be checked.

Mawkie · 10 Jun 2026

deltic said:
Suggests fare evasion rate of only 1%

Internal figure for 2025/26 is 3.5% (and reducing).

Kilopylae · 11 Jun 2026

Mawkie said:
Internal figure for 2025/26 is 3.5% (and reducing).

Reducing because of enforcement action or wider cultural factors?

Mawkie · 11 Jun 2026

Kilopylae said:
Reducing because of enforcement action or wider cultural factors?

I didn't want to copy/paste from internal documents, but happilyTfL published figures at the bottom of this page on their website.

Year Fare evasion rate
2022/23 3.9%
2023/24 3.8%
2024/25 3.5%

TfL have a stated aim of reducing evasion to 1.5% by 2030.

I'm not qualified to speak towards the reasons behind fare evasion, but perhaps it would be interesting to examine links between fare evasion and the wider economy?

Wolfie · 11 Jun 2026

I can only apply my own experience but ticket checks, particularly on the DLR, seem to be becoming much more common as do station blockades. However numbers of fare evaders continue to just push through barrier lines.

Edited to add: many more ticket checks on LNWR/WMR too.

JimmBuck · 12 Jun 2026

Forgive my ignorance, but if TfL has issued 69,000 Penalty Fares, with 21,522 reports for prosecution and 14,406 fare evasions, what are the rest of the Penalty Fares for?

AlterEgo · 12 Jun 2026

JimmBuck said:
Forgive my ignorance, but if TfL has issued 69,000 Penalty Fares, with 21,522 reports for prosecution and 14,406 fare evasions, what are the rest of the Penalty Fares for?

69000 Penalty Fares.

And

21522 reports for prosecution, of which:
14,406 were convicted.

WesternLancer · 12 Jun 2026

AlterEgo said:
69000 Penalty Fares.

And

21522 reports for prosecution, of which:
14,406 were convicted.

so 67% convicted of those reported for prosecution

so of those 33% not convicted, what would that include?

- on investigation of the report found no offence committed
- decided to give a warning rather than prosecute
- name and or address details could not be accurately verified and as such it was decided not to go forward with prosecution
- people reported gave the names of other real people (not a made up name) and that person then convinced TfL that it was not them, so no prosecution went ahead
- got to court and magistrates decided the person was not guilty

would that list be correct?
any other reasons I've not thought of?

SECR 65 · 12 Jun 2026

I suspect a lot of people will panic when they get a letter threatening prosecution. I reckon many of them will seek a solicitor. It seems from the forum that often the involvement of a solicitor will result in a final warning.
I wonder what proportion of the 33% are not convicted due to logistics, being not-guilty, or given warnings?

swt_passenger · 12 Jun 2026

I’m reminded of this recent thread, where it was highlighted that almost 55% of those penalty fares went unpaid.

TFL FOI - Majority of penalty fares unpaid

Noticed a mention of this on the Diamondgeezer blog, thought the forum may be interested: 16) A majority of penalty fares go unpaid (last year 55%). TFL's response to a FOI request states that a majority of their recent penalty fares remain unpaid: Total number of penalty fares paid and...

www.railforums.co.uk

So perhaps a very high proportion of their summonses also go to people who cannot be found.

Fawkes Cat · 12 Jun 2026

swt_passenger said:
So perhaps a very high proportion of their summonses also go to people who cannot be found.

Although that doesn't prevent conviction - hence the Statutory Declaration process, and cases that we see here. And that makes sense: if you could only be prosecuted if you had given correct details, we'd find that everyone stopped was called Mickey Mouse and lived in Mind-your-own-business Street.

AlterEgo · 12 Jun 2026

Fawkes Cat said:
Although that doesn't prevent conviction - hence the Statutory Declaration process, and cases that we see here. And that makes sense: if you could only be prosecuted if you had given correct details, we'd find that everyone stopped was called Mickey Mouse and lived in Mind-your-own-business Street.

If I am found ticketless or with some staff pass I have found and give my name as Michael Hunt and say I live at 69 Acacia Avenue there is usually not a thing that can be done about that and I will, in most circumstances, avoid conviction especially if it is handled by SJP.

The magistrates will convict Michael Hunt, who doesn't exist, or the case will be dropped once it is realised that person is not a real person.

If they don't take the correct details at the time then that's too bad for them.

WesternLancer · 12 Jun 2026

Fawkes Cat said:
Although that doesn't prevent conviction - hence the Statutory Declaration process, and cases that we see here. And that makes sense: if you could only be prosecuted if you had given correct details, we'd find that everyone stopped was called Mickey Mouse and lived in Mind-your-own-business Street.

Am I right in thinking that it's possible for the court to convict people who do not exist at all (ie a made up name and address is given) as opposed to someone who gives some random innocent person's name and address?

Fawkes Cat · 12 Jun 2026

AlterEgo said:
If I am found ticketless or with some staff pass I have found and give my name as Michael Hunt and say I live at 69 Acacia Avenue there is usually not a thing that can be done about that and I will, in most circumstances, avoid conviction especially if it is handled by SJP.

The magistrates will convict Michael Hunt, who doesn't exist, or the case will be dropped once it is realised that person is not a real person.

If they don't take the correct details at the time then that's too bad for them.

I'm not convinced (although in case I seem to argue too strongly, I will admit at this point that I have no particular knowledge on these points: so I am here to be educated). My impression is that we see a fair number of cases of 'I didn't know about the prosecution' where it turns out that a false address was given: and it's my further impression that in English law there's nothing special about a name except as being a convenient distinguishing mark - it's easier to call someone 'Fawkes Cat' than it is to describe them in a way that won't apply to a dozen other people living in the same street. So on the assumption that you're not really named after a character from Radio Active, and that you don't live at 69 Acacia Avenue, I would suggest that although those were the details that you gave, a conviction would still stand. For sure, there might be practical difficulties in rounding you up in that giving your real name and address makes it much easier to find and punish you- but if you happen to drift into sight of the authorities again, then you wouldn't be able to walk away from the previous conviction on the grounds that you're actually called Walter E. Go rather than Michael Hunt, or that you live at 1 The Street rather than in Acacia Avenue: if the authorities were able to demonstrate that it was you that they had caught, regardless of the name and address you gave, you'd still be on the hook.

And again, I will argue that this is how it must be: otherwise everyone would just give a false name and walk away when caught in their wrong doings. I don't know if this a point so obvious that it will form part of the common law, or if there's some piece of legislation that says as much, but I would need to see evidence of the contrary to believe that Messrs Mouse and Hunt will have a surefire way of avoiding court just by giving those names rather than admitting to being Mr Cat or Mr Ego.

AlterEgo · 12 Jun 2026

Fawkes Cat said:
I'm not convinced (although in case I seem to argue too strongly, I will admit at this point that I have no particular knowledge on these points: so I am here to be educated). My impression is that we see a fair number of cases of 'I didn't know about the prosecution' where it turns out that a false address was given

That is different. Where people give a false address and their real - or similar - name, it is possible to do some data matching/approximation and send a letter to who the defendant might really have been.

Fawkes Cat said:
and it's my further impression that in English law there's nothing special about a name except as being a convenient distinguishing mark - it's easier to call someone 'Fawkes Cat' than it is to describe them in a way that won't apply to a dozen other people living in the same street. So on the assumption that you're not really named after a character from Radio Active, and that you don't live at 69 Acacia Avenue, I would suggest that although those were the details that you gave, a conviction would still stand.

It would, against Michael Hunt. It would not come back to me unless there was some sort of evidence. I would not suffer any consequences.

Fawkes Cat said:
For sure, there might be practical difficulties in rounding you up in that giving your real name and address makes it much easier to find and punish you- but if you happen to drift into sight of the authorities again, then you wouldn't be able to walk away from the previous conviction on the grounds that you're actually called Walter E. Go rather than Michael Hunt, or that you live at 1 The Street rather than in Acacia Avenue: if the authorities were able to demonstrate that it was you that they had caught, regardless of the name and address you gave, you'd still be on the hook.

How would they be able to demonstrate it was the same person?

Let's say I call myself Michael Hunt in 2025 when I get stopped and I give my real name in 2026. Both times it's for being ticketless or using a Freedom Pass I found or whatever, so no fancy data trawls can happen. How, exactly, do you think they will realise that Michael Hunt and me are the same person, and it was all a ruse the first time?

Magistrates' courts convict nonexistent people all the time under SJP, with rail offences surely one of the most common (others, like driving offences or TV licence offences involve a registered vehicle or address visited - not just stopping some random person in public and hoping they give the right details).

Fawkes Cat said:
And again, I will argue that this is how it must be: otherwise everyone would just give a false name and walk away when caught in their wrong doings.

There is a good reason that it is in the Bylaws that you must give your name and address when stopped. It is because it is necessary for the enforcement of the Bylaws.

The problem with this is you can say you are whoever and there is no requirement to provide ID, as we see frequently with people who get post because some other person gave their details. And most of the time, that is the end of it. The action gets dropped because they don't know who the offender is. Millions of pounds in court fines get uncollected every year.

Fawkes Cat · 12 Jun 2026

AlterEgo said:
Let's say I call myself Michael Hunt in 2025 when I get stopped and I give my real name in 2026. Both times it's for being ticketless or using a Freedom Pass I found or whatever, so no fancy data trawls can happen. How, exactly, do you think they will realise that Michael Hunt and me are the same person, and it was all a ruse the first time?

Are you planning on changing your appearance each time you are caught by the railways - so completely that you won't be identified?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jun 2026 ==

AlterEgo said:
Magistrates' courts convict nonexistent people all the time under SJP, with rail offences surely one of the most common

Indeed. I think that there is perhaps that divides us than I had understood you to say: you headline that giving false details may prevent one suffering the consequences of conviction: I emphasise that false details will not prevent conviction. We differ on what may happen post-conviction - but I don't think we disagree that false details will prevent prosecution and conviction.

saismee · 12 Jun 2026

Mawkie said:
I didn't want to copy/paste from internal documents, but happilyTfL published figures at the bottom of this page on their website.

TfL have a stated aim of reducing evasion to 1.5% by 2030.

I'm not qualified to speak towards the reasons behind fare evasion, but perhaps it would be interesting to examine links between fare evasion and the wider economy?

Even CTS/Cubic (the people who make the ticket barriers) state on their website that the best way to reduce fare evasion is to make the journey more affordable. A lot of people don't evade their fare to be anti-social (like beggars or pickpockets), they do it to save a few quid to spend on something else.

AlterEgo · 12 Jun 2026

Fawkes Cat said:
Are you planning on changing your appearance each time you are caught by the railways - so completely that you won't be identified?

No, why would I need to?

You'd need to be an insanely prolific fare evader to be recognised on sight.

Fawkes Cat said:
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jun 2026 ==

Indeed. I think that there is perhaps that divides us than I had understood you to say: you headline that giving false details may prevent one suffering the consequences of conviction: I emphasise that false details will not prevent conviction. We differ on what may happen post-conviction - but I don't think we disagree that false details will prevent prosecution and conviction.

False details do prevent you from being convicted. We see this all the time, with people who have been wrongly convicted because someone gave their details. What happens after this is that the case more than likely gets discontinued, unless you are in the Charles Brohiri tier of fare evaders.

If I knew your name and address, and gave them when stopped, and you get convicted, then you overturned it with SD and proved it wasn't you - what do you actually think happens? How would they find out it was actually me, two years ago?

I know this may cause the scales to fall from people's eyes, but the fact that we do not make anyone identify themselves to the railway means that enforcement is largely based on consent. That is why inspectors need good soft skills, and that is why there is a law requiring people to give their name and address. Because if someone gives false details, they mostly get away with it.

MarlowDonkey · 12 Jun 2026

AlterEgo said:
Because if someone gives false details, they mostly get away with it.

Presumably it's easier to get away with it when they hold no ticket at all. If they present an invalid ticket bought online, doesn't that give investigators an electronic trail back to the purchaser?

saismee · 12 Jun 2026

AlterEgo said:
No, why would I need to?

You'd need to be an insanely prolific fare evader to be recognised on sight.

I had something longer typed but poor train WiFi refused to send it and it's gone. The short version:

None of the RPIs I know can even remember people they penalty fared the day before, unless the person was especially anti-social. I (gateline) can't remember people who shout at me, even when they come back and apologise the next day.

Hadders · 12 Jun 2026

Overall TfL Fare evasion is 3.5% but the breakdown is interesting:

Trams 7.3%
Tube 5.0%
DLR 4.0%
Buses 2.6%

Penalty fares on London transport up 10%, TfL says

TfL issued 69,001 fines between April 2025 and March 2026 having checked 6.9m contactless cards.

www.bbc.co.uk

The highest rates of fare dodging, which costs TfL some £190m each year, are on the trams (7.3%), Tube (5%) and the DLR where 4% of passengers do not pay for their journey. Just 2.6% of bus fares are evaded.

Unfortunately the BBC report doesn't give the Overground or Elizabeth Line figures.

Sonic1234 · 12 Jun 2026

MarlowDonkey said:
Presumably it's easier to get away with it when they hold no ticket at all. If they present an invalid ticket bought online, doesn't that give investigators an electronic trail back to the purchaser?

Exactly. A big problem for TfL, where traditional tickets are rare, most people will have either tapped in (and pay the correct fare) or have no ticket. The mainline railway has made it easy by pushing online purchases, so people voluntarily hand over (mostly) correct details.

The turnover of people in London is an issue for enforcement too. Half of TfL's penalty fares go unpaid, a big part of this will be that people have moved on (potentially outside the UK) by the time it catches up with them, and transient people don't tend to register to vote, update bank accounts to their temporary address etc so don't leave a trail. At one time, London had the lowest Covid vaccination rate in the country - the reason being that a lot of people registered with London GPs were no longer living there.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jun 2026 ==

Hadders said:
Trams 7.3%

An entirely ungated, unstaffed system serving one of the epicentres of the "new Yookay" and 92.7% do the right thing. Impressive.

AlterEgo · 12 Jun 2026

MarlowDonkey said:
Presumably it's easier to get away with it when they hold no ticket at all. If they present an invalid ticket bought online, doesn't that give investigators an electronic trail back to the purchaser?

To the purchaser yes. Not necessarily the traveller however.

Egg Centric · 12 Jun 2026

Mawkie said:
Internal figure for 2025/26 is 3.5% (and reducing).

Mawkie said:
I'm not qualified to speak towards the reasons behind fare evasion, but perhaps it would be interesting to examine links between fare evasion and the wider economy?

I agree it would be v interesting, but they appear to be heading in different directions to what you'd expect, so there's clearly more going on (unless there's more "likely fare evader demographics" now qualifying for freedom passes etc rather than holding on to tenuous low paid employment, which I guess is possible).

ATS3 · 12 Jun 2026

Sonic1234 said:
"new Yookay"

Why are we bringing Twitter language to this website? Just call them what they are, scourges, there really isn't a need to insult the country's name and use terms made up by those acting in bad faith.

Kenny G · 13 Jun 2026

There are checks on my DLR commute almost every day by the passenger assistants. The occasional times people haven't tapped seems to result in a conversation but no penalty ticket or being asked to leave the train. Are they allowed to issue penalties and what is the policy regarding this course of action?

AlterEgo · 13 Jun 2026

Kenny G said:
There are checks on my DLR commute almost every day by the passenger assistants. The occasional times people haven't tapped seems to result in a conversation but no penalty ticket or being asked to leave the train. Are they allowed to issue penalties and what is the policy regarding this course of action?

The DLR passenger service agents cannot isue penalty fares, but revenue protection inspectors can. They board trains randomly and blockade stations.

TfL issues 69,000 penalty fares as fare evasion crackdown intensifies

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Fare dodging epidemic: Fines and prosecutions rise in crackdown as thousands jump barriers​

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

New Member

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas

Veteran Member

Established Member

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas

Established Member

Established Member

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas

Established Member

Member

Member

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas

Fare dodging epidemic: Fines and prosecutions rise in crackdown as thousands jump barriers