Probably meaningless statistics - RUK prosecution threads

[LexyBoy]

As you may have noticed, last year I kept a running record of the number of posts on this forum started specifically by posters who had recieved a notice of intention to prosecute following a ticketing related incident on the railway. I'm posting it here as a talking point for discussion on the prosecution tactics used by various TOCs. The ramble below got a bit long, sorry about that.

Obviously these numbers can in no way be considered representative as they show only who has posted here and are thus very prone to bias. There is also no information on the outcome of these cases (most of the time the OP doesn't post this information).

[FONT=Courier New][B]TOC                  Cases  Pass. Jnys.* Cases/Mjourney[/B]
First Capital Connect  23    99.7         0.2307
Northern               23    91.5         0.2514
Southeastern            8    165.5        0.0483
Greater Anglia          7    122.8        0.0570
Southern                6    174.1        0.0345
East Midlands Trains    2    23.9         0.0837
Nexus (Newcastle Metro) 2    37.9         0.0528
Arriva  Trains Wales    2    28.4         0.0704
London Overground       1    102.6        0.0097
London Midland          1    59.5         0.0168
First Great Western     1    95.6         0.0104[/FONT]

*Passenger journeys in millions, ORR 2011/2012 data

What's immediately obvious is that commuter TOCs account for almost all cases. This is perhaps not surprising given the fact that it's much harder to check tickets on shorter, busier routes compared to longer ones. EC, XC, VT are all noticeably absent (and the one FGW case was commuter) - as is Scotrail, a primarily commuter TOC.

FCC and Northern are the most vigorous with 4-5 times the number of threads than the other commuter TOCs passenger numbers are accounted for. Both FCC and Northern had noticeable seasonal trends - most FCC threads earlier in the year, and Northern in autumn.

An alarming number of FCC cases seemed to concern cases where there was a genuine mistake - for example incorrect departure boards, failure to communicate changes in split ticket easements or online journey planners showing journeys deemed invalid by an RPI. It's interesting that there have been few threads about FCC in the last 6 months or so, I wonder if they've changed their policy or are just waiting to process a bunch together.

Most of the Northern threads seemed to from passengers who did not have a valid ticket, with quite a few genuine fare evaders but also a number of (I believe) innocents caught in the net. I have some sympathy for Northern - the network is quite different to those of other franchises - but the methods they use seem prone to catching out those who simply made a mistake. For years it was perfectly acceptable to purchase on board, so to suddenly change to a strict buy-before-you-board policy is bound to catch people unawares.

A final observation is the number of prosecution notices which could have been avoided by paying the "fine" requested at the time! Bottom line: pay up - if you're in the right you can get it back anyway. Hurt pride now is better than what could be in store by claiming righteousness!

 

[hluraven]

Interesting stuff - I wonder what percentage of prosecutions are for non payment of a penalty fare as opposed to the original fare?

 

[John @ home]

Both FCC and Northern had noticeable seasonal trends - most FCC threads earlier in the year, and Northern in autumn.

This suggests that FCC's prosecutions manager was head-hunted by Northern during the summer.

 

[wintonian]

What's immediately obvious is that commuter TOCs account for almost all cases.

I would dispute the accuracy of that statement unless SWT, Chiltern and c2c's omission from the list is an oversight?

Define commuter TOC, ATW and Northern for example run a lot rural services and I doubt that most passengers on some of these services are commuters given the frequency from some stations. Also FGW could be both a commuter TOC and a long distance one and Virgin seem to have plenty of commuters from the likes of Birmingham and Milton Keynes in the peaks.

 

[LexyBoy]

I would dispute the accuracy of that statement unless SWT, Chiltern and c2c's omission from the list is an oversight?

I said that of the cases presented here, almost all are from (what I would deem to be primarily) commuter TOCs - not that all commuter TOCs bring forward a lot of prosecutions.

Interesting that SWT isn't there in fact considering the number of posters they put up warning of prosecution for not having a valid ticket. Either this means that they are all mouth and no trousers, or that they get it right and those whom they prosecute consider it a fair cop and not worth disputing.

Obviously many TOCs can't be fitted into neat boxes (I'd say my commute is a definite commuter route - Reading to Didcot - but I travel on IC trains). Most of the cases brought up from Northern and ATW have concerned "commuter" routes around Manchester, Leeds and Cardiff.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This suggests that FCC's prosecutions manager was head-hunted by Northern during the summer.

The style seems different though, FCC were sending out notices for fairly silly things and are reported to almost always settle out of court, whereas Northern's cases are generally sound (if unfair sometimes) and they more often press for prosecution. But maybe you know something I don't

 

[wintonian]

I too am surprised that we haven't had a case regarding SWT in the year, and your right they do make a lot of noise, especially with there "Mr Smith caught without a ticket - fined £200" type posters.

If we had enough examples (which we don't) I would like to see the figures broken down buy route, which might be more useful in determine prevalence, it of course would not distinguish between those routes where passengers are being hounded, those where a high proportion of people chance it or otherwise have an amount of intent and those where passengers are genuinely confused about the rules.

It is this last point that may help explain Northern position in the last, the first may also be relevant to them as well, but one will (based on what we have seen here) perhaps also ask if the same first option also applies to FCC.

Another interesting set of statistics would be the break down of ticket type, anytime, off-peak, advance and day/ period return or single/ return. If that was compared to the proportion of ticket sales of that type by a particular TOC it may show further insight into individual revenue protection policies.

and then there are others like how many on-board over distance excesses does a particular TOC sell as a proportion of of on-board sales compared to the number of PF's/ UFN's or prosecutions carried out, but I'm starting to get carried away now.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Though interesting as a statistical indication of forum usage in relation to persons facing prosecution, or seeking advice about the process, I note that you recognise that the table is largely meaningless in relation to the actual level of prosecution by TOCs, especially with SWT, Chiltern, XC and c2c missing from the list.

This may become much clearer in the future if the proposed ATOC standard code of practice is established, as one of the key demands made by Passenger Focus is that TOCs do publish prosecutions figures regularly.

 

[richw]

Maybe the amount of posters SWT have warning passengers are working well, and also they're staff are following protocol and therefore giving no reason for people to be able to look for assistance getting their penalties wiped out?
From my experience of SWT their staff always seem to be knowledgable, fair and come across as being very well trained in processes

 

[Fare-Cop]

Maybe the amount of posters SWT have warning passengers are working well, and also they're staff are following protocol and therefore giving no reason for people to be able to look for assistance getting their penalties wiped out?
From my experience of SWT their staff always seem to be knowledgable, fair and come across as being very well trained in processes

This may well be the case and given that they cover the greatest route mileage and variation in services, it might also be part of the reason XC are absent from postings on here too.

 

[bnm]

and also they're staff are following protocol and therefore giving no reason for people to be able to look for assistance getting their penalties wiped out?

Or SWT simply haven't been very good at seeking prosecution. With a prosecutions department that according to one article had staffing problems. So much so that when some cases did make it to court they were dismissed by the presiding magistrate after SWT failed to serve papers for a second time.

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/ne...est_Trains_blunders_derail_nine_prosecutions/

 

[wintonian]

I'm not sure SWT's revenue department is that big, I mean I can count the number of RPI's I have seen in the last 2/ 3 years on a single hand and not all of them were on duty at the time. There guards though are very good at selling excesses and pointing out validity issues with a "just so you know next time" type attitude. Mind you there is no support for guards to provide enforcement for the occasional idiot who clearly has no intention of buying a ticket, judging by the number I have seen argue with the guard and get off at their stop and stroll in to the distance.

 

[cuccir]

Other than FCC, there's a marked absence of First Group services: TransPennine Express, Scotrail and First Great Western.

TPE in particular is surprising - they run a lot of services along busy routes with frequent stops, particularly in the area with Manchester in the central, ringed by Preston/Warrington/Leeds/Stockport. Most of the stations in this area have no barriers: I imagine that this area has a lot of people fare dodging.

 

[richw]

TPE in particular is surprising - they run a lot of services along busy routes with frequent stops, particularly in the area with Manchester in the central, ringed by Preston/Warrington/Leeds/Stockport. Most of the stations in this area have no barriers: I imagine that this area has a lot of people fare dodging.

And look at Northern statistics considering they run pretty much the same regions, around Manchester etc

 

[reb0118]

Other than FCC, there's a marked absence of First Group services: TransPennine Express, Scotrail and First Great Western.

I'm not sure if ScotRail have a prosecution dept.? Might be to do with the different legal system north of the border. Blatant fare evasion cases are passed onto the BTP for further action I think?

 

[wintonian]

I'm not sure if ScotRail have a prosecution dept.? Might be to do with the different legal system north of the border. Blatant fare evasion cases are passed onto the BTP for further action I think?

Ah yes but what if the offence occurred south of the boarder, say on the sleeper after leaving Euston?

 

[reb0118]

Ah yes but what if the offence occurred south of the boarder, say on the sleeper after leaving Euston?

Offender would probably be ejected around Bletchley?

 

[michael769]

I'm not sure if ScotRail have a prosecution dept.? Might be to do with the different legal system north of the border. Blatant fare evasion cases are passed onto the BTP for further action I think?

Private prosections in Scotland are very rare as they require special circumstances and you need to apply to the high court for permission to be allowed to mount one. Only 3 such prosecutions have been allowed in the last 100 years!

There is nothing stopping them preparing reports for submission to the procurator fiscal but as soon as you do then the option of an out of court settlement is lost. But even then the different rules of evidence and the corroboration requirement would mean that the approaches used in E&W would not fly so they would need a customised (and probably expensive) training scheme, and with no awards of costs in criminal matters up here little chance of recouping the outlay so I am not surprised a greater willingness to involve the police, who are already trained in evidence capture and case preperation.

I guess they could hire some ex coppers or fiscals, but the lack of costs would mean meeting the wage bill directly out of shareholders profits!

 

[island]

So what happens if you don't pay your fare in Scotland?

 

[michael769]

So what happens if you don't pay your fare in Scotland?

The police do the job we pay them to do? Personally I don't really see the need for private prosecutions, it just allows the police to pick and choose which laws they enforce.

 

[Fare-Cop]

So what happens if you don't pay your fare in Scotland?

Pretty well nothing. Because of the restrictive practices maintained by the Court system & Lawyers north of the border, it appears that the Police take very few cases of fare evasion forward, preferring to give warnings that seem to get ignored.

If anyone has confirmed statistical evidence to show that position has improved I know a lot of people that will be very interested in seeing it.

During the past 12 months there has been some correspondence between various TOCs representatives and the Crown Office on this very subject.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

[I make no apologies for sustaining the Scottish question in this thread]

I am probably more content than others, both on here and within the rail industry, that the Police (in Scotland) are not pursuing Railway Fare Evasion Prosecutions. My reason in its simplest form is that the legistative framework inherited at Privatisation in 1996 offered TOCs the good fortune of three parallel mechanisms to protect their revenue in Law :
1. the means to bring a private Prosecution of a Criminal Offence;
2. the means to bring a private Prosecution of a (delegated) Byelaw Offence;
3. the means to pursue any of the many opportunities to prosecute a breach of Contract.

It's my opinion that since privatisation, the Railways have been disproportionately reliant on the specific Railway legislation of 1 and 2.
Why does FSR not pursue 3?

During the past 12 months there has been some correspondence between various TOCs representatives and the Crown Office on this very subject.

I suspect that you may know more about the potential for reforms than I do. I would be very pleased to learn more. (perhaps this forum is not the place to expose that debate).

 

[BrownE]

I would dispute the accuracy of that statement unless SWT, Chiltern and c2c's omission from the list is an oversight?

Chiltern are probably missing from the list as they don't have a revenue protection department that deals with prosecutions.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Chiltern are probably missing from the list as they don't have a revenue protection department that deals with prosecutions.

Cases for prosecution identified by CSIs on Chiltern are referred to LOROL. Until that and other changes in the organisation were made a few years ago, an average of 50 cases a month were prosecuted by Chiltern.

 

[island]

Offender would probably be ejected around Bletchley?

Ideally without stopping?

 

[LexyBoy]

Looking on CAG, Chiltern, Virgin and SWT clearly are bringing prosecutions - many more of these seem unquestionably deliberate fare evasion (like this or this). I think here we tend to get more cases where a passenger's (or TOC's) mistake led towards prosecution, rather than the sort where someone realises they've done bad and want to know how to minimise the fallout.

This may become much clearer in the future if the proposed ATOC standard code of practice is established, as one of the key demands made by Passenger Focus is that TOCs do publish prosecutions figures regularly.

I'd have thought that TOCs might consider this commercially sensitive information and be reluctant to disclose numbers? Would be interesting to know though and hopefully could be used to back up moves for better facilities in Northernland... but now I'm getting carried away

 

[reb0118]

Offender would probably be ejected around Bletchley?

Ideally without stopping?

This is the benefit of having antiquated stock on the sleeper in that opening the guard's van will not stop the train. In fairness the TM would probably arrange for the train to slow down prior to ejection.

In all seriousness due to the time between stops on the sleeper it would be arranged for the BTP to meet the sleeper at the next booked stop. Most staff, however, check tickets at trainside so would nip said problem in the bud!

 

[Fare-Cop]

It's my opinion that since privatisation, the Railways have been disproportionately reliant on the specific Railway legislation of 1 and 2.
Why does FSR not pursue 3?
I suspect that you may know more about the potential for reforms than I do. I would be very pleased to learn more. (perhaps this forum is not the place to expose that debate).

You're right Dave, this probably isn't the place to air that debate.

I'm running late this morning, as soon as I get a minute I'll PM you