A new name for the Penalty Fare

[swt_passenger]

I thought Romilly's idea could do with a thread to itself...

On the question of what penalty fares should be called, although I suspect that the name comes from the legislation, there is no obvious reason why the industry shouldn't call them something else on a day-to-day basis, so long as the smallprint of the paperwork makes it clear that it is a penalty fare for the purpose of the legislation.

And I do think that more penalty fares would be paid on the spot if such a fare was called an "Honest mistake fare" or "Travel regularisation fare" or "Ticket regularisation fare" or "Fare where valid tickets not held" or "Fare to resolve disputed ticketing" or .....

On the basis that the idea is to regularise something that has already happened, or should have happened, how about a 'Retrospective Fare'?

 

[319321]

Not a good idea. The name is defined in legislation, and if it were to be allowed to be called anything else, it would create confusion. For example, one company may decide to call it an 'administrative charge'. Other companies who do not have the right to issue penalty fares could then call their own version of the penalty fare an 'administrative charge'. The passenger would then be unsure of whether or not what they have been charged is a penalty fare or not.

Don''t forget, the vast majority of people on forums like this know much more than the vast majority of people who don't split their tickets etc.

 

[swt_passenger]

Not a good idea. The name is defined in legislation, and if it were to be allowed to be called anything else, it would create confusion. For example, one company may decide to call it an 'administrative charge'. Other companies who do not have the right to issue penalty fares could then call their own version of the penalty fare an 'administrative charge'. The passenger would then be unsure of whether or not what they have been charged is a penalty fare or not.

Don''t forget, the vast majority of people on forums like this know much more than the vast majority of people who don't split their tickets etc.

It surely goes without saying that the legislation would have to be amended though?

 

[Jonny]

Bus companies use the term "standard fare" (although that might be troublesome on the railways with standard class). Deterrent fare perhaps?

 

[furlong]

There's nothing wrong with the current name IMHO. That's not to say that on rare occasions a genuinely "honest passenger" will find themselves caught out by the regime, but that's down to where parliament and the SRA chose to draw the line - a certain level of common sense and ability to comprehend signage has to be assumed.

If there's any problem here I think it is partly due to reliance on SRA guidelines and rules that have not been updated since 2002 despite numerous relevant changes in the operating environment since then.

A thread discussing sensible updates to those guidelines might be more fruitful.

 

[319321]

Bus companies use the term "standard fare" (although that might be troublesome on the railways with standard class). Deterrent fare perhaps?

But its a penalty charge? Beavis vs ParkingEye UK. I have never ever heard of anyone actually being charged a standard fare, only seen people removed from the bus because they don't have a valid ticket. (outside of TfL and PTE areas).

 

[jon0844]

"Penalty Fare" does seem to get people angry and start to go down the fatal refusal route, which likely never ends well.

Of course, not all trains have guards or will have someone walk though to sell tickets, so to call it a standard or, say, full fare or non-discounted fare wouldn't be a good idea as people would just take to not buying a ticket and thinking it perfectly okay to pay a bit more when caught, but often paying nothing at all if nobody checked.

On Heathrow Express, there's an option to buy on the train and pay a standard fare which is more expensive. You could sort of call it a penalty, but it's not worded as such and I'm sure people don't get upset. Difference there is that you will get checked, although I suppose on occasion it might be possible to get to Heathrow or Paddington without being reached.

Another problem of calling it full fare would be the confusion between that and an anytime ticket.

So, I am not sure what would be best. It's certainly obvious that people see a PF as unfair, yet it's really just a higher fare.

 

[PermitToTravel]

The posters and stickers would sound a lot less bitey. "If you do not have a ticket or validated Oyster card then you will have to pay a £80 Standard Fare" (owtte) just doesn't sound as scary, and "Retrospective Fare" sounds even cuddlier!

 

[Bletchleyite]

You could call it an "on board supplement" or a "post payment supplement", I suppose. Lots of options. "Post payment fee" as another?

These ideas move away from it being a penalty, rather towards it being an administrative fee imposed for paying the fare after the journey has commenced.

 

[James H]

How about "late payment surcharge"?

 

[jon0844]

Or just change the wording. Most people think of it as £20 (which to many sounds quite affordable if you only pay when caught) but don't remember/see the 'or double the standard fare' bit which can make a PF a lot more.

How about just stating that being caught without a ticket will mean paying twice (or three times) the standard fare, subject to a minimum of £20 (or higher).

I've talked about those that see the word penalty as a punishment, and think of it as a fine (and many staff call it a fine too) but on the other side of the coin, there are those who think it's just £20.\

Or you go the other way completely, and just levy a fixed on the spot penalty of £80 plus the requirement to buy the ticket you needed - but with the full range of discounts, the ability to buy returns etc.

Then people might think they can pay when challenged, but boy will it be expensive and they still need to buy a ticket too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or you go the other way completely, and just levy a fixed on the spot penalty of £80 plus the requirement to buy the ticket you needed - but with the full range of discounts, the ability to buy returns etc.

Then people might think they can pay when challenged, but boy will it be expensive and they still need to buy a ticket too.

Yes, I think that is a good idea. £80[1], discounted to £40 if paid very promptly, increased to £120 if left for too long, then the requirement to purchase an appropriate ticket (the same one that would have been sold before boarding) on top.

[1] £100-£50-£150 would also work, though I think not much more than that.

 

[34D]

Bus companies use the term "standard fare" (although that might be troublesome on the railways with standard class). Deterrent fare perhaps?

I agree with standard fare, though note the concern you have.