Penalty Fares

[Andrew1974]

Hi everyone,

 

Just after people thoughts on this one.  I travel my train reasonably often, perhaps a couple of times a month on the west coast for our newest main line station to London, I always buy my ticket in advance and typically my journeys are trouble free.

 

My teenage kids use the train more often than I do, but mostly local journeys to the local town, so they buy their tickets on the day.  Our local station (which I rarely, if ever, use) is unmanned but a few months ago (October) a ticket machine was installed and the station became part of a Northerns Penalty Fare scheme (so I have just discovered).

 

My my kids have continued to travel in the same way they always have, get to station, get on train, buy ticket from guard, or if no guard comes down the train at the destination station (which is manned). 

 

Apparently the correct procedure now is that they should buy a ticket for the new machine or in their case get a ‘permit to travel’ as the machine is card payment only and they deal in cash.

 

Anyway (and I am getting to the point, honest) last week my 16 year old got to the destination station, approached the staff to buy a ticket (as normal) to be told because he does not have a permit to travel he has to pay a penalty fare and is given a notice to that fact.  He asks why, when he was doing the same as he has done often in the past, including just a few days before, to which he is told words to the effect that the rules are rules and it is not his (the staff members) problem if my son does not know them. Even my son picked up on his sarcastic tones!

 

Son on getting home, shows me penalty fare ticket and explains what happened.

 

So all this being knew to me I read the rules....and have now penned an appeal on the basis that the rules are the rules and our local TOC apparently don’t know them either as they have failed to follow them in 5 different ways.

 

So the question, am I being a pedant or am I right in perusing the appeal?

 

Andrew

[The Stationmaster]

You can appeal until you're blue in the face and quote everything you can think of in terms of mitigations, the Byelaws and every other thing under the sun and - you will get absolutely nowhere if my experience of trying to get some sense out the idiots who run these schemes is any guide.

 

My son forgot his season ticket one day when going to work and exactly the same happened to him.  He of course had a valid ticket, just that it wasn't with him but rules are rules in ticket barrier land in penalty fare scheme areas.  Anyway he got his revenge - he started driving to work instead of using the train so a whole lot more revenue was lost than they ever grabbed through imposing a penalty fare.  On a more general note I can understand, in some respects, why it is done but why oh why passengers without tickets are not given a chance to pay and their name and details are taken to make sure they aren't trying it on I really can't understand (apart from the fact that Penalty Fares = extra revenue).

 

So what i would suggest for the future is this.  Check out carefully to see if there are any stations on the route your family uses which are not in the penalty fare scheme and if your offspring turn up at a ticket barrier having forgotten to get a Permit To Travel just say they came from one of those stations (if there are any).  On our branch only the terminus is included in the scheme, the two intermediate stations are not so should one have forgotten one's ticket all you need to do is tell the dementors enforcers that you travelled from one of the excluded stations and buy a single ticket at the barrier, then buy another for the return journey.  Not that I told you that but the extremely shabby and oafish way in which the administrators of the scheme behave is just the approach to encourage such a reaction or, as in my son's case, lose the railway industry the better part of £800 in revenue per annum.

[DY444]

10 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

You can appeal until you're blue in the face and quote everything you can think of in terms of mitigations, the Byelaws and every other thing under the sun and - you will get absolutely nowhere if my experience of trying to get some sense out the idiots who run these schemes is any guide.

 

My son forgot his season ticket one day when going to work and exactly the same happened to him.  He of course had a valid ticket, just that it wasn't with him but rules are rules in ticket barrier land in penalty fare scheme areas.  Anyway he got his revenge - he started driving to work instead of using the train so a whole lot more revenue was lost than they ever grabbed through imposing a penalty fare.  On a more general note I can understand, in some respects, why it is done but why oh why passengers without tickets are not given a chance to pay and their name and details are taken to make sure they aren't trying it on I really can't understand (apart from the fact that Penalty Fares = extra revenue).

 

So what i would suggest for the future is this.  Check out carefully to see if there are any stations on the route your family uses which are not in the penalty fare scheme and if your offspring turn up at a ticket barrier having forgotten to get a Permit To Travel just say they came from one of those stations (if there are any).  On our branch only the terminus is included in the scheme, the two intermediate stations are not so should one have forgotten one's ticket all you need to do is tell the dementors enforcers that you travelled from one of the excluded stations and buy a single ticket at the barrier, then buy another for the return journey.  Not that I told you that but the extremely shabby and oafish way in which the administrators of the scheme behave is just the approach to encourage such a reaction or, as in my son's case, lose the railway industry the better part of £800 in revenue per annum.

 

Some TOCs (I must admit I thought *all* TOCs but perhaps not) have a scheme whereby if you forget your season ticket (and don't make a habit of it) then they will refund the cost of the ticket you had to purchase on the day in question.  Of course that doesn't absolve you from buying that ticket on the day at the earliest opportunity.

 

Whilst I don't think penalty fares are fit for purpose and understand why you suggest what you suggest I wouldn't recommend it.  TOCs take a very dim view indeed of people claiming they have travelled from a station other than the one they did actually travel from and it is a very common method employed by fare evaders.  If there happened to be a revenue block on at the station you chose to nominate then you'd be liable to prosecution when attempting to buy a ticket at your destination as the revenue block would mean you could not have travelled from where you were claiming to have travelled from without a ticket.    

Edited February 7, 2019 by DY444

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

Some TOCs (I must admit I thought *all* TOCs but perhaps not) have a scheme whereby if you forget your season ticket (and don't make a habit of it) then they will refund the cost of the ticket you had to purchase on the day in question.  Of course that doesn't absolve you from buying that ticket on the day at the earliest opportunity.

 

Whilst I don't think penalty fares are fit for purpose and understand why you suggest what you suggest I wouldn't recommend it.  TOCs take a very dim view indeed of people claiming they have travelled from a station other than the one they did actually travel from and it is a very common method employed by fare evaders.  If there happened to be a revenue block on at the station you chose to nominate then you'd be liable to prosecution when attempting to buy a ticket at your destination as the revenue block would mean you could not have travelled from where you were claiming to have travelled from without a ticket.    

Very true and it does need to be done with intelligence and without intention to evade payment of a fare.  On our branch it is a simple matter to check if (the as yet unheard of practice of) carrying out a ticket check at the two intermediate stations is actually taking place.  Our TOC - FGW as it was - did not do that for season ticket holders and in any case the scheme (money taking part) was run by a non-railway organisation based in Portsmouth which seemed to have a very limited idea of g how to cope with someone who had forgotten their season ticket even when given the full details of it.  All they wanted was the money and if they didn't get it in due time, with no extra time allowed for challenging them in correspondence over the incident, they doubled the amount they were raising as a fine - absolutely atrocious behaviour when they simply ignored a reasonable explanation and carried on regardless.

 

In the end of course it was FGW, as they then were, who suffered the ongoing revenue loss and not cowboy central down in Portsmouth who seemed to be as much into 'customer care' as Genghis Khan on a bad day.

[njee20]

But that's exactly what you're endorsing... lie about where you travelled from to avoid the potential penalty fare. 'Doing your homework to ensure you don't get caught' doesn't make it a better idea.

 

I've not really got an issue with it, the rules are pretty clear, they've got a mechanism to purchase a ticket, what 16 year old deals in cash!? All of ours take Apple Pay/Android Pay etc etc as well.

 

Frustrating they're not universally enforced, but that's the same with all rules where humans are involved, would he feel better if he'd had a penalty fare last week too, he was breaking the rules then? Would you expect to get off if you told a police officer "but I was doing 38 in this 30mph yesterday and I didn't get fined"?

[Derekl]

I have to suggest that telling a lie about your point of origin to avoid the potential penalty fare is a very bad idea - whether or not you get caught, it is still a lie, which is not something to be encouraged. Also, of course, if you do get caught, the ramifications are potentially a lot more severe than the penalty fare - potentially a criminal record for theft, which is not really desirable.

 

Andrew (OP) did say that he had checked the rules and that the TOC had failed to follow them in 5 different ways - if these failures are relevant to the failure to comply with the requirements then that seems to be a more fruitful approach.

[njee20]

I'd be interested to know what the 5 ways are, as I'd suggest those are material to the validity of the appeal. If they are "you don't always enforce this", and variations thereon I'd suck it up.

[The Stationmaster]

3 minutes ago, njee20 said:

But that's exactly what you're endorsing... lie about where you travelled from to avoid the potential penalty fare. 'Doing your homework to ensure you don't get caught' doesn't make it a better idea.

 

I've not really got an issue with it, the rules are pretty clear, they've got a mechanism to purchase a ticket, what 16 year old deals in cash!? All of ours take Apple Pay/Android Pay etc etc as well.

 

Frustrating they're not universally enforced, but that's the same with all rules where humans are involved, would he feel better if he'd had a penalty fare last week too, he was breaking the rules then? Would you expect to get off if you told a police officer "but I was doing 38 in this 30mph yesterday and I didn't get fined"?

The difference in fares is 50p.  In other words 'the railway' would lose 50 pence, that is all.  Now which is better - lose what is nowadays over £1000 per annum or lose 50p once?  although in reality of course teh 50p would not have been a loss because a ticket existed for the journey so they would in reality have been, at today's fares,  £4.60 up instead of 50p down.  Nobody is being defrauded.  And while it no longer applies to him anyway as this nonsense was partly instrumental, along with a very unreliable train service at that time,  in his deciding to commute by car instead of train and add to Reading's traffic congestion.

  

I don't condone fare dodging and never have and have been happy, as part of my job, to point out culprits attempting it.  But if somebody is prepared to ignore the fact, and evidence, that the journey has been paid for anyway and that a valid ticket existed for that journey then 50p becomes an irrelevance.  I am talking about a situation in which a valid ticket - which could be very easily proved to exist if the cowboys had been bothered to check with FGW existed and the journey had in fact already been paid for  (they couldn't be bothered to do that, seemed it was all too difficult for them - top notch lack of customer service on their part).  

 

Sorry but that is not customer passenger care to me, it is pedantic stupidity on the part of those who seemed not to care about the way in which they applied the Penalty Fares scheme and I would be sorry if FGW had suffered any loss of revenue but they didn't - in fact they would have been paid twice for the same journey!  These schemes exist to catch the crooked  fare dodgers, not to put off regular travellers who for whatever reason forgot their season ticket or hadn't been made properly aware of the implications of a newly introduced Penalty Fares scheme.  And it was proved a long while back that if you want to catch fare dodgers there is one way, and only one way, of doing it properly - on-train ticket checks.  Penalty Fares only catch out a particular kind of fare dodger and not the ones who are attempting to avoid paying the correct fare.

 

And of course if you realise it in time you can go the Excess Fare ticket office at Reading before you need to pass through the barriers so you can in fact avoid payment of the correct fare for your journey courtesy of the facility provided to enable you to do it.  It would seem that some sort of double standard is already in operation without me commending it to anybody.

[njee20]

I'm not talking about your son specifically, if you want to get yourself comfortable with fraud because it's only a small amount that's fine. I'm talking about your advice that the OP's son should lie about his point of origin, having carefully researched which ones would make him exempt from a penalty fare. That's a stupid idea, and a very poor recommendation.

[The Stationmaster]

9 minutes ago, njee20 said:

I'd be interested to know what the 5 ways are, as I'd suggest those are material to the validity of the appeal. If they are "you don't always enforce this", and variations thereon I'd suck it up.

So would I as past experience suggests that the way the concern in Portsmouth operated the scheme they had no interest whatsoever in appeals or the fact that it could easily be proved that a valid ticket existed for the journey being made.  Even worse was the fact that if an appeal was made - which needs time and research to properly prepare - and was then rejected the clock remained ticking from its original start time when it came to doubling the penalty fine.  thus if they took their time responding to a letter or email they could financially benefit from their tardiness.

 

That was just another thing which made me extremely angry over the way the whole business was handled.  In some respects it was just like a bunch of cowboy car park clampers.  It would in my view, and experience, be far better if the work was handled in house by the TOC concerned which would at least have the evidence within its own organisation in respect of season tickets or when it came to knowledge of ticket machine failures at stations where a Permit To Travel needs to be obtained.

[raymw]

Interesting to know that some folk value cash over their integrity.

[njee20]

I really hate to be sanctimonious on this, but you could y'know, just have a valid ticket! You remind me of many of the posters on the local community web pages, which are filled with people bemoaning getting a parking fine because they were "only gone for 2 minutes". Obviously none of them bought tickets.

 

Photo of broken ticket machine is adequate proof that a ticket could not be purchased.

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, njee20 said:

Photo of broken ticket machine is adequate proof that a ticket could not be purchased.

Some of us don't routinely carry devices for taking photos. I also routinely pay in cash for small amounts. Telling me I have to change for the sake of it and get with the times will get short shrift from me.

 

There's a station that I travel to that's recently gained a ticket machine, but no barriers, but only on one platform, the opposite one to the one I use for travelling back (e.g. if I ever needed to take my car in to work and leave it there). Whether there are penalty fares or not I don't know. Good that they've got the ticket machine, selling tickets on the train, checking others, and doing the doors on that line is too much, when I used to start journeys there there were several times where the railway lost money simply because I didn't have any means of buying a ticket but being pedantic about one option when the others are still available with people who aren't taking the mick is likely to further tarnish an industry that currently doesn't have the best image.

Edited February 7, 2019 by Reorte

[njee20]

I would presume that in the event of a broken ticket machine there would be other people who would have reported it broken. I'm theorising, the reality is that most people do carry a device capable of taking a picture with them. Just as drive-through restaurants exist, but that doesn't mean you have to buy a car. It seems likely the railway will go cashless at some point, particularly in rural locations where having an unattended machine full of cash is undesirable, so it seems likely that at some point you will have to "get with the times".

 

However, my point was more that Stationmaster seemed to be taking aim at penalty fares on some fairly spurious grounds. If a ticket machine is broken then that would seem a legitimate grounds for an appeal, whereby a photo of that machine (not necessarily taken by you) would likely suffice.

 

On your example why not simply cross to the other platform to use the machine? My station also has machines and no barriers, I routinely use the machine on the 'wrong' side, because everyone's queuing at the machine on the up platform every morning.

Edited February 7, 2019 by njee20

[adb968008]

Penalty fares are meant to-be a discouragement.

Thats why they exist.

the guy at the destination doesnt know or discriminate one passenger against another... you could be any old joe.

 

unfortunately the onus is on the person riding the train paying for a ticket or taking the consequences.

 

Would you open food in a supermarket before youve paid for it ?

[njee20]

Plenty of people do that too, I treat them with a similar level of disdain to those who travel without a ticket and get grumpy when they get fined!

[Wheatley]

If it's one of Northerns new machines then the system knows whether it was working or not at the time of travel and the appeals people can check. If there's a machine and it's working, even if it's on the 'wrong' platform then you're expected to use it either to buy a ticket or to obtain a PTP if you're cash only. I really don't see what's difficult about it.

Edited February 7, 2019 by Wheatley

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, Wheatley said:

If it's one of Northerns new machines then the system knows whether it was working or not at the time of travel and the appeals people can check. If there's a machine and it's working, even if it's on the 'wrong' platform then you're expected to use it either to buy a ticket or to obtain a PTP if you're cash only. I really don't see what's difficult about it.

Great move then, making it all more of a faff.

[jjb1970]

This is one of those areas where although the TOCs have every right to ensure people buy tickets, the way they manage things can sometimes be a colossal self inflicted wound. I spend over £5k pa on my season ticket so I have no time for fare dodgers (if I'm paying so can anybody else who wants to travel unless they have a legitimate pass) but when I used London Midland/LNWR a lot of conductors would walk through the train offering to sell tickets, then another journey I'd see a revenue protection person sting somebody for not having a ticket before boarding. Now you either have a policy that you must buy a ticket before boarding or you don't. If conductors will not sell tickets onboard then fair enough, you buy a ticket before boarding. If they sell tickets onboard then it's fair enough to board the train and pay the conductor. What is not sensible is to mix and match according to who is checking tickets, what does a TOC expect if some conductors are basically encouraging people to buy their ticket onboard? And although most of their conductors were actually very good and managed these things in a very professional way there was one revenue protection guy whose whole attitude was almost calculated to elicit a confrontational reaction from passengers. None of this is an excuse for fare dodging, but I've also seen behaviour that has poisoned people against rail travel which isn't good.

[Jim Martin]

3 hours ago, Reorte said:

Great move then, making it all more of a faff.

 

Lots of suburban stations only have ticket-buying facilities on one platform. My local station does. I don't see why that means that I shouldn't have to buy a ticket.

 

Jim

[Rods_of_Revolution]

Having had a discussion with people in the relevent department whilst I was working for a TOC, what I gleaned was thus; Back in the day people (guards, gateline, etc) were able to use their discretion more (either with permission or just because they were unlikely to get caught by their employer). These days companies insist that the rules are applied as stated with no exceptions to avoid possible legal and PR issues. For example, if one person was given the benefit of the doubt and let off a penalty fare whilst someone else, especially someone from a 'protected class,' wasn't given the benefit of the doubt, the company could be open to a lawsuit or news articles suggesting discrimination. It's much more likely to become an issue with the advent of social media and sensationalist news media, as what happens between a guard and a passenger can become an event broadcast to the world.

 

Whilst some people will cease travelling by train after a penalty fare has been issued, the reality is that most people don't have a better option and will continue to use the train. The relatively small loses incured from the minority who decide to no longer travel by train are offset by the reduction in exposure to the risk of PR or legal problems.

 

It would be nice if everyone could use common sense and judge each situation on its merits, but this approach is becoming less compatible with the modern world.

[Gibbo675]

Hi Andrew,

 

You state that your son deals in cash, therefore If your son does not have a bank account he cannot then discharge any such commercial debt notice as any so called court you care to mention will not be able to prove that he has the means bye which to do so.

 

This is not a process of law but of commerce for which you would refer to the Bills of Exchange Act for guidance. Travel upon the railway is via a contract subject to terms and conditions set prior to purchase of a ticket, the ticket provides receipt of contract entered into by the customer in accepting conditions of contract and also provides the railway company indemnity should the customer suffer injury while in vicarious care of the railway company.

 

You cannot engage in commerce without account hence the general move toward a cashless society in all areas.

 

To this regard we are stuffed, not just your son !

 

Gibbo.

[Andrew1974]

Hi everyone, 

 

Thanks for all your input.

 

just in case there is any doubt my son was not attempting to avoid a fare, was honest about his travel when asked and, to be honest, I if I thought he was actually in the wrong I would just pay the penalty fare.

 

I think the thing that has reall got me riled is the attitude of the railway employee concerned, showing a total lack of empathy and borderline intimidary attitude to a minor.

 

In terms of my 5 ways, 2 relate to the penalty fare notice itself not complying with statutory requirement and the other 3 being circumstances where the regulations indicate a penalty fare should not be issued.

 

I’m going to send my letter in the morning, and will report back on the outcome once I know.

 

 I may well be wasting my time, but as I have now written the letter it is only going to cost me the price of a stamp to send it.

 

Andrew

[WIMorrison]

There is also the Railways Act to consider which has always required that you have a ticket to travel

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/52-53/57/section/5

 

fir the record, my railway company - South Western Railway - will let you off with a warning if you initiate the offer to buy a ticket at the destination station or from the ‘guard’ on the train (now known as revenue protection officers) when you do not have a valid ticket, but will issue a penalty fare if you are asked on the train or station and you cannot produce one.

[ikks]

6 hours ago, Rods_of_Revolution said:

Having had a discussion with people in the relevent department whilst I was working for a TOC, what I gleaned was thus; Back in the day people (guards, gateline, etc) were able to use their discretion more (either with permission or just because they were unlikely to get caught by their employer). These days companies insist that the rules are applied as stated with no exceptions to avoid possible legal and PR issues. For example, if one person was given the benefit of the doubt and let off a penalty fare whilst someone else, especially someone from a 'protected class,' wasn't given the benefit of the doubt, the company could be open to a lawsuit or news articles suggesting discrimination. It's much more likely to become an issue with the advent of social media and sensationalist news media, as what happens between a guard and a passenger can become an event broadcast to the world.

 

Whilst some people will cease travelling by train after a penalty fare has been issued, the reality is that most people don't have a better option and will continue to use the train. The relatively small loses incured from the minority who decide to no longer travel by train are offset by the reduction in exposure to the risk of PR or legal problems.

 

It would be nice if everyone could use common sense and judge each situation on its merits, but this approach is becoming less compatible with the modern world.

Agree, common sense, reason and discretionary thinking have gone out of the window. Without knowing the actual situation in the U.K. now, it seems amazing that the Guard or whatever it's called these days wouldn't have some means of connecting to the Company's database and verifying the gentleman's claim, surely an identity check is fairly simple now, (drivers licence, credit/pension card etc.), key in the details and Hey Presto--result!!............the mind boggles at what we've become.

 

Mike