Complex Penalty Fare

[maniacmartin]

... Customer Relations are absolutely adamant that I was rightly Penalty Fared for using an Off Peak ticket on that 05:45 train.

The legislation conflicts with what EMT say. A friend of mine telephoned EMT and the person they spoke to was unaware of the legislation. After insisting on speaking to a manager, EMT finally admitted that they need to comply with the legislation and are apparently taking steps to ensure that they comply in future.

 

[kieron]

The legislation conflicts with what EMT say.

To be fair, it also conflicts with what the NRCoC say, as section 4 says that a penalty fare can be charged in all sorts of different situations.

 

[jkdd77]

To be fair, it also conflicts with what the NRCoC say, as section 4 says that a penalty fare can be charged in all sorts of different situations.

If you have an Off-Peak or Super Off-Peak ticket and board a train on which your ticket is not valid, you will only be charged the difference between the fare you have paid and the cheapest valid Anytime or Off-Peak fare for the service concerned.

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/nrcc/NRCOC.pdf

To be fair, the subsequent two sentences in NRCoC 12 muddy the water a little bit, but my interpretation is that those two sentences are intended to apply so as to allow PFs to be charged for use of first class accommodation with a standard class ticket in PF areas.

I have heard of numerous incidents of PFs being wrongly issued for travel on peak* trains with Off-Peak tickets, and, in the case of Southeastern, for travel on HS1 trains with 'Not HS1' tickets, and worse (assuming those involved are being truthful), appeals on this basis often seem to be rejected, leaving the passenger the unfair choice between paying the unlawful PF and being prosecuted.

*Of course, the 'peak' restriction applies to the ticket restriction code, not to the train.

 

[barrykas]

To be fair, the subsequent two sentences in NRCoC 12 muddy the water a little bit, but my interpretation is that those two sentences are intended to apply so as to allow PFs to be charged for use of first class accommodation with a standard class ticket in PF areas.

The SRA Penalty Fare rules make the bit about travelling in 1st a little clearer, making the point that you can't PF someone for doing so where a notice is displayed indicating they may do so either without further charge or by paying a supplement.

I have heard of numerous incidents of PFs being wrongly issued for travel on peak* trains with Off-Peak tickets, and, in the case of Southeastern, for travel on HS1 trains with 'Not HS1' tickets, and worse (assuming those involved are being truthful), appeals on this basis often seem to be rejected, leaving the passenger the unfair choice between paying the unlawful PF and being prosecuted.

Looking at the PF rules, the SRA (and now, presumably, either the ORR or DfT) has the ability to issue a prohibition notice, preventing a TOC from issuing further PFs if they're doing so in breach of the PF rules, Regulations or their PF scheme.

Surely it should be possible to escalate the matter of invalid PFs to a higher authority with a view to getting such a notice issued?

 

[RJ]

The legislation conflicts with what EMT say. A friend of mine telephoned EMT and the person they spoke to was unaware of the legislation. After insisting on speaking to a manager, EMT finally admitted that they need to comply with the legislation and are apparently taking steps to ensure that they comply in future.

Well aware of that legislation! I was trained properly when I went into revenue protection and had to sit a rigourous exam with an 85% pass rate before being given my badge. This included knowing the legislation and even the specific clause numbers of paramount importance. A focus was put on situations where PFs should not be issued.

I wrote a 3000 word letter of complaint to EMT on Friday afternoon detailing all of the controversial acts surrounding the issue of that Penalty Fare, quoting all relevant rules and legislation so we will see what they have to say about it.

In the meantime, I had 2 acknowledgement letters from ITAL yesterday with regards to this PFN and the rejected UFN appeal that I have quite brusquely contested. They say they need more time to look into both cases.

 

[SussexMan]

I was trained properly when I went into revenue protection and had to sit a rigorous exam with an 85% pass rate before being given my badge.

That could be read as "I wasn't trained properly as we were allowed to get 15% of situations wrong and still pass."

It can be easy to say that RPIs shouldn't penalise the passenger if they aren't sure that the ticket isn't valid but perhaps they genuinely think they aren't valid, even though they are. I'm sure training could be better in many situations but with such a complex system there will always be areas where there is some lack of knowledge (and more importantly where the RPI doesn't recognise that lack of knowledge).

 

[RJ]

That could be read as "I wasn't trained properly as we were allowed to get 15% of situations wrong and still pass."

It can be easy to say that RPIs shouldn't penalise the passenger if they aren't sure that the ticket isn't valid but perhaps they genuinely think they aren't valid, even though they are. I'm sure training could be better in many situations but with such a complex system there will always be areas where there is some lack of knowledge (and more importantly where the RPI doesn't recognise that lack of knowledge).

No sympathy from me whatsoever. It's this kind of bury your head in the sand attitude that allows revenue protection staff to get away with ripping people off without impunity. The rules are there protect both the TOCs and passengers. If the TOCs are happy to come down like a ton of bricks on passengers they think have committed a breach then by the same token, the staff should know right from wrong. Which includes knowing when to let it go.

I can empathise as I have worked with the system. Common sense dictates that unless you are 100% certain that you know the passenger is in the wrong, including the ability to reference specific rules that have been breached, you give the benefit of the doubt or withdraw the ticket and take their details. Not demand inordinate sums of money from the outset. I say inordinate as these staff are also often clueless as to the correct amount to charge. We have a farcical situation where staff who don't know what they're doing have the authority to take money from people, when they aren't skilled enough to know when to use appropriate discretion. These people are making revenue protection look like some sort of joke.

Common sense is not encouraged however, as you have managers coming out with nonsense about it being ok to make mistakes due to the complexity of the system. The rules don't change that often so how about training the staff properly and feeding back as appropriate, rather than make excuses? I'm tired of hearing that one paragraph in the NRCoC is too complicated for staff to remember - it's pathetic!

The incompetence so often adopted by some revenue protection staff needs to be exposed for what it really is. Sorry if I don't agree with the concept of the sun shining out of staff's ars*s but this does not fall under the doctrine of a simple mistake - the magnitude of wrongdoing screams malpractice which needs sorting out.

 

[telstarbox]

I wrote a 3000 word letter of complaint to EMT on Friday afternoon detailing all of the controversial acts surrounding the issue of that Penalty Fare, quoting all relevant rules and legislation so we will see what they have to say about it.

The more words you write, the less likely it is that the whole document will be read properly.

 

[jkdd77]

The SRA Penalty Fare rules make the bit about travelling in 1st a little clearer, making the point that you can't PF someone for doing so where a notice is displayed indicating they may do so either without further charge or by paying a supplement.



Looking at the PF rules, the SRA (and now, presumably, either the ORR or DfT) has the ability to issue a prohibition notice, preventing a TOC from issuing further PFs if they're doing so in breach of the PF rules, Regulations or their PF scheme.

Surely it should be possible to escalate the matter of invalid PFs to a higher authority with a view to getting such a notice issued?

Is there not a potential risk that, if, hypothetically, a TOC were to be stripped of its ability to issue PFs, it would simply report all such incidents for prosecution under byelaw 18, and then extract £100+ in 'out of court settlements' rather than just the £20 PF?

 

[RJ]

The more words you write, the less likely it is that the whole document will be read properly.

It's in their best interests that it's read properly!

 

[yorkie]

Is there not a potential risk that, if, hypothetically, a TOC were to be stripped of its ability to issue PFs, it would simply report all such incidents for prosecution under byelaw 18, and then extract £100+ in 'out of court settlements' rather than just the £20 PF?

They can't just ignore the NRCoC.

If a TOC does not want to honour the NRCoC, and the TSA, then they can say goodbye to the franchise! Adhering to these terms are franchise requirements.

 

[MichaelAMW]

They can't just ignore the NRCoC.

If a TOC does not want to honour the NRCoC, and the TSA, then they can say goodbye to the franchise! Adhering to these terms are franchise requirements.

I don't mind if they ignore them because they're inter alia dispensing with my obligation to have a ticket...

 

[snail]

I don't mind if they ignore them because they're inter alia dispensing with my obligation to have a ticket...

Is that under the "Two wrongs make a right" rule?

 

[sheff1]

They can't just ignore the NRCoC.

If a TOC does not want to honour the NRCoC, and the TSA, then they can say goodbye to the franchise! Adhering to these terms are franchise requirements.

EMT seem to ignore the NRCoC (and PF guidelines) on a regular basis, apparently with impunity. Certainly haven't heard anything about them being stripped of the franchise.

 

[RJ]

I don't mind if they ignore them because they're inter alia dispensing with my obligation to have a ticket...

They ignore it (or rather, choose not to put it right when wayward staff have thrown their weight about) mostly when it suits them. When a passenger falls foul of the NRCoC however, they're very quick to reference it to justify the punitive measures!

EMT seem to ignore the NRCoC (and PF guidelines) on a regular basis, apparently with impunity. Certainly haven't heard anything about them being stripped of the franchise.

I think this "stripping a TOC of its franchise" lark is a bit OTT. There are issues but they can certainly be worked out with a bit of perseverance! On the whole they're very good, it's just a few individuals who need speaking to!

 

[MichaelAMW]

Is that under the "Two wrongs make a right" rule?

Well, I was of course being a bit flippant... But it's probably more the "You can't have your cake and eat it" rule, I would suggest.

 

[RJ]

A third incident from early last month whereby I was charged £74.00 for an SOS from Leicester to London is finally to be put right.

That day, I had a 7DS to cover the first few miles to the next shack, a SVR routed Not Via London valid to West Hampstead and a Zone 1-6 Day Travelcard. The Train Manager said I had to pay for a brand new ticket, with no railcard discount because the Not Via London ticket was not valid on her train. The Customer Relations department, under the advice of a manager who is supposed to know about tickets, said the TM was entirely correct in her actions and initially refused to offer any kind of refund.

I made it clear that I was not fazed by anyone's job title, experience or seniority and explained exactly why the advice they provided was wrong. I've now been offered a full refund on the basis that I was right in the first place.

A second advisor also got in touch with regards to the Penalty Fare. They've now moved on from telling me I was wrong about Off Peak ticket's validity from London to Bedford and tried to assert that the second ticket, which was an Anytime Return from Rugby to somewhere near Derby, was not valid to go north from Bedford due to it being off route. They said they had checked the National Routeing Guide, but it almost immediately became apparent that they did not know how to use it properly and I had to end up telling them what the appropriate routeing points were, which maps to check and the significance of Condition 16.

I was then asked to send in a copy of the PFN but two steps ahead as I always aim to be, I already sent it in with the complaint I submitted which was found. So it has now been read. Anything else they want to try and pin on me before conceding that they have to write it off, I'm more than ready to deal with. I wonder if they will pick up on the fact that I refused to provide certain details to allow the PFN to be completed?

 

[Tomonthetrain]

Stinks of poor training of EMT looking at this. And they've even had to have it spoon fed.

 

[Wolfie]

Well aware of that legislation! I was trained properly when I went into revenue protection and had to sit a rigourous exam with an 85% pass rate before being given my badge. This included knowing the legislation and even the specific clause numbers of paramount importance. A focus was put on situations where PFs should not be issued.

I wrote a 3000 word letter of complaint to EMT on Friday afternoon detailing all of the controversial acts surrounding the issue of that Penalty Fare, quoting all relevant rules and legislation so we will see what they have to say about it.

In the meantime, I had 2 acknowledgement letters from ITAL yesterday with regards to this PFN and the rejected UFN appeal that I have quite brusquely contested. They say they need more time to look into both cases.

The nuclear option, which if I was you I would use if EMT don't see sense, would be to send a copy of that letter to DfT, copied to your local MP, demanding that EMT's right to issue PFs be withdrawn forthwith as they are non-compliant with the legislation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If DfT are non-compliant go to the media. Given the trashing DfT's reputation has had lately journo questions to the SofS WILL have results (based on 30 years of Whitehall experience!!!).....

 

[All Line Rover]

A second advisor also got in touch with regards to the Penalty Fare. They've now moved on from telling me I was wrong about Off Peak ticket's validity from London to Bedford and tried to assert that the second ticket, which was an Anytime Return from Rugby to somewhere near Derby, was not valid to go north from Bedford due to it being off route. They said they had checked the National Routeing Guide, but it almost immediately became apparent that they did not know how to use it properly and I had to end up telling them what the appropriate routeing points were, which maps to check and the significance of Condition 16.

That is incredibly harsh. That's a surprisingly reasonable route for a loophole. Even more surprising is that a reasonably priced ticket is priced by XC! I can of course appreciate why EMT are not happy about it, but that's only because of their vastly inflated fares, and they should not be denying such clear permitted routes. Based on EMT's recent correspondence with ATOC, the DfT and Passenger Focus, this behaviour doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

 

[island]

Don't forget that EMT wants to get the permitted routes from Newark to London changed too.

 

[All Line Rover]

Don't forget that EMT wants to get the permitted routes from Newark to London changed too.

I'm only too aware!

 

[WillPS]

The nuclear option, which if I was you I would use if EMT don't see sense, would be to send a copy of that letter to DfT, copied to your local MP, demanding that EMT's right to issue PFs be withdrawn forthwith as they are non-compliant with the legislation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If DfT are non-compliant go to the media. Given the trashing DfT's reputation has had lately journo questions to the SofS WILL have results (based on 30 years of Whitehall experience!!!).....

This. This, this, this! We all know EMT's scheme is abusing legislation originally intended to protect revenue on high density inter-urban services (not InterCity services), if they can't be bothered to at least stick to that legislation, they shouldn't be operating the scheme.

For my mind, they're using a loophole by creating and enforcing a PF scheme; they should at the very least have (and train their staff to have) an understanding of the loopholes which exist for customers.

 

[RJ]

There isn't going to be any letter from them confirming they don't know what they're doing, because by the looks of things various people from this forum have called them up just to correct them, so they're already aware and will take steps to put it right before any of the above can happen.

 

[Robsignals]

There isn't going to be any letter from them confirming they don't know what they're doing, because by the looks of things various people from this forum have called them up just to correct them, so they're already aware and will take steps to put it right before any of the above can happen.

Someone within the industry may have alerted them, ATOC are said to monitor this site. Always a risk when giving 'real time' progress reports.

 

[Wolfie]

Someone within the industry may have alerted them, ATOC are said to monitor this site. Always a risk when giving 'real time' progress reports.

I am not sure that anyone actually wants EMT to lose the ability to charge Pfs to the genuinely dodgy but they certainly shouldn't be misapplying them to the innocent and /or driving a coach and horses through the rules.

If this site means they fix the problems and do things properly that strikes me as a win.

 

[RJ]

Someone within the industry may have alerted them, ATOC are said to monitor this site. Always a risk when giving 'real time' progress reports.

Whilst I'm well aware that the site is open for anybody to read and subsequently take action as appropriate, it doesn't change the fact that people from here have telephoned them to speak about it...

The legislation conflicts with what EMT say. A friend of mine telephoned EMT and the person they spoke to was unaware of the legislation. After insisting on speaking to a manager, EMT finally admitted that they need to comply with the legislation and are apparently taking steps to ensure that they comply in future.

I'm very glad they did. It is one thing I have mentioned in writing so is one less thing I have to spoon feed to them verbally and if it helps to prevent other passengers from being overcharged, the intervention is conducive to a job well done.

Being realistic, EMT are not going to be stripped of their franchise or have their Penalty Fare scheme removed. It's not going to happen and it would be a good joke these ideas are being peddled on here if I didn't suspect that people were being entirely serious. Where are your veritable statistics proving that a significant number of breaches have occurred, with previous failed attempts to correct this practice? Good luck with running to the DfT about that.

For what it's worth, I'm just one person who happened to be the wrong type of person for an incompetent RPO to pick on. I have no interest in being complicit in any attempts to have a Penalty Fare scheme suspended. I actually agree with the notion of the Penalty Fare, because rules have been put in place to protect passengers who have made genuine honest mistakes, which should be clearly distinguished from careless, easily avoidable mistakes which I think it's fair that TOCs reserve the right to punish if there is a potential for a consequential loss of revenue.

What's the alternative? A stronger focus on strict liability prosecutions? Bear in mind the present incarnation of the Railway Byelaws were not around when Penalty Fares were introduced, prosecutions for fare payment offences were mainly done under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, which requires proof of intent to avoid paying the fare, which is not necessarily as easy to secure a conviction for as a strict liability offence.

The revenue protection system is largely fair if it is adhered to correctly by the staff. However, the system is presently a joke as there is a questionable standard of training material provided, coupled with, evidently, a number of staff who have an inexplicable reluctance to take any initiative to engage their brain cells and do a little bit of extra reading to enable them to do their job better. If I was capable of doing it when I was doing the job, then anyone else who has made it into the industry should be too.

These people are doing their employers and the industry in general a disservice, as there is a culture whereby some time served staff lack the basic analytical skills to be able to, or willing to work out whether tickets are valid by themselves, in conjunction with lacking in ability to show appropriate discretion. It's not just limited to front line staff either - it's also managers who are supposed to specialise in ticketing/revenue protection who really ought to know better.

I have a backbone so I'm never afraid to speak up if I can see that existing and long established practices are not correct, in a manner that is polite but firm. I repeatedly received praise for this as it's beneficial for the TOC and passengers alike but it seems that others either don't care or can't be bothered. Certainly in the airline industry, it is actively encouraged for new entrants to speak up if they can see that more experienced people are engaging in practice which contravenes with what's presently correct.

I lose respect for the staff and brown nosed enthusiasts that come on here with apologist excuses for why it's acceptable for staff to get things wrong, penalising the passenger when they know they have patchy knowledge of the rules concerning tickets. Having worked with the system myself, I acknowledge that ticket validity is a bit of a minefield and I obviously don't expect staff to know things like mileages for example off the top of their head. However I do believe in "if in doubt, don't" so do not approve of they way staff are willing to penalise passengers when they know they cannot explain why what the passenger is doing is wrong. A neutral procedure does exist, the TIR but it's not favoured by many staff as they don't get the satisfaction of taking money, or committing the passenger to a bill for a debt, which I feel is corrupt conduct which needs addressing.

 

[yorkie]

I am not sure that anyone actually wants EMT to lose the ability to charge Pfs to the genuinely dodgy but they certainly shouldn't be misapplying them to the innocent and /or driving a coach and horses through the rules..

Sorry Wolfie but you appear to be under the impression that a Penalty Fare is not a charge made to innocent customers who have made a mistake. In fact, it is exactly that! It is not a punishment charged to the 'genuinely dodgy'.

NXEA used to give a pretty comprehensive explanation as part of their FAQ:

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.

The issue in this thread is not that EMT are charging PFs to people who make a mistake per se, it is that EMT are charging PFs to people who are entitled to an excess fare as defined in the NRCoC and PF legislation.

The legislation includes the following relevant extracts:

Authorised collectors must be properly trained in the Penalty Fares Rules and the relevant
penalty fares scheme or schemes, ticket types and restrictions, excess fare instructions, the
National Routeing Guide and the National Rail Conditions of Carriage. We also expect
training to be given in customer care and how to avoid conflicts.

So there is no excuse for a collector to be inadequately trained (however, many are)

Under rule 7, a passenger may not be charged a penalty fare if he or she has a ticket for the
journey which they are making that is not valid on that train only because of a ticket
restriction. In these cases, the passenger only needs to pay the excess fare, in line with the
National Rail Conditions of Carriage.

A passenger who has a ticket for the journey they are making, but who is
using a route on which their ticket is not valid, may not be charged a penalty fare. The
National Rail Conditions of Carriage allow the passenger to pay an excess fare to travel on a
different route from that shown on their ticket

It is against the law for EMT to fail to ensure their staff are properly trained, it is against the law for EMT authorised collectors to charge Penalty Fares in the two examples above. The law has been flouted, is being flouted, and unless EMT are performing some radical changes right now, will continue to be flouted.

After all, who is going to stop them?

 

[RJ]

It's a minor. When they eventually realise that they have no choice but to give up trying to find something I did wrong so they can justify keeping hold of my money, we'll see what they have to say about the situation.

In the meantime, I'm not going up and down the MML this weekend. I need to go to Norwich before going to London so I'll be going across the Fens, backtracking to the ECML and going from Peterborough to the Cross and back via Grantham. I'll be using a brand new ticket at a price a lot more reasonable than whatever the through Saver costs to travel over that part of the ECML, which even TCBC doesn't reckon is valid . This will be in conjunction with my Oyster season ticket so it'll be interesting to see if the conductors behave in the same manner as the TMs over the road...

 

[maniacmartin]

Its not so minor when you consider not all passengers will be as knowledgable as you RJ and probably not have the knowledge or inclination to fight bogus PFs