First Class Penalty on Southern

[6Gman]

I also wonder how a regular commuter would travel without any means of payment. I get very uncomfortable if I am out without some money, or means to get access to money. I have to begin wondering if someone refusing to pay is merely trying to take a stand.

That struck me too. I certainly wouldn't travel (especially into Central London) without cash and/or cards. What if you lost your Oyster card?

I also find it odd that somebody would head for a train thinking "I won't take my cards or any cash, but I must make sure I take my driving licence".

My advice - pay up now if possible. If not, wait for their letter, offer a grovelling apology ("unfamiliar with the train, didn't realise it was 1st Class, very sorry") and ask for an out-of-court settlement. Which will cost you more than the offer on the day ...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think what surprises people more is that in the 21st Century, a privately owned company is able to generate revenue for the benefit of shareholders by wielding the full might of the state to impose financial penalties in situations which are grossly unfair to passengers. On top of that, they do so in a manner which is inconsistent, opaque and seems designed to make sure that a TOC will get its money, no matter what, all thanks to a set of archaic Victorian bylaws.

So how should the Train Operating Companies deal with people who buy a Standard Class ticket and then sit in First Class seating?

 

[Minilad]

That struck me too. I certainly wouldn't travel (especially into Central London) without cash and/or cards. What if you lost your Oyster card?

I also find it odd that somebody would head for a train thinking "I won't take my cards or any cash, but I must make sure I take my driving licence".

My advice - pay up now if possible. If not, wait for their letter, offer a grovelling apology ("unfamiliar with the train, didn't realise it was 1st Class, very sorry") and ask for an out-of-court settlement. Which will cost you more than the offer on the day ...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


So how should the Train Operating Companies deal with people who buy a Standard Class ticket and then sit in First Class seating?

They should let them off as quite clearly they are all genuine mistakes

 

[6Gman]

They should let them off as quite clearly they are all genuine mistakes

Quite. "Could you just move along please, thank you". As the train rolls into Victoria!

 

[Agent_c]

I think what surprises people more is that in the 21st Century, a privately owned company is able to generate revenue for the benefit of shareholders by wielding the full might of the state to impose financial penalties in situations which are grossly unfair to passengers.

Would you expect a storekeeper to be able to have you arrested if you shoplift?

This is pretty much the same situation here. You have effectively stolen a service - First class conveyance.

In that situation, I don't think £20, or using the system is grossly unfair, strange, or victorian. The only thing separating it from theft is that it doesn't involve a physical object.

Given the signs, the seperation from the regular cabin, and those things on the seats where your head goes, it really confuses me how people make the mistake of thinking FC is anything but something irreglar.... https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8128/8713181817_bd564b4c8f_b.jpg

Do people think it says first on them because they want people to sit on them first or something?

 

[DaleCooper]

Given the signs, the seperation from the regular cabin, and those things on the seats where your head goes, it really confuses me how people make the mistake of thinking FC is anything but something irreglar.... https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8128/8713181817_bd564b4c8f_b.jpg

Do people think it says first on them because they want people to sit on them first or something?

I would probably have agreed with you until the day I did it myself, no excuses I must have had my eyes shut but I certainly had no intention of sitting in first class, luckily for me I spotted the antimacassar before tickets were checked.

More importantly I am a bit concerned that the OP hasn't returned since a flurry of posts this morning and answered outstanding questions, this always causes my cynicism to flare up.

 

[Bungle]

One might argue that in that photo, the big advert behind the seats saying "please use all available space" doesn't help!

(Although I am firmly in the "cynical" camp on this one!)

 

[dviner]

That struck me too. I certainly wouldn't travel (especially into Central London) without cash and/or cards. What if you lost your Oyster card?

I also find it odd that somebody would head for a train thinking "I won't take my cards or any cash, but I must make sure I take my driving licence".

There is nothing odd about this situation.

You've got a season ticket. You have no expectation of spending any money/have no money to spend, so what's the point of taking your wallet and cards? However, it might be useful to have some ID - hence the driving license. Both the Oyster & license will fit in an Oyster wallet, so there you go.

Not defending sitting in 1st on a standard ticket (or getting huffy about season ticket costs), but just pointing out that some people will go out with a ticket for travel and no extra money for non-suspicious reasons.

 

[jon0844]

I didn't say it was suspicious, rather that it was extremely unlikely.

 

[causton]

One might argue that in that photo, the big advert behind the seats saying "please use all available space" doesn't help!

(Although I am firmly in the "cynical" camp on this one!)

An advert for a holiday company I think it looks like, nothing to do with Southern other than an ad company pays Southern to put that advert up there :P

 

[sarahj]

An advert for a holiday company I think it looks like, nothing to do with Southern other than an ad company pays Southern to put that advert up there :P

It is. I think its about a year old. A few of the posters in first class these days is a reminder to have a first class ticket or get a fine.

As for platforms at Clapham, I'm betting that the Op went to P 12 where the longest, non stop trains come in (ie ones that don't stop at Bat Park), they all have active first class sections. (unless first class has been De-classified for over crowding reasons).

 

[cjmillsnun]

Whilst I think that SN's first class accommodation is a joke (and it really is), the fact remains it is classified as such and thus requires a first class ticket.

And trust me, every time I go into London I make sure I have cash and cards just in case. What if the OP has lost his oyster card. Being stranded is not fun.

 

[strawbrick]

As a former holder of a 1st Class annual season on Silverlink / London Midaland for some 15 years, I was initially somewhat of the view that the OPo got what he deserved. However, on reflection, perhaps not:
1. There really is very little difference between 1st class & Standard on most SN trains - the seats are much the same, the spacing is much the same, and 1st class area is not defined by doors (unlike LM and others).
2. There are a number of SN services on which 1st class is automatically declassified, such as the Milton Keynes to South (?) Croydon via CLJ.
3. On Silverlink / LM, on the very (and I do mean very) infrequent occassion that tickets are checked those without the required 1st class tickets have always, and I do mean always, been given the option of either moving to another part of the train or paying the difference. In 15 years no-one was ever charged a penalty fare.
So lack of clarity, confusion and inconsistancy reign supreme, and people "get caught"...

 

[ian959]

So walking past a sign that says FIRST CLASS ONLY, sitting on a seat with a FIRST CLASS antimaccasar on it and not noticing the FIRST CLASS sticker on the window are "lack of clarity, confusion and inconsistency"? I would have thought the default for any reasonable person would be to presume such area to ALWAYS be First Class, whether declassified or not, and you would not sit there if in possession of a Standard Class ticket only...

 

[jon0844]

I've seen trains with no stickers at all anywhere (on account of a TOC changeover and old ones being removed before new ones are put up, and where in a couple of cases new ones haven't come for weeks or been forgotten altogether). Instead, the only way to know is from a different colour seat cover or the antimacassar.

In some cases, if there are people sitting in there and the only seat is where you may not see the head rear, I'd say it is a bit unfair. I've told the TOC as much too.

First class should be very clearly marked. It doesn't have to be super luxurious to be obvious that way, just clear to anyone what it is and so there can be no excuses. You can then enforce without being seen as over zealous.

Perhaps having standard and universal stickers to mark first class could help, rather than TOC specific ones with varying colours and type faces?

 

[najaB]

Perhaps having standard and universal stickers to mark first class could help, rather than TOC specific ones with varying colours and type faces?

I definitely agree that would help. There is the standard yellow bar on the outside, but even that isn't prominent in some liveries.

 

[Magicake]

There is one thing about this that still confuses me. I understand that this is a clear cut case under the railway bylaws, however DaveNewcastle seems convinced a RoRA prosecution might also be likely to succeed. Whilst I understand that not having money for the fare constitutes intention not to pay that money, would it not be relevant if the passenger did not have intention to incur the fare in the first place. Not saying that this is necessarily the case here but the OP suggests it was.

In short, can you be prosecuted for intentionally evading a fare if you did not intend to incur a fare in the first place.

Another example might be a passenger with no money on a train to see a friend off and accidentally not getting off on time or a passenger falling asleep past the stop they have paid for.

Realise this is quite theoretical and sorry for dragging the thread off topic!!

 

[najaB]

There is one thing about this that still confuses me. I understand that this is a clear cut case under the railway bylaws, however DaveNewcastle seems convinced a RoRA prosecution might also be likely to succeed. Whilst I understand that not having money for the fare constitutes intention not to pay that money, would it not be relevant if the passenger did not have intention to incur the fare in the first place. Not saying that this is necessarily the case here but the OP suggests it was.

Not wanting to step on DaveNewcastle's toes but the RoRA prosecution would be appropriate if one was of the opinion that the OP knew what he was doing - i.e. that he deliberately sat in First with the intention to move only if challenged.

 

[DaleCooper]

Thanks for all the replies so far.

I'm not too sure why so few of my posts are getting past the moderators in a timely manner so I will sign off for now and return in a few days.

best wishes,

BB

I was wondering what had happened to the OP then spotted this post which must have got delayed as it wasn't there yesterday. I've put my cynicism on hold.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

There is one thing about this that still confuses me. I understand that this is a clear cut case under the railway bylaws, however DaveNewcastle seems convinced a RoRA prosecution might also be likely to succeed.

Yes, I do, based on the applicable Case Law (which I cited above). We don't need to look at the passenger's comprehension of in which class of accomodation they have seated themselves to understand how the circumstances would be analysed, the relevant factor is the holding of a valid ticket. The law on tickets and classes of accomodation is slightly unintuitive, but not irrational, in that a standard class ticket can still have its value taken into account when seeking to 'upgrade' or 'excess' it to a corresponding first class ticket (and so it is not completely void of value), but it does not in any way at all authorise travel in first class, and such a passenger is treated as being without a ticket (and not having bought a first class ticket, is treated as not having bought the ticket). In Gillingham v Walker, the Court found that a traveller "using a third [now standard] class ticket in first class accommodation had not paid 'his fare', though he had paid ‘a fare’"

In short, can you be prosecuted for intentionally evading a fare if you did not intend to incur a fare in the first place.

Yes. The phrase "did not intend to incur a fare in the first place" is only going to be of assistance to the Prosecution who will be able to use that as confirmation that the intention was there not to pay 'his fare'.

 

[Magicake]

I see. So essentially the intention in RoRA is intention to pay the fare that the facts indicate you owe, rather than an intention not to fare evade. That makes sense I suppose.

I wonder if someone can humour me and consider a situation where a passenger unknowingly sits in First Class with a standard class ticket. However now upon being challenged he offers to pay the full First Class fare or penalty fare. Whilst unlikely in practice, if this offer was refused could the passenger be prosecuted under RoRA as had he not been accosted he would not have intended to pay the correct fare as he would not have known it was due?

Apologies for the hypothetical question I have noticed they are sometimes quite unpopular!

 

[najaB]

I wonder if someone can humour me and consider a situation where a passenger unknowingly sits in First Class with a standard class ticket. However now upon being challenged he offers to pay the full First Class fare or penalty fare. Whilst unlikely in practice, if this offer was refused could the passenger be prosecuted under RoRA as had he not been accosted he would not have intended to pay the correct fare as he would not have known it was due?

Apologies for the hypothetical question I have noticed they are sometimes quite unpopular!

No need to apologise as far as I'm concerned as I learn a lot from this type of discussion. I agree it is unlikely that the offer would be refused, however technically they are in breach of Byelaw 19 and so could be prosecuted. To my way of thinking it would be harder to make a RoRA prosecution 'stick' as they possess a standard class ticket and the means to rectify the discrepancy between that and the ticket required for first class travel.

 

[455driver]

No need to apologise as far as I'm concerned as I learn a lot from this type of discussion. I agree it is unlikely that the offer would be refused, however technically they are in breach of Byelaw 19 and so could be prosecuted. To my way of thinking it would be harder to make a RoRA prosecution 'stick' as they possess a standard class ticket and the means to rectify the discrepancy between that and the ticket required for first class travel.

But he is travelling in a class of accommodation for which a ticket is not held, the passenger would need to upgrade the ticket before sitting in 1st class to be completely legal, otherwise we are back to the 'pay when challenged' scenario.

 

[najaB]

But he is travelling in a class of accommodation for which a ticket is not held, the passenger would need to upgrade the ticket before sitting in 1st class to be completely legal, otherwise we are back to the 'pay when challenged' scenario.

That's why a Byelaw 19 conviction would be successful. I am not convinced that a RoRA one would be, but that's why I'm not a lawyer.

 

[anme]

The phrase "did not intend to incur a fare in the first place" is only going to be of assistance to the Prosecution who will be able to use that as confirmation that the intention was there not to pay 'his fare'.

Just to see if I understand correctly - it seems that "intent" can be defined more broadly than I previously appreciated. It's not just a deliberate intent not to pay the correct fare, but also a lack of intent to pay the correct fare, even if that lack of intent might follow from a lack of knowledge that a fare was due (in this case because the OP accidentally sat in first class).

Is this correct?

Could this apply in other scenarios where a passenger makes a mistake? For example - passenger at station A buys a ticket from A to B, fully intending to travel to B. However, she accidentally gets on the wrong train and ends up travelling towards C. C is in the opposite direction to B, and not on a valid route; so her ticket has no validity on the train. Is she potentially liable to a Railways Act prosecution, on the grounds that she is on a train from A to C, but had no intention to ever pay the fare from A to C?

 

[najaB]

Could this apply in other scenarios where a passenger makes a mistake? For example - passenger at station A buys a ticket from A to B, fully intending to travel to B. However, she accidentally gets on the wrong train and ends up travelling towards C. C is in the opposite direction to B, and not on a valid route; so her ticket has no validity on the train. Is she potentially liable to a Railways Act prosecution, on the grounds that she is on a train from A to C, but had no intention to ever pay the fare from A to C?

Potentially liable, but exceedingly unlikely to face that prosecution. It's hard to see how it's in the TOCs interest to prosecute in this circumstance.

 

[anme]

Potentially liable, but exceedingly unlikely to face that prosecution. It's hard to see how it's in the TOCs interest to prosecute in this circumstance.

Indeed. This situation creates some odd dilemmas for the passenger. If she says that she got on the wrong train (to C) by mistake, and wanted to go to B, and shows her ticket to B, that is all evidence of intent not to pay for the journey to C. She might be very unwise to incriminate herself in such a way.

What's the best thing for a passenger to do in such a situation, if they want to avoid the risk of a criminal record?

(Disclaimer: this is based on my interpretation of above posts - this has not been confirmed by a legal expert)

 

[tony6499]

The reason of pay when challenged is why season ticket holders are charged the full first class fare if they travel in first class with a standard class season ticket

 

[Starmill]

This is ridiculous. Anyone who's going on about "making sure you travel in the correct class of accommodation" (because no staff with Standard Class travel passes ever sit in First, do they?) clearly hasn't seen the train in question. It's exactly the same. Almost impossible to tell in some variations when there's already people sat down.

This is strong evidence for why the Penalty Fares system is grossly unfair - it focuses on extracting revenue from passengers who've made mistakes and does almost nothing at all to deter the genuine fare evaders who are quite determined. If one of them did this, they would have gotten away with it unless there were police to detain them. Another RPI giving his employer a bad reputation by reporting for prosecution someone who admits they just made a mistake. And Southern not exactly covering themselves in glory with their utterly nonsensical approach to First Class.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Potentially liable, but exceedingly unlikely to face that prosecution. It's hard to see how it's in the TOCs interest to prosecute in this circumstance.

Exceedingly unlikely? Sure? I think some TOCs would happily prosecute in that circumstance. Especially if the fare paid were less than that of the fare to the next stop the train they used.

 

[najaB]

Exceedingly unlikely? Sure? I think some TOCs would happily prosecute in that circumstance. Especially if the fare paid were less than that of the fare to the next stop the train they used.

That comment pre-supposes that the majority of guards/RPIs at the majority of TOCs are seeking to prosecute at every possible opportunity. That ignores the reality that most of them are, just like you or me, just out for a peaceful life.

I have personally witnessed so many cases of guards 'letting it slide' rather than 'going official' that I couldn't begin to count. The attitude test that Flamingo and others refer to is a real thing. I have no doubt that if the passenger in anme's post appeared to genuinely have gotten on the wrong train, and was willing to pay for a ticket back to the starting station, almost all guards would happily sell the ticket and move along - some might even say 'don't worry about it, I'll give you a zero-fare ticket to get you back to A'.

Despite what you may have experienced, the majority of railway staff are actual human beings - with lives, families, all of that stuff that us 'normals' have.

 

[reb0118]

gotten

I would make this a strict liability offence!

I normally don't comment on spelling/grammar but this one seems to be breeding.........

gotten

Back in the real world I come across many passengers who have made genuine mistakes almost every day in almost all cases their explanation is believed, their tickets endorsed, and they are allowed to make suitable arrangements to get them to where they are going without any further let or hindrance.

If they are found to be sans billet - well that is a much different kettle of fish.............