Overhaul to rail penalty fare appeals proposed

[furlong]

Overhaul to rail penalty fare appeals proposed.

The government has launched a consultation on proposals that will make the rail penalty fare system fairer for passengers.

Appealing against penalty rail fares will become fairer and more open under new proposals unveiled by the Department for Transport today (3 February 2015).

Penalty fares can be charged by train operators if a passenger is found to be travelling without a valid ticket. A process already exists to enable those who think they have been charged incorrectly or unfairly to make appeals through 1 of 2 appeal bodies.

The government is launching a consultation on a number of proposals that will make the system fairer for passengers and more consistent across the industry.

Rail Minister Claire Perry said:

• More people are using our railways than ever, and passengers rightly expect that we take strong action against fare dodgers. But passengers penalised through no fault of their own must be treated fairly.
  
• That’s why we have listened to passenger groups and are working with the rail industry to improve the system so it is clearer, fairer and easier to use.

Currently passengers can appeal either through the Independent Revenue Collection and Support (IRCAS) or the Independent Penalty Fares Appeals Service (IPFAS).

Measures for public consultation include:

• requiring train operators to remove the reference to criminal sanctions in letters chasing penalty fare payment. Government will provide new guidance to train operators to make clear that the threat of criminal sanctions for non-payment of a penalty fare, which is a civil offence, is not appropriate. Criminal sanctions will still apply in suspected cases of deliberate fare evasion
  
• requiring all appeal bodies to adopt the ‘stop the clock’ measure. This means that those appealing do not have to pay the penalty fare until a final ruling has been reached. The 21-day deadline for payment will be suspended when an appeal is received by the appeals body, and will only resume once a letter notifying the outcome has been issued. Only 1 of the 2 existing appeals bodies already uses ‘stop the clock’
  
• requiring all appeals bodies to be independent of transport operators and owning groups. Currently, the IPFAS is owned by the Go-Ahead group, which runs Southeastern. IPFAS will need to be separated from its current owner to continue to consider appeals
  
• creating an independent appeals process to make final decisions. This will look at cases which have been considered twice by the appeals bodies and remain unresolved. This would give passengers further assurance their case has been fully and independently reviewed
  
• regular ‘health checks’ of the system by government. We will ask train operators and appeals bodies to supply penalty fare and appeals information regularly to ensure that they are complying with the code of practice.

The public consultation will run from 3 February to 27 April 2015.

 

[DelayRepay]

I think the points being consulted on sound sensible, especially making the appeals body completely independent.

I would also like to see the name changed - if these are fares charged for a "genuine mistake", calling them a Penalty seems to upset passengers. I'm not sure what a more appropriate name would be though since Excess Fare and Standard Fare are both terms already in use.

I wonder if the TOCs will try to use this as an opportunity to get the minimum amount raised from £20? After all these changes will increase the cost of collecting the fares. Or maybe we'll just see more people being reported for prosecution.

 

[island]

The first bullet of the consultation appears to be ignorant of byelaw 18 offences.

 

[IanXC]

I would also like to see the name changed - if these are fares charged for a "genuine mistake", calling them a Penalty seems to upset passengers. I'm not sure what a more appropriate name would be though since Excess Fare and Standard Fare are both terms already in use.

Is Standard Fare in use in a National Rail context? Certainly Metrolink use the term, which seems to avoid the confusion Penalty Fare causes.

I'd like to see Northern's pseudo Penalty Fare scheme addressed by the DfT in its proposals.

 

[duncanp]

I would like to see the system that is used in France adopted.

If you, for example, get on a train with a reduced price ticket without the accompanying railcard, you receive a small penalty fare (€25) which is reduced to €10 if you go and find the guard on your own initiative rather than waiting for a ticket inspection.

They also take your name and details.

A second offence within a period of 12 months will entail slightly higher fine.

A third offence within a period of 12 months may lead to prosecution, depending on circumstances.

In other words, if you make an "innocent mistake" once, you are let off reasonably lightly. Also, ff you get on the train and realise "Oh *&*&! I've forgotten my railcard" you are looked on more favourably if you go to the guard and own up. If, however, you repeat the "innocent mistake", it starts to look more like you are trying to evade payment.

The Belgian bus and tram company De Lijn has a similar scheme.


The SNCF has had to reduce the validity period of ordinary tickets from 2 months to 7 days, because of people trying to re-use tickets "sans composter" (without validation) so ticket irregularities are not just a UK thing.

 

[Deerfold]

Hmm, I wonder if the press release says the same or the papers have come up with their own ideas - the first case the Metro mentioned was how unfair it was that someone who'd forgotten their railcard had to pay £229 for a new ticket even though he'd sent a copy of his card in his appeal.

http://metro.co.uk/2015/02/02/rail-...p-treating-passengers-like-criminals-5046930/

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is Standard Fare in use in a National Rail context? Certainly Metrolink use the term, which seems to avoid the confusion Penalty Fare causes.

I think you get "Standard Fare" where there isn't a legal backing to it, i.e. the operator has just decided that the fare if paid onboard is £20 (or whatever) just as a car park operator has decided that 2 hours is free, but over 2 hours is £120.

I'd like to see Northern's pseudo Penalty Fare scheme addressed by the DfT in its proposals.

As would I; I remain of the view that if Northern wish to operate a Penalty Fares type system on any or all of their services, it should be the proper one backed by the Government and not a prosecution based system that presumes in favour of an out of court settlement which looks rather like a Penalty Fare. Rather, if prosecuting, there should be an actual intention to prosecute. Northern's right to settle out of court in specific instances if they wish would obviously be retained, but would not be a pseudo-PF presumption.

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

Hmm, I wonder if the press release says the same or the papers have come up with their own ideas - the first case the Metro mentioned was how unfair it was that someone who'd forgotten their railcard had to pay £229 for a new ticket even though he'd sent a copy of his card in his appeal.

http://metro.co.uk/2015/02/02/rail-...p-treating-passengers-like-criminals-5046930/

With season tickets, there is (from a bit of Googling) a system in place where if you forgot your season ticket and got on a train having not noticed, you can send a copy afterwards, though obviously prosecution follows if you were lying about it, and it isn't relevant if it's expired. Perhaps such a thing should be implemented for Railcards, with some kind of admin fee (even a £20 PF or something) rather than the often unaffordable full Anytime fare.

Reference: http://www.c2c-online.co.uk/assistance/faqs/penalty-fares/

Neil

 

[RJ]

The first point might see an increase in unpaid Penalty Fares. It doesn't consider that failure to pay can be construed as fare evasion. Many people already take a laid back attitude to paying their fare because they aren't aware of the potential consequences. Why further obfuscate the possibility of prosecution?

Having exhausted the appeals systems in place, I think they're poxy. Issues with data protection and staff not having the knowledge required to properly consider appeals are two primary concerns.

I've actually told TOCs directly that I will not deal with their notice processing subcontractors or appeals bodies - so they should try court if they're feeling lucky. Such is the faith that I have in the system in place. People who have actually done wrong should pay their dues. Those who have, but aren't prepared to pay shouldn't be entertained by any appeals system.

As for "genuine mistakes", I'm of the opinion that the greater majority of people only get a Penalty Fare if they fail to uphold their personal responsibilities in some way. It's reasonable this should be penalised if you're enlisting the services of a TOC.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've actually told TOCs directly that I will not deal with their notice processing subcontractors - so they should try court if they're feeling lucky. Such is the faith that I have in the system in place. People who have actually done wrong should pay their dues and move on.

I agree with this (sites like Pepipoo irritate a bit, because they seem to be largely people trying to get away with parking tickets on a technicality, rather than being genuinely wrongly issued[1]) however I do think an independent first-line appeals procedure (to save the hassle of Court) is of value if a PF has genuinely been incorrectly or unfairly issued.

[1] Only ever had one parking ticket....where my car was supposedly in a car park that it had never been to, over 50 miles from where it actually was on the day stated (most likely the attendant had keyed the plate one character wrongly when booking a car that actually was infringing). I wrote a strongly worded letter back and it was cancelled.

Neil

 

[Haywain]

Hmm, I wonder if the press release says the same or the papers have come up with their own ideas - the first case the Metro mentioned was how unfair it was that someone who'd forgotten their railcard had to pay £229 for a new ticket even though he'd sent a copy of his card in his appeal.

http://metro.co.uk/2015/02/02/rail-...p-treating-passengers-like-criminals-5046930/

The report says nothing that makes much sense!

The decision comes after news of one traveller who failed to show his railcard had to hand over an extra £229, even after submitting the card in his appeal, Passenger Focus found.

The man who photographed the machine was told he had won his case – but would still have to pay £20 or face court.

As we all know, sending a picture of a railcard would not excuse the failure to carry it. And what taking a picture of a machine gas to do with anything, I don't know.

Anyway, drifting away from the topic here!

 

[RJ]

Few people actually want to pay a penalty for anything,
but they're necessary as non-compliance is a financial liability.

I wonder what percentage of appeals are successful amd how the trends have changed over the years? If too many are, perhaps it's the TOC that need looking at and questions asked about why successfully appealed notices are being issued in the first place.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The report says nothing that makes much sense!
As we all know, sending a picture of a railcard would not excuse the failure to carry it.

Sending a picture of a season ticket can, however, excuse the failure to carry it (though if you notice prior to boarding you are meant to buy a valid return ticket and have it refunded).

See the C2C link above for details.

Neil

 

[MarlowDonkey]

As we all know, sending a picture of a railcard would not excuse the failure to carry it.

The Government report would try to represent the opinion of the public at large about the railway industry. The rail industry can try to ignore public opinion of course, but I would believe that practice of requiring a new undiscounted fare to be purchased if the holder of a valid railcard doesn't have it with them during their journey would be widely considered disproportionate to the error.

I'm aware that some posters here absolutely detest the idea, but checking for a valid railcard at point of sale would alleviate the problem. So to make the penalty proportionate
(1) a railcard code or number is recorded on the ticket at point of sale
(2) the railcard is expected to be carried on the journey
(3) If it isn't available, the excess is the removal of the original discount
(4) This can be reclaimed perhaps less a fee after the event by showing evidence of the possession of the railcard.

It could also be made slightly more difficult to purchase a ticket with a discount. By this I mean that when buying on-line, instead of just ticking a box, that the railcard number or code had to be input. That also helps with "out of validity" errors.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The first bullet of the consultation appears to be ignorant of byelaw 18 offences.

Unless they are proposing that they abolish the Byelaw offences, which is something that I would applaud.

The criminal law should only be used, or threatened, where deliberate attempts to evade the fare have been made.

I suspect that their real target are the charming fraudsters at Serco, who use the threat of criminal prosecution to extract exorbitant penalty charges from customers who have made innocent mistakes.

As for forgetting railcards, I have no issue with people being charged for a new ticket. This prevents people "forgetting" their railcard every single day. However you should be able to reclaim the cost once in any 12/24 month period from the TOC, less a suitable administration charge. You can when you forget your season ticket.

 

[Deerfold]

It could also be made slightly more difficult to purchase a ticket with a discount. By this I mean that when buying on-line, instead of just ticking a box, that the railcard number or code had to be input. That also helps with "out of validity" errors.

Only if you add a database that contains details of all railcards.

There's one for railcards sold online but as far as I know this does not include ones sold at stations.

 

[Flamingo]

Unless they are proposing that they abolish the Byelaw offences, which is something that I would applaud.

The criminal law should only be used, or threatened, where deliberate attempts to evade the fare have been made.

I suspect that their real target are the charming fraudsters at Serco, who use the threat of criminal prosecution to extract exorbitant penalty charges from customers who have made innocent mistakes.

Ok, you don't like Serco. We get it!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Ok, you don't like Serco. We get it!

What gave it away?

I really don't like how they operate Northern Rail, though, essentially bullying people into paying huge penalties far in excess of the actual damage done to the TOC. It shouldn't be allowed to happen. Thanks to the appallingly badly drafted and archaic Byelaws (revised and updated by the SRA...sort of) they have free reign to charge whatever they want. I find it disgraceful.

If they catch genuine fare evaders they should throw the book at them. But they don't. They go after the low-hanging fruit, people who are generally honest but have made a genuine mistake.

 

[Flamingo]

People who pay when challenged, you mean...

 

[bb21]

I'm aware that some posters here absolutely detest the idea, but checking for a valid railcard at point of sale would alleviate the problem. So to make the penalty proportionate
(1) a railcard code or number is recorded on the ticket at point of sale
(2) the railcard is expected to be carried on the journey
(3) If it isn't available, the excess is the removal of the original discount
(4) This can be reclaimed perhaps less a fee after the event by showing evidence of the possession of the railcard.

Your idea isn't going to work. I can still buy a ticket for my friend using my Railcard, and send in my Railcard for a refund of the excess afterwards.

Unless they are proposing that they abolish the Byelaw offences, which is something that I would applaud.

The criminal law should only be used, or threatened, where deliberate attempts to evade the fare have been made.

You can be prosecuted for just about anything as things stand and if you run into a picky BTP representative or member of railway staff, you will be threatened with prosecution for the most minute infringement.

While I don't think the Byelaws should be abolished, I am of the opinion that many of the clauses should be heavily revised.

The first bullet of the consultation appears to be ignorant of byelaw 18 offences.

... but until that happens, reference to criminal proceedings should not be removed.

I see an independent appeals process as the absolutely key to a fairer system and the one thing that should be achieved if only one thing were to be achieved. Raise the level of Penalty Fares to pay for it if needed be.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Why can't we just have a simpler ticketing system that is more transparent and less confusing to passengers?

 

[RJ]

Why can't we just have a simpler ticketing system that is more transparent and less confusing to passengers?

It's as confusing as you make it for yourself!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I really don't like how they operate Northern Rail, though, essentially bullying people into paying huge penalties far in excess of the actual damage done to the TOC. It shouldn't be allowed to happen.

'bullying people into paying'?
Oh, stop it. These 'people' are passengers without a ticket and who have given an additional option to correct the situation - an option not available elsewhere . . . as you know.

. . . they have free reign to charge whatever they want. I find it disgraceful.

The fares between stations are not "whatever they want". You are confusing fares with procedures for non-paying passengers, again, as you know, so I suspect that you are deliberately conflating the two to justify your 'disgrace'.

 

[Deerfold]

Why can't we just have a simpler ticketing system that is more transparent and less confusing to passengers?

How would you make it simpler? Would this result in large fare rises for some passengers?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The first bullet of the consultation appears to be ignorant of byelaw 18 offences.

By my reading of the consultation document, the proposals refering to 'criminal proceedings' are confined to the wording and 'tone' follow-up letters after a Penalty Fare remains unpaid:

Removing the threat of criminal sanctions from reminder letters

Background

1.61 Passengers who do not immediately pay their penalty fare are often sent reminder letters by TOCs asking for payment.
1.62 Concerns have been raised over the threatening tone of some penalty fare payment reminder letters. The DfT is aware of some instances where passengers have been threatened with criminal sanctions inappropriately to encourage the payment of debt.
1.63 The non-payment of a penalty fare itself is not a criminal matter. As it is a civil offence, the threat of criminal prosecution to recover debt is inappropriate and misleading.
1.64 The non-payment of a penalty fare can be used as evidence to support the case for intention to avoid paying a fare. Under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 this is a criminal matter that can lead to a fine of £1000 and three months imprisonment.
1.65 Appeals bodies can refer unsuccessful appeals back to TOCs with the recommendation of pursuing prosecution for a criminal offence for the non-payment of a penalty fare​

Proposed change

1.67 The DfT could issue guidance on the pursuit of penalty fares payment, stating what language is acceptable in reminder letters from TOCs.
1.68 The guidance would ask TOCs to make it clear to passengers when civil or criminal sanctions are being pursued and why.
1.69 The DfT expects to work with TOCs to ensure staff are suitably trained on the specified guidance, as well as other matters
1.70 TOCs would remain able to pursue criminal sanctions in cases where this is advised by relevant appeals bodies.​

Impact

1.72 This proposal would directly address concerns raised by passenger watchdogs and would prevent inappropriate threats of prosecution from TOCs to passengers.
1.73 The removal of the threats from reminder letters could reduce the number of penalty fares that are settled at that stage. The DfT predicts this will impact a small number of cases.​

There is no suggestion that Criminal sanctions would be restricted if a Penalty Fare remains unpaid, whether under the RoRA, RCCA, Railway Byelaws, Fraud Act or other legislation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How would you make it simpler? Would this result in large fare rises for some passengers?

The simplest ticketing system for any passengers is "you buy a ticket for one train, if you want to change to a different train you have to have it changed".

However, that has *massive* disadvantages. Any walk-up scheme that isn't Anytime only has scope for confusion (and even that does based on when the return is valid until, break of journey and things like that) - and indeed that has big (price) disadvantages as well.

Neil

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Your idea isn't going to work. I can still buy a ticket for my friend using my Railcard, and send in my Railcard for a refund of the excess afterwards.

That would be fraud though and could be prosecuted if detected. Is it so different to what can presumably be done today, borrowing a friend or family member's card? Railcards are for named users, but it's not normally required to present identity papers during a routine ticket inspection.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That would be fraud though and could be prosecuted if detected. Is it so different to what can presumably be done today, borrowing a friend or family member's card? Railcards are for named users, but it's not normally required to present identity papers during a routine ticket inspection.

And could be controlled by restricting such refunds to once a year, perhaps. A Railcard user isn't likely to waste their one chance of a genuine refund by spending it on a friend.

Neil

 

[Tetchytyke]

There is a Penalty Fare scheme set out in legislation, which places obligations on both the passenger and the TOC, together with a right of appeal. Northern Rail used to be a member of that scheme on their routes into Leeds, yet chose to withdraw from the scheme for reasons known only to them. My belief is that they didn't want to have to meet their obligations in the scheme, especially around ticket queues, but that's just my opinion.

Instead we have the inappropriate threats of prosecution used to extract "penalty charges" far in excess of the amounts set out in legislation. "Pay us £80 or we will prosecute you" does technically give a passenger an option, but I wouldn't really consider it much of one. It doesn't give the passenger a right of appeal and it doesn't protect them from vexatious or over-zealous revenue protection.

I find Northern's behaviour disgraceful, but there doesn't appear to be much appetite from the government to call them to account for it. Given Serco's other contracts with the government, this is not a surprise.

You can be prosecuted for just about anything as things stand and if you run into a picky BTP representative or member of railway staff, you will be threatened with prosecution for the most minute infringement.

While I don't think the Byelaws should be abolished, I am of the opinion that many of the clauses should be heavily revised.

Merseyrail (who just happened to be owned by Serco, fancy that) have a thing for prosecuting people if they place their feet on the steel supports for the seats. Again, another nice little earner for them, and an entirely vexatious and inappropriate use of the Byelaws.

I believe that the Byelaws should be abolished. As we are regularly told, the railways are "private land". How people behave on that private land should be a matter of civil law not criminal law. You don't see access to other private property governed by specially drafted criminal legislation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

People who pay when challenged, you mean...

In the north we've had 35 years of Paytrain promotion- take a seat and the lovely man will come and sell you a ticket- and most stations served by Northern Rail still do not have any ticket issuing facilities.

It's always hard to tell if someone is only paying when challenged or if they genuinely believe they can buy on board. I don't think it really matters though. If someone is approaching a ticket barrier and is truthful about where they got on then I don't think it should be a criminal matter and I certainly don't think Northern Rail should be threatening them with prosecution to get £80 out of them.

If Northern Rail want everyone to buy before boarding then they should be forced to sign up to the Penalty Fares scheme set out in legislation, instead of abusing other pieces of legislation for profit.

I cannot think of another industry where threatening someone with prosecution because they are wanting to pay would be acceptable.

If someone doesn't pay then they should be prosecuted. But that's not what I'm saying.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . Northern Rail . . . . we have the inappropriate threats of prosecution used to extract "penalty charges" far in excess of the amounts set out in legislation. "Pay us £80 or we will prosecute you" does technically give a passenger an option, but I wouldn't really consider it much of one.

The other 'option' which I was trying to bring into the mix is to hold a ticket for the journey. This is very, very clearly the objective in Norther's 'FtP' scheme (which is distinct from the priorities in the statutory Penalty Fares scheme).

I believe that the Byelaws should be abolished. As we are regularly told, the railways are "private land". How people behave on that private land should be a matter of civil law not criminal law. You don't see access to other private property governed by specially drafted criminal legislation.

Well, there's quite a lot, actually. Over 10% of the UK falls into exactly that category, where behaviour is regulated by Byelaws, specially drafted, creating strict liability criminal offences. It only seems to be on this forum that people think the railways are unique in this respect, but they're not.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I find Northern's behaviour disgraceful, but there doesn't appear to be much appetite from the government to call them to account for it.

I agree. To me it is almost a form of blackmail. If someone needs prosecuting (e.g. someone undertaking serious and/or repeated ticketing fraud), they should be prosecuted, not threatened with it then being allowed a pay-off to avoid it. If they don't need prosecuting, that's what PFs are for.

I am firmly of the view that if Northern want a Penalty Fares Scheme (and it appears to me they do) they should have to implement the official one.

Merseyrail (who just happened to be owned by Serco, fancy that) have a thing for prosecuting people if they place their feet on the steel supports for the seats.

Feet *on* the seats has long been an issue on Merseyrail, but I agree with you about the pettiness of feet on the seat *supports*.

Neil