This mornings Northern Revenue Op - Liverpool Echo

[Clip]

Neilr W stated "Short term, any guard-sold ticket should be sold with a red ticket-shaped piece of card warning that "you got away with it this time, next time you might not".

That would be unfair for travellers from most small local stations, which do not have TVMs or ticket offices. Local examples include Ashley and Prestbury. It would also apply to passengers from stations with ticket offices that have only restricted opening hours, e.g. Hale and Heald Green, who travel when these offices are closed.

I think Neil was meaning people who got on board at fully open stations with open ticket offices not every shack without them too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I meant in the context of stations with opportunity to purchase.

Meanwhile staff are still causing confusion...I don't want to identify specifics to avoid getting anyone in trouble (as it's clearly an institutional problem) but I was recently told by a member of ticket office staff it was OK to pay on board where it definitely was not...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[philthetube]

Where on board staff are concerned it will always be a problem as many are happy to sell tickets for the commission, so do not want to discourage people buying on the train.

 

[Fare-Cop]

I think Neil was meaning people who got on board at fully open stations with open ticket offices not every shack without them too.

Yes, that's how I read Neil's meaning too.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Fare-Cop, I'd be interested in your experience: what is the decision making for sending an £80 Penalty Fake? Do you use the prosecution test, or a lesser test? I don't think TOCs send summonses lightly, but I think they send Penalty Fakes to people they'd have no intention of actually prosecuting. Which is why I consider many of them extortion.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I think Neil was meaning people who got on board at fully open stations with open ticket offices not every shack without them too.

The problem is that there are few stations where you can be reasonably certain that ticket selling facilities are always available. Those that do also need to have continuously staffed ticket barriers to enforce their use. And many stations have just a single point of sale which inevitably has to close from time to time during the day to allow for things like staff breaks which cannot necessarily be taken at specific times. And what about lines where there is a succession of stations where the opportunity to buy is different from one to the next? Unless the conductor is able to pass through the whole train between each and every stop they cannot be absolutely certain who boarded where allowing passengers to quote the availability of buying facilities in a way that is favourable to themselves, ie lie about which station they boarded at to avoid being charged the anytime fare. Bottom line is that there is no one size fits all solution whether people here like it or not.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Fare-Cop, I'd be interested in your experience: what is the decision making for sending an £80 Penalty Fake? Do you use the prosecution test, or a lesser test? I don't think TOCs send summonses lightly, but I think they send Penalty Fakes to people they'd have no intention of actually prosecuting. Which is why I consider many of them extortion.

Just to avoid any misunderstandings, I do not manage any work for Northern (Arriva North)

When receiving reports from inspectors the TOCs that I have experience of all apply the prosecution tests.

Many cases will and do result in nothing more than collection of fare and a written reminder of the traveller's liability.

Those that pass the evidential and public interest tests will go into the prosecution processs.

I do not support the idea of sending any payment 'demand' without an opportunity to learn all that the alleged offender has to say about the incident and at all the TOCs I have had any involvement with, a 'first approach' letter was sent seeking their explanation in EVERY case.

The process allows that, when the traveller's response is received and where further assessment indicates the matter is at the lower end of offending and where there is no evidence of a previous offence, an opportunity MAY be given to dispose of the matter administratively.

Prosecution will otherwise proceed unless some factor that had not been previously known or assessed suggests that it should not.

Sometimes this results in extensive correspondence which will be completed before any action.

In every case that I have knowledge of it is left to the alleged offender to decide whether they take up the opportunity and some do so immediately.

Some will seek proper legal advice and may be advised by a solicitor to accept the opportunity.

Others may do nothing and will receive a Summons. At that point many go to see a solicitor who will then write on behalf of their client asking if they may be allowed to pay the outstanding fare together with the prosecution administrative costs in order to avoid a Court hearing.

The rest will be heard by the Court. Cases are only put before the Courts where the offence is clearly made out and where the TOC is sure of success

 

[crehld]

Just to avoid any misunderstandings, I do not manage any work for Northern (Arriva North)

When receiving reports from inspectors the TOCs that I have experience of all apply the prosecution tests.

Many cases will and do result in nothing more than collection of fare and a written reminder of the traveller's liability.

Those that pass the evidential and public interest tests will go into the prosecution processs.

I do not support the idea of sending any payment 'demand' without an opportunity to learn all that the alleged offender has to say about the incident and at all the TOCs I have had any involvement with, a 'first approach' letter was sent seeking their explanation in EVERY case.

The process allows that, when the traveller's response is received and where further assessment indicates the matter is at the lower end of offending and where there is no evidence of a previous offence, an opportunity MAY be given to dispose of the matter administratively.

Prosecution will otherwise proceed unless some factor that had not been previously known or assessed suggests that it should not.

Sometimes this results in extensive correspondence which will be completed before any action.

In every case that I have knowledge of it is left to the alleged offender to decide whether they take up the opportunity and some do so immediately.

Some will seek proper legal advice and may be advised by a solicitor to accept the opportunity.

Others may do nothing and will receive a Summons. At that point many go to see a solicitor who will then write on behalf of their client asking if they may be allowed to pay the outstanding fare together with the prosecution administrative costs in order to avoid a Court hearing.

The rest will be heard by the Court. Cases are only put before the Courts where the offence is clearly made out and where the TOC is sure of success

The process you describe sounds all well, good and robust. It nevertheless bears little resemblance to the process undertaken by Northern.

Having had details taken by an inspector. A passenger is sometimes written to for their version of events. That, one assumes, is then assessed. This either highlights evidence that should have been picked up by the inspector (e.g. there was no opportunity to purchase the fare at the origin) and that is the end of it, or it confirms the passenger is in the wrong and they are offered an £80 settlement to dispose of the matter.

Sometimes a passenger's version of events is not requested at all and an automatic demand for £80 is issued, without any opportunity to hear the passenger's version of events.

There appears to be no meaningful assessment of evidence until an £80 settlement is declined by the passenger. The fact £80 demands are sent to those who should not be issued them (e.g. because they boarded at a station with no facilities and were not given an opportunity to pay on board) testifies to this. Indeed, a while ago now, DaveNewcastle confirmed that Northern undertake no assessment of evidence until such point as an £80 settlement offer is declined. It is only then that any evidence is assessed in preparation for any potential prosecution.

Numerous threads on this forum confirm this. Personal experience also corroborates this evidence (three £80 demands and a summons despite doing no wrong). I personally know several friends and neighbours who have also been issued with £80 demands despite no wrongdoing.

The problem I have with this is that which others describe above. A passenger who has done no wrong, yet nevertheless finds themselves in receipt of a demand to pay £80 to dispose of the matter, with threats of court appearances, prosecution, conviction and criminal records will simply pay the £80 to swiftly make the matter go away and avoid all the stress and perceived risks associated with contesting it. A passenger may be completely innocent of any wrongdoing and yet be £80 out of pocket, have de facto admitted liability to an offence they have not committed, and have their name inappropriately added to Northern's database of naughty people. As others have stated above, this is not about cases going to court, as most don't go anywhere near a courtroom. This is an internal process, which is wholly unregulated with no independent oversight.

There is no convincing argument to be made against putting in place some independent regulatory body to oversee this. Independent oversight would motivate the company to put more effort into getting things right, which will in turn allow them to more efficiently and effectively target their resources towards combating fare evasion. It would ensure the process is just and fair, and also increase confidence in the company's revenue protection efforts.

I really do feel that many people posting here, who may otherwise be greatly familiar with railway law, railway prosecutions and revenue protection, seem rather unfamiliar with life in Northern land. Many stations, even highly used ones, lack ticket issuing facilities altogether. Where facilities do exist they are barely adequate or frequently out of operation. The vast majority of stations are ungated. On board ticket checks are variable (they had got better in recent years but now the new portable ticket machines are in use they seem to have reduced markedly). Staff adopt a highly inconsistent approach, which often undermines any attempts at meaningful revenue protection (e.g. actively encouraging the bypassing of station based ticket facilities where they exist, and allowing the purchase of tickets on board with the full range of discounts). Allowing staff to take a commission on sales no doubt exacerbates this. Information posters at stations are confusing, directly contradict themselves or just give out misleading information (e.g. the sign which keeps appearing on the TVM at Settle instructing people not to use it if the ticket office is open, or posters at many stations which instruct passengers to buy on board despite the presence of a TVM). Revenue staff on the ground have no regard for the facts and will report ticketless passengers to the prosecutions team regardless of whether they should or not. And mistakes happen far too regularly (even if they are a minority of the overall case load).

I'm all for a hard line approach on fare evasion, but no meaningful approach can be taken until the issues described above are dealt with.

 

[daodao]

The process you describe sounds all well, good and robust. It nevertheless bears little resemblance to the process undertaken by Northern.

Having had details taken by an inspector. A passenger is sometimes written to for their version of events. That, one assumes, is then assessed. This either highlights evidence that should have been picked up by the inspector (e.g. there was no opportunity to purchase the fare at the origin) and that is the end of it, or it confirms the passenger is in the wrong and they are offered an £80 settlement to dispose of the matter.

Sometimes a passenger's version of events is not requested at all and an automatic demand for £80 is issued, without any opportunity to hear the passenger's version of events.

There appears to be no meaningful assessment of evidence until an £80 settlement is declined by the passenger. The fact £80 demands are sent to those who should not be issued them (e.g. because they boarded at a station with no facilities and were not given an opportunity to pay on board) testifies to this. Indeed, a while ago now, DaveNewcastle confirmed that Northern undertake no assessment of evidence until such point as an £80 settlement offer is declined. It is only then that any evidence is assessed in preparation for any potential prosecution.

Numerous threads on this forum confirm this. Personal experience also corroborates this evidence (three £80 demands and a summons despite doing no wrong). I personally know several friends and neighbours who have also been issued with £80 demands despite no wrongdoing.

The problem I have with this is that which others describe above. A passenger who has done no wrong, yet nevertheless finds themselves in receipt of a demand to pay £80 to dispose of the matter, with threats of court appearances, prosecution, conviction and criminal records will simply pay the £80 to swiftly make the matter go away and avoid all the stress and perceived risks associated with contesting it. A passenger may be completely innocent of any wrongdoing and yet be £80 out of pocket, have de facto admitted liability to an offence they have not committed, and have their name inappropriately added to Northern's database of naughty people. As others have stated above, this is not about cases going to court, as most don't go anywhere near a courtroom. This is an internal process, which is wholly unregulated with no independent oversight.

There is no convincing argument to be made against putting in place some independent regulatory body to oversee this. Independent oversight would motivate the company to put more effort into getting things right, which will in turn allow them to more efficiently and effectively target their resources towards combating fare evasion. It would ensure the process is just and fair, and also increase confidence in the company's revenue protection efforts.

I really do feel that many people posting here, who may otherwise be greatly familiar with railway law, railway prosecutions and revenue protection, seem rather unfamiliar with life in Northern land. Many stations, even highly used ones, lack ticket issuing facilities altogether. Where facilities do exist they are barely adequate or frequently out of operation. The vast majority of stations are ungated. On board ticket checks are variable (they had got better in recent years but now the new portable ticket machines are in use they seem to have reduced markedly). Staff adopt a highly inconsistent approach, which often undermines any attempts at meaningful revenue protection (e.g. actively encouraging the bypassing of station based ticket facilities where they exist, and allowing the purchase of tickets on board with the full range of discounts). Allowing staff to take a commission on sales no doubt exacerbates this. Information posters at stations are confusing, directly contradict themselves or just give out misleading information (e.g. the sign which keeps appearing on the TVM at Settle instructing people not to use it if the ticket office is open, or posters at many stations which instruct passengers to buy on board despite the presence of a TVM). Revenue staff on the ground have no regard for the facts and will report ticketless passengers to the prosecutions team regardless of whether they should or not. And mistakes happen far too regularly (even if they are a minority of the overall case load).

I'm all for a hard line approach on fare evasion, but no meaningful approach can be taken until the issues described above are dealt with.

I quoted 4 stations in my previous post at which ticket-buying facilities are limited or non-existent. They were, with recent annual usage figures:
Ashley (7,578) - no facilities
Hale (179,812) - ticket office 0710-1340 Mon-Fri only, no TVM
Heald Green (498,000) - ticket office 0615-1215 & 1300-1930, Mon-Sat only, no TVM
Prestbury (55,602) - no facilities

All have frequent trains to Manchester Piccadilly, and passengers arriving ticketless at M/c Piccadilly, who have been unable to purchase a ticket on the train because the guard doesn’t offer the opportunity for them to do so (for whatever reason), are at the mercy of ticket inspectors/RPIs at this gated station.

 

[philthetube]

If you are wrongly pursued for a penalty fare with threats of court proceedings could this not be classed as demanding money with menaces?

 

[Fare-Cop]

The process you describe sounds all well, good and robust. It nevertheless bears little resemblance to the process undertaken by Northern.

I answered in detail as was asked a specific question by Arctic Troll in respect of my experience. As I said in the first line of my post, I don't have any involvement with, or detailed knowledge of internal processes at Northern.

crehld, I see that your post quotes mine and understand what you are saying, but for the reasons already given, I cannot comment further.

 

[island]

Neilr W stated "Short term, any guard-sold ticket should be sold with a red ticket-shaped piece of card warning that "you got away with it this time, next time you might not".

Such a warning is already on the rear of ticket stock issued from Avantix Mobile in Penalty Fares areas.

 

[crehld]

I answered in detail as was asked a specific question by Arctic Troll in respect of my experience. As I said in the first line of my post, I don't have any involvement with, or detailed knowledge of internal processes at Northern.

crehld, I see that your post quotes mine and understand what you are saying, but for the reasons already given, I cannot comment further.

I wasn't seeking further comment nor challenge your experience. I was simply minded to point out for the wider audience that Northern's approach (whose thread this is about) is unique, and it faces many revenue protection challenges not found elsewhere on the rail network (such as a lack of ticket issuing facilities at a great many stations).

 

[70014IronDuke]

You are absolutely right, these are not insignificant results. The major station is bigger than Huddersfield or Wigan NW.

Then it's even more shocking. Can anyone imagine Tesco's running a major store when 30% of the goods are stolen?

The station with an 80%+ lift isn't a huge town, but although your imagined user figures are a little low, not wildly inaccurate.
..

Reading again, you say it has a ticket office open at peak times, so, of course, this must mean well over 10.000 users per year. More like 100,000, I'd have thought.

And, of course, the numbers discovered by the NR checks will not include passengers short faring or doughnutting - though one would assume they are small compared to the out and out non-payers.

Sad as such figures show a low collective public conscience regarding paying for services, at the end of the day it's up to the TOCs to employ more staff to deter such behaviour while acting fairly in terms of not bullying honest passengers who wanted to buy tickets but who were unable to do so for whatever reason.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Such a warning is already on the rear of ticket stock issued from Avantix Mobile in Penalty Fares areas.

Good. Time Northern did too.

For the record I have no objection to strict enforcement against genuine fare-dodgers - but it has to be a consistent system with consistent enforcement and a robust right to appeal. My opinion is that Byelaws and RoRA are abused, and should be repealed and replaced with a much higher Penalty Fare (say £60 plus Anytime Single fare for the first offence in a year, £100 + fare for the second, £200 + fare for the third) with a statutory appeals body and the legal status of a Council parking fine or similar. And if no formal Penalty Fares system is implemented, the railways to be banned from charging in excess of the Anytime Single fare for any given journey regardless of circumstances.

 

[Deerfold]

Then it's even more shocking. Can anyone imagine Tesco's running a major store when 30% of the goods are stolen?

Do note that the ticket office selling 30% more tickets does not equate to an extra 30% of income overall. Some of those previously not buying at the ticket office will have paid the guard on the train or at the other end of their journey.

Some of these 30% will certainly be trying it on and only paying if they absolutely had to, but it's hard to tell what proportion.

It certainly shows there's a lot of work to be done to get everyone to buy before the journey where possible.

 

[boxy321]

He could, but it's appalling customer service. Northern do not have adequate ticket issuing facilities at the vast majority of their stations. And confusion is brought in if they *ever* sell him a ticket on board - the system needs to be consistent above all else - at the very minimum if he's sold a ticket on other occasions it needs to be sold with a clear leaflet stating "you've been lucky this time, punk, it could be £80 next time". But preferably, if they are going to use "penalty fares", it should be proper ones to the relevant Act, applied consistently every time - no more on-board ticket sales at all.

I have never seen a problem on VTWC with a passenger not having a ticket onboard (apart from a standard one sitting in a 1st class vestibule who got mouthy when asked to leave) in 10 months of travelling with them. It has always been acceptable to buy on the train.

If I'd seen this happening often I might assume it's OK too and head through the open barriers if time was short. I might then on another TOC after, try my luck again, then get hit.

Do the booths in New St sell tickets inside the barriers?

 

[47802]

The process you describe sounds all well, good and robust. It nevertheless bears little resemblance to the process undertaken by Northern.

Having had details taken by an inspector. A passenger is sometimes written to for their version of events. That, one assumes, is then assessed. This either highlights evidence that should have been picked up by the inspector (e.g. there was no opportunity to purchase the fare at the origin) and that is the end of it, or it confirms the passenger is in the wrong and they are offered an £80 settlement to dispose of the matter.

Sometimes a passenger's version of events is not requested at all and an automatic demand for £80 is issued, without any opportunity to hear the passenger's version of events.

There appears to be no meaningful assessment of evidence until an £80 settlement is declined by the passenger. The fact £80 demands are sent to those who should not be issued them (e.g. because they boarded at a station with no facilities and were not given an opportunity to pay on board) testifies to this. Indeed, a while ago now, DaveNewcastle confirmed that Northern undertake no assessment of evidence until such point as an £80 settlement offer is declined. It is only then that any evidence is assessed in preparation for any potential prosecution.

Numerous threads on this forum confirm this. Personal experience also corroborates this evidence (three £80 demands and a summons despite doing no wrong). I personally know several friends and neighbours who have also been issued with £80 demands despite no wrongdoing.

The problem I have with this is that which others describe above. A passenger who has done no wrong, yet nevertheless finds themselves in receipt of a demand to pay £80 to dispose of the matter, with threats of court appearances, prosecution, conviction and criminal records will simply pay the £80 to swiftly make the matter go away and avoid all the stress and perceived risks associated with contesting it. A passenger may be completely innocent of any wrongdoing and yet be £80 out of pocket, have de facto admitted liability to an offence they have not committed, and have their name inappropriately added to Northern's database of naughty people. As others have stated above, this is not about cases going to court, as most don't go anywhere near a courtroom. This is an internal process, which is wholly unregulated with no independent oversight.

There is no convincing argument to be made against putting in place some independent regulatory body to oversee this. Independent oversight would motivate the company to put more effort into getting things right, which will in turn allow them to more efficiently and effectively target their resources towards combating fare evasion. It would ensure the process is just and fair, and also increase confidence in the company's revenue protection efforts.

I really do feel that many people posting here, who may otherwise be greatly familiar with railway law, railway prosecutions and revenue protection, seem rather unfamiliar with life in Northern land. Many stations, even highly used ones, lack ticket issuing facilities altogether. Where facilities do exist they are barely adequate or frequently out of operation. The vast majority of stations are ungated. On board ticket checks are variable (they had got better in recent years but now the new portable ticket machines are in use they seem to have reduced markedly). Staff adopt a highly inconsistent approach, which often undermines any attempts at meaningful revenue protection (e.g. actively encouraging the bypassing of station based ticket facilities where they exist, and allowing the purchase of tickets on board with the full range of discounts). Allowing staff to take a commission on sales no doubt exacerbates this. Information posters at stations are confusing, directly contradict themselves or just give out misleading information (e.g. the sign which keeps appearing on the TVM at Settle instructing people not to use it if the ticket office is open, or posters at many stations which instruct passengers to buy on board despite the presence of a TVM). Revenue staff on the ground have no regard for the facts and will report ticketless passengers to the prosecutions team regardless of whether they should or not. And mistakes happen far too regularly (even if they are a minority of the overall case load).

I'm all for a hard line approach on fare evasion, but no meaningful approach can be taken until the issues described above are dealt with.

Where's the like button in total agreement with this.

On a recent evening trip from Worksop to Leeds. Arriving at Worksop no open ticket office, but there was a TVM. However the TVM only offered the more expensive fare to Leeds via Doncaster and not the cheaper fare via Sheffield, So what am I supposed to do in that circumstance? In the end I bought a single to Sheffield from the TVM and then a Single from Sheffield to Leeds which was the cheapest option overall. While on the train another passenger complained to the guard about the TVM not having the ticket he wanted to which the guard replied, I'm surprised it was even working just buy your ticket on the train.

Northern's Ticketing policy needs to be much clearer and consistent to customers.

My view is you should be able to buy tickets on the train without issue from all stations except the Major stations with full ticket offices throughout the day.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm surprised it was even working just buy your ticket on the train.

!!!

For all I'm sure he meant well, this needs stamping on hard, otherwise the policy has neither credibility nor fairness.

I maintain my view that Northern should fit a TVM at every station[1] with all the walk-up fares on it (including remote issue), and implement proper PFs.

And the Byelaws and RoRA with regard to fares should be repealed, because the railway cannot be trusted to use them properly. If they instead had to sue, no doubt their case would fail as this inconsistency could be used in evidence.

[1] If not viable on some routes, e.g. the S&C perhaps, they should be promoted as Paytrain routes throughout on which it is *always* OK to pay on board (unless a barrier prevents this, for example), including this being on the PIS etc.