If the concept of "paying for a ticket" puts people off travelling, then I posit that the railway is better off without those people taking advantage of its services!
-
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
CarineNoctua
Member
Hear hear!
Agreed.
The rail industry's view is that you are deemed to have accepted the NRCoT by boarding, through the creation of an implied contract. I'm not sure I agree but I doubt a TOC would be wanting to argue that the passenger was travelling under any other terms.
The difference is that the cash fare is clearly a legitimate, advertised fare which people can choose to pay (and some do). Whereas there is no £10 fare you can choose to buy before boarding - it is purely a penalty for not paying beforehand, and such penalties can only be applied to the extent they are set out in law. The £10 penalty is just ScotRail's policy, not the law.
Some quick Googling suggests it is permissible on an opt-in basis in general and under the same Collective Proceedings basis as other UK jurisdictions on an opt-out basis. But as I say, I'm not an expert on that.
Indeed it does, but given it is not a remedy the NRCoT refers to, arguably ScotRail would still be in breach of contract if they resorted to that power.
The "proper" way would be for the Scottish Parliament to pass Penalty Fares regulations
AIUI, it's the civil service, in the guise of Transport Scotland, and not ScotRail that are behind this policy. I've heard through the grapevine that the £10 is to increase to £25, then £50, and finally £100 within a few years.
...at which point the policy becomes much more problematic unless put on solid legal grounds.
Presumably if it were advertised as a ”discount“ for buying before boarding (available on board if not possible to) rather than a “penalty” for buying on board it would be alright? Since that is the way TFL advertised Oyster being cheaper? Or would something like that still be dodgy?
Scots law does not allow companies to charge penalties. Which is why this:
...cannot happen. That's why Scotland doesn't have a Penalty Fares scheme.
That is not at all arguable. Once a passenger has broken byelaw 18 by getting on without a ticket, byelaw 24 operates to allow an authorised person to require the passenger to leave the railway and remove them by force if necessary. In order for the above to be potentially arguable, there would need to be explicit contractual language in place stating that the TOC undertakes not to enforce byelaw 24 if the passenger does such-and-such. The wording around the TOC being entitled to charge an anytime fare etc. adds to the TOC's options, it does not replace them.
Mr Bumble’s words come to mind….
Why would anyone pay a £10 fare in advance when they can pay (say) £1.50? No reason at all, so no need to have the ticket purchasable via TVM (in exactly the same way as other esoteric tickets aren’t sold that way). As for not being advertised - I don’t know what all those posters are. £10 is the minimum fare if you choose to pay on board (as opposed to having no option) - if you pay in advance you get it cheaper.
I don't think it would change anything - the NRCoT doesn't have provision for a higher fare than the undiscounted Anytime single to be charged onboard.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It's not advertised in the sense that you can't go to a TVM, app or website and buy the £10 fare. Therefore, whether ScotRail warn people beforehand or not, it is clearly still not the "undiscounted single fare" which the NRCoT states will be charged.
I'm pretty sure you could buy one from a staffed station though.
Last edited:
I wouldn't rate your chances highly but happy to be corrected.
The point remains that the NRCoT explicitly say the Anytime fare will normally be the 'undiscounted full single' so I think ScotRail would have quite a job convincing anyone that a separate and higher 'Minimum Fare Single' counts instead.
Playing devil's advocate for a moment here - you've chosen to interpret the 'PE' as 'penalty', but is has it been published anywhere that that's what they stand for?
I appreciate it's all semantics anyway, given the shaky legal ground they have for charging it in the first place.
Well, no - the long-form title is "Minimum Fare Single" and "Minimum Fare Return". But I think the ticket type codes chosen aren't exactly accidental.
Just imagine a theoretical court case where Scotrail get asked, among all the other evidence these are civil penalties (like their repeated communications about it), why they coded the "fares" as PE.
MIF and MFF were already taken.
The UK Supreme Court determined what the test for a "penalty" is back in 2015.
From Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi; Parkingeye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67:
I'm not sure that £10 could be considered "out of all proportion" so would not be considered a "penalty".
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Given that the admin fee for changing an Advance fare is £10, the administration cost of providing staff to sell these at the destination and on board (who would not be required if everyone paid as they should) is clearly at least £10 or thereabouts.
I don't think it would be hard to justify this given the above, though I'd probably agree the NRCoT needs a minor tweak.
I don't think it would be hard to justify this given the above, though I'd probably agree the NRCoT needs a minor tweak.
And, as mentioned further up, the 'fee' is actually less than £10 - it's £10 minus the normal (undiscounted) fare. In many cases, ScotRail will only really be claiming an extra quid or two on top of the regular fare.
The new policy went live today.
BBC News has an article which includes the line:
ScotRail say there has been an increase in ticket purchases before boarding during the "education phase" in the past three months:
and, more broadly:
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I don't think this is quite correct.
I had a look at the NRCoT (from 1st April 2026) and it says (my emphasis).
The NRCoT doesn't say the Anytime will be the fare charged, just that it normally will (and this text is inside an information box, so not contractual)
ScotRail have widely advertised the £10 minimum fare, so it's not something that is a secret from passengers.
It seems at least arguable that this is a case where the new fare type PES is the "the full undiscounted single fare" and the "normally" does not apply.
If anyone is interested in ScotRail's claimed legal basis, they could of course submit an FoI request.
BBC News has an article which includes the line:
ScotRail say there has been an increase in ticket purchases before boarding during the "education phase" in the past three months:
and, more broadly:
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I don't think this is quite correct.
I had a look at the NRCoT (from 1st April 2026) and it says (my emphasis).
The NRCoT doesn't say the Anytime will be the fare charged, just that it normally will (and this text is inside an information box, so not contractual)
ScotRail have widely advertised the £10 minimum fare, so it's not something that is a secret from passengers.
It seems at least arguable that this is a case where the new fare type PES is the "the full undiscounted single fare" and the "normally" does not apply.
If anyone is interested in ScotRail's claimed legal basis, they could of course submit an FoI request.
Last edited:
By no stretch of the imagination is that the 'full undiscounted single fare'! It is a higher than normal charge imposed as a penalty on the basis that they think that by not buying before boarding the person was attempting to avoid paying and they want to penalise that behaviour to deter it. I doubt any legal contortions can get around that. They're setting themselves up for an expensive and embarrassing future problem if they haven't updated the contract and / or law to explicitly allow for their scheme.
Well….
Is it money paid to entitle you to travel? Yes - so it’s a fare
Is its level determined by applying a discount from a higher figure? - No, so its undiscounted
Does it permit you to return to the station whence you came? - No, so it’s a single.
Having paid it, is any further payment due? No - so it’s “full”.
I know that the whole is sometimes more than the sum of its parts, especially once the law gets involved.
Interestingly, some return fares exist: https://www.brfares.com/!faredetail?orig=DEE&dest=BYF&rte=1000&tkt=PER
Now that the £10 fare has commenced, ScotRail should now be making sure their TE's actually do their jobs and check tickets on the trains. Quite often I get on a 6 car set in the morning and there's two TEs on one half of the train sitting having a chinwag.
I wonder if this is because the anytime return is less than £10, and their minimum fare policy says they will sell you a single or return for at least £10 - although they don't say who decides whether you get a single or return.
A Penalty Fare would also qualify under that definition. But I think we'd both agree that it wouldn't count as a "full undiscounted full single"
Agreed - but this simply refers to the fact that you aren't eligible for any Railcard discounts.
That's not what "full" means in this context. The term "full single fare" has always been used to refer to the most expensive walk-up fare, i.e. is an Anytime (Day) Single.
As above, you can't just take the term/phrase and break it down - you have to look at the entire context. The NRCoT says it will normally be the Anytime single and doesn't state any exceptions where it wouldn't be.
Custom and practice on the railway for decades has been that if you buy onboard or at your destination having failed to use available ticketing facilities, you can be charged the Anytime single. Therefore the term 'full single' is clearly defined as such.
I suspect that ScotRail simply haven't thought about the legalities of the scheme, or have simply adopted the usual attitude seen in the industry - that an irregularity can be handled in any way the industry feels like.
By definition, the fact that the word "normally" is hanging out in that sentence means that there are exceptions, even if they aren't explicitly stated. If there were none then "normally" is superfluous.