Were penalty fares *really* designed for honest mistakes?

[arabianights]

I know that's what the legislation (?term?) says.

But was that really the historical intent behind them or was that basically weasel wording so that BR could avoid all the implications arising from them essentially issuing fines / insinuating that Mr B. Ball Cap was anything other than an upstanding honourable citizen who would never dream of fare dodging?

To me that seems just as likely an explanation but I wasn't paying attention at the time, can anyone confirm/deny or point me to where to start looking to find about more?

 

[najaB]

Given that they aren't unique to the railway, and that BR didn't invent them, it's fair to say that they were introduced for exactly the reasons that they said - there was a requirement for a middle ground when dealing with ticketing irregularities. Something between "Never mind, dear..." and "It is the opinion of this court..."

This would cover innocent mistakes, and (I suspect) cases where the TOC felt that there was evidence of deliberate intent, but a full-blown prosecution was overkill.

This is, I must point out, just my personal observation/opinion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think they essentially go back to the point when it was decided that having staff at all stations all the time, and ticketing staff on all trains all the time, was no longer viable. So they basically existed to discourage the "I'll pay if I'm asked to" approach in a railway where that had become an increasingly feasible method of casual fare evasion.

They have remained since (in the South East at least) stations are increasingly barriered once again and seem to have become a way of slapping people for unintentional mistakes, particularly where those mistakes may be difficult to distinguish from deliberate evasion, which seems to me that in a way they may have outlived their original purpose and taken on another.

 

[gray1404]

To echo Neil's point, my understanding is that they where introduced in the Network South East region to try to combat the number of people who would not buy a ticket, but would pay if challenged (so was difficult at the time to take them to court because they were always willing to pay if challenged) - when really they should have brought a ticket in the first place at the ticket office/TVM.

I think now, in 2015, the offical line is that a PF should be used for an honest mistake. However, it this is varies depending on which TOC you are travelling on, which part of the country you are in and which ticket Inspector you come across. On this forum along we see cases of an honest mistake which really could have been dealt with by a PF, but they've been reported for the offence instead. Likewise, on a certain TOC in Merseyside, it seems to be standard practice that they will issue any passenger without a ticket with a PF even if their clear intent was not to pay (i.e. no honest mistake made at all.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think now, in 2015, the offical line is that a PF should be used for an honest mistake. However, it this is varies depending on which TOC you are travelling on, which part of the country you are in and which ticket Inspector you come across. On this forum along we see cases of an honest mistake which really could have been dealt with by a PF, but they've been reported for the offence instead. Likewise, on a certain TOC in Merseyside, it seems to be standard practice that they will issue any passenger without a ticket with a PF even if their clear intent was not to pay (i.e. no honest mistake made at all.)

And of course there is the certain well-known TOC in a similar area that operates penalty fares that are not Penalty Fares.

 

[najaB]

On this forum along we see cases of an honest mistake which really could have been dealt with by a PF, but they've been reported for the offence instead.

And then there are the cases people end up here after refusing a PF when it was offered - the travelling public isn't sufficiently aware of the whole PF process. Too often we hear "I told the officer that I wasn't going to pay a penalty fare (or fine) as I hadn't done anything wrong."

 

[Greenback]

They were originally meant to act as a deterrent, as others have said, encouraging those who might chance it and not buy a ticket before boarding the train, and only pay when asked to do so.

A PF doesn't appear to be a deterrent these days, judging by the number of people who seem to accept the issue of one as just one of those things,and it's arguable how much of a deterrent they ever were.

They have become a way of penalising honest mistakes because it's difficult to tell the innocent passenger who has just got something wrong, from the dedicated chancers who might not buy a ticket at all, or deliberately buy a cheaper ticket that's not valid for their journey.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

I suppose the biggest problem is that the line between 'honest mistake' and 'chancing it' are so blurred as to be unreadable.

While I'm sure there are lot of people out there making honest mistakes, there are many more who know what they are doing is not quite legit, but hoping to blag their way through it.

 

[jon0844]

The issue now is that £20 has become too low. While you do have £20 or double the fare, in reality people just think it's £20 and that will play a part in making them decide if it's worth the risk or not.

 

[plcd1]

I worked alongside a colleague who was the client for LU's Penalty Fares scheme. It took years of parliamentary lobbying and debate to actually get the Act on the Statute Book because there were so many concerns from MPs about people being wrongly "penalised".

The LU scheme was always seen as being part of the overall armoury to fight fare evasion. Those who have said that it was targeted at the opportunistic fare evader are correct. It is certainly not a deterrent to the determined or hardened evader who will take every opportunity not to pay.

Clearly LU and BR were in different places operationally when Penalty Fares was considered and introduced. Practice has obviously varied depending on how virulent the press reaction has been over the years. TOCs and the DfT have also taken vastly differing approaches to fare evasion practice and there's little consistency these days between companies or even in similar geographic areas. I've used the Overground a fair bit recently and I've had some form of manual ticket check on every journey whereas I can't remember when I had on LU or a London area TOC. I'm ignoring recent "Inter City" trips where there have been pretty good on train checks right through each journey.

 

[gray1404]

I could not believe it today when I was out with a friend of mine. This is someone I hold in high regard who dresses very respectful and a good job. He has a season ticket and we were going 4 stations further on the train (10 minutes). It emerged he hadn't brought a ticket to cover the extra part of the journey and he said "I've paid enough for my season ticket. What are the chances of me getting caught anyway." This is a Merseyside TOC with a PF scheme. He went onto say he would refuse to give them any of his details if asked, no way is he paying a PF and would just walk away from them as they can't touch him. I was really surprised. I'm all for people taking a stance though but would not advocae such myself as I know how to use the railway correctly haha. Made me wonder though, most TOC staff will have been expressly instructed right not to detain or touch a passenger to avoid them getting hurt in return.

Train pulls into station 2 of the 4 extra stops of the return journey. RPI get on and he runs off the train. I ran after him and managed to get out as the door was closing. What must we have looked like. Of course I was correctly ticketed for the entire journey and happy to show a ticket on request.

 

[Starmill]

I think Season Ticket Mentality is quite relevant. It's as if begrudgingly paying more for something than its worth over many years while not having much choice, always paying more and nothing actually improving doesn't foster goodwill among one's customers.

Who knew?