"Penalty fare" signs & announcements - how are they allowed?

[bricklane90]

I recently went through a potential prosecution case which gratefully was settled out of court for a reasonable fee with Thameslink - it was a mistake on my part and I'm grateful for their decision, but I had absolutely no idea that prosecution and a criminal record was even a possibility for a first-time offence.

Since that happened, I've paid extra attention to the written notices and and audio announcements on trains themselves (Thameslink, South Eastern and Southern).
In all cases, none of them mention potential prosecution. They all say something along the lines of "failure to produce a valid ticket for your entire journey may result in a penalty fare of at least £100".

It doesn't feel like it should be legal for them to make announcements about not having a valid ticket and not mention that as a possibility? Why is it they can and choose to not mention it??

 

[LA50041]

I recently went through a potential prosecution case which gratefully was settled out of court for a reasonable fee with Thameslink - it was a mistake on my part and I'm grateful for their decision, but I had absolutely no idea that prosecution and a criminal record was even a possibility for a first-time offence.

Since that happened, I've paid extra attention to the written notices and and audio announcements on trains themselves (Thameslink, South Eastern and Southern).
In all cases, none of them mention potential prosecution. They all say something along the lines of "failure to produce a valid ticket for your entire journey may result in a penalty fare of at least £100".

It doesn't feel like it should be legal for them to make announcements about not having a valid ticket and not mention that as a possibility? Why is it they can and choose to not mention it??

What was the "first time offence"?

 

[Russel]

It doesn't feel like it should be legal for them to make announcements about not having a valid ticket and not mention that as a possibility? Why is it they can and choose to not mention it??

Why do you feel that way about it?

It's no secret that if you take something without paying, be it a product or service, it's theft in one way or another and you run the risk of prosecution.

 

[saismee]

Why do you feel that way about it?

It's no secret that if you take something without paying, be it a product or service, it's theft in one way or another and you run the risk of prosecution.

And shops don't need signs telling you that shoplifting is a crime.

 

[Vexed]

They all say something along the lines of "failure to produce a valid ticket for your entire journey may result in a penalty fare of at least £100".

It's a bit of an omission, but the wording is left open to interpretation. Not having a valid ticket might result in a penalty fare (which is only £50 if paid within two weeks) or Unpaid Fares Notice depending on the operator. It might result in a prosecution or an out of court settlement. It might result in paying an Anytime fare or fare difference. It might result in nothing.

From memory, SWR's announcements (long running thread on those, maybe this one isn't played any more) ended with something along the lines of "liable to pay a penalty fare of at least £100 or face prosecution".

 

[Russel]

And shops don't need signs telling you that shoplifting is a crime.

Indeed.

Though going back to the thread subject, I'm sure TFL have plenty of signs on their trains stating that you must have a valid ticket or you'll face a penalty fare or prosecution. On the yellow stickers on the doors I think?

 

[bricklane90]

Why do you feel that way about it?

It's no secret that if you take something without paying, be it a product or service, it's theft in one way or another and you run the risk of prosecution.

I get that and I accept that it's on me for not knowing and I feel a bit stupid about it, but I just feel if you're going to have a sign and announcement at all, it needs to be all-inclusive.

The signs and announcements downplay the severity of it in my opinion, there's no way I'm the only one not realising.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 May 2026 ==

Indeed.

Though going back to the thread subject, I'm sure TFL have plenty of signs on their trains stating that you must have a valid ticket or you'll face a penalty fare or prosecution. On the yellow stickers on the doors I think?

TfL do, correct. The three I listed do not as far as I've seen. What I have quoted is pretty much all they say.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 May 2026 ==

It's a bit of an omission, but the wording is left open to interpretation.

From memory, SWR's announcements ended with something along the lines of "liable to pay a penalty fare of at least £100 or face prosecution".

I disagree, on the providers I listed above, there is little room for interpretation, and there is no mention of prosecution or criminal offence at all.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 May 2026 ==

And shops don't need signs telling you that shoplifting is a crime.

I think that's a silly comparison, but no sign/announcement on the train at all would be preferable to what I see now honestly.

If the shop had a sign saying "shoplifters face a penalty fine of £100" and nothing else, it'd be wrong.

 

[furlong]

They get away with it because nobody with the power to stop them cares and no individual has the money to waste to pursue this through the courts. You'd need to be prepared to spend a 7-digit sum to try to get the courts to sort them out. Other attempts just get lost in a game of 'pass the parcel', where every party concerned is able to claim it's someone else's responsibility to deal with it.

At a political level, attempts to deal with it come up against the problem that no political representative wants to be attacked for being seen to be supporting fare evaders.

 

[bricklane90]

They get away with it because nobody with the power to stop them cares and no individual has the money to waste to pursue this through the courts.

I think this is likely right, though I don't quite see why it's in their interest to mislead in the first place.

Surely emphasising the severity would reduce people attempting to evade fares intentionally.

 

[furlong]

The issue is that there are different - independent but overlapping - regimes in play and nobody in power cares about consistency.

The Penalty Fares legislation was designed to provide an alternative to prosecution for all incidents of fare evasion that appear to be one-off at the time of detection. That's why prosecution isn't mentioned.

 

[iamraymond]

I think this is likely right, though I don't quite see why it's in their interest to mislead in the first place.

Surely emphasising the severity would reduce people attempting to evade fares intentionally.

You were caught, learn from it and move on.

 

[AlterEgo]

I get that and I accept that it's on me for not knowing and I feel a bit stupid about it, but I just feel if you're going to have a sign and announcement at all, it needs to be all-inclusive.

It doesn't.

The Penalty Fares signs are there because the law says they have to be there. The law specifies what wording they need to have and the purpose of them is so the company can operate a Penalty Fares scheme.

Not every company can operate a Penalty Fares scheme and, regardless, if people are caught in a situation where they are *provably* evading the fare on purpose, the company can do anything from prosecute you under the Railway bylaws up to, in some cases, involving the police and allegations of fraud.

If the shop had a sign saying "shoplifters face a penalty fine of £100" and nothing else, it'd be wrong.

Shops these days say often they participate in a civil recovery scheme - an alternative to prosecution - which a lot of people take to mean the shop doesn't ever press charges for shoplifting, and instead seeks to recover the losses via civil means. That doesn't mean that shoplifting isn't a crime or that you can't get in trouble for it if you steal from the shop.

Your point here is that you take the presence of Penalty Fares signage as an indication that the worst that can happen is a penalty fare of £50 (or £100 if not paid promptly) and no doubt many people bake that into a "cost of doing business" calculation to decide if they'll get caught often enough to make that economically sensible. Well, so what? If you did something very minor and accidental like fail to renew a railcard, I'd have a lot of sympathy, but if you were short faring or deciding to simply not pay the proper fare then you've learned a life lesson the expensive way.

 

[bricklane90]

You were caught, learn from it and move on.

I have, this isn't about my specific case. Just wanted to discuss thoughts and learn why the signage is the way it is.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 May 2026 ==

It doesn't.

The Penalty Fares signs are there because the law says they have to be there. The law specifies what wording they need to have and the purpose of them is so the company can operate a Penalty Fares scheme.

Not every company can operate a Penalty Fares scheme and, regardless, if people are caught in a situation where they are *provably* evading the fare on purpose, the company can do anything from prosecute you under the Railway bylaws up to, in some cases, involving the police and allegations of fraud.


Shops these days say often they participate in a civil recovery scheme - an alternative to prosecution - which a lot of people take to mean the shop doesn't ever press charges for shoplifting, and instead seeks to recover the losses via civil means. That doesn't mean that shoplifting isn't a crime or that you can't get in trouble for it if you steal from the shop.

Your point here is that you take the presence of Penalty Fares signage as an indication that the worst that can happen is a penalty fare of £50 (or £100 if not paid promptly) and no doubt many people bake that into a "cost of doing business" calculation to decide if they'll get caught often enough to make that economically sensible. Well, so what? If you did something very minor and accidental like fail to renew a railcard, I'd have a lot of sympathy, but if you were short faring or deciding to simply not pay the proper fare then you've learned a life lesson the expensive way.

Thanks for this detailed response!

I don't necessarily think the legislation around the wording should change, but I would argue it just makes sense to add clarity.

I'm not really focusing on me in this discussion (this is about why operators chose not to state it clearly) but yes you are right, I do think many people would make that calculation and I don't understand what the benefit is to the operator not to make it clear.

 

[Russel]

Thinking about this a bit more, maybe TOCs should publicize the risk of prosecution a bit more, as a deterrent to potential fare evaders?

 

[bricklane90]

Thinking about this a bit more, maybe TOCs should publicize the risk of prosecution a bit more, as a deterrent to potential fare evaders?

Yes! That's what I'm driving at, I really think a lot of people just wouldn't even know it's a risk, why not make it clearer as a deterrent.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm not really focusing on me in this discussion (this is about why operators chose not to state it clearly) but yes you are right, I do think many people would make that calculation and I don't understand what the benefit is to the operator not to make it clear.

I don't really see why they should state clearly what crimes are. Most businesses don't do this.

The endless signage and announcements on UK railways creates an unwelcoming and hostile atmosphere. Even more signage threatening legal consequences isn't something most people want. So far this is the first time I'm hearing "well the railways should say more often that not having a ticket can be a criminal offence" and it's from someone who got caught without a valid ticket, so, it is what it is.

 

[blimmo]

I don't really see why they should state clearly what crimes are. Most businesses don't do this.

The endless signage and announcements on UK railways creates an unwelcoming and hostile atmosphere. Even more signage threatening legal consequences isn't something most people want. So far this is the first time I'm hearing "well the railways should say more often that not having a ticket can be a criminal offence" and it's from someone who got caught without a valid ticket, so, it is what it is.

I also think the PF signs are slightly misleading (and I've always had a valid ticket). I think most misunderstandings come from the analogy to private car parks where there really isn't any criminal liability (usually) and the posted penalty is basically the worst that can happen. PF signage looks very similar to this and the process of buying a ticket so you don't get caught without one is very similar to pay and display car parks. So naturally people assume they'll be similar.

I don't have much sympathy for people who dodge fares with this mistaken risk calculation in mind but I also think we should be preventing crime rather than just punishing people who commit it and that simply not having the PF signs at all would do that better.

 

[Egg Centric]

I've a degree of sympathy to your position in that the deterrence would be greater if the penalties were explicitly mentioned.

What you're missing is that in an ideal world we'd all like to live in a law abiding society where people adhere to the sensible, reasonable, laws. In such a society there would be no need at all to be mentioning the penalties at all as for almost everyone it would either be common sense what the rule is, or in matters complicated, that they needed to lookup/seek guidance upon the rule.

As humans we like to live in a polite fiction that we live in said ideal world (or if inclined in certain political ways, that we either used to or will live in that ideal world) and so having continual notices about rules and the consequences of breaking of them is jarring.

Therefore the TOCs - and indeed any other commercial operation - don't want to be continually broadcasting the consequences of petty law breaking. It gives the wrong impression. It makes everyone feel less safe. It's aggressive.

The reason the provincial operators do it in the case of penalty fares is that the legislation requires them to do so. The reason TfL do it in the case of everything is London is too far gone. I'm sure if it didn't, they never would mention it, or at least it would be written in similar font size to the rest of the conditions of carriage, as it is in many other countries.

With the exception of TfL* they wouldn't do it purely for deterrence reasons. It's just not pleasant for the law abiding majority to hear about nasty things even though it doesn't apply to them, that's human psychology. Or to put it another way, you don't hear in A&E reception a continual blasting of the laws against murder. Even though killing someone in a hospital and getting away with it would be dead(ly?) easy.

I hope this helps a bit?

*And perhaps a couple of the other inner city rail networks

 

[philthetube]

I recently went through a potential prosecution case which gratefully was settled out of court for a reasonable fee with Thameslink - it was a mistake on my part and I'm grateful for their decision, but I had absolutely no idea that prosecution and a criminal record was even a possibility for a first-time offence.

Since that happened, I've paid extra attention to the written notices and and audio announcements on trains themselves (Thameslink, South Eastern and Southern).
In all cases, none of them mention potential prosecution. They all say something along the lines of "failure to produce a valid ticket for your entire journey may result in a penalty fare of at least £100".

It doesn't feel like it should be legal for them to make announcements about not having a valid ticket and not mention that as a possibility? Why is it they can and choose to not mention it??

first time offence counts for nothing in any crime.

 

[AlterEgo]

I've a degree of sympathy to your position in that the deterrence would be greater if the penalties were explicitly mentioned.

The likelihood of getting caught is a much stronger deterrent to most people.

 

[Egg Centric]

The likelihood of getting caught is a much stronger deterrent to most people.

As a general rule for criminology yes, 100%. But the difference between a penalty fare and an actual criminal conviction is so huge in most peoples' minds it's one of the rare cases that understanding the possible consequence here is relevant, also the emphasis on penalty fares is misleading when they're not even available for certain types of misdemeanour.

 

[AlterEgo]

As a general rule for criminology yes, 100%. But the difference between a penalty fare and an actual criminal conviction is so huge in most peoples' minds it's one of the rare cases that understanding the possible consequence here is relevant, also the emphasis on penalty fares is misleading when they're not even available for certain types of misdemeanour.

Honestly, if we are talking about people who are motivated to evade fares because they think it'll just cost them £50 plus the fare then I could not muster a single tear. In my view the railway should prosecute far more people who have been proven to deliberately evade the fare and there should be fewer consequences for very minor transgressions. At the moment there is a perverse and unjust equality of consequence.

 

[Swedenorer]

Forty odd years ago you wouldn't have got near the average railway platform without a ticket of some kind - even a platform ticket. It was a given. True you could make a number of very short trips on the SR around here (Bedhampton to Nutbourne evenings say) where BR had decided to live with the fact you probably wouldn't have been able to actually buy one given their unstaffed halt status and the non corridor stock in the seventies but those were the exceptions. It simply didn't need saying. Then BR decided to give unfettered access to their property, shorten ticket office opening hours and de-staff stations and the industry has been playing catch-up ever since. In my view the figures for increased ridership immediately after the original TOCs were established was in large part down to increased revenue protection - at least in areas I was familiar with.

Anyway no more announcements - please.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Forty odd years ago you wouldn't have got near the average railway platform without a ticket of some kind - even a platform ticket. It was a given.

And yet I would happily wander on to the platforms at Burnham and Taplow ( not the busiest of stations, but staffed and with two trains an hour to London) with no difficulty at that time. A big station like Slough was different - but let's not assume that open access was only at out of the way rural halts.

 

[The exile]

Forty odd years ago you wouldn't have got near the average railway platform without a ticket of some kind - even a platform ticket. It was a given. True you could make a number of very short trips on the SR around here (Bedhampton to Nutbourne evenings say) where BR had decided to live with the fact you probably wouldn't have been able to actually buy one given their unstaffed halt status and the non corridor stock in the seventies but those were the exceptions. It simply didn't need saying. Then BR decided to give unfettered access to their property, shorten ticket office opening hours and de-staff stations and the industry has been playing catch-up ever since. In my view the figures for increased ridership immediately after the original TOCs were established was in large part down to increased revenue protection - at least in areas I was familiar with.

Anyway no more announcements - please.

Not wishing to quibble - but 40 years ago was probably when it was easiest to get onto a platform with no ticket - Open stations were flavour of the month.

 

[Swedenorer]

Not wishing to quibble - but 40 years ago was probably when it was easiest to get onto a platform with no ticket - Open stations were flavour of the month.

Yes maybe I should have said prior to 40 years ago.

And yet I would happily wander on to the platforms at Burnham and Taplow ( not the busiest of stations, but staffed and with two trains an hour to London) with no difficulty at that time. A big station like Slough was different - but let's not assume that open access was only at out of the way rural halts.

Agreed there were differences for example you could get into Chichester on certain shifts without them checking but all arrivals were checked. Kemble had and proabaly still has a right of way through the whole station.

But I do vividly remember the first time I arrived at Bath and offered my ticket to empty space where previously it had been one of the most rigidly checked arrivals.

I was always struck by the fact you couldn't get on a Stagecoach bus without passing a member of staff where the SWR train was very different!

 

[Merle Haggard]

Not wishing to quibble - but 40 years ago was probably when it was easiest to get onto a platform with no ticket - Open stations were flavour of the month.

The 'open stations concept was introduced because ticket barriers and uniformed staff manning them were seen as making stations seem un-welcoming but was originally intended (obviously now in the long grass) to be coupled with 100% on train ticket examination primarily by guards becoming conductor-guards with enhanced pay for increased responsibilities.

 

[D1537]

Not wishing to quibble - but 40 years ago was probably when it was easiest to get onto a platform with no ticket - Open stations were flavour of the month.

Absolutely - we used to travel on a Friday night to the nearest city to go to a nightclub there. There were no barriers at either station in the evening (during the day there was someone checking tickets), and the ticket offices were closed at both ends. These days both stations have gatelines (although the one at our departure station is left open late at night because of no staff) and of course there are TVMs at both places so you haven't got an excuse, as we had.

 

[Swedenorer]

Ut must have varied by region - even Emsworth and Bosham had an evening shift up until the mid 80s.

 

[thedbdiboy]

Penalty Fares are a civil enforcement scheme in law, and the legislation requires specific signage to be in place for them to be enforceable. However, the Railways Byelaws also apply and as soon as you are on railway property you are bound by them - these byelaws amongst other things include the requirement to hold a ticket. Other laws are also relevant, for example the 'Regulation of the Railways Act'; in these cases breaches are a criminal as opposed to a civil matter, which is why prosecutions can be brought.