Penalty Fare advice - please help!

[Ferret]

I know of a fairly well-known television personality who has been PF'd (quite correctly) by one RPI three times this year alone. I have actually witnessed this person dig £20 out of their pocket without a second thought.
It's unlikely that this RPI is the only one to have caught this person travelling without a ticket, so it's quite possible that they have been PF'd ten times or more.
So, I wonder if they take the gamble that 'I've not been caught x times, so if I get caught now, £20 will balance out when I haven't paid...', in other words, they're still in profit.

Thisis where I'd propose a 3 strikes and you're out rule. Keep getting PF'd and the third time sees you RA Magistrate's Court for the mother of all PF's to the tune of about £500 and a criminal record. Now that would be a deterrent.

 

[b0b]

Although I agree on the face of it that the penalty fare seems harsh the simple fact is that they went past their stop and even though an excess would have been zero a singel from University to Selly Oak is £1.50. So by not getting the ticket excessed (and no I did not know about 0 excesses before coming on this forum) then they are surely liable for the single fare.

I would agree with you had the OP been able to buy the ticket she required, however the time she purchased the ticket, the office was closed and the TVM could not issue that ticket.

I don't think anyone seriously believes that the OP would not have bought the correct ticket had the booking office been open. Instead she bought the closest ticket she could, and realizing the difference was 0 and she'd morally paid the correct fare and did not expect problems...

Based on the arguements on here that as the fare was the same then no PF should (morally) have been issued does this mean that if I buy a return from Selly Oak to BHI and go back to Smethwick Galton Bridge (same fare) then I should be allowed to do that?

Well, can the initial ticket be excessed into the second ticket for 0? if so, yes, because they sell that ticket.

I don't have the local knowledge to know whether that would be allowed, but that's not what happened in the OPs case anyway.

She wanted a Selly Oak>BHI return and since she was starting her journey late at University and the booking office was closed, bought the return to University, thinking since the fare was the same it would not be a problem to use that ticket as a Selly Oak ticket instead.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I haven't read all through this thread so forgive me if this has been mentioned or I have mis-understood, but....

3. Where the full range of tickets is not available
If you cannot buy an appropriate ticket for the journey you want to make because the
range of tickets that is available at the station from which you intend to start your journey is restricted, you must buy a ticket or Permit to Travel before you travel that entitles you to make at least part of the journey. Then you must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, buy an appropriate ticket to complete your journey. In these circumstances, you only need to pay the fare that you would have paid if you had bought a ticket immediately before your journey. The price you will have to pay will be reduced by the amount paid for the ticket or Permit to Travel.

....surely applies before Penalty fares?

 

[b0b]

I haven't read all through this thread so forgive me if this has been mentioned or I have mis-understood, but....
....surely applies before Penalty fares?

the PF is relying on this: "Then you must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, buy an appropriate ticket to complete your journey."

There are 2 schools of thought on this:
(a) she did not comply with the above statement, issue a PF
(b) since the "appropriate ticket" was a zero excess, she morally did not avoid paying the fare of the "appropriate ticket".Passenger should have been given a break on the PF. remind passenger of rule and inform them of zero excess

 

[yorkie]

She didn't attempt to get a £0 excess at Birmingham International, so the PF was correct.

As for 3 PFs and you get summoned to court, this would be unlikely to succeed, as "anyone who is charged one is not being accused of avoiding, or attempting to avoid, paying his or her fare."

 

[Greenback]

The main problem is that the average customer does not have a thorough knowledge of the NCoC. Most people assume, wrongly, that they must always have a ticket before boarding the train. This is the impression given by most of the posters I've seen on my ventures into PF land.

It's also interesting that most people who do intentionally evade paying their fare, are all too familiar with the rules and seek to exploit any loophole they can find. This of course adds to the injustice of the whole system.

 

[djw1981]

Hence why we a penalty fare should IMo be like a caution and after 2 cautions you are prosecuted via courts for fines, compensation and costs as Northern have recently. I would also have an independent Penalty fare appeals body paid for by ATOC but run independently.

 

[swt_passenger]

I would also have an independent Penalty fare appeals body paid for by ATOC but run independently.

And who would pay ATOC the costs of paying for this body? Presumably all the TOCS that fund ATOC.

So what would change? ATOC is nothing more than a trade association for TOCs, paid for by them collectively...

 

[djw1981]

Because appealing to a TOC gives the TOC employee a vested interest in denying your appeal as they have a budget. Independent but paid for by members is a more common regulatory mechanism.

 

[jon0844]

Why not funded by the tax payer? Given the tax payer subsidises the industry anyway, it really makes no difference - except to be more independent.

 

[djw1981]

With a regulator paid for by the members who are regulated, but run independently they have an interest in minimising claims by training their own staff etc.

You could make it tax payer funded but at a time when we are trimming the public sector I don't see DfT increasing their staff count. Also you remove any incentive to reduce the number of claims being appealed - in fact TOCs may think it cheaper to not try and deal with any complaints locally but refer everything to the taxpayer funded appeal body.

 

[yorkie]

Hence why we a penalty fare should IMo be like a caution and after 2 cautions you are prosecuted via courts for fines, compensation and costs as Northern have recently. I would also have an independent Penalty fare appeals body paid for by ATOC but run independently.

So that wouldn't actually be a "fare" at all, so you'd have to call it something else! Also, cautions do not require payment, so you can't call it a caution!

Also, what offence would they be accused of?

What happens if the person does not consent to the caution?

Under what circumstances would you propose this caution be given?

 

[Ivo]

We could run an independent commission

Although that might not be a good idea to be honest. Not if it's taken us a week to come to no real decision at all here (apart from "accept and alert the media").

 

[jon0844]

Bingo! From now on, all appeals are made via a forum on the Daily Mail website.

 

[djw1981]

Failure to consent to it, would automatically involve a court case with the risk of costs being awarded against you, just as with a parking penalty notice, or a ticket for street urination.

The caution, or penalty notice if one prefers, would replace the 'penalty fare'.

 

[yorkie]

Failure to consent to it, would automatically involve a court case with the risk of costs being awarded against you, just as with a parking penalty notice, or a ticket for street urination.

The caution, or penalty notice if one prefers, would replace the 'penalty fare'.

So if someone loses their Railcard, or their Railcard is a day out of date, or they miss their stop due to falling asleep, or the queue was long and they didn't want to miss their train, or they got separated from their group on a GroupSave ticket, or they lost their wallet, or were aged 16 and thought child fares went up to the legal definition of under 18, or didn't get a £0 excess, they'd be accused of a criminal offence, with an assumption of guilt and any appeal against this guilty verdict would go straight to a court?!

 

[jon0844]

Those examples appear to be where the penalty fare system should work as designed. If you forgot your railcard, then you didn't have a valid ticket and can hold your hands up and pay - just as you might for returning to your car 10 minutes late and having a ticket. Annoying as it might be if your railcard expired just the day before, that would still be your error. Of course, the industry could help by emailing/texting you that it's coming up for renewal or something, but people should accept some responsibility for their own actions.

Even sleeping and missing a stop could attract a PF I guess, although if you had done so - and can be seen to take the next service back, this is where discretion can work wonders. Has anyone defrauded the railway by going to the next stop then immediately coming back without leaving? Let's say you could retract a PF without an appeal, if I'd overslept and missed my stop - I'd willingly pay a penalty with a note that if I return to the correct station within a certain time, I'll be refunded. A fair, common sense, system that would punish someone trying it on.

What PFs don't work for is those who don't have a ticket and never got one, and then happily pay the PF while laughing at the RPI because they've done very well out of it.

 

[yorkie]

Even sleeping and missing a stop could attract a PF I guess, although if you had done so - and can be seen to take the next service back, this is where discretion can work wonders. Has anyone defrauded the railway by going to the next stop then immediately coming back without leaving?

No, they haven't defrauded, meaning a penalty fare is appropriate, and prosecution is not appropriate.

However under djw1981's proposal of replacing PFs with a system that assumes guilt for a crime whenever a PF would currently be applicable, prosecution would take place if someone did that and didn't pay the penalty. They would then be found innocent of defrauding, and the taxpayer would be left to foot the bill, and the TOC would then get a load of bad publicity.

So yes, someone has actually come up with something worse, and more draconian, than penalty fares!

 

[RJ]

I once fell asleep on a Voyager between East Croydon and Shepherd's Bush so I had an SSO arranged for Acton Mainline. I was holding a Z1-6 Travelcard, was I eligible to pay a PF?

 

[yorkie]

I once fell asleep on a Voyager between East Croydon and Kensington Olympia so I had an SSO arranged for Acton Mainline. I was holding a Z1-6 Travelcard, was I eligible to pay a PF?

No, because Virgin services are (and were) not penalty fare trains.

 

[Ivo]

Some time ago, probably in about 2002, my mother and I went to Farnborough from Winnersh to visit relatives. We decided to come back via Basingstoke (and our ticket was routed as such as well), for a change. So we eventually boarded the *slam-door* stock at Reading, and obviously the layout of Reading on Pfms 4a/b is that of a terminus, so we boarded the rear carriage and stayed in it (these days, I go to the front if there's time because it's usually quieter). Anyway, we got to Winnersh a bit later, ready to disembark - only to realise that the platform was still only long enough for five cars. And by the time we reached the platform, the train had started to move. Whoops. Thus, we changed at Wokingham, and returned to Winnersh on the Reading platform, which *was* an eight-car platform (as is the London-bound platform these days). Did SWT have any problems with our doing so, in spite of it being a theoretical breach of PF rules?

Of course not.

 

[yorkie]

Did SWT have any problems with our doing so, in spite of it being a theoretical breach of PF rules?

Of course not.

Well that's their fault, so they can hardly complain. However I still feel that PFs are totally and utterly immoral, ineffective and misused by the TOCs.

 

[RochdalePioneers]

Lets not lose sight of how arbitrarily the rules are being applied. The OP has been hit with a £20 penalty for failing to buy a £0.00 ticket.

 

[Mojo]

I'm on a train now and the ATE just told me when I bought my ticket from her that on the way back I can continue to a station further out that is the same price without getting an excess. I thought of this thread!

 

[hairyhandedfool]

She didn't attempt to get a £0 excess at Birmingham International, so the PF was correct...."

Ah, okay, fair enough, missed that info.

 

[222007]

I'm on a train now and the ATE just told me when I bought my ticket from her that on the way back I can continue to a station further out that is the same price without getting an excess. I thought of this thread!

As an RPI in this situation i'd still do you a zero fare excess not only to make 100% sure you wouldnt be PF but also for my peace of mind that i did the right thing for the passenger

 

[jon0844]

The staff member that probably thinks s/he is helping someone out could be setting them up for a whole world of pain!!

Not knocking them of course, but until there's total consistency then it only helps prove how PFs are flawed. I'd hate to see that argument; 'But I was told it was okay', 'Do you know how many times I hear that sir?' etc.

At the very least, you'd be caught up for ages arguing even if you did then get let out - and looked upon as a cocky git that was probably up to no good.

 

[b0b]

At the very least, you'd be caught up for ages arguing even if you did then get let out - and looked upon as a cocky git that was probably up to no good.

Up to no good = paying the correct fare for your journey?

 

[Mojo]

I went to a ticket office during a 20 Min connection and the ticket was endorsed (not excessed).

 

[jon0844]

Up to no good = paying the correct fare for your journey?

Chances are if you argued enough, they'd get fed up and let you go if they weren't sure of what to do and still think they were right.

If they didn't, you'd be continuing to argue until you paid up or demanded they called the police. I am sure they couldn't hold you there forever!