Northern and prosecutions for railcard use before 10am

[chrish2]

I've searched the previous and have not seen this mentioned.

The 22-year-old Oxford University graduate, who lives in Charlesworth, Derbyshire, booked a ticket from Broadbottom to Manchester on Thursday, September 5, as he normally did, as part of a wider journey to London from Manchester, for which he already had a ticket.

I'm not a ticketing wize but in effect this guy has already overpaid for his journey!

He has two tickets
Broadbottom > Manchester
Manchester -> Euston

His fare would have met the minmum fair requirement if he had one ticket.

Assuming he has an advance from Manchester, I've just checked the tickets for Mon 4 December.


------
(
£5.50 Broadbottom > Manchester ANYTIME (on the 09:00 from Broadbottom)
or
£3.65 Broadbottom > Manchester ANYTIME WITH RAILCARD(on the 09:00 from Broadbottom)
)
Plus
£28.95 Manchester -> Euston ADVANCE WITH RAILCARD (on the 09:55 from Manchester)
-------
vs
-------
£30.95 Broadbottom -> Euston ADVANCE WITH RAILCARD (on the 09:00 from Broadbottom and 09:55 from Manchester)
-------

Two tickets in the situation he found himself in is 28.95+3.65= £32.60

That is £1.65 more than a single point-to-point ticket.

Out of curiosity, if you went to a ticket office with the £28.95 ticket, what would they charge you for starting early? Can they excess it?

 

[Haywain]

Out of curiosity, if you went to a ticket office with the £28.95 ticket, what would they charge you for starting early? Can they excess it?

It could only be excessed up to a walk-up ticket for the same origin and destination. Once that has happened an over-distance excess is theoretically possible. In reality, a ticket for the additional journey would be sold.

 

[infobleep]

I've searched the previous and have not seen this mentioned.



I'm not a ticketing wize but in effect this guy has already overpaid for his journey!

He has two tickets
Broadbottom > Manchester
Manchester -> Euston

His fare would have met the minmum fair requirement if he had one ticket.

Assuming he has an advance from Manchester, I've just checked the tickets for Mon 4 December.


------
(
£5.50 Broadbottom > Manchester ANYTIME (on the 09:00 from Broadbottom)
or
£3.65 Broadbottom > Manchester ANYTIME WITH RAILCARD(on the 09:00 from Broadbottom)
)
Plus
£28.95 Manchester -> Euston ADVANCE WITH RAILCARD (on the 09:55 from Manchester)
-------
vs
-------
£30.95 Broadbottom -> Euston ADVANCE WITH RAILCARD (on the 09:00 from Broadbottom and 09:55 from Manchester)
-------

Two tickets in the situation he found himself in is 28.95+3.65= £32.60

That is £1.65 more than a single point-to-point ticket.

Out of curiosity, if you went to a ticket office with the £28.95 ticket, what would they charge you for starting early? Can they excess it?

You have reminded me of the situation on the London Underground in 1883. Tickets to groups of stations were the same price but if you purchased one to a station and travelled further, even if it was the same price, you would have to buy another ticket to cover it.

The info is in Dickens Dicionary of London by Charles Dickens [Jr] published by Macmillan & Co. [5th edition, 1883]. The qoute under the Railways entry being:

It is also worth remembering by those to whom it is otherwise indifferent which line they take, that on the Metropolitan line, if you find it convenient to go on to a station beyond that marked on your ticket, you will be compelled, even though the fare from the starting point be the same, to pay the full amount chargeable between the two stations.

 

[MotCO]

The Telegraph has an article in tonight's paper about this. I've posted it in 'the other thread', not knowing which thread was most appropriate, and the link is here (post #12) https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/reported-for-using-railcard-discount-before-10am.274823/page-2

 

[infobleep]

The Telegraph has an article in tonight's paper about this. I've posted it in 'the other thread', not knowing which thread was most appropriate, and the link is here (post #12) https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/reported-for-using-railcard-discount-before-10am.274823/page-2

That is interesting.

I wonder what people on here think of the government lawyers views on this? Especially thise who think they should be dealt with as Northen have, if any agree with Northern.

I think paying the difference is reasonable.

 

[mrmartin]

The Telegraph has an article in tonight's paper about this. I've posted it in 'the other thread', not knowing which thread was most appropriate, and the link is here (post #12) https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/reported-for-using-railcard-discount-before-10am.274823/page-2

It's just unbelievable after the single justice procedure meltdown so recently Northern took such a hard line in their initial press comments, almost gloating at their glee to be able to prosecute small amounts like this.

Something is really, really wrong in these organisations when it comes to revenue protection. I suggest that all rail companies get any criminal prosecutions for any type of ticketing "offense" taken off them asap. I don't know what they really gain from this - hardcore fare evaders probably already have an extensive criminal record so it doesn't matter, and there is a large amount of people caught for stupid "mistakes" like this. The only people that it deters in the future are those that would not be deterred by a future civil collection of a fine but would be by a criminal record, which seems like a tiny amount of people.

I just cannot understand a TOC looking at a £1.90 ticket underpayment and the legal team there thinking this is worth prosecuting via the courts. The paltary costs they get awarded surely cannot cover staff time either.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I just cannot understand a TOC looking at a £1.90 ticket underpayment and the legal team there thinking this is worth prosecuting via the courts.

I'm inclined to think that Northern has actually turned settlements (which most people will take, at least as per the usual advice here) into a profit centre. I suspect this is one key reason why they don't seem to like using Penalty Fares (generally, I know they aren't as things stand applicable to this matter) - they get half as much and it's too easy to appeal for their liking.

 

[mrmartin]

I'm inclined to think that Northern has actually turned settlements (which most people will take, at least as per the usual advice here) into a profit centre. I suspect this is one key reason why they don't seem to like using Penalty Fares (generally, I know they aren't as things stand applicable to this matter).

There is a huge amount of the population that would be too scared to even reply to something like this - or think it will go away if they don't reply (not to mention don't get the post or what not).

 

[yorkie]

Something is really, really wrong in these organisations when it comes to revenue protection. I suggest that all rail companies get any criminal prosecutions for any type of ticketing "offense" taken off them asap. I don't know what they really gain from this - hardcore fare evaders probably already have an extensive criminal record so it doesn't matter, and there is a large amount of people caught for stupid "mistakes" like this. The only people that it deters in the future are those that would not be deterred by a future civil collection of a fine but would be by a criminal record, which seems like a tiny amount of people.

Very true; Northern are rotten to the very core and it comes from the top.

Check this out:

Northern issuing penalty fares for using off-peak tickets during peak time

[To clarify: this has not happened to me personally. This is a summary thread intended to collect data, examples, and any relevant information to the wider phenomenon.] I'm sure it comes as no surprise to many forum members that Northern have been consistently issuing penalty fares for the use...

www.railforums.co.uk

This is just one example of wrongdoing by Northern.

Northern management read this forum, and have been known to attempt to silence people for criticising them, so they must be aware of when they are pointed out for being wrong on here, but choose to continue their behaviour regardless.

Here is another example: they issue Penalty Fares to people who break their journey where break of journey is not permitted; this is not an appropriate/correct action, and only the difference should be charged. One of their victims was the son of a barrister who I know, and once the barrister contacted me, I was happy to help, and the customer won. I am also aware of two people on this forum who experienced the same thing, on the same line of route. However other people, who don't have the right contacts, or don't know about this forum, have no doubt ended up out of pocket at the hands of this absolutely rotten company.

Sadly the Rail Ombudsman isn't interested; I tried to arrange a meeting for them and they couldn't care less. They are quite content for companies such as Northern to continue acting in this manner.

Transport Focus are not interested either; at least they weren't under Anthony Smith. I've not tried contacting their new chief executive, but if he is being proactive he would find this forum and contact us, but so far I've heard nothing, so I won't be holding my breath, though I'd love to be proven wrong!

The ORR are either disinterested or toothless or lack knowledge; I am not quite sure which, but there is no evidence of them doing any effective regulation in the area of rail fares.

So there is no effective ombudsman, watchdog or regulator who has an appropriate level of knowledge and/or ability to do anything, even if any of them did care, which I am pretty sure they don't.

However, the fact they merely exist (at least on paper) means that the Government can claim that the relevant scrutiny and accountability is place, even when it blatantly isn't.

The only watchdog type organisation, in relation to fares matters, who I would rate highly, is London Travelwatch, but they cover a limited area and have limited resources. All the others appear to be a waste of time.

I just cannot understand a TOC looking at a £1.90 ticket underpayment and the legal team there thinking this is worth prosecuting via the courts. The paltary costs they get awarded surely cannot cover staff time either.

The threat of prosecution can be very profitable for TOCs; if their customers settle (which many do, to avoid a potential criminal conviction), then the TOC gets to keep the settlement.

 

[Starmill]

It's just unbelievable after the single justice procedure meltdown so recently Northern took such a hard line in their initial press comments, almost gloating at their glee to be able to prosecute small amounts like this.

They really said the quiet part out loud there didn't they? They hint that the complexity is a benefit to them because it gives them an opportunity to catch people out. No wonder the general public don't trust them...

 

[Intermodal]

Railway companies need to be stripped of the right to prosecute as soon as possible. It’s clear that they can not and should not be trusted with this and it’s obvious to anyone that there is an insane conflict of interest.

Credit to this chap on Twitter who has bought awareness to this issue and forced change, but as we all know it has been going on for seemingly forever and it is quite astounding how little movement there is to change it, especially after the Post Office scandal.

Not purchasing a ticket should be a civil matter like everything else.

 

[mrmartin]

The threat of prosecution can be very profitable for TOCs; if their customers settle (which many do, to avoid a potential criminal conviction), then the TOC gets to keep the settlement.

Honestly I'd question that, nothing is cheap in the railway and the staff time for all this can't be that low cost. Perhaps I'm wrong, but even still the few million £ they get out of this pales into comparison with the overall railway budget - and the enormous liabilities they are taking on from all the compensation that is going to be paid when/if various prosecutions get overturned en masse.

 

[redreni]

The threat of prosecution can be very profitable for TOCs; if their customers settle (which many do, to avoid a potential criminal conviction), then the TOC gets to keep the settlement.

And that, in my view, is the biggest scandal of all.

Some of the settlements are so low it suggests the TOC almost certainly knows its case is very weak. Anyone can calculate a rational person with no criminal record, who has a lot to lose if they were to get a criminal record and who can lay their hands on £200, would pay £200 in return for not having to face a criminal charge even if they hadn't done anything.

Even a very principled person would surely think twice before running the risk of defending a charge they could get rid of for £200. Those people are not necessarily accepting that they have dodged their fare and agreeing a voluntary settlement with the injured party; they're just being threatened with what would amount, in many cases, to an abuse of process and coerced into paying to make it stop.

 

[yorkie]

Perhaps I'm wrong, but even still the few million £ they get out of this pales into comparison with the overall railway budget - and the enormous liabilities they are taking on from all the compensation that is going to be paid when/if various prosecutions get overturned en masse.

But the last part hasn't been considered by the people who implemented the policies.

When Northern management read criticisms of their actions on here, they no doubt dismissed them as having no concequence for them, and carried on regardless.

However, now that the wider media is starting to pick up on what we've been exposing on this forum for years, we are starting to see some backtracking by Northern...

If only they had listened to us in the first place.

 

[TUC]

I've searched the previous and have not seen this mentioned.



I'm not a ticketing wize but in effect this guy has already overpaid for his journey!

He has two tickets
Broadbottom > Manchester
Manchester -> Euston

His fare would have met the minmum fair requirement if he had one ticket.

Assuming he has an advance from Manchester, I've just checked the tickets for Mon 4 December.


------
(
£5.50 Broadbottom > Manchester ANYTIME (on the 09:00 from Broadbottom)
or
£3.65 Broadbottom > Manchester ANYTIME WITH RAILCARD(on the 09:00 from Broadbottom)
)
Plus
£28.95 Manchester -> Euston ADVANCE WITH RAILCARD (on the 09:55 from Manchester)
-------
vs
-------
£30.95 Broadbottom -> Euston ADVANCE WITH RAILCARD (on the 09:00 from Broadbottom and 09:55 from Manchester)
-------

Two tickets in the situation he found himself in is 28.95+3.65= £32.60

That is £1.65 more than a single point-to-point ticket.

Out of curiosity, if you went to a ticket office with the £28.95 ticket, what would they charge you for starting early? Can they excess it?

That does raise the question of what the situation would be with split ticketing if someone with a 16-25 railcard bought a set of split tickets for the morning peak, all less than the £12 minimum fare, but totalling to over £12?

 

[johncrossley]

Would there be merit in someone paying off the blackmailer and then going to the press, saying "I had to pay £200 to avoid risk of a criminal record", trying to shame the TOC into refunding the ransom?

 

[185143]

Agreed, something bad is bound to happen to make things simpler for customers to understand, either a blanket ban for use before say 09:00 or an all-day minimum fare [like how you get with a Network railcard].

Unlikely outcome is the minimum fare to get dropped outright, but that will probably cost the DfT too much money (unless they decide to increase the cost of the railcard to say £40 a year with the spin saying "hey look, no minimum fare now".

That's probably not a bad idea in fairness.

 

[chrish2]

Minimum fare was set back in the “old days” of 9-5’s Monday to Friday. Arguably it might not be anywhere near as costly to scrap the rule as it use to do. There is also life time customer value to consider, getting customers to build trains into their daily routine will increase the amount of fares collected over their lifetime.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Prosecution should have a strict minimum attached, something like £100 evaded... or re-offense before it should happen. It should still happen, but not for such small.

In general? Or specifically for Railcard discount before 10am? If you mean in general, you're essentially offering a free pass for habitual fare evaders...

 

[Indigo Soup]

Is that an increase in numbers or in revenue?

Certainly numbers. Probably not revenue.

In general? Or specifically for Railcard discount before 10am? If you mean in general, you're essentially offering a free pass for habitual fare evaders...

Apparently the way some supermarkets approach shoplifting prosecutions is to keep track of the value of theft committed by an individual until it exceeds some threshold where the offence becomes more significant in the eyes of the law. It therefore isn't a case of 'you stole a tin of beans' but 'on dates X you stole items Y to a value of Z'.

Might not be the way you want to do things on the railway for a variety of reasons. But one advantage is that the people who get prosecuted are those who you can demonstrate are avoiding payment to a significant degree.

 

[signed]

If you mean in general, you're essentially offering a free pass for habitual fare evaders...

That limit could be changed depending on offense, but to be fair no, especially with the advent of eTickets, there can be a quite easy way to track evasion.

It's just not in the interest of justice to send everyone to court for 50p, or even £5, however it is when the amounts are in the 100s or even 1000s, surely removing most railway offenses would ease the 300k case backlogs (data from Q3 2023).

Performance Tracker 2023: Criminal courts | Institute for Government

Demand is becoming more complex, backlogs are at record highs, and productivity is declining

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk

 

[redreni]

In general? Or specifically for Railcard discount before 10am? If you mean in general, you're essentially offering a free pass for habitual fare evaders...

Not really. With habitual fare evaders, the amount evaded will rack up to over £100 over the weeks and months. If it doesn't, it probably costs more to prosecute those people than to not bother.

 

[Haywain]

it probably costs more to prosecute those people than to not bother.

That’s why the court awards costs following a conviction.

 

[cool110]

Apparently the way some supermarkets approach shoplifting prosecutions is to keep track of the value of theft committed by an individual until it exceeds some threshold where the offence becomes more significant in the eyes of the law...

£200, at that point it changes from summary only to either way.

 

[ricoblade]

The (paper) Yorkshire Post today has an article on this and at the end there is a quote from Northern "With regard to recent reported cases involving use of the 16-25 railcard with fares under£12 before 10am, we are withdrawing any live cases".

 

[talldave]

But the last part hasn't been considered by the people who implemented the policies.

When Northern management read criticisms of their actions on here, they no doubt dismissed them as having no concequence for them, and carried on regardless.

However, now that the wider media is starting to pick up on what we've been exposing on this forum for years, we are starting to see some backtracking by Northern...

If only they had listened to us in the first place.

I repeat my unpopular comment from the other day of being thankful for the power of social media to inflict humiliation on organisations such as Northern. It's a small win for the little people. However, remember that the media are more interested in the clicks than the real people in the stories, but they're a useful tool if you play the game.

I'm pleased to see the forum's regular Twitter posts and the feathers they're ruffling. More please!!

I'm with all those who think TOCs should be stripped of their prosecution powers - they're behaving like power-crazed amateurs and raking in healthy amounts of cash from their threats of court.

 

[Haywain]

surely removing most railway offenses would ease the 300k case backlogs (data from Q3 2023).

The difference would be very trivial.

 

[greyman42]

I doubt this lot really give a damn about the people affected. This will just be another thing they will use to bash Starmer and Labour as has been the trend with everything since the election

I think it has been a terrific piece of journalism.

 

[infobleep]

Certainly numbers. Probably not revenue.

Apparently the way some supermarkets approach shoplifting prosecutions is to keep track of the value of theft committed by an individual until it exceeds some threshold where the offence becomes more significant in the eyes of the law. It therefore isn't a case of 'you stole a tin of beans' but 'on dates X you stole items Y to a value of Z'.

Might not be the way you want to do things on the railway for a variety of reasons. But one advantage is that the people who get prosecuted are those who you can demonstrate are avoiding payment to a significant degree.

Or are avoiding the correct fare by a very small amount and perhaps refusing to pay the penalty fare for not paying the small difference

 

[wilbers]

Straight from the horses mouth as it were, the very journalist that was quoted in the first post of this thread.