Decriminalise ticket offences?

[reb0118]

Pretty much the same.

I was surrounded by the "lower orders" from Edinburgh to Lancaster yesterday - there surely must be a statute somewhere against vocal females in charge of a rabble of children drinking WKD blue before 11:00!

I suppose I should have put a bit more thought into the journey. Monday morning + Easter holidays = lots of bairns &c. heading to Blackpool for a jolly!

Back on topic. I have no real time for the pinko do -gooders who believe that no one is to blame for their actions. If you can't do the time don't do the crime - simples!

My mate was done with speeding recently (1st offence, not much over the limit, small fine & a few points) but to hear him moan about it would make you sick (police conspiracy, why are they not out catching real criminals, soft target, cash cow, &c., &c.). No sympathy from me. Two questions:-

1) Do you know the speed limit? (if you answer no you shouldn't be behind the wheel!)

2) Was your speedo working (if not - still your fault but you get a bit of sympathy from me).

Back to rail ticketing. Those that don't bother to buy tickets prior to travel (usual caveats apply) - throw the book at them. Those that have the wrong tickets - treat each case on its merits.

 

[redbutton]

If I get on a train from Halifax to Bradford hoping to buy on board, I commit a criminal offence if it is painted purple and I don't if it is painted black and orange.

If you could explain how that is "common sense", I'd be very grateful.

It's not common sense at all, but I'd argue that it isn't a problem with the law as much as it's a problem with the privatized railway.

The law simply states that it's an offence to board any train without a ticket, unless there was no opportunity to buy or you have permission from the TOC. The fact that some TOCs give permission and some don't is a matter to be taken up in the TOC franchises.

If we want a truly "national" privatized railway, then all TOCs should have exactly the same requirements. Every TOC should be required to do Delay Repay and Penalty Fares.

 

[TEW]

As many have pointed out the ToC operate confusingly different payment schemes and have arcane carriage rules which, arguably, are a form of entrapment with bonus-driven RPI's overly reliant on getting people to incriminate themselves before being informed of their rights.

I don't see how you can say the railway byelaws are a form of entrapment. There would be evidential issues if RPIs were taking statements from people before cautioning them. It still wouldn't equate to entrapment though.

 

[bb21]

As many have pointed out the ToC operate confusingly different payment schemes and have arcane carriage rules which, arguably, are a form of entrapment

Ah, that old chestnut.

 

[Oswyntail]

A criminal record is disproportionate for what is a victimless 'crime'......

No crime is victimless. Just because you are stealing from a company that seems to encourage it doesn't mean it isn't stealing. Eventually, individuals (via pension funds, usually) pay.

Policing and justice in UK is grounded in the Victorian desire for firm control over the 'lower orders'

Round objects! That is the sort of cobblers from someone who can't be bothered with the law, and invents "lower orders" and the like to justify ignoring it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA

Ah, that old chestnut.

It may be an old chestnut, but I have never seen it roasted sufficiently

 

[amcluesent]

It may be an old chestnut, but I have never seen it roasted sufficiently

Just consider how the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 says a term is unfair when 'contrary to the requirement of good faith' and apply that to the Victorian era railway bylaws

Surely if I get a penalty fare for travelling short because it's an advance ticket then there is prima facie a "significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of consumers." ?

That is the sort of cobblers from someone who can't be bothered with the law, and invents "lower orders" and the like to justify ignoring it

Victorian era ideas of criminology do linger on.

From Crime and the Victorians -

"At the beginning of Victoria's reign key commentators like Edwin Chadwick tended to equate the criminal offender with individuals in the lower reaches of the working class who they considered were reluctant to do an honest day's work"

 

[PermitToTravel]

The railway byelaws are not a consumer contract.

 

[island]

Just consider how the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 says a term is unfair when 'contrary to the requirement of good faith' and apply that to the Victorian era railway bylaws

Surely if I get a penalty fare for travelling short because it's an advance ticket then there is prima facie a "significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of consumers." ?

This comes up every few months on the forum, and every time the person bringing it up is reminded that the railway byelaws and penalty fare rules are not a contract.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

What drivel is this?

Just consider how the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 says a term is unfair when 'contrary to the requirement of good faith' and apply that to the Victorian era railway bylaws . . . .

What do the Victorian era Railway Byelaws have to do with travel on the Railways in the 21st century?

Nothing.

 

[yorkie]

Surely if I get a penalty fare for travelling short because it's an advance ticket then....

...you would appeal and get it cancelled as that's not a valid reason for issuing a PF

 

[island]

The railway byelaws are not a consumer contract.

Indeed. And I believe they are less than 10 years old.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Just consider how the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 says a term is unfair when 'contrary to the requirement of good faith' and apply that to the Victorian era railway bylaws

Victorian era ideas of criminology do linger on.

The railway byelaws are not a consumer contract.

Indeed. And I believe they are less than 10 years old.

Exactly, we are not discussing the effect of consumer law, nor some particularly archaic legislation.

The current national Railway Byelaws were made in 2005 by Statutory Instrument under section 219 of the Transport Act 2000.

 

[jkdd77]

...you would appeal and get it cancelled as that's not a valid reason for issuing a PF

Megatrain claim to "amend" the NRCoC so as to allow for the issue of a PF, (or full single fare) in these circumstances. I have read the publicly available [redacted] version of the Stagecoach South Western Trains franchise agreement. This does, in Condition 13.6, make explicit provision for, and indeed mandate, the sale of Megatrain tickets, subject to complying with the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement; I assume that other TOCs have similar provisions in their franchise agreements. Assuming this to be the case, and given the exclusive singular definition of the NRCoC contained in the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement, I don't believe that they can do this.

Clearly TOCs may introduce additional terms and conditions that are more restrictive than those contained in the NRCoC; however, these additional conditions may not, in my view, actively contradict, deny or "amend" explicit fundamental passenger rights contained in the NRCoC, nor allow the charging of PFs in circumstances where the Penalty Fares Regulations and Penalty Fares Rules prohibit. In the event of an irreconcilable contradiction between the actual published NRCoC (as defined by the TSA) and the additional Megatrain conditions, it is my view that the NRCoC must prevail and the Megatrain conditions be voided insofar as they cannot be construed to give an interpretation that is compliant with the NRCoC.

 

[Chrisgr31]

In my opinion the problem with fare evasion being a criminal offence is that it penalises the innocent. The innocent who make a genuine mistake but find themselves being prosecuted will accept an out of court settlement because they cannot afford to take the risk of having a criminal record.

Yes those that are regular offenders etc should have the book thrown at them but not first time offenders.

 

[PermitToTravel]

The distinction shouldn't be the number of past offences, but intent.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

In my opinion the problem with fare evasion being a criminal offence is that it penalises the innocent. The innocent who make a genuine mistake but find themselves being prosecuted will accept an out of court settlement because they cannot afford to take the risk of having a criminal record.

Don't we have to put this opinion (from the passenger's point of view) into the balance alongside the Railway Operator's point of view? The Railway Operators find no satisfaction in securing a prosecution unless it is against a targetted fraudster, and in fact, would generally be better off with an administrative settlement.

So while your concern that 'the innocent are penalised' may be a technical possibility, I don't believe that Companies seek to penalise the 'innocent'. On the contrary.

Yes those that are regular offenders etc should have the book thrown at them but not first time offenders.

My view is that this is, in general, what happens. However, there is much room for improvement by those Operators who experience high levels of fare evasion in detecting, preventing and prosecuting repeated and systematic evasion.

 

[Fare-Cop]

The distinction shouldn't be the number of past offences, but intent.

Exactly, it would be ludicrous to expect that person who has made and used a fake ticket should be automatically barred from prosecution because it's their first offence.

As usual DaveNewcastle has summed up the position perfectly.

 

[Tibbs]

Don't we have to put this opinion (from the passenger's point of view) into the balance alongside the Railway Operator's point of view? The Railway Operators find no satisfaction in securing a prosecution unless it is against a targetted fraudster, and in fact, would generally be better off with an administrative settlement.

So while your concern that 'the innocent are penalised' may be a technical possibility, I don't believe that Companies seek to penalise the 'innocent'. On the contrary.
My view is that this is, in general, what happens. However, there is much room for improvement by those Operators who experience high levels of fare evasion in detecting, preventing and prosecuting repeated and systematic evasion.

Then you get the issue of TOCs instigating court proceedings almost regardless of situation, to ensure thet they get the administrative settlement they want, rather than the penalty fare they could use.

This, in my opinion, is bullying tactics and the threat of the courts in this way is, in my opinion, immoral and wrong.

But then again, companies are not moral, which makes me strongly believe that they can not be trusted with laws that result in criminal convictions.

 

[PermitToTravel]

The issue in that respect, in my opinion, isn't that companies can prosecute, but that the ticket offence defined in the railway byelaws is strict liability. It would be desirable if people who do no wrong are not guilty of crimes, rather than still being guilty of crimes but immune from prosecution by private companies.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . the ticket offence defined in the railway byelaws is strict liability. It would be desirable if people who do no wrong are not guilty of crimes, . . . . .

It might be worth recalling that there are several other areas of law in which 'strict liability' arises without the person knowing that they are 'doing wrong'. Torts of Trespass and Negligence spring to mind, as do regulatory offences such as the possession of hazardous or controlled materials or some forms of Nuisance.

Strict Liability is a useful tool in regulating risk, especially in the workplace and in hazardous environments.

What are the arguments against prosecuting the crimes of travel without having paid a fare and with the intention to avoid payment, or travel without having a valid ticket available for inspection? Why would railway operators not prosecute?

 

[PermitToTravel]

What are the arguments against prosecuting the crimes of travel without having paid a fare and with the intention to avoid payment

I never suggested that there were any.

or travel without having a valid ticket available for inspection?

Ones commonly mentioned on this forum are that the facilities available for the purchase of a ticket might not sell the desired ticket be they a booking office or TVM, or that said facilities might not be easily found. People should not be guilty of a criminal offence should they not wish to pay more than they need to, not wish to make interest free loans to railway operators, or be unable to find a TVM on the opposite platform with no clue of its presence.

The RoRA offence, and the Penalty Fares scheme, are both more suitable tools.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I never suggested that there were any.

No, you hadn't. Thanks.

Ones commonly mentioned on this forum are that the facilities available for the purchase of a ticket might not sell the desired ticket be they a booking office or TVM, or that said facilities might not be easily found.

Indeed these scenarios are commonly mentioned on this forum. Are we aware of actual passengers in these scenarios being prosecuted in reality?

People should not be guilty of a criminal offence should they not wish to pay more than they need to, not wish to make interest free loans to railway operators, or be unable to find a TVM on the opposite platform with no clue of its presence.

I won't comment on what 'should not' occur, but can you illustrate how often these situations have lead to 'guilt of a criminal offence', please?

The RoRA offence, and the Penalty Fares scheme, are both more suitable tools.

Perhaps, though these too have their critics, again on the basis of theoretical and moral outcomes as well as on actual outcomes; criticisms with which I am sympathetic.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Indeed these scenarios are commonly mentioned on this forum. Are we aware of actual passengers in these scenarios being prosecuted in reality?

I won't comment on what 'should not' occur, but can you illustrate how often these situations have lead to 'guilt of a criminal offence', please?

I don't recall being aware of any such cases (your recent posting history would suggest that you are more able to comment on numbers of actual prosecutions ), although I am aware of the presence 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.

Perhaps, though these too have their critics, again on the basis of theoretical and moral outcomes as well as on actual outcomes; criticisms with which I am sympathetic.

There is less potential with these to make extra money from people who did not intend to evade their fare, although I do agree with you.

 

[LateThanNever]

It might be worth recalling that there are several other areas of law in which 'strict liability' arises without the person knowing that they are 'doing wrong'. Torts of Trespass and Negligence spring to mind, as do regulatory offences such as the possession of hazardous or controlled materials or some forms of Nuisance.

Strict Liability is a useful tool in regulating risk, especially in the workplace and in hazardous environments.

What are the arguments against prosecuting the crimes of travel without having paid a fare and with the intention to avoid payment, or travel without having a valid ticket available for inspection? Why would railway operators not prosecute?

Surely torts are civil matters not criminal. And regulating risk in a hazardous environment is much more common sense and completely different from crossing a line and forgetting to take advantage of an obvious opportunity to pay. And these enforcers are private companies, at least one with a criminal 'record' of its own.
The prosecution or whatever it is called should surely be reoriented towards restitution. Saying sorry and doing something about it! It is true that if this was not complied with there would probably need to be criminal sanctions but at least would not be the primary process.

 

[island]

From posts here, if the possibility of a criminal record for avoiding a rail fare with intent were removed, it would remove the main deterrent for a lot of people to try it on.

Remember that the strict liability offences of failing to hand over a ticket and joining a train without a ticket are already non-recordable, and that there is already a primary process in many areas for dealing with people who accidentally fail to pay or have a wrong ticket: penalty fares.

 

[Flamingo]

Also, don't forget, reading this forum gives a skewed view of the process. We only hear
- the passengers point of view after they have had time to think up a justification,
- there is no way for us to verify the story (although we do a good job in pointing out inconsistencies),
- the persistent fare-dodgers that are caught bang to rights in the vast majority of cases won't be the ones who come here (or at least will claim "It was the very first time",
- the number of cases we see are a infentessimly small proportion of the rail journeys done every day,
- the vast majority of people who board a train without their ticket or supporting documentation (for whatever reason, or no reason at all) suffer no consequences other than, at worst, having to buy the ticket they should have bought at the start of their journey.

In 10 years I can only think of seven people I have caught without a ticket that went to court. In every case, I gave them the option to pay - two didn't pay their UFN's, two went and hid in a toilet after refusing to pay and refusing to leave the train, and we're found by BTP to be involved in transporting drugs, and three assaulted me and the ticket was thrown in as a makeweight as they were going to court anyway.

 

[LateThanNever]

Also, don't forget, reading this forum gives a skewed view of the process. We only hear
- the passengers point of view after they have had time to think up a justification,
- there is no way for us to verify the story (although we do a good job in pointing out inconsistencies),
- the persistent fare-dodgers that are caught bang to rights in the vast majority of cases won't be the ones who come here (or at least will claim "It was the very first time",
- the number of cases we see are a infentessimly small proportion of the rail journeys done every day,
- the vast majority of people who board a train without their ticket or supporting documentation (for whatever reason, or no reason at all) suffer no consequences other than, at worst, having to buy the ticket they should have bought at the start of their journey.

In 10 years I can only think of seven people I have caught without a ticket that went to court. In every case, I gave them the option to pay - two didn't pay their UFN's, two went and hid in a toilet after refusing to pay and refusing to leave the train, and we're found by BTP to be involved in transporting drugs, and three assaulted me and the ticket was thrown in as a makeweight as they were going to court anyway.

This is very encouraging.
One of the problems is that when about a year ago I was issued with a ticket physically bought moments before travel with the wrong date on it, legally, I'm supposed to be liable for the error. True that all the staff on the route showed discretion and good for them, but it isn't sensible that a passenger should be liable for the errors of the staff and potentially be liable for a crime - even if, at the railway's discretion it might be unrecordable!
Energy companies have similar legislation - inherited from nationalised utilities - and they make an even worse pig's breakfast of the system. So perhaps that is some consolation. But the system is wrong. Passengers should not have to rely on the discretion of private companies. We've seen how crazily their top people are paid!
Having said that the poor old 'customer facing' employee has to implement the rules and giving them a straightforward modern set of those rather than a system with a nineteenth century base would surely be easier for everyone!

 

[Flamingo]

It's not encouraging at all! We see the same faces day in day out, who abuse the system with near impunity.

And I'm afraid I can't see what the MD is paid has to do with fare evasion.

 

[LateThanNever]

It's not encouraging at all! We see the same faces day in day out, who abuse the system with near impunity.

And I'm afraid I can't see what the MD is paid has to do with fare evasion.

You're probably right that I misread your post. But if you are facing passengers who routinely do not pay with impunity and you are not given any resources to enforce the rules then the MD isn't doing his job and should be paid, if at all, in bent washers...

 

[Stigy]

I don't recall being aware of any such cases (your recent posting history would suggest that you are more able to comment on numbers of actual prosecutions ), although 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.

There is less potential with these to threaten extort money from people who did not intend to evade their fare, although I do agree with you.

Presumably they could not show a valid ticket at the time of being asked for one though? Therefore by default, they had committed an offence under Byelaw 18(2).