Fare dodger - what happens next

[RedPostJunc]

Apologies if this kind of question has been answered before (and I would be surprised if it had not!).
However, I don't have a clue where to find the relevant topic. If you know, please redirect me.

Yesterday I was on a rural train from A-B-C-D. Between B and C the guard came round on a ticket inspection.

After checking my ticket, the guard asked the man sitting in front of me for his ticket.
The man said he did not have time to buy the ticket and asked for a single from B to C.
The guard told him the fare before issuing the ticket.
The man then said he did not have enough money to pay for the ticket and offered to pay about a quarter of the ticket cost.
The guard asked for the full fare and the man again refused.

At this point, the guard said that she recognised the man, as she had already reported him for travelling without a ticket, and that she would report the man again.
The man got off at C, which was actually his intended destination.

As some who does not work on the railways, I am curious what actually happens next in cases like this.

A long time ago I was travelling on an Ipswich - Peterborough train and witnessed something similar. After leaving Stowmarket, the guard came round doing a ticket inspection. A man told the guard he was going to Peterborough, but would not buy a ticket, as he did not have any money. The guard then said he would have to leave the train at the next stop, Elmswell. The man suddenly remembered that he had some money he had forgotten about, and paid for the ticket!

 

[mangyiscute]

check out the disputes and prosecutions section - that is where people who are in a similar situation to that man can ask for advice on what to do and there are countless examples on there of what happens next

 

[Birmingham]

the guard said that she recognised the man, as she had already reported him for travelling without a ticket, and that she would report the man again.

Did the guard have or collect the man’s details (name, address)?

 

[RedPostJunc]

Did the guard have or collect the man’s details (name, address)?

Thanks to all advising me to look at a different forum.

No, the guard did not take any details.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

I imagine different TOCs have different procedures but at my depot we forward Train headcode, description of offender and date/time to the revenue team. After a certain number of reports of the same individual then either a block at either station or an onboard check will be done by RPIs and they take it from there.

There is a lot of reporting of regular evaders at our depot via emails so doesn't take long to collate evidence

 

[jon0844]

Thanks to all advising me to look at a different forum.

No, the guard did not take any details.

Might not need to if they've already got the details from a previous incident.

 

[reb0118]

Might not need to if they've already got the details from a previous incident.

Correct, I was performing a revenue block on my train at a terminal station. One door working. A prospective passenger appeared without funds but with a plausible excuse. I obtained details and issued a TIR (Travel Irregularity Report) giving him the option to purchase later that day.

Two days later I discovered the same passenger hiding in the toilet. I didn't have time to process him before he alighted but merely said "same details" and submitted a second form.

I discovered from a colleague that he had also avoided his fare on the day in between so my colleague retrospectively submitted a report.

Cue revenue inspectors on that route for the next few days and he was caught again. We never saw him again.

Unfortunately my TOC has done away with its revenue protection team due to cost savings - so no revenue support these days.

 

[FenMan]

Unfortunately my TOC has done away with its revenue protection team due to cost savings - so no revenue support these days.

Surely this means the incremental revenue generated was insufficient to keep the team in place rather than pure cost per se?

Otherwise Finance could reason a company could "save money" by firing an entire salesforce!*

*Actually, that wasn't so far from the truth at a company I worked at, where the imperative to reduce costs resulted in collapsing revenues, reductions in market share and a worsened overall financial position.

 

[Haywain]

Surely this means the incremental revenue generated was insufficient to keep the team in place rather than pure cost per se?

I suspect more a case of looking at staff numbers and specified costs rather than anticipated revenues. However, to my mind that smacks of shooting oneself in the foot.