c2c recovers £255k in prosecution payments across 2024

[methecooldude]

Surprising we don't see more c2c threads

Passenger fined £3k for invalid train tickets as c2c recovers £255k from fare dodgers

South Essex rail operator, Trenitalia c2c, has collected more than £255,000 in lost revenue this year.

www.echo-news.co.uk

An individual has been fined more than £3,000 for "invalid train tickets" as c2c recovers £255,000 in prosecution payments since the start of 2024.

South Essex rail operator, Trenitalia c2c, has collected more than £255,000 in lost revenue this year.
This success has been due to the enhancement of its Revenue Protection team and the strategic operations to capture those travelling without a valid ticket.
The large sum of £255,000 was recovered in the first six months of 2024, compared to £317,000 for the whole year in 2023.

After recently expanding the team with a group of new recruits, c2c’s Revenue Protection Officers are serving fare-paying customers, using a data-led approach to crack down on fare evasion.
One noticeable revenue recovery in recent weeks is from an individual who was stopped at West Ham with a short monthly ticket valid between Tilbury Town and Grays.

After a detailed investigation, 13 monthly and 27 weekly short tickets dating back to September 2022 were recovered, amounting to £3,181.50.
Another instance included £2,369 recouped from a passenger who was caught at West Ham with a short ticket valid between Pitsea and Basildon.
The individual had purchased 22 short flexi season tickets but travelled to West Ham and then on the underground. The full sum was paid after the initial recovery letter.
A third individual was fined £1,524 after being stopped and questioned for being in possession of Basildon to Laindon tickets on their Smartcard with no validations at Laindon.
When questioned, the person admitted they worked five days a week and travelled to Fenchurch Street, admitting to avoiding the full fare.
Upon further investigation it was found that the individual had purchased up to 10 months’ worth of tickets between Basildon and Laindon / Upminster but travelled further up to Fenchurch Street.

Iain Palmer, c2c's head of revenue protection and security, said: "Of course, we are very pleased that we have managed to recover such a significant figure in lost revenue.
"Fare evasion is a criminal offence and costs the rail industry millions of pounds every year, while contributing to anti-social behaviour.
"It isn’t fair to the millions of fare-paying customers that use our network that some believe they can circumnavigate the rules and get away with evading the cost.
"We will continue our efforts to target fare evaders, driving down ticketless and fraudulent travel. Please make sure you have the correct ticket for the full duration of your journey."

 

[Hadders]

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a case about c2c in this section of the forum. There certainly hasn’t been one this year.

Compare and contrast to the number of cases we see about Chiltern, who serve a more affluent area of the country. I suspect we will now start to see more threads about c2c in future.

I wonder if these people were actually taken to court? I suspect they were out of court settlements but referred to as a ‘fine’ for the publicity.

 

[30907]

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a case about c2c in this section of the forum. There certainly hasn’t been one this year.

I wonder if these people were actually taken to court? I suspect they were out of court settlements but referred to as a ‘fine’ for the publicity.

I was assuming that the "fines" mentioned were fines (grossed up) but you may be right. "Prosecution payments" is an interesting phrase - meaning whatever C2C want it to mean, after the example of Humpty Dumpty in Alice

 

[tskir]

This got me thinking — some back of the envelope calculation follows.

They say they recovered £317,000 in 2023, for which full year stats are available.

There are multiple people involved in the revenue protection / prosecution process: RPIs on trains, investigators in the back office, probably at least one legally qualified person to prepare prosecution documents and such. But for simplicity let's assume that on average they are all paid the same as an RPI, for whom according to Glassdoor the average salary is around £30,000 per year.

In reality, the employer pays more to have an employee around (SSP, pension contributions, various benefits schemes, NIC, office admin, utilities, HR & hiring etc.). Let's assume, still very conservatiely, that an average employee costs the company £45,000 per year. It's actually nearly certainly more than that.

Now, £317,000 / £45,000 ≈ 7.

Which means that either the entire c2c prosecutions department, including all of the people I've mentioned above, consists of 7 employees or less... Or that they are losing money by having the prosecutions department at all.

Now, I don't know, maybe they do have less than 7 people. I've never actually worked in the industry so I'm speculating. But still the maths seems off. I'd appreciate comments (or even a rebuttal of my calculations!) from someone knowledgeable.

 

[John R]

This got me thinking — some back of the envelope calculation follows.

They say they recovered £317,000 in 2023, for which full year stats are available.

There are multiple people involved in the revenue protection / prosecution process: RPIs on trains, investigators in the back office, probably at least one legally qualified person to prepare prosecution documents and such. But for simplicity let's assume that on average they are all paid the same as an RPI, for whom according to Glassdoor the average salary is around £30,000 per year.

In reality, the employer pays more to have an employee around (SSP, pension contributions, various benefits schemes, NIC, office admin, utilities, HR & hiring etc.). Let's assume, still very conservatiely, that an average employee costs the company £45,000 per year. It's actually nearly certainly more than that.

Now, £317,000 / £45,000 ≈ 7.

Which means that either the entire c2c prosecutions department, including all of the people I've mentioned above, consists of 7 employees or less... Or that they are losing money by having the prosecutions department at all.

Now, I don't know, maybe they do have less than 7 people. I've never actually worked in the industry so I'm speculating. But still the maths seems off. I'd appreciate comments (or even a rebuttal of my calculations!) from someone knowledgeable.

You are missing the deterrent effect of having such a department at reducing the number of people willing to chance it.

 

[tskir]

You are missing the deterrent effect of having such a department at reducing the number of people willing to chance it.

I actually don't think this is the case at all, because I don't think the vast majority of rail users (including fare evaders) are even remotely aware that travelling without a ticket is a serious criminal offence and that they could be prosecuted. I think this is corroborated by a majority of the posts here; people are genuinely surprised that this is a potential matter for the courts.

This is because, in my opinion, the TOCs are terrible at communicating on this matter. The only thing you ever hear in the train announcements and wall posters is: “If you are caught travelling without a valid ticket, you may be liable to pay a Penalty Fare”. I think many people assume from that the worst that can happen is they pay some money and that's it.

While TOCs do press releases like the one discussed here, I think its reach is tiny. I don't think anyone outside rail enthusiasts is even following these.

 

[Haywain]

I actually don't think this is the case at all, because I don't think the vast majority of rail users (including fare evaders) are even remotely aware that travelling without a ticket is a serious criminal offence and that they could be prosecuted. I think this is corroborated by a majority of the posts here; people are genuinely surprised that this is a potential matter for the courts.

This is because, in my opinion, the TOCs are terrible at communicating on this matter. The only thing you ever hear in the train announcements and wall posters is: “If you are caught travelling without a valid ticket, you may be liable to pay a Penalty Fare”. I think many people assume from that the worst that can happen is they pay some money and that's it.

While TOCs do press releases like the one discussed here, I think its reach is tiny. I don't think anyone outside rail enthusiasts is even following these.

And you are missing the point that for many people whether they buy the tight ticket will depend on the chance they will get away with not doing so. Better revenue protection is a deterrent. Publicising what they have recovered has a similar effect.

 

[najaB]

I actually don't think this is the case at all, because I don't think the vast majority of rail users (including fare evaders) are even remotely aware that travelling without a ticket is a serious criminal offence and that they could be prosecuted. I think this is corroborated by a majority of the posts here; people are genuinely surprised that this is a potential matter for the courts.

Going to disagree. I'd say that 95% of the people who post on here saying "I didn't know" would, if they were being truthful, have to say "I didn't believe".

 

[AlterEgo]

Going to disagree. I'd say that 95% of the people who post on here saying "I didn't know" would, if they were being truthful, have to say "I didn't believe".

I think a lot of people are surprised to know it is specifically its own criminal offence, but in general yes, I think most people believe fare evading is wrong and there are theoretical (even if civil) negative consequences for them if they are caught. Most people here are surprised to be caught because they have opted to use a low-effort, low-brain wattage method of fare evading like doughnutting - for which they wrongly believe the consequence is a penalty fare, which they chalk up to an occasional occupational hazard.

 

[Hadders]

And you are missing the point that for many people whether they buy the tight ticket will depend on the chance they will get away with not doing so. Better revenue protection is a deterrent. Publicising what they have recovered has a similar effect.

I agree. People will evade their fares if they think they can get away with it. Good revenue protection needs to be a combination of:

- Making it easy to buy tickets
- A decent fares structure
- Ticket barriers
- Onboard checks
- Penalty Fares policy
- Investigation in the 'back office'
- Prosecution of those who do not co-operate

Not all of the above are appropriate to every route but train companies need to create an environment where it is accepted that people pay. Equally, what is not needed is a hostile environment - that was seen not so long ago on Chiltern with a number of awfully written notices on trains and toilets which gave totally the wrong impression to travellers.

Just yesterday I was travelling on a Thameslink train into London. 6 teenagers sat near me on their way to the Wireless Festival at Finsbury Park (good, intelligent kids, not your typical chav type characters), who I believe had boarded at Royston, were discussing what ticket they were going to buy to get through the barriers at Finsbury Park. They decided on Harringay to Finsbury Park, purchased on their Trainline apps. Got chatting to them and they simply did not believe fare evasion was a criminal offence - they do this sort of thing all the time and see nothing wrong with it.

One day they'll probably be posting on here for advice.....

 

[SuspectUsual]

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a case about c2c in this section of the forum. There certainly hasn’t been one this year.

Compare and contrast to the number of cases we see about Chiltern, who serve a more affluent area of the country. I suspect we will now start to see more threads about c2c in future.

I’ve thought for a few weeks that there seems to have been a surge in the number of cases involving WMT. Maybe they’ve beefed up their game too

 

[Hadders]

I’ve thought for a few weeks that there seems to have been a surge in the number of cases involving WMT. Maybe they’ve beefed up their game too

I'm reliably informed that they have!

 

[SCDR_WMR]

I'm reliably informed that they have!

Which is strange given they reduced the prosecutions department from 7 staff to 3 last year and haven't hired any new revenue staff since the start of the year (we get a list of new starters/leavers each month internally)

 

[30907]

Which is strange given they reduced the prosecutions department from 7 staff to 3 last year and haven't hired any new revenue staff since the start of the year (we get a list of new starters/leavers each month internally)

Perhaps the new approach (pull people up, investigate online, threaten prosecution but offer a settlement in lieu) is actually very efficient?

 

[The exile]

Going to disagree. I'd say that 95% of the people who post on here saying "I didn't know" would, if they were being truthful, have to say "I didn't believe".

Or indeed “that’s something that happens to other people”.

 

[Kite159]

Or those people who think they are smart to 'beat' the system by buying a short ticket to bypass the barriers at their origin and making use of the 'paid-side' (oyster) yellow reader at West Ham to touch in before travelling on TfL and touching out before boarding the C2C service back home have found themselves leaving a large evidence trail, i.e. that person caught out with a monthly season ticket between Grays & Tilbury Town.

Even having guards have limitations (a bit funny to see the panic on some passengers eyes this afternoon on an LNR service when the guard came round checking tickets after Leighton Buzzard as clearly they were the "pay when challenged" types), just look at Northern with non gangway stock with those passengers "in the know" will always aim for the front unit knowing the guard will be in the rear unit (and into a panic when they run into an assistant guard or RPI in the front unit)

(In my eyes, the simplest solution is to remove those paid-side readers, yes for genuine users switching between using a paper ticket to oyster/contactless it will be a pain to have to exit the station and re-enter, but with contactless coming on more lines at some point they will simply use contactless from station X to station Y via West Ham), won't solve all the issues as some passengers will buy from Southend to Chalkwell [for example] and then a separate ticket from Barking to West Ham.

 

[MikeWh]

(In my eyes, the simplest solution is to remove those paid-side readers, yes for genuine users switching between using a paper ticket to oyster/contactless it will be a pain to have to exit the station and re-enter, but with contactless coming on more lines at some point they will simply use contactless from station X to station Y via West Ham), won't solve all the issues as some passengers will buy from Southend to Chalkwell [for example] and then a separate ticket from Barking to West Ham.

Actually I agree about West Ham, once Oval phase 1 goes live there will be little need for it because the whole line from Shoeburyness will be contactless PAYG live. There's a case for people with railcards, but most commuters will either have seasons or could use PAYG.

 

[wildcard]

I actually don't think this is the case at all, because I don't think the vast majority of rail users (including fare evaders) are even remotely aware that travelling without a ticket is a serious criminal offence and that they could be prosecuted. I think this is corroborated by a majority of the posts here; people are genuinely surprised that this is a potential matter for the courts.

This is because, in my opinion, the TOCs are terrible at communicating on this matter. The only thing you ever hear in the train announcements and wall posters is: “If you are caught travelling without a valid ticket, you may be liable to pay a Penalty Fare”. I think many people assume from that the worst that can happen is they pay some money and that's it.

While TOCs do press releases like the one discussed here, I think its reach is tiny. I don't think anyone outside rail enthusiasts is even following these.

I would also add that many people are part of closed social media groups - whether college students , workmates , neighbours , commuters who catch the same train etc where they are free to discuss fare-dodging tips but also to report if one of their number gets nicked - with the deterrent effect of that .

 

[rocrat]

Actually I agree about West Ham, once Oval phase 1 goes live there will be little need for it because the whole line from Shoeburyness will be contactless PAYG live. There's a case for people with railcards, but most commuters will either have seasons or could use PAYG.

You can load railcards to most tickets anyway no, as well as to oyster, so meh?

 

[Hadders]

You can load railcards to most tickets anyway no, as well as to oyster, so meh?

You can’t load a railcard discount onto a contactless card.

Also some railcards (Network, F&F, Two Together) can’t be loaded onto Oyster either.

 

[Benjwri]

I can't help but wonder if there is a better way to go around the revenue protection business. For example more tickets gates manned more often, as I've said before the number of people I know who are willing to even buy a short fare is very low, the number who son't buy a ticket because it never gets checked is far higher, and linking into this I really thing there should be a member of staff checking tickets on at least nearly every train, if not for revenue for safety and customer information. (Just last week I had to help a poor person who wasn't used to trains and couldn't find any staff to ask).

But I agree as mentioned above very few people know it's a crime, they think it'll be at worst a £50 penalty fare in the slim change they're caught. The amount of people I know who were aware it was a crime is very slim. Of people I've heard considering fare evasion, I can count on one hand the number who did it after I dropped into conversation it's a crime. How much would running a 'scare tactic' ad making this fact very clear cost? These days you can very much target the audience you are aiming for through online ads...

 

[WesternLancer]

How much would running a 'scare tactic' ad making this fact very clear cost? These days you can very much target the audience you are aiming for through online ads...

Yes. You could target any Trainline customers who buy tickets from one stop adjacent major city stations for such ads. Eg people who buy Vauxhall to Waterloo tickets.

 

[Benjwri]

Yes. You could target any Trainline customers who buy tickets from one stop adjacent major city stations for such ads. Eg people who buy Vauxhall to Waterloo tickets.

Or even just certain age ranges and areas via unstoppable 15 minute YouTube ads. I'm thinking either something about using someone as an example of the punishment they got, or dig out a similar format to the 'You wouldn't steal a TV'.

 

[Kite159]

I can't help but wonder if there is a better way to go around the revenue protection business. For example more tickets gates manned more often,

Ticket barriers will only determine if a ticket is valid at that station. Not necessarily for the journey being undertaken.

For example using Bath as an example, the barriers at Bath will open up with a ticket for Oldfield Park, but that won't stop that passenger boarding a train bound for say London.

(One crazy idea could be up disable eTickets for flows under a certain distance, and have those tickets as TOD only to catch out those unaware so when they rock up to the barriers at Waterloo with a TOD reference code for a single from Vauxhall it's time for a chat with that friendly RPI etc)

 

[methecooldude]

(One crazy idea could be up disable eTickets for flows under a certain distance, and have those tickets as TOD only to catch out those unaware so when they rock up to the barriers at Waterloo with a TOD reference code for a single from Vauxhall it's time for a chat with that friendly RPI etc)

What a great idea that is!

 

[tskir]

You could target any Trainline customers who buy tickets from one stop adjacent major city stations for such ads. Eg people who buy Vauxhall to Waterloo tickets.

This isn't a bad idea, but bound to trigger some false positives for sure. I happen to live one (ungated!) station away from a major city, and my missus & I use trains as our main way to get into town. So from the purposes of revenue protection it must look as though we're buying short tickets all the time!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jul 2024 ==

One crazy idea could be up disable eTickets for flows under a certain distance, and have those tickets as TOD only

To generalise on that; just require validation of the ticket on both ends. There isn't even a need to make all stations gated (which I know requires staffing the barrier, which is uneconomical for small stations). Just make sure that every station has a facility to scan & validate the ticket for departure, and not doing that makes it invalid.

 

[Kite159]

Just make sure that every station has a facility to scan & validate the ticket for departure, and not doing that makes it invalid.

Which will have a nasty side effect of killing off split tickets for when you don't change trains.

 

[Cuthbert]

One crazy idea could be up disable eTickets for flows under a certain distance, and have those tickets as TOD only to catch out those unaware so when they rock up to the barriers at Waterloo with a TOD reference code for a single from Vauxhall it's time for a chat with that friendly RPI etc)

We do this at certain locations. We have asked Trainline to make certain tickets "Collection only" for certain routes and catch them out as they arrive with short fare ticket and the train wouldn't of stopped there.

 

[tskir]

Which will have a nasty side effect of killing off split tickets for when you don't change trains.

Agreed, to be honest I didn't think of this. But maybe it would be a good opportunity to streamline pricing system as well, because it's honestly quite weird (to me) that A→B + B→C can cost less than A→C

 

[Cuthbert]

Didn't Greater Anglia reclaim £4m ISH in 2022 with fraud and evasion? I remember seeing a breakdown on a site.