Perhaps if there was some sort of base of knowledge for internal people which isn't quite enforced as it should be, it may have appeared on there.
-
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
GLC
Member
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2018
- Messages
- 394
And it even (accidentally) allows for no minimum fare on travel to Carlisle
Anecdotally, I've seen no change in behaviour from ScotRail guards.
I've seen them selling normal tickets on board where seemingly working TVMs were available at the origin station.
Perhaps they've been told to hold off until the new NRCoT come into force next week.
Last edited:
Because of course there is. It is all people have been saying is required ro make the change lawful.
ScotRail penalty fare
On awaiting my train this morning there was an Automated announcement stating from 1st June anyone without a ticket will be charged a single fare of £10. A bargain on longer trips! It's a minimum fare. Realistically it's to deal with people hopping on and off around the Central Belt where...
www.railforums.co.uk
Claiming my £5 from everyone who had magical thinking and said this wasn't necessary.
Wallsendmag
Established Member
Not yet I'm afraid
Ok, so now we have at least the semblance of a legal basis. It's a start.
I wonder whether they will try to impose the penalty of Glasgow-Carlisle services too? Those are outside the scope of the clause as written. As per usual, it shows little indication of having been read through even once by a lawyer...
There is also the question of whether this is a penalty clause and if so, whether there is deemed to be sufficient justification for such a penalty. The Beavis case which established penalties as enforceable in some cases is not binding case law in Scotland.
Furthermore the question would be whether this clause is deemed to be sufficiently 'prominent' to exempt it from assessment for fairness under the Consumer Rights Act. Still, that is pretty much the same as the existing position with 9.2.1 which allows for the imposition of huge Anytime fares.
hexagon789
Veteran Member
The intention is for it to increase each year according to an FOI, so £20 covers next years increase presumably.
The more they increase it, the more they are opening themselves up to legal challenge.
If I were in a position to advise guards, I would advise against attempting to enforce this, as it's setting people up for conflicts.
Any punitive charge should be the job of dedicated revenue protection teams, and with a proper appeals process in place.
We've really gone backwards since the days of the Strategic Rail Authority, who were well aware of the issues surrounding such schemes.
hexagon789
Veteran Member
Because the policy has not been implemented as a proper Penalty Fares scheme presumably? (The relevant legislation for which has a clause expressly stating it doesn't apply in Scotland.)
Indeed it has not.
Implementing a proper scheme, holding a consultation exercise, introducing an appeals process and updating the NRCoT in advance - rather than retrospectively - are either under the "too difficult" category for the sort of people who make these decisions, or perhaps they lack the intelligence to even consider how to do things properly, or are just so arrogant they think they can do what they want.
Either way, as usual, a few bad apples spoil it for the many good people in the rail industry.
hexagon789
Veteran Member
I support the principle of the scheme, particularly as it seems less onerous than full-blown Penalty Fares schemes, but I certainly agree with yourself and others that it's been implemented in a very poor fashion.
I guess we'll see what the Scottish legal system makes of its legality if any cases come through.
Under 6.1.1 no "promise to pay" is ever required if nothing at the station accepts cash, so they've clearly back-tracked on that idea now.
ScotRail's maybe concluded that most of their "pay when challenged" fare evaders will just pull out a card to pay.
ScotRail's maybe concluded that most of their "pay when challenged" fare evaders will just pull out a card to pay.
Unfortunately, given the general tendency to regard aiming for accuracy as obsessive pedantry, it’s not amazing at all. More like par for the course.
jamiestuart314
Member
As a frequent traveller on ScotRail I have noticed not a single change with how ticket examiners act, people who have clearly boarded without a ticket intentionally are not minimum fare'd I did also find a potential loophole with the roundabouts which had no "MIN FARE SINGLE" option and had remained the same, so surely you could just ask for that, which is 7.70 and has no minimum fare option
Fairly niche, in terms of area covered, time of day covered and the potential maximum "saving" of £2.30.
eoff
Member
Can you clarify, if you have a card then you would have to use it to buy a ticket. I think it unlikely that anyone is going to go as far as trying to prove you have a working card though.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Further to above, Looking at the ScotRail website I see they are being more flexible than the National Rail Conditions of Travel when there are no facilities to pay by cash.
Last edited:
Anecdotally, a friend tells me he was on a train where people were buying tickets at the usual price when he was in the way to work the other day.
I wonder if they aren’t enforcing it for now due to the absence of a lawful basis or due to the Commonwealth Games being in Glasgow. Not that I think the latter is a worthwhile reason, but it’s exactly the type of thing that someone might just blue sky think into existence. The PR of poor tourists being hit etc. How unwelcoming.
Surely someone will FOI how many were issued, appealed, reasons for appeal, outcome, etc. for July at some point.
I wonder if they aren’t enforcing it for now due to the absence of a lawful basis or due to the Commonwealth Games being in Glasgow. Not that I think the latter is a worthwhile reason, but it’s exactly the type of thing that someone might just blue sky think into existence. The PR of poor tourists being hit etc. How unwelcoming.
Surely someone will FOI how many were issued, appealed, reasons for appeal, outcome, etc. for July at some point.
I would expect them to spuriously deny such a request on "commercial sensitivity" or similar grounds... after taking as long as they possible can before doing so, of course.
This is an organisation whose last published board meeting minutes on the "transparency" section of their website are from October 2025!
Kite159
Veteran Member
The only time I can see it being enforced is by revenue staff at Glasgow Central when someone claims to have travelled from Partick or Bridgeton when there is a revenue block at those stations (so someone who is clearly trying to short fare).
I would assume someone pointed out what they were doing would've been open to legal challenge and so they are holding back until the NRCOT update.
Their press releases and other information said that if you wanted to pay by cash and avoid the minimum fare you would have to obtain a Promise to Pay. This appears to remain incorrect as 6.1.1 continues to give you the right to pay the original fare in cash if that's your chosen method of payment and unavailable at the station. The minimum fare in this system remains only applicable to those who present cards.
Egg Centric
Established Member
I don't understand this argument. Surely in principle at least the Scots parliament could change Scots law (given that that is literally what it's for) so that companies can charge penalties (or very specifically that Scotrail can)?
Yes, but I'm not sure what your point is.
Egg Centric
Established Member
It doesn't help that the forum doesn't do nested quotes, this was about why:
Can't happen. But I don't see why it can't?
Parliament could legalise murder if it wanted. It would be politically difficult for Scotland to undo a long standing legal principle, *which is why it hasn't been done already* and we are being given this fudge.
You cant just say "no arbitrary penalty clauses in terrorem for anyone EXCEPT SCOTRAIL", in practice you would need to change the law to allow all companies to do this. Many Scots think this legal principle provides an important level of protection. Upthread, @kkong provided a Supreme Court case which is not actually binding on Scotland but which may inform any future legislation if Scotland so decided to implement it. Remember that these principles are not there by statute but are basically principles of common law and undoing them is not necessarily simple.
As an Englishman and non lawyer, I’m unclear what the underlying constitutional and political issues are in Scotland that make penalty fares so difficult to do in Scotland. Not just “we don’t do it” (I get that!) but why
eoff
Member
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.
Essentially it's because of some historical decisions given in Scotland where penalties "in terrorem" (that is to say penalties as a deterrent) aren't enforceable as a matter of contract. Any penalties enforced by means of contract must be based on reasonable estimates of actual losses, and must not be artificially inflated. The £100 penalty fare is clearly an "in terrorem" amount. It's totally divorced from the reality of the situation in many circumstances, as evidenced by the fact that even the train companies generally only charge half of it!
A supplement charged for buying a ticket onboard when it could have been bought before boarding might actually be more likely to pass that test if the Conditions set it out in advance, and explained how it had been set at a level which covered the cost to ScotRail of processing late payments.
Last edited:
Thank you. I’m puzzled by the “matter of contract” aspect of that, as the English penalty fare legislation is not contract based.
Which really is something which should be adopted in England & Wales. Though I am just generally against things like private prosecutions anyway as these things are far too often abused. Train companies, the Post Office, TV Licensing etc.
Train companies proceeding to prosecution under the single justice procedure for people buying a 16-25 Railcard discounted tickets while holding a 26-30 Railcard which would've offered the same discount and been valid on the same ticket is the sort of thing where claimed amounts exceed actual costs and it's a bit daft really.