Avoiding Penalty Fare Liability

[Mojo]

I agree with you there. A balance between them must be struck. But again, we all know that fare evasion in some parts of the country is still rife so we need something that tries to deter them from travelling without a ticket and unfortunately it needs to cover everyone - you cant just pick and choose.

But penalty fares aren't for fare evaders.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

But penalty fares aren't for fare evaders.

Well, they are. They would hopefully prevent the casual "well, it's only stopping short on an Advance" fare evader to progress into the more hardcore evasion.

 

[Mojo]

Well, they are. They would hopefully prevent the casual "well, it's only stopping short on an Advance" fare evader to progress into the more hardcore evasion.

This is an incredibly tedious link and I don't think that intending to avoid paying, and stopping short are in any way comparable and I doubt that a person breaking the conditions of a ticket (which may or may not be enforceable in court) would later intend to avoid paying completely. I am surprised you are using this in your support, given that people stopping short on Advance tickets should not even be charged a Penalty Fare!

If anything, it is completely the opposite. The thought "hmm, if I can buy a ticket, simply paying the penalty fare when challenged" is probably more likely to lead to fare evasion than the fear of prosecution in a criminal court.

Do Penalty Fares apply to ‘fare dodgers’?

A penalty fare is simply a charge that National Express East Anglia is allowed to make under the Penalty Fare Regulations and Rules. It is not a fine and anyone who is charged one is not being accused of avoiding, or attempting to avoid, paying his or her fare. ‘Fare dodging’ is a completely different matter. It is a criminal offence and we treat it as such by prosecuting offenders under criminal law.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I'm not fully conversant with the rules for penalty fares, so perhaps that was a poor example.

In any case, I do believe they are for fare dodgers as people who make an honest mistake should not be PFd, but perhaps reminded of the rules and excessed, but if it is not a honest mistake, by definition, they are fare dodgers.

 

[Mojo]

In any case, I do believe they are for fare dodgers as people who make an honest mistake should not be PFd, but perhaps reminded of the rules and excessed, but if it is not a honest mistake, by definition, they are fare dodgers.

Interesting argument, but why do you believe that fare dodgers should be let off with a penalty fare rather than being prosecuted? I firmly believe that penalty fares are not an effective deterrent to fare evasion.

 

[WestCoast]

In any case, I do believe they are for fare dodgers as people who make an honest mistake should not be PFd, but perhaps reminded of the rules and excessed, but if it is not a honest mistake, by definition, they are fare dodgers.

Well, of course, there is an issue in that it's sometimes tricky to separate those who have made an honest mistake from those who are dodging the fare.

My big problem is that if you remove penalty fares from the system, what do you replace them with on routes where the full fare onboard is not a deterrent?

 

[Flamingo]

To my mind, the PF is not a major deterrent, if it is (and I work trains through areas where PF's are in force), then I'd hate to see it if they were not in place.

The cost and effort in setting them up is obviously too much hassle for certain TOC's, anyway. Cardiff and the South Wales lines are begging for some sort of deterrent to be put in place, but ATW are not prepared to invest in a proper Revenue team full stop. They can't even put revenue or barriers in place on all their mainline stations.

They have started making a good effort on match days in Cardiff, but this is mainly down to one individual, as far as I can see.

 

[WestCoast]

The question is what do you do about things like this? I was reading this on a non-rail forum:

I never buy a ticket. Unless im on a Virgin train that is. If i am just on a Northern Rail train i'll just get on, and 6/10 there will either be no one on to check, or i will have got off by the time he has come. I have been on trains around 3 times where to conductor has come to me, and with me having my earphones in, and he has just walked of due to him not bothering me to ask!

==========================================================================
I would say penalty fares are much more effective on metros, the Manchester Metrolink has a £100 "Standard Fare", which does act as a deterrent.

 

[yorkie]

In any case, I do believe they are for fare dodgers as people who make an honest mistake should not be PFd, but perhaps reminded of the rules and excessed, but if it is not a honest mistake, by definition, they are fare dodgers.

You clearly don't know what a PF is for then! Anyway some text from the NXEA site was helpfully provided above, from Mojo.

PFs are for people who make mistakes, they are not for fare dodgers. That is why they are fundamentally flawed.

The question is what do you do about things like this? I was reading this a non-rail forum:


==========================================================================
I would say penalty fares are much more effective on metros, the Manchester Metrolink has a £100 "Standard Fare", which does act as a deterrent.

I find it hard to believe that Northern will not charge him 6 times out of 10, Northern guards are always keen to collect revenue in my experience. Anyway PFs won't help in the situation you describe. He admits to deliberately ignoring the guard in order to avoid buying a ticket, so that's an admission of intent to avoid payment. So I would say the solution there is to prosecute.

If he was on a TOC such as FCC then he'd get away with it more than 9 times out of 10, and if your solution is to charge a Penalty Fare, then he'd be paying £20 (or twice the single fare) one time out of ten (or less). Clearly that is not a sensible solution.

The idea that a standard fare is £100 is ludicrous. It's really a fine, disguised as a fare, because they can't admit it is a fine as it would then be illegal.

 

[WestCoast]

The idea that a standard fare is £100 is ludicrous. It's really a fine, disguised as a fare, because they can't admit it is a fine as it would then be illegal.

I am not suggesting this for mainline rail, but it does work on metros where onboard purchasing is prohibited. There it is a fine for fare evaders - although they can't legally call it that. There are signs everywhere warning people "DO NOT ENTER WITHOUT A VALID TICKET!". If the machine at a stop on the metrolink is broken, you contact control via a help point. In this case, Yorkie, a penalty fare (or standard fare) is designed for fare evaders. People without tickets on there know full well what they are doing.

I am afraid at some point you have to lay down the law (or bylaw in this case).

I also find it very hard to believe that penalty fares were introduced with the sole intention of penalising people who made mistakes. That might be reality, but was that their main motivation?

If penalty fares can work effectively in other countries on suburban services, why can't they do here?

Is someone who jumps on for one stop every day in a PF zone without a ticket, but will pay a PF when asked, are they a dodger?

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I find it hard to believe that Northern will not charge him 6 times out of 10, Northern guards are always keen to collect revenue in my experience. Anyway PFs won't help in the situation you describe. He admits to deliberately ignoring the guard in order to avoid buying a ticket, so that's an admission of intent to avoid payment. So I would say the solution there is to prosecute.

It really depends on the line (and time) Yorkie. What if this guy is only on for one stop? If the guard is occupied with other things, or their machine is broken yet again, then there is no collection made!

Northern guards do try but a packed 3-car 323 isn't easy to check when you've got the doors to do as well. I also see it quite regularly on my local line, which uses 2-car 142s mainly.

 

[Greenback]

I believe that Penalty fares were first introduced on the LT&S route as a deterrent to encourage passnegers to buy tickets before boarding the train following the removal of manual barriers on the line.

I doubt that they were ever successful in achieving that aim, and they certainly are not a deterrent now. I doubt it was the intention originally to penalise people that make an honest mistake, but that is certainly what is happening now.

So, if you have a system that is failing in its primary objective, and as a by product alienates some of your customers and acts as a disincentive to further travel, then waht purpose does it serve? Oh yes, sorry, it is more cost effective for TOC's than doing anything else!

 

[yorkie]

WestCoast / ralphchadkirk - I know you are not as pro-customer as me, there is not much point in me arguing with you as I know we won't agree on this issue! But the fact is that you view the purpose of PFs completely differently to the official line. That suggests to me that PFs are flawed, and that people are confused by them. Just the fact that you argue these points, strengthens my case, in my opinion.

 

[WestCoast]

WestCoast / ralphchadkirk - I know you are not as pro-customer as me, there is not much point in me arguing with you as I know we won't agree on this issue! But the fact is that you view the purpose of PFs completely differently to the official line. That suggests to me that PFs are flawed, and that people are confused by them. Just the fact that you argue these points, strengthens my case, in my opinion.

One the whole, Yorkie, I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from. I even agree with much of what you say! Although, it's just not physically possible to prosecute every dodger. I believe deterrents are needed and that too many people will lie about tickets.

However, having used the local rail services of DB every summer, who are not perfect but they are pro-customer and know how to run a railway, I have seen the 40 euro penalty work effectively and efficiently. People are treated firmly but fairly and evasion is lower. The UK is just poor at implementation with little consistency and poor ticketing facilities.

 

[bb21]

Is someone who jumps on for one stop every day in a PF zone without a ticket, but will pay a PF when asked, are they a dodger?

In that case, assuming that there are opportunities to buy before boarding, then it is very difficult to argue that a regular traveller is not aware of the requirement to buy before travel. IMO the PF should not be issued, instead an MG11 should be.

Of course there is no way to know that the passenger is a regular the first few times around, so the first few times the PF seems inevitable. On those occasions, if the passenger is willing to cough up for the PF then it should be the end of the matter. However once the TOC realises that the passenger is a regular, then prosecution should follow, not using PF as a lazy work-around.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

WestCoast / ralphchadkirk - I know you are not as pro-customer as me, there is not much point in me arguing with you as I know we won't agree on this issue! But the fact is that you view the purpose of PFs completely differently to the official line. That suggests to me that PFs are flawed, and that people are confused by them. Just the fact that you argue these points, strengthens my case, in my opinion.

Do you, honestly, know what PFs actually do? Of course the system could do with reform, but I do not think it is flawed.

 

[yorkie]

Do you, honestly, know what PFs actually do? Of course the system could do with reform, but I do not think it is flawed.

Yes, I do. The fact you admit that "reform" is needed suggests there is a flaw!

And even after this was posted...

Do Penalty Fares apply to ‘fare dodgers’?

A penalty fare is simply a charge that National Express East Anglia is allowed to make under the Penalty Fare Regulations and Rules. It is not a fine and anyone who is charged one is not being accused of avoiding, or attempting to avoid, paying his or her fare. ‘Fare dodging’ is a completely different matter. It is a criminal offence and we treat it as such by prosecuting offenders under criminal law.

...you still posted this!...

I'm not fully conversant with the rules for penalty fares, so perhaps that was a poor example.

In any case, I do believe they are for fare dodgers as people who make an honest mistake should not be PFd, but perhaps reminded of the rules and excessed, but if it is not a honest mistake, by definition, they are fare dodgers.

... which completely proves my point!

As I said above, there is no point in me continuing to argue, as you have a fundamental misunderstanding of who penalty fares apply for. The fact that many people who are pro-penalty fares have this misunderstanding demonstrates that the system is flawed and people are clearly confused.

People who make an "honest mistake" are liable for a PF (in many cases). You say they should not be. So, in fact, we are agreeing on that point!

 

[allticketspls]

I'm just curious, and sorry if you've been asked before a lot (I'm sure it's likely), but do RPOs have any kind of performance-related pay, targets or bonuses for issuing penalty fares?

I have not heard of anyone getting commission/bonuses for PF's. There was a lot of rumour a few years ago about TOCS putting targets on their revenue staff for PF's but this is against the Penalty Fare Rules structure so I could never prove if there were or not.

Personally, when I was working for a PF operator, I issued less PF's in a year than my colleagues and the management seemed happy enough as I could justify my actions.

 

[cuccir]

I would say penalty fares are much more effective on metros, the Manchester Metrolink has a £100 "Standard Fare", which does act as a deterrent.

On a number of metro systems, penalty fares do work as a way of getting revenue from people on a system where barriers aren't installed, stops are close by and there's a low density of RPIs. A lot of regular users will not bother with tickets but will take the hit of a penalty fare once every few months: certainly, this seems to be relatively common in Tyne & Wear at the moment, though the new smart cards and possible introduction of barriers would end this. Nevertheless, the system sort of works out in the end I guess as it keeps people using the metro but they still end up paying.

There could be scope for similar penalty fares on some commuter rail lines, but they're not being used in this manner. In their current form, the only use they seem to have is as a way of identifying regular fare dodgers. Other than that, they seem too much like an easy way to get revenue from inexperienced or naive travellers.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I think that the concept of penalty fares works. In essence, they are a good idea. However, I would not like to have then issued on the spot. I think that RPIs should take details, describe what has happened, and send it to a central department who decide whether to issue a UPFN, PF or report for prosecution. That is less open to abuse on both sides.

 

[SWT_USER]

Virgin are not applicable, but I suspect so (for the TOCs that do issue PFs).

Not sure about other companies but SWT's RPI's are not on commission or performance related pay IIRC (and some of theirs are the worst going..).

 

[LexyBoy]

(I love how OP was comprehensively answered in the first couple of posts, but the thread’s still going after 4 pages )

That NXEA quote is interesting – IMO Penalty Fares are made by most TOCs to appear as a quasi-legal matter akin to prosecution – which is why we get people asking on this forum whether they’re going to go to jail etc when it turns out they’ve actually been issued a PF or UPFN.

For example, this from FGW comes across as rather doom-mongering:

Penalty fares and prosecutions are something that most people who travel with us never have to face. To make sure you avoid the consequences of inadvertently travelling without a valid ticket, please read this information carefully.

I’m not in principle against Penalty Fares where appropriate – i.e. on commuter lines (something which is clearly stated by National Rail). They do of course require enough Revenue staff to make it worth buying a ticket rather than paying the odd PF, but that’s an issue for the TOCs running the sceme to decide (e.g. whether staffing x new barriers or employing y roving RPIs is more economical). They are not appropriate on routes such as EMT's. And since we have effectively a national penalty fares scheme (note lower case), the wording surrounding PFs could be subsumed in the general warning to buy before you board – something like “You should always buy a ticket before boarding, where facilities exist. If you do not do so, you may be liable to purchase an undiscounted Anytime Single, or, on some urban routes, the greater of twice this fare or £20”

 

[WestCoast]

On a number of metro systems, penalty fares do work as a way of getting revenue from people on a system where barriers aren't installed, stops are close by and there's a low density of RPIs. A lot of regular users will not bother with tickets but will take the hit of a penalty fare once every few months...

I am not sure about the "a lot of regular users don't bother with tickets", some people still are honest you know! I suggest T&W Metro increase their penalty fare and hurry up with the introduction of barriers!

The Tyne & Wear Metro has a £20 penalty, LU has a £50 penalty (prompt payment = £25 penalty), Metrolink has a £100 penalty (£50 for prompt payment). Metrolink have adopted the European metro model and seems to have more regular inspections than the others, less people now chance it.

I think LexyBoy has summed it up quite well - commuter routes need penalty fares but not in their current guise.

 

[cuccir]

I think LexyBoy has summed it up quite well - commuter routes need penalty fares but not in their current guise.

Agreed I think!

 

[PinzaC55]

Regarding the attitude of Revenue Protection and so on it needs to be remembered that People are not Robots. Some may have different interpretations of the rules, may have had a bad day or might just have an attitude.Then again they might not be properly trained.I remember I was once approached by a couple at York who said they had a problem with their tickets and asked if I could direct them to the ticket office. I asked what the problem and the guy said they had bought the return tickets from the machine at Garforth but they were blank (no print) and the guard had charged them again! Now of course I don't know if he did but he could have swiped them through his Sportis and if the stripe was encoded it would have settled the matter.

 

[Clip]

For the UK, this was done by Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999).

Can you please point me to the declaration by the current government, and the one by the 1997-2010 Labour government?

The whole PF scheme has to be signed off and agreed with the DFT who are a branch of the government are they not? And yes whilst i understand this scheme goes way back to the 80s IIRC in all its form it has still had to be agreed upon by the relevant bodies which leads back to the government.

Or am i missing something and they just decided one day with no authorisation from anyone to start up the PF scheme? Or am i wrong in that?

 

[b0b]

PF's are unfair, I don't think even regular travelers know the entire ins-and-outs of the rules of when you have to buy a ticket;

for example: someone that commutes trains in Glasgow and occasionally buys on the train if they're running a little late/long line at the ticket window. I think would not know if they do that in the NSE area (if they are visiting etc), they could get hit with a big penalty.

Another example I know of, an annual season ticket holder got a call on the train and changed his plans. He overrode his ticket by one stop in the NSE area. He went straight to the Excess fare window to pay the difference, but got a PF instead.

Seems in both of those cases, honest, regular users get PF'd in order to mitigate the revenue loss of professional fare avoiders.

 

[WestCoast]

for example: someone that commutes trains in Glasgow and occasionally buys on the train if they're running a little late/long line at the ticket window. I think would not know if they do that in the NSE area (if they are visiting etc), they could get hit with a big penalty.

I don't like the inconsistency, but there are plenty of signs at PF stations.

 

[yorkie]

Another example I know of, an annual season ticket holder got a call on the train and changed his plans. He overrode his ticket by one stop in the NSE area. He went straight to the Excess fare window to pay the difference, but got a PF instead.

Seems in both of those cases, honest, regular users get PF'd in order to mitigate the revenue loss of professional fare avoiders.

Unfortunately that is the correct action, which is why I am against PFs! As he was an honest fare-paying passenger who tried to pay too late, the correct action is a PF. Had he been dishonest then a PF would obviously not have been applicable.

A PF is a fare, and is levied to people who do not intend to avoid payment.

People who support PFs and justify their support by claiming they are intended for people who do intend to avoid payment, defeat their own argument big-style, and further provide more evidence to support my position that PFs are misused, inappropriate, and confused (even by people who know a lot about tickets).

The term is also at risk of entering the mainstream English language as the name for any charge that people deem excessive (e.g. this story, the family refers to getting a 'Penalty fare' and this was reported in various newspapers, and on BBC radio, and not once have I ever seen them corrected and told it was not actually a Penalty fare as Virgin don't do PFs). This causes a dangerous situation, and of course even more confusion. Our "simple" ticketing system is complex enough without yet another cause of confusion as to what a penalty fare is, and where they apply.

I don't like the inconsistency, but there are plenty of signs at PF stations.

Not always, and it can be very easy to miss them when changing trains.

 

[Weary Walker]

You're not liable in either case.



To protect yourself, I would say take a picture on your camera phone, if you have one, however you're not obliged to do so.

If you could see the guard as you boarded, obviously it would be better to speak to him before boarding, however you're also not obliged to do this.

The reasons you stated above are perfectly valid.

Thank you for that.

In the case of the Permit to Travel machine I did take a photo, and phone the number on the machine - who after a few minutes scratching around told me to pay on the train - which was difficult with no guard. (I didn't ask the driver if he wanted to sell me a ticket.)

 

[WestCoast]

You put across a very convincing argument, I have just one question, Yorkie, if you were in charge what would your system be?

I've got some extracts from a non-rail forum, which you have to tackle with a system:

I got from Durham to London without being checked, and the barriers were open at Durham. Unfortunately I'd already bought the ticket.

On the East Coast main line they don't even check everyone's tickets, they just ask for tickets from the last station. So as long as you either don't start from the end of the line or buy a ticket to the first station, you're fine to not buy one. I ignore the inspectors

and another one..

I regularly enjoy cheating the ticket system.

Mid route, the ticket inspector will often say "tickets from.. (insert last station)" and walk straigh past you unless you are the one to react -

...

Tbh I only pay if I have to, like when the ticket man comes and I ask "Here to there please" and they've never tried to charge me double. If they did I would just say I only just got on the train so I didn't have a chance to buy a ticket. Where I usually get off there's sometimes people who ask for tickets, and I just ask to buy one. If there isn't...
Yay, free train ride!

and.

I never buy a ticket if I turn up on the day. Worst case scenario is the conductor asks me to buy one at full price (which I would have been paying anyway), the best case scenario is I get the trip for free. I even try to plan my journeys round peak times when the trains are so full the conductor can't get round everyone.