Should Penalty Fares change to be a fixed amount?

[Kite159]

To reduce the number of incorrectly issued penalty fare notices when the revenue officer has used the offpeak single price rather than the super offpeak single price, should the penalty fare scheme be changed to a fixed amount of say £120 reduced to £60 within X days.

A nice simple number where it doesn't matter if the passenger is travelling between A & C and claims they didn't get offered the chance to get off at B to reduce the amount.

With more safeguards in place like a database where the first time someone is caught with the wrong Railcard, an expired Railcard or not paying the correct fare (doughnutting/short faring etc) they get issued a penalty fare warning which is logged in a database so if they get caught a 2nd time within 12 months it's a Penalty Fare of £120.

In the event someone is travelling on a more expensive ticket on the InterCity operators which do penalty fares (GWR/EMR etc) they have the option of not issuing a penalty fare and take the person to court. Likewise if the operator suspects it's something more long term (short faring when someone presents an unscanned eticket from Vauxhall at Waterloo) they don't go down the penalty fare route to allow time to investigate for any other occasions (because it will be very unlikely to be the first time someone has cheated the system, unless they are unlucky)

Of course, such a scheme would upset those who think the railways are evil at attempting to charge such penalties (hence why the warning database will exist) and someone caught cheating the system only paying what they should paid in the first place.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It should be that plus the walk up fare that would have been due. It was I think meant to be that but TOC pressure made it the Anytime.

 

[Kite159]

It should be that plus the walk up fare that would have been due. It was I think meant to be that but TOC pressure made it the Anytime.

Nah, a fixed amount, would get rid of any issues about being charged the incorrect fare on top, ie getting charged the anytime fare when it was a time off-peak fares were valid etc.

Also would get rid of anybody claiming they weren't offered the opportunity to leave the station at the first available call to reduce the amount charged.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What if you've made a journey costing more than that fixed amount?

 

[fandroid]

For the case the OP is mentioning (wrong type of ticket issued - Off-Peak rather than Super Off-Peak)
perhaps the appeal body should simply be required to reduce the total rather than invalidate the Penalty altogether. After all, with three lots of scrutiny they ought to be able to manage that simple process!

Similarly if the appellant can show in the appeal that being issued a ticket to the next stop followed by them buying their own ticket for the rest of the journey would have saved them an additional and arbitrary penalty they should be refunded or have the total reduced.
The TOC would then get their Penalty and not be hamstrung by procedural errors.

 

[Kite159]

What if you've made a journey costing more than that fixed amount?

How many times does that happen?

The first stage with the warning will cover things like forgetting to renew a Railcard or accidentally selecting the wrong Railcard (doesn't have to be using a 16-17/Job Centre Railcard, can include using a different Railcard to bypass minimum fare/area restrictions or even the inability to use a network railcard on advance tickets) will be a big enough shock to some users. Afterall you would hope if you forget to check an expiry date and get caught once, you will take steps to make sure it doesn't happen again.

And being under GBR the database will be England wide.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How many times does that happen?

Higher than £120? Plenty of those now EMR is on there as an intercity operator - try peak time Sheffield to St Pancras (or Nottingham is getting close), and don't forget Sheffield is not gated...

I would expect GBR to roll out PFs to the whole network, so you'll then get stuff like Manchester-London in too.

I think PF plus the evaded fare makes most sense, at the actual level that fare would have been charged had it been purchased immediately before travel including all relevant discounts. Or in the case of a previously held Railcard or season ticket not being renewed but the passenger still being entitled to hold it, PF plus the Railcard/season being renewed effective from the date of expiry of the previous one, or PF plus relevant single fare, as the passenger prefers.

The "shot across the bows" for someone who is genuinely honest could be provided by allowing the PF to be discounted further than half - say it could be discounted to £30 provided the passenger regularises the situation within say one week and does not have another one on record in the previous five years. But the situation would still need to be regularised.

 

[fandroid]

I believe that the railway should be entitled to recover all the amounts that should have been paid in all the cases of non-renewed Railcards. The OP's idea of a Penalty Warning fails to cover those. And judging by the cases we see in Disputes and Prosecutions, it's a rare one where the passenger hasn't already travelled at discounted rates since the last card expired.
In order for a modified scheme to be tolerable to the railway there has to be a genuine penalty element, except perhaps for cases where there's no financial loss or minimal loss (say less than £5). In the latter case the fare shortfall should expected to be paid by the passenger.

However, fare shortfalls on previous journeys should be pursued as recoverable debt.

The idea of allowing the passenger simply to pay for for a backdated Railcard is an invitation for everyone to conveniently "forget" to renew.

I do go back to my idea of procedural loopholes being closed down as valid reasons to quash the penalty element, but allowing side issues such as the fare element to be appealable alongside any appeal against the principle.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The idea of allowing the passenger simply to pay for for a backdated Railcard is an invitation for everyone to conveniently "forget" to renew.

That's why I suggested a backdated Railcard or season ticket *plus* the flat penalty fare element.

Charging an Anytime Single for each journey made since they simply forgot to renew it isn't reasonable. The railway has not lost that amount of money, they have lost the price of the season or Railcard, as had they not forgotten that's what the railway would have got. But a flat Penalty Fare (or admin fee) on top isn't unreasonable.

 

[Kite159]

Further to the idea of a 'Penalty Warning' for the first time, the passenger should be charged the difference between what they actually paid and what they should have paid. Ie expired* Railcard or forgetting to bring a Railcard with them.

Then for the event they get pulled up a 2nd time it will be the flat fare penalty notice or a report for prosecution depending on the event.

(*Maybe with a rule saying only if it expired within the previous 21 days, over 21 days then it's a report for prosecution solely to allow research into how many times it's been used since it expired, with a warning being issued if it's the only time)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Further to the idea of a 'Penalty Warning' for the first time, the passenger should be charged the difference between what they actually paid and what they should have paid. Ie expired* Railcard or forgetting to bring a Railcard with them.

If you forget your Railcard or season ticket a PF can be rescinded entirely on providing evidence of it afterwards, though only once a year.

 

[martin butler]

I very seldom use the railways now, but I will say this, I don't agree with PF being issued for genuine mistakes, by that I mean, if you dont have the ability to get a ticket before hand due to machine being OOS,or there being a queue and the train was just pulling in,

However, things like deliberately evading paying the correct fare should be dealt with, as a serious matter, I would say a £50 fine, plus the full fare from where you embarked to designation station, to be paid within 30 days, and a warning issued that should you be caught again, or not pay, you will be prosecuted for all such actions,

I have had railcard's, digital, and card type, and i always knew when the expiry date was, and whenever i do travel, I tend to get the correct ticket in advance so have little sympathy for people who then complain when they get caught

 

[Bletchleyite]

I very seldom use the railways now, but I will say this, I don't agree with PF being issued for genuine mistakes, by that I mean, if you dont have the ability to get a ticket before hand due to machine being OOS

That's not "a mistake", that's a situation in which boarding without a valid ticket is expressly permitted.

,or there being a queue and the train was just pulling in,

That's not really a mistake either, that's deliberately and knowingly boarding without a valid ticket.

The difficulty though is establishing intent where there's not a pattern of significant evasion - hence why "PFs for everything" makes things easier, and allowing the PF value to escalate with repeated offences also helps.

 

[al78]

I very seldom use the railways now, but I will say this, I don't agree with PF being issued for genuine mistakes, by that I mean, if you dont have the ability to get a ticket before hand due to machine being OOS,or there being a queue and the train was just pulling in,

The first is part of UK crapness and I would agree someone shouldn't be punished, the second is largely carelessness, not allowing enough time padding and cutting it too fine, although in a handful of situations I would have sympathy, such as what occasionally happens at Horsham when one of the two windows is closed so you have a queue of 12 for one instead of a queue of 4 for two, and the person at the front of the one queue is taking three times longer than someone would normally take (a common thing generally with the Horsham population).

 

[Bletchleyite]

The first is part of UK crapness and I would agree someone shouldn't be punished

It (not having a ticket when there wasn't the opportunity to buy one) is not subject to anything other than being sold a ticket in the UK. In Switzerland on regional services, by contrast, that isn't an exception to the rules, so if the ticket machine is broken and the booking office closed and you don't have the phone app the station is in effect closed - ludicrous policy!

 

[thedbdiboy]

It should be that plus the walk up fare that would have been due. It was I think meant to be that but TOC pressure made it the Anytime.

TOCs don't keep the revenue; there was no 'TOC pressure' in that regards

 

[JamesT]

TOCs don't keep the revenue; there was no 'TOC pressure' in that regards

They don't now, but most of these policies long predate Covid so are from a period when TOCs did have revenue risk.

 

[thedbdiboy]

They don't now, but most of these policies long predate Covid so are from a period when TOCs did have revenue risk.

The change from £20 to £100 plus the fare (i.e. the really significant change) was 2022. Put it this way, the TOCs had been keen to increase the Penalty Fare for many years but it was always stalled by Government. Once the Government was on the hook for the liability for uncollected fares, there was a remarkable change of attitude at Government level.

 

[Sonic1234]

A parking ticket outside of London can be as low as £25, with no potential for criminal proceedings. You don't even have to pay the car park fee on top.

In tourist cities, it can be almost be the cheapest form of all day parking.