Potential Prosecution Error over invalid ticket

[revenueadvice]

A lot of the time the issuing of a penalty fare is using discretion which is what a lot of people do not realise. For example a passenger gets on at an ungated station but walks passed the open booking office and the ticket machines without stopping to buy a ticket thus showing no intention of paying for their fare this could and probably should be dealt with by an MG11 but a lot of the time we will offer a penalty fare first. Why should we offer to sell a ticket when you already had the chance to purchase one but made no effort to?

 

[transmanche]

Do you have any suggestions how to achieve that when the passenger has refused the opportunity presented to them?

Bearing in mind most people are unaware of the special powers that the railway has, it's not surprising that they might not understand the ramifications of not accepting a PF. (You'll notice upthread I stated that that the OP had made some incorrect assumptions.) Instead a normal person might expect the situation to be resolved as it would be in any other industry.

What you seem to be suggesting is that the passenger be told what they have misunderstood and no further action taken.

In the given circumstances, that would be one reasonable outcome. (In similar situations, other reasonable outcomes are also possible.)

This overlooks the fact that it is very difficult to tell the genuine mistake from the chancer.

No, that's been fully taken into consideration in this situation.

I'd be interested to know how you would advocate proceeding in the majority of cases where it's impossible to tell if someone is deliberately cheating the system as opposed to having made an honest mistake.

That's not really relevant to this case though is it? This is a specific situation dealing with confusion brought about during a time when the service was disrupted.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So your way is to bend over backwards and give the customer what they want even if they are in the wrong! :roll:

I don't call dealing with a customer in a reasonable manner to resolve minor irregularities as "bending over backwards".

I call it normal customer service - it's what most businesses do all day, every day.

 

[revenueadvice]

The role of an RPI is both customer service and revenue protection. The trick to being good at the job is knowing when to provide the customer service and when to be strict but fare in dealing with TI's. For example when you have someone who is clearly a foreign tourist trying to use and Oyster card to travel to London Gatwick. Or someone who lives in London has history of zonal travel cards on their Oyster but just assumes they can use their Oyster card to Gatwick. Same situation but if I was a tourist and accidentally bought the wrong ticket I would hope that some discretion may be shown to me.

 

[Greenback]

That's not really relevant to this case though is it? This is a specific situation dealing with confusion brought about during a time when the service was disrupted.

No, it's not relevant, but it is a logical development of the disucssion given that you made a general statement about legal action, even though no legal action has been taken yet in this instance and no one is in a position to know what transpired between the OP and the RPI that led to a PF being issued and refused.

Now, I do agree that customer service is not always a strong point of the industry. And if it were me on the gateline I would probably have acted in the same way that revenueadvice mentioned earlier in the thread by asking for the fare that was due from the zonal boundary to Potter's Bar.

But if they had refused to pay the fare due, and not accepted my explanation of why their ticket was not valid, I don't know what I would have done next. Maybe I would have merely given advice, but maybe not, it would probably depend on the passenger's attitude, as others have said.

I am not disagreeing with what you say. I am pointing out that legal action is usually a last resort, though that is not to say that it is always the right thing to do from the viewpoint of you and me.

It is just not as common as your earlier posts seem to imply, though if you use the term threat of legal action, instead of legal action, it is more accurate.

 

[Flamingo]

Customer service is what is done when staff discover a passenger has made a mistake and offers them a chance to correct it.

When the passenger refuses to correct the mistake is when legal action becomes a possibility.

That seems to be the case here.

 

[Greenback]

Customer service is what is done when staff discover a passenger has made a mistake and offers them a chance to correct it.

When the passenger refuses to correct the mistake is when legal action becomes a possibility.

That seems to be the case here.

I agree in principle. In a way, I think that mentioning th epossibility of legal action can help to bring things to a conclusion without going to court. Many passengers don't realise how serious some offences on the railway can be. After all, so many people come on here looking for advice after they have been caught out (or made an honest mistake) hoping to avoid legal action and the possibility of a criminal record.

Of course, I don't think we will ever achieve unanimous agreement that the action taken in every case is absolutely correct. Some will always be convinced that too much leniency is shown in some cases, while others will take the opposite view.

 

[CNash]

And many don't realise that a Penalty Fare isn't a "fine" and carries no legal consequences if paid within the time limit. They just see it as a punishment, and if they think they're in the right, refuse it - unwittingly making things worse for themselves. Of course, the TOCs are hardly going to advocate paying the PF at the time, and appealing later, which is usually the best course of action.

 

[jon0844]

While a lot of people might simply refuse to believe they did anything wrong, get rather angry, fail the attitude test, and refuse to pay the penalty fare - then get into more trouble, almost deservedly so, I do think there's one issue that perhaps leads to more of these incidents occurring;

In order to try and avoid conflict, many RPIs (you might even argue the majority) seem to give people the impression that all they need to do is simply pay the PF and then appeal after - even when it's clear the appeal will fail. They do so to avoid problems and send someone off seemingly happy that they might still get their money back.

But, at the same time, presumably to also avoid conflict, RPIs don't appear to want to make it clear just how important it is to accept a PF when refusal will quite likely lead to a prosecution. At the very least, it has now put the passenger in a situation where there's now a big problem that isn't going to go away.

Yes, we've seen some stories where the TOC later backs down, but usually the outcome is a hefty out of court settlement.

I don't disagree that some people bring this upon themselves, but would say that a lot of them really don't understand that when they say no to a penalty fare, this is what is going to happen.

Understandably, if they DID know, it could go one of two ways; They change their mind and accept the PF, or, they get even more angry as they now feel that it's the RPI him/herself that is prosecuting.

And so I can't see things changing.

 

[Yew]

Alas, our system is confusing, not helped by complex paperwork. I think most 'normal' people would assume that the only thing binding railway ticketing is the NRCoC, and not Bylaws, the RORA, and a mountain of case law, the routing guide. And not forgetting the manual, that is not publicly available.

I would imagine that when the OP was told 'a letter will arrive' they where expecting something asking them for their side of the story, and the worst case scenario would be paying the penalty fare. Rather than a potential prosecution and criminal record.

Unfortunately there is no ombudsman to ensure that laws are being applied fairly, rather than to the letter. (Although passanger focus have had a few successes recently) And an overhaul of the laws is not forthcoming

 

[bb21]

The Manual (and now iKB) only acts in an advisory capacity and is not binding, as the contents are not accessible to the general travelling public.

 

[Greenback]

While a lot of people might simply refuse to believe they did anything wrong, get rather angry, fail the attitude test, and refuse to pay the penalty fare - then get into more trouble, almost deservedly so, I do think there's one issue that perhaps leads to more of these incidents occurring;

In order to try and avoid conflict, many RPIs (you might even argue the majority) seem to give people the impression that all they need to do is simply pay the PF and then appeal after - even when it's clear the appeal will fail. They do so to avoid problems and send someone off seemingly happy that they might still get their money back.

This is where customer service really does come into play. It's good customer service to objectively explain the options, without giving any indication as to whether any appeal will be successful or not. It's hard to do, though.

But, at the same time, presumably to also avoid conflict, RPIs don't appear to want to make it clear just how important it is to accept a PF when refusal will quite likely lead to a prosecution. At the very least, it has now put the passenger in a situation where there's now a big problem that isn't going to go away.

Again, it's very difficult to do this especially when there is a situation where the passenger is already angry about whatever it is that has happened to cause them to be in receipt of a Penalty Fare. To the passenger, it comes across as bullying unless done very, very well.

Yes, we've seen some stories where the TOC later backs down, but usually the outcome is a hefty out of court settlement.

Indeed, which could be argued as showing that the vast majority of PF's are correctly issued!

I don't disagree that some people bring this upon themselves, but would say that a lot of them really don't understand that when they say no to a penalty fare, this is what is going to happen.

Clearly there needs to be greater efforts made to educate the travelling public about PF's and the consequences of refusing one. just like people don't seem to udnerstand about prosecution and criminal records where PF's aren't involved.

Understandably, if they DID know, it could go one of two ways; They change their mind and accept the PF, or, they get even more angry as they now feel that it's the RPI him/herself that is prosecuting.

And so I can't see things changing.

I agree that things are very unlikely to change, much as I am against PF's as they are. Idon't think the system whereby TOC's usually send out anotice of intention to prosecute is so bad. It allows a further chance for things to be settled once the dust has settled and the passenger is hopefully in a more receptive and less angry frame of mind.