Northern trial £80 fixed penalty for people caught without ticket for 2nd time.

[northwichcat]

This might be of use/interest to some people:

Northern has introduced a new initiative to attempt to reduce ticketless travel and encourage customers to ‘Buy before they board’. ‘Failure to Purchase’ forms are issued during special exercises on key lines of route. The forms are only issued once posters and leaflets have been handed out and displayed in advance. Once a passenger is issued with a form they are reminded of their responsibility to pay and advised that if they receive a further warning they will receive an £80 fixed penalty. The first of these exercises took place during the first two weeks of October on services from Glossop / Hadfield arriving into Piccadilly.

http://www.transportforgreatermanch...l_rail_service_performance_and_station_issues

Is that £80 figure the highest fixed penalty issued by a TOC (apart from the ones which involve double the single fare)?

 

[michael769]

By what lawful authority does NR issue these "penalties"?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I can't say I know the answer to that Michael (though I am sure someone does), but from that comment I take it you would rather people be taken to court for fare evasion, or settle out of court for upwards of £100?

 

[michael769]

I didn't say that!

I am just trying to understand the basis for issuing these"penalties".

 

[eastdyke]

Does this require Northern to officially amend their 'Penalty Fare Scheme' for approval by the DfT?

Perhaps they have already done so?

 

[LexyBoy]

Could it be a matter of Northern essentially formally stating that they will offer an £80 out of court settlement rather than prosecute in these cases?

 

[barrykas]

Does this require Northern to officially amend their 'Penalty Fare Scheme' for approval by the DfT?

As far as I'm aware, Northern don't have a Penalty Fare scheme. I'd guess that the FPNs would need to be issued by a BTP Officer under Byelaw 18, though I couldn't be sure.

 

[yorkie]

It sounds like Northern are introducing a customised Penalty Fare scheme of sorts, by-passing the Penalty Fare legislation and presumably without having to seek DfT approval.

 

[eastdyke]

So Northern may be acting illegally and TfGM would be complicit? (as a PTE is in the loop for a Penalty Fare Scheme)

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And any appeal that NRCoC had not been applied would presumably succeed?

 

[scrapy]

Apparantly these £80 charges will only be handed out by pace trained G4S staff. Whilst plenty of Failure to Purchase notices have been handed out and details taken, I am not aware of any £80 'fixed penalties' actually being issued. These are supposedly admin charges so have no legal weight and no there is no DFT approved penalty fares scheme in Northern. Although anyone who fails to pay could be proscuted under railway byelaws.

The scheme is currently a trial. There is speculation a penalty fares scheme across Liverpool, Manchester and parts of Cheshire, Derbyshire, Lancashire and South and West Yorkshire along with more gating of stations may be part of a the next franchise bid.

 

[northwichcat]

The scheme is currently a trial. There is speculation a penalty fares scheme across Liverpool, Manchester and parts of Lancashire and South and West Yorkshire along with more gating of stations may be part of a the next franchise bid.

I think for any penalty fares scheme to be approved the level of ticket selling facilities at Northern managed stations needs to be improved to be more like at the Merseyrail managed stations.

At present there is a reliance on ticket office staff to do other tasks like getting disabled passengers across unsignalled foot crossings and at some stations where there is an additional member of staff in addition to the ticket selling staff, Northern are getting rid of them!

 

[island]

The term "penalty" could get them in trouble...

 

[Stigy]

It'll be lawful in the same way as a Penalty Fare is, or as a settlement is when not a PF matter. Both of which keep the matter out of court are are looked favourably by the Court system. Any case has to meet certain criteria for being in the public interest, and giving somebody the opportunity to not have to go to court for one-time, misdemeanor offences, is seen as giving them the chance to have the matter resolved in a civil manner. If the amount goes unpaid, then much like the PF, the matter will be heard in the Magistrates' Court, usually under Byelaw 18. The compensation at court would be the unpaid fare, and not the £80 penalty amount, much like the PF. I imagine this is meant for one-time fare evasion rather than Byelaw offences, where the defendant admits their liability and fraudulent actions? (Sorry, have yet to read the link), as obviously PF regulations would play a part in it otherwise I guess?

On an aside, there is talk of BTP and RSAS Accredited staff to have their PND pads updated to allow for penalties for Fare Evasion (contrary to s.5(3)a of the Regulation of Railway Act 1889), and Byelaw 3 (Smoking) to be imposed, again, to allow for low-level Byelaw and other legislation offences to be resolved outside court as long as the individual reaches the criteria for one to be issued of course. This will allow some middle ground between BTP Officers cautioning for offences (fundamentally a recorded slap on the wrist) and reporting for summons.

 

[northwichcat]

It'll be lawful in the same way as a Penalty Fare is, or as a settlement is when not a PF matter.

I think the objections are down to Northern not having properly submitted a penalty fare scheme to DfT (like ATW have recently done) but operating one on a trial basis anyway.

 

[Stigy]

I think the objections are down to Northern not having properly submitted a penalty fare scheme to DfT (like ATW have recently done) but operating one on a trial basis anyway.

I can see how that would be an issue, but as I said, only if it was intended as a PF substitute. The fact that only PACE trained staff are to issue these makes me think it's more of an on the spot settlement for fare evasion rather than a Penalty Fare...Maybe it would make more sense to incorporate all Byelaws in to the scheme if it is intended for Ticketing Byelaws only? At least that way they'll have more of a case for the DfT should they need one.

 

[Lampshade]

The main enforcers of this - G4S - need to be thoroughly trained on the NCoC before they even think about making this reality.

 

[Stigy]

The main enforcers of this - G4S - need to be thoroughly trained on the NCoC before they even think about making this reality.

In an ideal world, yes. However the very fact that they're deemed suitably trained under PACE or similar should be fine.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I'm not convinced this is a Penalty Fare scheme. As some members of the forum are fond of saying, Penalty Fares are there to extract money from people who make mistakes (I personally don't see it that way, but that's another discussion entirely).

In this trial scheme, Northern are giving a warning for the first occasion and if the person does the same again they get the fixed penalty. So no penalty for an 'honest mistake', a fairly low fee to stay out of court on a second occasion and then done for on the third occasion and beyond.

 

[eastdyke]

I'm not convinced this is a Penalty Fare scheme. As some members of the forum are fond of saying, Penalty Fares are there to extract money from people who make mistakes (I personally don't see it that way, but that's another discussion entirely).

In this trial scheme, Northern are giving a warning for the first occasion and if the person does the same again they get the fixed penalty. So no penalty for an 'honest mistake', a fairly low fee to stay out of court on a second occasion and then done for on the third occasion and beyond.

I fully understand that, but NRCoC does not allude to anything of this nature!

viz:

From NRCoc:

2. Requirement to hold a ticket
Before you travel you must have a ticket or other authority to travel which is valid for the train(s) you intend to use and for the journey you intend to make, unless the circumstances set out in (b) (i) or (ii) below apply.
Train Companies will make tickets and reservations available at stations, over the internet or by telephone as appropriate. Where there are no facilities for buying a ticket at the station, tickets will be available for sale during or at the end of your journey.

Train Companies will offer reservations (where applicable) and tickets to disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility at no additional cost.
If you travel in a train
(a) without a ticket; or
(b) the circumstances described in Conditions 10, 11, 12, 18, 19, 22, 30, 35 and 39 apply;
you will be liable to pay the full single fare or full return fare or, if appropriate, a Penalty Fare (see Condition 4) for your journey.

.....

4. Penalty Fares
Penalty Fares are charged by Train Companies at some stations and in some trains. Warning notices are clearly displayed where Penalty Fares apply.
You may be liable to pay a Penalty Fare if:
(a) you travel in a train without a ticket or Permit to Travel; or
(b) you travel in a class of accommodation for which the ticket is not valid; or
(c) you travel in a train and the circumstances set out in Conditions
10, 11, 12, 18, 19, 22, 30, 35 and 39 apply;
or
(d) you are present in a Compulsory Ticket Area without a ticket or Permit to Travel.
You will not have to pay the full single fare or full return fare under Condition 2 if a Penalty Fare is charged, but you will need a valid ticket from the next station at which the train stops. A Train Company which operates a Penalty Fares scheme will supply you with the rules about Penalty Fares and a summary of their scheme if you ask.

So as Yorkie says NR are trying to invoke a Penalty Fare Scheme through the back door.

 

[46100ROYALSCOT]

Once a passenger is issued with a form they are reminded of their responsibility to pay and advised that if they receive a further warning they will receive an £80 fixed penalty.

So what do they receive for evading the fare the first time, just a warning and pay what ever is due?

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Merseyrail seem be be very clear on this matter.
''Q: What are my options?
A: If you receive a letter from our prosecutions department claiming that an offence has been committed, you may be offered a reprimand along with an administrative penalty. Ranging from £50.00 to £75.00 dependent on whether a Byelaw or a Railway Regulation Act has been contravened. If we find that you have previously committed the same offence, the option of a reprimand will not be offered a summons to court will be issued automatically.''
http://www.merseyrail.org/about-us/prosecutions.html

Penalty fares should be scrapped imo.
No ticket? £20? Not a lot of dosh! Some are in for a big shock!

IMO all the TOC's should all agree on the same rules etc.
Pay trains could be differentiated by name, say Regional trains, and ok to buy from the conductor.

 

[northwichcat]

I remember when the Metrolink Penalty Fare was £10 and Serco rarely put any ticket inspectors on, so I'm sure some people could have accumulated more than £10 of unpaid fares before they were caught.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Once a passenger is issued with a form they are reminded of their responsibility to pay and advised that if they receive a further warning they will receive an £80 fixed penalty.

So what do they receive for evading the fare the first time, just a warning and pay what ever is due?

I imagine that means an unpaid fares notice.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So as Yorkie says NR are trying to invoke a Penalty Fare Scheme through the back door.

Perhaps a replacement for the scheme that meant some passengers were given an additional 'ticket' as proof of the station they had boarded at, which the passenger wasn't required to carry to comply with NRCoC.

 

[eastdyke]

Merseyrail seem be be very clear on this matter.
''Q: What are my options?
A: If you receive a letter from our prosecutions department claiming that an offence has been committed, you may be offered a reprimand along with an administrative penalty. Ranging from £50.00 to £75.00 dependent on whether a Byelaw or a Railway Regulation Act has been contravened. If we find that you have previously committed the same offence, the option of a reprimand will not be offered a summons to court will be issued automatically.''
http://www.merseyrail.org/about-us/prosecutions.html

Penalty fares should be scrapped imo.
No ticket? £20? Not a lot of dosh! Some are in for a big shock!

IMO all the TOC's should all agree on the same rules etc.
Pay trains could be differentiated by name, say Regional trains, and ok to buy from the conductor.

But Merseyrail already operates a Penalty Fare Scheme across their whole network. NR operates no such scheme at all.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....So as Yorkie says NR are trying to invoke a Penalty Fare Scheme through the back door.

I'm sorry but I don't agree.

 

[yorkie]

Once a passenger is issued with a form they are reminded of their responsibility to pay and advised that if they receive a further warning they will receive an £80 fixed penalty.

So what do they receive for evading the fare the first time, just a warning and pay what ever is due?

It sounds to me like they are not issuing these warnings or penalties for people who are 'fare evading'. Northern already prosecute people under the Regulation of Railways Act where there is evidence that the passenger is intentionally evading the fare. As do Penalty Fare TOCs.

It sounds to me like this is a scheme where people who are not acting in a way where such a prosecution under the RoRA would succeed, but who are merely intending to purchase on board (which is normal practice in Northern-land) would instead be issued a warning, and if they "do it again" then they will be issued a penalty. So that sounds rather like a Penalty Fare, except only if the passenger does it twice, and a higher amount than the standard Penalty Fare.

It sounds to me that there does not need to be evidence of intent to avoid payment of the fare to issue these notices. And if there was such evidence, Northern would prosecute, as we know they do because of the threads here from people who are threatened with prosecution!

 

[eastdyke]

I'm sorry but I don't agree.

Fair enough.

 

[RPI]

It does seem to me like a back door PF scheme that bypasses the PF requirements, when a TOC decides to introduce PF's then they have to submit all sorts into the bid to the dfT including average queing time at the proposed stations and whether extra TVM's etc are required, the training of staff, how messages regarding booking office closures/queue's are passed on to authorised collectors and many other safeguards wheras this doesn't, it's basically abusing Byelaw 18 in my own humble opinion.

 

[michael769]

are passed on to authorised collectors and many other safeguards wheras this doesn't,

This is the crux of my concern. With the best will in the world everyone makes mistakes - including RPIs - and the passengers who fall foul of those mistakes need some protection.

With a proper PF scheme there is a semi-independent appeals body which can deal with the most obvious errors. Likewise when a ToC goes straight to prosecution whoever is responsible for building the case and preparing court papers will obviously spot the more unreasonable ones and quietly drop it.

But with a scheme like this my fear is that when a "penalty" is issued in error, if NR do not intend to pass these for prosecution then the next step, if a passenger tries to resist will be to pass it to debt collectors who have absolutely no interest in if it is a reasonable charge or not - the result being weeks or months of harassment - before either the passenger is bullied into giving in or it eventually gets to a court (or more likely gets dropped as NR will I suspect not want this system to be tested in civil court with the attendant risks of it being ruled an unlawful penalty charge).

Don;t get me wrong I have no sympathy for those who were genuinely taking he proverbial, but we all now that there will be odd cases where the innocent are erroneously accused, and it is them I am concerned about.

This feels very much like an example of speculative invoicing - and with such schemes what ends up happening is that those who deserve them but are "in the know" simply ignore the demands knowing that such schemes almost never make it to court (and where they do it fails due to the prohibition on penalty charges in civil law), while the innocent get bullied into paying unjustified demands.

I would be a lot more comfortable with this if TfGM were operating some kind of independent appeals or arbitration process.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

I suppose, if it was worded correctly then it could be the same as Manchester Metrolink's "Standard Fare", which is not a penalty fare, just a flat fare you pay if you don't have a ticket. I don't know how a penalty fares scheme applies to Metrolink, but if Northern somehow declared a "standard fare" on certain routes, then could this get round the PF regulations?

 

[Flamingo]

It does seem to me like a back door PF scheme that bypasses the PF requirements, when a TOC decides to introduce PF's then they have to submit all sorts into the bid to the dfT including average queing time at the proposed stations and whether extra TVM's etc are required, the training of staff, how messages regarding booking office closures/queue's are passed on to authorised collectors and many other safeguards wheras this doesn't, it's basically abusing Byelaw 18 in my own humble opinion.

I have to agree with you there. If the £20 is not enough of a deterrent then increase (and enforce) it.