Should different TOCs / organisations be able to handle ticketing matters in different ways?

[CharlieSpotted]

An open question, really.

Those that provide advice on this forum will often say:

"You'll need to write to TOC W a few times to get them to settle"
"TOC X is generally quite pragmatic if you engage with them"
"TOC Y generally prefer out of court settlements"
"TOC Z will generally prosecute this type of offence"

One of the first questions that's asked is which company you're dealing with, and the advice is then tailored to that response.

Shouldn't this be... more consistent? If they're all operating to the same laws, same regulatory framework, have the same kind of appeals process, etc. then in an ideal world shouldn't they all be handling offences in exactly the same way? Should it matter whether I'm stopped by agents of TOC X or Y, or if they're using company A or B to administer their cases?

 

[AlterEgo]

An open question, really.

Those that provide advice on this forum will often say:

"You'll need to write to TOC W a few times to get them to settle"
"TOC X is generally quite pragmatic if you engage with them"
"TOC Y generally prefer out of court settlements"
"TOC Z will generally prosecute this type of offence"

One of the first questions that's asked is which company you're dealing with, and the advice is then tailored to that response.

Shouldn't this be... more consistent? If they're all operating to the same laws, same regulatory framework, have the same kind of appeals process, etc. then in an ideal world shouldn't they all be handling offences in exactly the same way? Should it matter whether I'm stopped by agents of TOC X or Y, or if they're using company A or B to administer their cases?

The best way of getting consistency is to just pass the cases on to the police, though - I'm not sure any of us would want that.

It may be the case that (hypothetically) if I steal from Tesco they are happy to simply ban me and make me pay the cost of the stolen goods, but Morrisons might detain me and have the police arrest me. I think the victims of the crime are entitled to deal with it how they wish, as long as what they are doing is lawful.

 

[cool110]

If they're all operating to the same laws, same regulatory framework, have the same kind of appeals process, etc.

They're not. For a start only some TOCs have penalty fare (and some only on certain routes), so that's a set of regulations that may or may not apply. TfL operate under a different set of bylaws (also Merseyrail, but the ticketing parts are identical). Scotland has a completely different legal system, so Scotrail can't prosecute and for cross-border services it depends on which side you're on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The best way of getting consistency is to just pass the cases on to the police, though - I'm not sure any of us would want that.

The best way of getting consistency in my view is to decriminalise "basic" fare evasion and to use the Penalty Fares process instead, which is designed for consistency and now it has been increased is more like the sort of money that should be charged if someone simply fails to buy a ticket or Railcard, and to allow a related process using the basic £50/100 without the fare addition to be used for minor on-board conduct offences like feet on seats or pulling the red handle/egress when it's not an emergency.

We don't after all take people to criminal Court for failing to pay parking, and the concepts and amounts are largely very similar in magnitude.

So the amount doesn't get behind the inflationary curve, there should also be a process to automatically increase the base PF, perhaps based on RPI in £10 jumps ("Buy a ticket because you may get a Penalty Fare of £102.78" sounds a bit silly).

The Fraud Act remains an option for people doing serious falsification and the likes, and in my view should always be pursued through the Courts and never settled. People engaging in serious dishonesty should be prosecuted for it, absolutely.

Indeed, I can see no grounds at all for financial out of court settlements to ever be possible on criminal matters in any context. Either something justifies legal action or it doesn't; effectively being able to bribe someone not to press charges, or to extort money in order to do so, has all sorts of nasty wider implications.

 

[AlterEgo]

The best way of getting consistency in my view is to decriminalise "basic" fare evasion and to use the Penalty Fares process instead, which is designed for consistency and now it has been increased is more like the sort of money that should be charged if someone simply fails to buy a ticket or Railcard, and to allow a related process using the basic £50/100 without the fare addition to be used for minor on-board conduct offences like feet on seats or pulling the red handle/egress when it's not an emergency.

We don't after all take people to criminal Court for failing to pay parking, and the concepts and amounts are largely very similar in magnitude.

So the amount doesn't get behind the inflationary curve, there should also be a process to automatically increase the base PF, perhaps based on RPI in £10 jumps ("Buy a ticket because you may get a Penalty Fare of £102.78" sounds a bit silly).

The Fraud Act remains an option for people doing serious falsification and the likes, and in my view should always be pursued through the Courts and never settled. People engaging in serious dishonesty should be prosecuted for it, absolutely.

Indeed, I can see no grounds at all for financial out of court settlements to ever be possible on criminal matters in any context. Either something justifies legal action or it doesn't; effectively being able to bribe someone not to press charges, or to extort money in order to do so, has all sorts of nasty wider implications.

I agree entirely with this, and was only talking around solutions which could exist in the existing structure we have.

 

[fandroid]

I totally agree with @Bletchleyite. The Penalty Fare system should be extended to all National Rail services, and always be used for basic fare evasion offences. That probably needs an extension to the regulations to allow penalty fare notices to be issued from the office if the staff member cannot issue one. TOCs should still be able to research possible multiple offences by checking purchase history, and then take those to court. In some cases out-of-court settlements and Northern's Fixed Penalty Notices seem to be used as a way of extorting random sums from all manner of passengers, from downright crooks to the innocents abroad who make perfectly human mistakes. The latter often having paid fully for their journey or "caught" actively searching for someone to pay.