Is this fare evasion or providing false information?

[Stigy]

The penalty fare guidelines say that making a note of the name (badge) can assist with later verification. But not all staff have a name badge. Are rail staff obliged to show ID, when asked?

In any case, even with a name, it can only assist. I still couldn't prove that the named individual had given me the authority to travel, should they be unable to recall it (for whatever reason) when asked.

Certain staff are obliged to show ID, yes. They don’t have to give their name, but their unique ID number would identify them more so than a name anyway.

 

[najaB]

I still couldn't prove that the named individual had given me the authority to travel, should they be unable to recall it (for whatever reason) when asked.

The thing is, unless they say 'I remember the interaction and no I didn't give permission.' then a court has to give benefit of the doubt.

 

[Silverdale]

First, as an honest customer, I don't want to be looking at the inside of a court at all. So 'the court won't convict' is not an uplifting thought. I am looking for advice which will avoid even being suspected of travelling without a ticket/authority.

Second, if it came to that, is your statement correct? The prosecution will have a witness who says I was on the train [18(1)] and unable to produce a valid ticket [18(2)]. That is all they have to do, to prove their case. If I say 'I was given authority to travel by X' but X says 'I cannot recall such an interaction', I won't be given the benefit of the doubt. We are back to 'a bloke on the station told me'. All I have shown is that I know the name/ID of a member of staff.

 

[Silverdale]

Mods, as this is turning into a general discussion about authority to travel, perhaps it would be an idea to shunt the last 10 posts to a new thread?

 

[Gareth Marston]

Unfortunately we live in a society where many people refuse to accept responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. Blaming it on somebody else is almost par for the course after all we only have to look at the actions of the beloved Secretary of State for Transport......

Differentiating between the cases of people who try and deflect, people who asked someone who wasn't a TOC employee, people who've misheard/understood what they were told and genuine cases is a hard job. The short fare brigade are easier to identify as they usually incriminate themselves by saying they joined somewhere with ticket buying facilities.

The bottom line in PF areas though is that there is no reason for staff to give people verbal permission to travel accept in exceptional circumstances. It's easy for me to find out where the brokenTVM's are closed booking offices when they should be open are. If one person is found without a ticket and says verbal permission was given its different when a trainload or several people turn up with same story. It's not unknown for people to turn up at Newtown having got on the wrong train stayed in wrong portion of a train at Shrewsbuy etcetc they come storming in the railway is that and the other and it's someone's else's fault. The retort of "there's quite a few of you then?"is never a prelude to multiple passengers at the wrong place!

 

[Gareth Marston]

Mods, as this is turning into a general discussion about authority to travel, perhaps it would be an idea to shunt the last 10 posts to a new thread?

Agreed

 

[Silverdale]

Gareth, all of what you say in #65 is undoubtedly right.

But you are still avoiding answering the question about the honest customer.

In a penalty fare area, what are the 'exceptional circumstances' in which authority to travel may be given? If they are told that exceptional circumstances (undefined) exist, an honest customer may genuinely think that 'something wrong with the app' is one of those exceptional circumstances.

It certainly benefits the railway industry to be able to just tell customers to travel without a ticket or beyond their ticket's validity in exceptional (for the railway) circumstances. But does it benefit the customer when an honest mistake or misunderstanding could lead to a penalty or worse?

Surely authority to travel needs to be documented and traceable, for the assurance of both parties?

 

[Gareth Marston]

Gareth, all of what you say in #65 is undoubtedly right.

But you are still avoiding answering the question about the honest customer.

In a penalty fare area, what are the 'exceptional circumstances' in which authority to travel may be given? If they are told that exceptional circumstances (undefined) exist, an honest customer may genuinely think that 'something wrong with the app' is one of those exceptional circumstances.

It certainly benefits the railway industry to be able to just tell customers to travel without a ticket or beyond their ticket's validity in exceptional (for the railway) circumstances. But does it benefit the customer when an honest mistake or misunderstanding could lead to a penalty or worse?

Surely authority to travel needs to be documented and traceable, for the assurance of both parties?

Unfortunately it would seem from whats posted on this forum that the bulk of these "man on the platform said" incidents are happening in areas where we are transitioning from a culture of pay when when challenged. Until that transition is complete and dishonest people stop using it as an excuse on a regular basis then there is the potential for someone honest to be caught up. However we don't hear of "the TVM was broke and me and the other 20 passengers were all done by Hitler at Piccadily after the man said it was Ok" do we? Staff get these type of issues communicated internally to them from control so there's no need for documented authority.

Coming back to the OP's story having problems with the App when the TVM and Booking Office were open and working are not exceptional circumstances.

 

[Silverdale]

Again, I am sure you are right that lots of these cases arise where people have been used to travelling without a ticket until challenged.

But it's simply not good enough to say that as a consequence of the rules being enforced, some honest customers will potentially be caught up, having acted on the (probably incorrect) advice from a member of staff.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Again, I am sure you are right that lots of these cases arise where people have been used to travelling without a ticket until challenged.

But it's simply not good enough to say that as a consequence of the rules being enforced, some honest customers will potentially be caught up, having acted on the (probably incorrect) advice from a member of staff.

In a PF area there really is no need for invidual staff to give permission the policy is black and white unless control deems an exceptional circumstance were back to allegations of poorly trained staff/ staff entrapping people they don't like the look of?

 

[Silverdale]

I accept that the need for customers to travel without a ticket should only arise in exceptional circumstances, but from the customers' point of view, the policy is anything but black and white. What are these "exceptional circumstances"? The penalty fare rules make no mention of "exceptional circumstances".

Instead, the rules say that a customer cannot be charged a PF if "a person acting, or appearing to act, on behalf of the operator of the train or station indicated that the person [customer] was, or people generally were, allowed to board that train, without a ticket or other authority to travel".

So the rules themselves accept that on occasion a customer in a PF area may receive advice which does not amount to authority to travel and that they shouldn't be penalised for having acted on it. Whether the advice is given correctly (in "exceptional circumstances") or through incompetence or malice, is irrelevant.

While the intention of the rule is clear enough, what is far from clear is how an honest customer in this situation is supposed to prove that they are acting on advice given. And this is the question you continue to dance around.

 

[4141]

I accept that the need for customers to travel without a ticket should only arise in exceptional circumstances, but from the customers' point of view, the policy is anything but black and white. What are these "exceptional circumstances"? The penalty fare rules make no mention of "exceptional circumstances".

Instead, the rules say that a customer cannot be charged a PF if "a person acting, or appearing to act, on behalf of the operator of the train or station indicated that the person [customer] was, or people generally were, allowed to board that train, without a ticket or other authority to travel".

So the rules themselves accept that on occasion a customer in a PF area may receive advice which does not amount to authority to travel and that they shouldn't be penalised for having acted on it. Whether the advice is given correctly (in "exceptional circumstances") or through incompetence or malice, is irrelevant.

While the intention of the rule is clear enough, what is far from clear is how an honest customer in this situation is supposed to prove that they are acting on advice given. And this is the question you continue to dance around.

I don't get the chance to travel by train very often these days, but I recently made a Saturday evening journey from my local station. Ticket office was closed, so I selected my ticket from the machine, but then it wouldn't take cash OR card! I asked the "man on the gate" if I could buy on the train and was told yes, fine, but having read some of the posts on here I sensibly asked the train manager the same question as soon as it arrived, and got the same answer, a cheery "no problem". I never saw them again during the half hour journey, and on alighting at my destination I found that the station was unmanned. So, no revenue for the TOC and it left me feeling slightly guilty...

 

[najaB]

So, no revenue for the TOC and it left me feeling slightly guilty...

No need to feel guilty, you tried to pay several times.

 

[davart]

As I've mentioned previously, intent is the key. Honest mistakes should be dealt with accordingly.

I do acknowledge that it is basically impossible to truly know if someone is trying it on.

Simplification is the way forward. I think attitudes need to be adjusted however. Assume positive rather than negative intent.

 

[4141]

No need to feel guilty, you tried to pay several times.

Phew...thank you - the guilt subsided soon after the first pint, and it didn't take long to remember that if they HAD done a ticket check it would have been during the climb up the Stroud valley...oops!

 

[Silverdale]

As I've mentioned previously, intent is the key. Honest mistakes should be dealt with accordingly.

I do acknowledge that it is basically impossible to truly know if someone is trying it on.

Simplification is the way forward. I think attitudes need to be adjusted however. Assume positive rather than negative intent.

The principle should be that an honest customer following the rules should not be penalised, whether it is by being charged a PF after acting on advice, or by being prosecuted after being given verbal authority to travel.

As I and others have said, elsewhere, the current processes are flawed, because the honest customer has no means of proving that they have received the advice or authority to travel. Unless the rail companies simply accept any such claim without proof, the only solution is to give the customer something they can produce if/when challenged.

 

[mallard]

Assume positive rather than negative intent.

Unfortunatley, assuming negative intent brings in more revenue. That's all the TOCs care about.

 

[davart]

Unfortunatley, assuming negative intent brings in more revenue. That's all the TOCs care about.

But in ANY other customer service role or business, the general approach is to err on the side of the customer.

It's a bit like collaring someone in the supermarket for shoplifting as they're standing in the checkout line... )

 

[Silverdale]

It isn't even a matter of intent.

Just as with prosecuting a Byelaw 18 offence, to charge the PF, the TOC doesn't even need to consider the customer's intent. It's simply a matter of whether the relevant facts can be proved.

It's a bit like collaring someone in the supermarket for shoplifting as they're standing in the checkout line... )

It's more like a store refusing to issue a receipt for goods purchased and then claiming that the goods have been shoplifted.