Traveled with out of date railcard

[worried12345]

We have many laws that operate in that way - where the main offence has been to cause financial loss that can be recovered, prosecuting bodies often see reimbursement as the better solution. The tax authorities are old hands at the game, and for far larger amounts than train operators.

So I’m not an accountant so this might be totally wrong, but I think tax punishments are actually relatively less severe! For late taxes you pay what you owe plus 5%. In this case, I’ve paid what I owed, plus maybe 900%.

Even if you don’t take into account my original ticket and assume I actually owed them £150 instead of £30, the punishment is still what I owe plus 100%.

So I’m not an accountant so this might be totally wrong, but I think tax punishments are actually relatively less severe! For late taxes you pay what you owe plus 5%. In this case, I’ve paid what I owed, plus maybe 900%.

Even if you don’t take into account my original ticket and assume I actually owed them £150 instead of £30, the punishment is still what I owe plus 100%.

I should say I think this is for late taxes, obviously the worse your tax crime is the more severe this is going to be!

I guess this is just to illustrate my broader issue with this is that they’re not actually recovering *what they’re owed*. What they were owed is £30. They’ve recovered that plus £290.

I think that in an ideal world this would just be a civil matter. If you owe them money, you should have to pay whatever you owe. I know that the heavy handedness is to deter people from doing it, but individual offenders shouldn’t be responsible for the TOCs poor revenue protection. If you’re worried about losing revenue from things like expired railcards, put an actual system in place to stop people from buying incorrect tickets in the first place.

 

[Hadders]

So I’m not an accountant so this might be totally wrong, but I think tax punishments are actually relatively less severe! For late taxes you pay what you owe plus 5%. In this case, I’ve paid what I owed, plus maybe 900%.

Even if you don’t take into account my original ticket and assume I actually owed them £150 instead of £30, the punishment is still what I owe plus 100%.


I should say I think this is for late taxes, obviously the worse your tax crime is the more severe this is going to be!

I guess this is just to illustrate my broader issue with this is that they’re not actually recovering *what they’re owed*. What they were owed is £30. They’ve recovered that plus £290.

I think that in an ideal world this would just be a civil matter. If you owe them money, you should have to pay whatever you owe. I know that the heavy handedness is to deter people from doing it, but individual offenders shouldn’t be responsible for the TOCs poor revenue protection. If you’re worried about losing revenue from things like expired railcards, put an actual system in place to stop people from buying incorrect tickets in the first place.

There's a bit of a wider issue here, and comparing rail ticketing issues to other penalties isn't always appropriate. Why not compare the cost to a parking ticket (often extortionate) or a speeding offence?

A few things to bear in mind:

- 'Pay when challenged' is a significant issue on the railway. I'm not accusing you of this but any penalty or outcome does need to provide a deterrent or punative element to it otherwise it isn't going to deter the 'pay when challenged' brigade.
- Making rail travel matters civil ones could have unintended consequences as we'd then potentially be into county court judgements and the impact on credit reference files and peoples ability to get credit. This could be much worse then a Byelaw conviction.

On balance my view is the law around railway ticketing matters needs reform. It was written before electronic ticketing was a thing and doesn't really account for issues like purchasing a valid ticket but after the train has departed. It also doesn't really cover the situation where phones run out of battery.

My view is better use should be made of Penalty Fares, maybe these should be able to be issued retrospectively. Given data trawling capability that exists these days any reform also needs to consider what should happen to people who are caught with a ticketing irregularity, but data suggests they have done this many times before.

 

[Titfield]

On balance my view is the law around railway ticketing matters needs reform. It was written before electronic ticketing was a thing and doesn't really account for issues like purchasing a valid ticket but after the train has departed. It also doesn't really cover the situation where phones run out of battery.

My view is better use should be made of Penalty Fares, maybe these should be able to be issued retrospectively. Given data trawling capability that exists these days any reform also needs to consider what should happen to people who are caught with a ticketing irregularity, but data suggests they have done this many times before.

Agreed. It is coming up with a set of measures that somehow (and I accept the challenges of this) deals with each category of "offender" in a proportionate and fair way:
1. The genuine one off mistake (for example but not limited to someone with an advance ticket gets on the "wrong train", the flat battery)
2. The persistent fare evader (someone who short fares on more than once occasion, doughnuts, someone who boards and disembarks at ungated stations without a ticket, the only pay when challenged passengers)
3. The fraud (alteration of railcard expiry dates, creation of fake tickets and rail cards).

The wrong railcard problem seems to be featuring on here more often than previously.

I agree that more use should be made of penalty fares as these can fully resolve the problem at the time but should also allow a retrospective view of someones ticketing history so that any other "events" can then be followed up on.

Trawling data has to be a good thing from the perspective of differentiating between the genuine one off mistake and the persistent offender. I suspect that a lot of persistent offenders have previously gone undetected because quite simply once they were out of the station that was the end of their being any chance of them being stopped and their details being recorded to be matched up if / when stopped subsequently.

Perhaps the biggest challenge of all is that if penalties for the one off mistake are reduced (because the current levels appear to be punitive) it further encourages persistent / regular fare evaders to keep on taking the risk because the financial risk has moved further in their favour.

 

[worried12345]

There's a bit of a wider issue here, and comparing rail ticketing issues to other penalties isn't always appropriate. Why not compare the cost to a parking ticket (often extortionate) or a speeding offence?

A few things to bear in mind:

- 'Pay when challenged' is a significant issue on the railway. I'm not accusing you of this but any penalty or outcome does need to provide a deterrent or punative element to it otherwise it isn't going to deter the 'pay when challenged' brigade.
- Making rail travel matters civil ones could have unintended consequences as we'd then potentially be into county court judgements and the impact on credit reference files and peoples ability to get credit. This could be much worse then a Byelaw conviction.

On balance my view is the law around railway ticketing matters needs reform. It was written before electronic ticketing was a thing and doesn't really account for issues like purchasing a valid ticket but after the train has departed. It also doesn't really cover the situation where phones run out of battery.

My view is better use should be made of Penalty Fares, maybe these should be able to be issued retrospectively. Given data trawling capability that exists these days any reform also needs to consider what should happen to people who are caught with a ticketing irregularity, but data suggests they have done this many times before.

Thankyou for your thoughts here Hadderz! You’ve obviously thought about this longer than me so I appreciate it. The penalty fare solution seems perfectly reasonable!

I have a bit of an issue with the deterrence side of things given that it means that people on the less extreme end like me who’ve made a mistake are paying to try and deter people who are doing things intentionally. Perhaps they could give out more penalty fares, but the law should be such that if they notice extensive misconduct they could be able to recover this?

As a preventative measure I think the TOCs should put some pressure on Trainline to make it more obvious when you’ve had a railcard expire - especially when the railcard is bought through the app. This is assuming the TOCs don’t actually want people breaking these rules!

On the last point Titifield I would probably have to disagree. I imagine that most people (offenders included) have absolutely no idea what the punishment for these offences is - everyone I’ve spoken to has been pretty shocked at the amount I’ve had to pay. This would maybe suggest that people trying their luck actually wouldn’t be encouraged by the cost of the penalty. Maybe I’m wrong here though - it could be the case that your average fare dodger does some research to weigh up the risks first!

 

[robbeech]

As a preventative measure I think the TOCs should put some pressure on Trainline to make it more obvious when you’ve had a railcard expire - especially when the railcard is bought through the app. This is assuming the TOCs don’t actually want people breaking these rules!

Perhaps.

But it’s in nobodies real interest to be helpful.

If the retailer (Trainline in this case) were to inform you your railcard had expired then you’d buy a new one and carry on as normal, I’m not sure if they make money on a railcard purchases through them but it’ll be a negligible amount if they do.
If they don’t inform you, you’ll keep buying tickets with the discount so they’re no worse off. This is until the day you’re caught. If you spot it before a ticket check you’ll either buy a new railcard there and then or you’ll buy a new undiscounted ticket there and then, and where will you buy it? Trainline of course. So they’ll get their commission on an extra ticket, and if you refund the other then the admin fee will likely net them more than their commission.

The railway makes more money from selling you an extra ticket, it certainly makes more money from an out of court settlement.

Overall there’s no incentive for anyone to tell a passenger their railcard has expired or is about to expire.

 

[worried12345]

Perhaps.

But it’s in nobodies real interest to be helpful.

If the retailer (Trainline in this case) were to inform you your railcard had expired then you’d buy a new one and carry on as normal, I’m not sure if they make money on a railcard purchases through them but it’ll be a negligible amount if they do.
If they don’t inform you, you’ll keep buying tickets with the discount so they’re no worse off. This is until the day you’re caught. If you spot it before a ticket check you’ll either buy a new railcard there and then or you’ll buy a new undiscounted ticket there and then, and where will you buy it? Trainline of course. So they’ll get their commission on an extra ticket, and if you refund the other then the admin fee will likely net them more than their commission.

The railway makes more money from selling you an extra ticket, it certainly makes more money from an out of court settlement.

Overall there’s no incentive for anyone to tell a passenger their railcard has expired or is about to expire.

Yeah I don’t think the TOCs would want this, but I guess they *should* want this in so far as they’re going after these out of court settlements harshly partially because of the huge losses they claim to make on ticketing offences. If that is really the issue, and there’s ways to prevent from happening in the first place, they really should put those things in place.

Obviously, the TOCs have less honest intentions with this!

 

[tspaul26]

Yeah I don’t think the TOCs would want this, but I guess they *should* want this in so far as they’re going after these out of court settlements harshly partially because of the huge losses they claim to make on ticketing offences. If that is really the issue, and there’s ways to prevent from happening in the first place, they really should put those things in place.

Obviously, the TOCs have less honest intentions with this!

I have no sympathy for your position I’m afraid.

The TOCs need to do nothing. Trainline needs to do nothing.

This type of situation (purchasing a discounted ticket after a railcard has expired) can be avoided through the simple expedient of passengers checking that they have valid railcards before travelling using discounted fares.

This isn’t rocket science and would avoid these issues arising from the outset.

 

[worried12345]

I have no sympathy for your position I’m afraid.

The TOCs need to do nothing. Trainline needs to do nothing.

This type of situation (purchasing a discounted ticket after a railcard has expired) can be avoided through the simple expedient of passengers checking that they have valid railcards before travelling using discounted fares.

This isn’t rocket science and would avoid these issues arising from the outset.

I’m not looking for sympathy, thankyou.

The issue here isn’t whether I’m at fault (which you should be able to see I’ve happily admitted). The issue is whether or not the punishment is heavy handed. The very fact I’m at fault does not justify any level of punishment, and my position is that the current level of punishment is too large.

If you disagree with that then you’re free to tell me why you think this level of punishment is warranted.

 

[tspaul26]

If you disagree with that then you’re free to tell me why you think this level of punishment is warranted.

This is not a punishment. It is simply the contractual consequence of your own behaviour under the Conditions of Travel which permit the recovery from you of the undiscounted Anytime fares for the journeys which you made whilst not in possession of a valid ticket.

The additional amount in respect of the associated administrative costs of dealing with you are also attributable to your breach of that contract.

This would all remain the case had you been pursued for the money through the civil courts without any intimation of a potential prosecution.

 

[Craig1122]

A couple of thoughts on this:

I have membership for a cinema which entitles me to discount tickets. It used to be that you would show your membership card to get a discount in much the same way as with a Railcard. Now it's all linked on line so that when I buy a ticket my membership is recognised and the discount applied. So in this case it's impossible to buy a ticket with a discount I'm not entitled to.

The railway does seem very much behind in this respect. Ticket sales should probably be linked to a Railcard 'account' in the same way.

From my time working in a booking office it was a regular occurrence that people would try to buy discounted tickets with out of date Railcards. The most common giveaway was that people would put their thumb over the date when requesting a ticket. Some people would request to just buy a full price ticket rather than renew the Railcard but become upset when I withdrew the Railcard, so they clearly had an intent to try and use it fraudulently in future.

Given that some people do try to use out of date cards it then presents the problem for revenue protection purposes of how you differentiate between genuine mistakes and deliberately fraudulent behaviour. The OP's situation is unfortunate but when a Railcard is over a month out of date it's very hard to make that distinction.

 

[island]

I have membership for a cinema which entitles me to discount tickets. It used to be that you would show your membership card to get a discount in much the same way as with a Railcard. Now it's all linked on line so that when I buy a ticket my membership is recognised and the discount applied. So in this case it's impossible to buy a ticket with a discount I'm not entitled to.

How does the cinema stop you from buying discounted tickets and sharing them with other people?

 

[Gloster]

I am rather half and half on this. I do think that people need to take some personal responsibility for their affairs and not expect to be told what to do, but it does seem that the railway’s system is a bit inconsistent. Make it more consistent and set the rules out clearly, after which the customer has nobody to blame but themselves if they can’t organise themselves.

 

[Craig1122]

How does the cinema stop you from buying discounted tickets and sharing them with other people?

You're meant to have your membership with you, but in fairness you could probably get away with giving a friend the ticket barcode. However, as you can only buy one discounted ticket per performance, I'd imagine it's a marginal problem. They probably also have the advantage of being viewed as a friendly small business rather than a faceless corporation.

 

[island]

You're meant to have your membership with you

And you're meant to have your Railcard with you when you use a discounted ticket.

 

[Brissle Girl]

I am rather half and half on this. I do think that people need to take some personal responsibility for their affairs and not expect to be told what to do, but it does seem that the railway’s system is a bit inconsistent. Make it more consistent and set the rules out clearly, after which the customer has nobody to blame but themselves if they can’t organise themselves.

Which bit of the rules are inconsistent, or not set out clearly?

You need to have a valid railcard when travelling (not when booking, as you can book weeks in advance). And you need to travel with it and show it when asked.

It’s been like that for 40 years, the only difference that these days you don’t need to show your railcard when booking online or at a TVM.

 

[Gloster]

Which bit of the rules are inconsistent, or not set out clearly?

You need to have a valid railcard when travelling (not when booking, as you can book weeks in advance). And you need to travel with it and show it when asked.

It’s been like that for 40 years, the only difference that these days you don’t need to show your railcard when booking online or at a TVM.

I was rather thinking of the mechanism for reminding the user that a card has run out. If I understand it correctly, from reading this forum, there are some outlets that do remind users that the card needs renewal, while others don’t. Once somebody hears about someone else’s card being renewed, they may assume that theirs will be as well. Maybe I am out of touch.

(N.b. I am sufficiently organised to ensure that I renew my Senior Railcard or, before that, my Network South-East Railcard before travel. I also always buy at a booking office and they always check the card.)

 

[Titfield]

I was rather thinking of the mechanism for reminding the user that a card has run out. If I understand it correctly, from reading this forum, there are some outlets that do remind users that the card needs renewal, while others don’t. Once somebody hears about someone else’s card being renewed, they may assume that theirs will be as well. Maybe I am out of touch.

(N.b. I am sufficiently organised to ensure that I renew my Senior Railcard or, before that, my Network South-East Railcard before travel. I also always buy at a booking office and they always check the card.)

But that point is not about inconsistent rules it is about customer service. In any case how many of us (a) whibble about the constant emails we receive (b) would rather renew just before travel rather than when the card expired so as to maximise its period of usefulness.

 

[AlbertBeale]

I am rather half and half on this. I do think that people need to take some personal responsibility for their affairs and not expect to be told what to do, but it does seem that the railway’s system is a bit inconsistent. Make it more consistent and set the rules out clearly, after which the customer has nobody to blame but themselves if they can’t organise themselves.

Yes - the expiry date of a physical railcard is clear enough; I assume that of an electronic one is too. It's hardly brain surgery to check that what you're relying on to validate your ticket is itself in date. If people don't trust themselves to look what they're doing when buying something online, then buy at a ticket office - then you're likely to get nudged to show your (in date) card, or explain that you're renewing before the journey [then at least you've been reminded to renew]. Of course mistakes can happen, but - as has been pointed out - from the railway's point of view most of the "mistakes" they come across are people aiming to avoid their full fare (or at least not bothered whether they pay properly or not); if they treated everyone without a valid ticket as having just made an unfortunate mistake, and charged something like the normal fare, vastly increased numbers of people would no doubt stop buying tickets, since they know they won't always get checked on every journey.

 

[BRX]

I’m not looking for sympathy, thankyou.

The issue here isn’t whether I’m at fault (which you should be able to see I’ve happily admitted). The issue is whether or not the punishment is heavy handed. The very fact I’m at fault does not justify any level of punishment, and my position is that the current level of punishment is too large.

If you disagree with that then you’re free to tell me why you think this level of punishment is warranted.

You're quite right. It's sad to see all the comments on threads like this one from people who are clearly uninterested in the concept of public transport as a public service. To them it's just a contractual matter with no room for people to make mistakes. Proportionality of the punishment matters not to them, nor do they think the providers of the public service should be expected to do anything to help prevent the mistakes happening in the first place.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

On balance my view is the law around railway ticketing matters needs reform. It was written before electronic ticketing was a thing and doesn't really account for issues like purchasing a valid ticket but after the train has departed. It also doesn't really cover the situation where phones run out of battery.

This, I think, is the core point - including the discussion immediately above about railcards. We currently have legislation which assumes paper tickets bought face to face before travel. But that’s no longer how most tickets are sold.

The rules need to fit reality. Once that’s the case, it’s a fairly simple matter to put appropriate sanctions in place to deal with p who break the rules.