Avoiding Penalty Fare Liability

[yorkie]

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

I'd be encouraging buying before boarding by having a National Railcard, all Railcards would have common conditions. The price you pay would vary depending on the categories we have today but the actual conditions of using them would be the same.

I would ban trains from operating without at least two members of staff on board (I am not against DOO as such, as the Glasgow system is technically DOO) - one driver and one conductor/ticket examiner. In exceptional cases a train could operate with just a driver, but the TOC would have to pay a fee to the DfT whenever this occurs. The fees would then be re-invested into rail.

Ticket barriers would have to be to TfL standards and a TfL style approach to break of journey adopted and made official. Barrier staff would need to be far more knowledgable, both to catch out people who are invalid but also to ensure they do not harass genuine customers. At present it's far too easy for people on the fiddle to get past barriers while someone on an odd routeing or breaking their journey may get totally unwarranted hassle.

I would abolish PFs, as they wouldn't really be needed with someone checking tickets on all trains and with more incentive for people to buy before boarding.

The fare structure would be overhauled however there are major issues there, due to the fact we have let the TOCs change the conditions so much, it would be very difficult to undo the damage.

People who currently chance it and get the odd PF would find that they are checked more often, so would be less likely to chance it. Also the lack of PFs means that when people really deserve to be prosecuted, they would be, whereas at present some people see a suitable "punishment" to be a PF (despite a PF not being applicable as a punishment at all) and letting people off with a PF! Such people often come out with lines such as "I offered to pay the fine"; so they admit that they should be fined (which only a court can actually issue) yet they want to be let off with what they consider to be a very low fine, but is actually a fare.

The idea that the FCC-style system of 95% of the time having no ticket checks then once a blue moon an inspector issues people with PFs (whether intending to avoid payment or not) is a suitable system is utterly flawed.

I've got another extract from a non-rail forum:

Would be rather unlikely before barriers were installed at King's Cross! It is (or, is that now was?) almost unheard of not to be checked for all that distance on EC. My only guess is that some guards now don't deem a full check necessary now that there are barriers at KGX.

 

[WestCoast]

Would be rather unlikely before barriers were installed at King's Cross! It is (or, is that now was?) almost unheard of not to be checked for all that distance on EC. My only guess is that some guards now don't deem a full check necessary now that there are barriers at KGX.

No, what they are saying is that if you board after the first station (KGX in this instance), the guard asks for "Tickets from X" and they don't say anything. If it's a large train, it can be difficult. I've actually watched a few people do this and on one occasion managed to tell the guard.

This could go for any route.

 

[yorkie]

No, what they are saying is that if you board after the first station (KGX in this instance), the guard asks for "Tickets from X" and they don't say anything. If it's a large train, it can be difficult. I've actually watched a few people do this and on one occasion managed to tell the guard.

This could go for any route.

Sorry, I thought it was King's Cross to Durham, I see now it's Durham to King's Cross. If someone tried Durham to King's Cross and only stated they joined at Peterborough, I can see them being caught out at a time when there are barrier checks at Peterborough, and that could lead to prosecution. It would be a hugely risky strategy. Some EC guards do "all tickets" between PBO & KGX, or between DON and PBO. Last time I did the journey I recall it was all tickets between PBO & DON. It varies. Guards employ different strategies. I know, I do the route often. If someone were to try it on, they do risk being found out.

As for the other examples, again if they claim they came from a different station etc, a PF won't really solve that problem, and they risk prosecution. The people who boast about these exploits are on dodgy ground, and if they read this forum they would see people posting asking for help because they are being prosecuted for similar reasons.

The problem you describe is basically a lack of staff checking tickets. The solution to that isn't a PF system.

PF systems are intended for where there isn't a guard/conductor checking tickets and is basically an excuse to allow trains to go DOO.

I reckon there is far more fare evasion on, say, SET or FCC (who have PFs) than there is on the Glasgow suburban services. On SET/FCC I see a ticket check take place very rarely indeed, go to Glasgow and your ticket is checked very often.

 

[MikeWh]

Not wishing to shatter your interesting arguements, yorkie, but would you insist on a driver and three guards/ticket collectors where a service is made up of three units where you can't walk between the units?

 

[yorkie]

Not wishing to shatter your interesting arguements, yorkie, but would you insist on a driver and three guards/ticket collectors where a service is made up of three units where you can't walk between the units?

No. It may make sense to have that many staff on certain services, but it wouldn't make sense to insist on it, in my opinion.

 

[OwlMan]

Ther is nothing wrong with DOO operation providing you have enough roving staff available to check enough tickets to make being caught with the wrong/no ticket more likely than getting away with it.
As soon as the odds are in favour of being caught "professional" fare dodging will drop severly as it will no longer be worth doing it.

Peter

 

[WestCoast]

As soon as the odds are in favour of being caught "professional" fare dodging will drop severly as it will no longer be worth doing it.

mmm, while I support very regular ticket checks by guards and/or Ticket Examiners, having them there doesn't eliminate "professional" dodging. The number of prosecutions on Northern (who have active commercial guards), shows that point.

Barriers (preferably by in-house RPIs or auto-barriers at certain locations) combined with onboard checks by a guard/RPI s the best solution in my opinion. This would be in addition to a technique I've seen aboard - 20 RPIs board a busy train and thoroughly check all tickets for fraud. Blocking all attempts of escape, including the toilets, being "asleep" or leaving the train.

 

[Greenback]

Fare dodging can never be totally eliminated. It has always existed, and always will.

 

[Flamingo]

Fare dodging can never be totally eliminated. It has always existed, and always will.

Agreed, but there could be more done to discourage with a little more effort on the part of TOC's. However, that would involve an initial outlay (which is quantifiable) against an unquantifiable return, so the investment will not be made.
For example:
Should the guard hold a HST with 200+ people on it at Bridgend at 23.30 for 20-30 minutes waiting for BTP to turn up for a few £5 fares? - No

Should barriers be in operation at Cardiff after 8pm so they could not get on to the train in the first place? - Yes.

 

[bb21]

Agreed, but there could be more done to discourage with a little more effort on the part of TOC's. However, that would involve an initial outlay (which is quantifiable) against an unquantifiable return, so the investment will not be made.

Exactly. It also depends on how risk-averse the CEO of the company is. Most TOCs are plcs, and will look at the uncertain return with a certain degree of scepticism. For the investment to make sense, many CEOs will insist that the return matches the profitability of the company in whole. A return of £2k for an investment of £2k is unacceptable in many people's eyes, as it dilutes the profit margin of the company. For a 10% profit margin, this will require a return of £2.2k in order not to allow the company's performance to appear worse.

I know things shouldn't be like this, but unfortunately there are plenty of CEOs out there who will look at the figures and the figures alone and say different.

 

[OwlMan]

Exactly. It also depends on how risk-averse the CEO of the company is. Most TOCs are plcs, and will look at the uncertain return with a certain degree of scepticism. For the investment to make sense, many CEOs will insist that the return matches the profitability of the company in whole. A return of £2k for an investment of £2k is unacceptable in many people's eyes, as it dilutes the profit margin of the company. For a 10% profit margin, this will require a return of £2.2k in order not to allow the company's performance to appear worse.

I know things shouldn't be like this, but unfortunately there are plenty of CEOs out there who will look at the figures and the figures alone and say different.

Also the "regular/professional" faredodgers have a similar method.
If I get checked once a week - great I make a profit
If I get checked 4 times a week - no good I make a loss

The more checks that are made the more likely they will see that it is not worth it (providing the correct penalties are applied - including prosecution for regular offenders) and buy tickets. If they see that they can get away with it they will not buy tickets.

Peter

 

[bb21]

Also the "regular/professional" faredodgers have a similar method.
If I get checked once a week - great I make a profit
If I get checked 4 times a week - no good I make a loss

The more checks that are made the more likely they will see that it is not worth it (providing the correct penalties are applied - including prosecution for regular offenders) and buy tickets. If they see that they can get away with it they will not buy tickets.

Peter

That's why Penalty Fares don't work. £20 a pop? Nah, not a serious enough consequence if one only gets caught once in a blue moon. Either raise the Penalty Fare level or prosecute someone who repeatedly flounts the rules. A criminal record is a strong deterrent as we have seen with many who come on here asking for advice.

However making the Penalty Fare too high really is harsh on someone who makes an honest mistake, which is what the Penalty Fare is intended for.

 

[OwlMan]

That's why Penalty Fares don't work. £20 a pop? Nah, not a serious enough consequence if one only gets caught once in a blue moon. Either raise the Penalty Fare level or prosecute someone who repeatedly flounts the rules. A criminal record is a strong deterrent as we have seen with many who come on here asking for advice.

However making the Penalty Fare too high really is harsh on someone who makes an honest mistake, which is what the Penalty Fare is intended for.

Yes but if you are caught 4 times a week it might be a deterrent ( but by then you should have been prosecuted of course)

Peter

 

[Greenback]

Agreed, but there could be more done to discourage with a little more effort on the part of TOC's. However, that would involve an initial outlay (which is quantifiable) against an unquantifiable return, so the investment will not be made.
For example:
Should the guard hold a HST with 200+ people on it at Bridgend at 23.30 for 20-30 minutes waiting for BTP to turn up for a few £5 fares? - No

Should barriers be in operation at Cardiff after 8pm so they could not get on to the train in the first place? - Yes.

I agree 100%

Yes but if you are caught 4 times a week it might be a deterrent ( but by then you should have been prosecuted of course)

Peter

The sad fact is that the hard core fare evaders don't get caught often enough for it to be a deterrent. Even some of those who have done nothing wrong prefer to pay the penalty rather than endure the hassle of fighting it.

 

[OwlMan]

The sad fact is that the hard core fare evaders don't get caught often enough for it to be a deterrent. Even some of those who have done nothing wrong prefer to pay the penalty rather than endure the hassle of fighting it.

But that is what needs to change. Staff should be employed to catch fare evaders (not neccessary by the TOCs, perhaps the DfT could employ "Ticket Checkers" or more BTP PCSOs with the powers to check tickets and prosecute offenders if neccessary. After all fare dodgers are breaking the law and it is a Government responsibility to cut crime.

Peter

 

[Greenback]

I agree things need to change, but it is going to cost someone money to do it, and I can't see the DfT stumping up any cash...

 

[island]

I am given to understand that PFs are kept on a database so if someone got several in a short space of time then they could be flagged for prosecution.

What they decidedly should not do is get any more PlaStiCOps on. They would be more hindrance than help.

 

[RPI]

PF's only work when regularly enforced, once you've caught the same person for the 3rd time MG11 them (the look on their face when you catch them the 3rd time and start cautioning them!), I think though that it needs to be increased from £20 now though, to at least £30 or £40.

 

[jon0844]

It's £50 in London, but reduced to £25 if paid within 14 days. I do think it's time to increase the PF to at least £25 or maybe £30 - or just go with the £50 and the early payment discount like TfL.

But, at the same time, the TOCs must ensure they do everything by the book. Take Hatfield, where you can enter through the side gate at night (or when the station building is closed) and not see a PF notice. Surely that makes it impossible to issue a PF if you boarded there? FCC should put up a new poster board by the gates so there can be no excuses!