Decriminalise ticket offences?

[PermitToTravel]

They could and did show such a ticket.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . . I am aware of cases where people who have done no wrong (and been able to show valid tickets!) have paid settlements to avoid the risk of conviction.

. . . . to threaten extort money from people . . . . .

They could and did show such a ticket.

It would be very helpful to read details of these 'cases' please (with redacted names). I am concerned by the language which refers to 'extortion' and 'threats' which gives me all the more reason to want to make my own assessments, based on the facts of these 'cases' when you provide them.

Thanks.

 

[PermitToTravel]

PM sent

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Although I consider the phrases 'extortion' and 'threat' to be serious allegations, I will not reveal the content of private messages (PMs) between forum members.

However, I will say that 5 messages have passed between Fahad and myself this afternoon, following my request here for details of the 'cases' in which rail passengers producing a valid ticket were later found to pay additional 'settlements' 'to avoid prosecution', and for details of the references to 'extortion' and 'threats'.

It appears to me that the details I requested are not known. I have received a report of hearsay incidents following travel by unknown persons using tickets whose validity appears to include the phrase 'loophole'.

I have to remain unpersuaded that rail passengers presenting valid tickets for inspection are subject to 'extortion' or 'threat' by railway Companies, or are required to pay additional sums to avoid prosecution. Perhaps someone else would be kind enough to provide details which are more persuasive than hearsay?

 

[RJ]

I've got a dispute of a very similar nature going involving Southeastern at present - we'll see how far they get!

 

[Chrisgr31]

I have to remain unpersuaded that rail passengers presenting valid tickets for inspection are subject to 'extortion' or 'threat' by railway Companies, or are required to pay additional sums to avoid prosecution. Perhaps someone else would be kind enough to provide details which are more persuasive than hearsay?

I think that you will remain unpersuaded as I also would be very surprised if people holding valid tickets for inspection are subject to "extortion" or "threat" by railway companies, although having said that I may have to create an exception for those using complex methods to reduce the fare significantly below that expected!

However I suspect there are a significant number of passengers who feel they have suffered threats by railway companies or their staff when they have made a genuine mistake that results in them having no ticket or the wrong ticket or no railcard etc for inspection.

Most law abiding people are going to feel that a criminal record is a significant threat and therefore that they are obliged to settle out of court purely because they cannot take the risk of having a criminal record.

It can't be rocket science in this day and age to be able to identify those who are always seeking to evade fares. Keeping names and addresses of those issued penalty fares would be a start.

What is possibly needed is an independent ombudsman which disputes could be taken to. The decision of the ombudsman being obligatory on the rail company but not the passenger. The Ombudsman would then be able to listen to all the arguments, they would of course be able to say that they felt the case should proceed to court, with the chance for the passenger to settle out of court.

This may be a way of enabling genuine mistakes to settle purely to avoid a criminal record.

However I do agree that sanctions are required for persistent offenders, although I suspect the threat of a criminal record doesn't worry them.

 

[LateThanNever]

I think that you will remain unpersuaded as I also would be very surprised if people holding valid tickets for inspection are subject to "extortion" or "threat" by railway companies, although having said that I may have to create an exception for those using complex methods to reduce the fare significantly below that expected!

However I suspect there are a significant number of passengers who feel they have suffered threats by railway companies or their staff when they have made a genuine mistake that results in them having no ticket or the wrong ticket or no railcard etc for inspection.

Most law abiding people are going to feel that a criminal record is a significant threat and therefore that they are obliged to settle out of court purely because they cannot take the risk of having a criminal record.

It can't be rocket science in this day and age to be able to identify those who are always seeking to evade fares. Keeping names and addresses of those issued penalty fares would be a start.

What is possibly needed is an independent ombudsman which disputes could be taken to. The decision of the ombudsman being obligatory on the rail company but not the passenger. The Ombudsman would then be able to listen to all the arguments, they would of course be able to say that they felt the case should proceed to court, with the chance for the passenger to settle out of court.

This may be a way of enabling genuine mistakes to settle purely to avoid a criminal record.

However I do agree that sanctions are required for persistent offenders, although I suspect the threat of a criminal record doesn't worry them.

A threat will always remain when all the power in a contract is one sided. This relies on discretion from the big corporations and too often they prove they are not fit to exercise it. Railways are not unique in this - energy companies, phone companies and the post office show the same dearth of skills in administering what are lop sided contracts generally previously designed to be operated by nationalised industries. In the railway's case it is even more important to get right because usually it is 'up close and personal'.

The Ombudsman idea seems ideal to me.