Overhaul to rail penalty fare appeals proposed

[bb21]

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.

Photocards exist for a reason, although I don't know why they don't use them for certain types of Railcards.

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

Possibly, but it isn't necessarily going to stop fraudsters. How many people do actually forget their Railcard once in a while? There is also the potential risk of a "black market" for near-expiring Railcards which haven't yet had a refund registered against, traded on websites like Gumtree.

In addition, you will need a central database of all Railcards which will need to be built from scratch.

Far easier to incorporate it into future ITSO developments I would think.

 

[bb21]

As a general reminder.

Since this is a thread on the overhaul of the Penalty Fares scheme, let's not get sidetracked by Northern's "Failure to Pay" scheme, for which plenty of discussions have been had in numerous threads, although I understand that it is very tempting. I can be guilty of it too myself sometimes.

Otherwise considering the strong feelings this topic (FtP scheme) generates, we will likely end up with this thread being hijacked by discussions on that.

I won't delete any reference to it in existing posts, as most seem intertwined with discussions on the subject in hand, but may do so from this point onwards.

Some posts have been split into this thread.

 

[cf111]

Jeremy Vine is discussing this on Radio 2 at the moment if anyone is interested.

Highlight so far: someone annoyed that they were taken off the train by the police at York for telling the Guard on an EC service to "p*** off" when asked to pay his fare.

 

[Tetchytyke]

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.

Byelaws are not uncommon, but most byelaws are attached to public land where there is no other way of regulating conduct. I can't think of too many places where private property is governed by a piece of legislation; conduct there is usually a contractual issue. Airports and ports are probably the only areas I can think of.

I think the main issue with the railways is that there is a lack of an independent ombudsman. I notice they've specifically mentioned the issues with IPFAS being owned by Go-Ahead but simply selling that organisation to another body wouldn't be enough. There needs to be an organisation with real teeth that people can take their grievances to; I'd base it on the Financial Ombudsman.

My only worry would be that adding extra obligations to a TOC would see them withdraw from the Penalty Fares scheme entirely. We see with Northern just how dangerous that would be for customers. And I'm not sure the alternative- making the whole network a Penalty Fares area- would be a great deal better.

 

[Wolfie]

My only worry would be that adding extra obligations to a TOC would see them withdraw from the Penalty Fares scheme entirely. We see with Northern just how dangerous that would be for customers. And I'm not sure the alternative- making the whole network a Penalty Fares area- would be a great deal better.

That's very easy for DfT to deal with. A clause in the TOC franchise agreement prohibiting exactly such behaviour....

And what taking a picture of a machine gas to do with anything, I don't know.

My take is that the individual in question was clued up enough about NRCOC that he took a photo of an out-of-order TVM to prove why he hadn't bought a ticket before travel....

This is actually something which I have seen recommended on this very site in the past!

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.

Well, that may have to change then... The aim of Government in law making is to be reasonable and proportionate, it is emphatically NOT to fit in with current rail indistry practice!

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

...or a clue that byelaw 18 may be proposed for rewrite/repeal?

 

[island]

A common way of avoiding Penalty Fares and prosecution is employed by passengers across the country every day.

It is called buying the right ticket before travel.

 

[Wolfie]

A common way of avoiding Penalty Fares and prosecution is employed by passengers across the country every day.

It is called buying the right ticket before travel.

...and in most cases I fully agree with you!

 

[Islineclear3_1]

A common way of avoiding Penalty Fares and prosecution is employed by passengers across the country every day.

It is called buying the right ticket before travel.

That's all very well provided that there are facilities to pay, the passenger knows what type of ticket he requires and is told of any discounts available (as applicable).

And what is the "right" ticket? Is every passenger given ticketing options and prices when he turns up at the station?

It's all very well just turning up to buy an expensive Anytime ticket but if the passenger isn't clued up about available discounts etc, that's more profit for the TOC (and a financial loss to him).

 

[Mojo]

As far as I am concerned, any changes to the Penalty fare process is a bit pointless as under the current framework a Toc can decide to instruct their Inspectors or prosecutions administrators to simply not bother with Penalty fares and go straight down the Byelaw route.

 

[Flamingo]

As far as I am concerned, any changes to the Penalty fare process is a bit pointless as under the current framework a Toc can decide to instruct their Inspectors or prosecutions administrators to simply not bother with Penalty fares and go straight down the Byelaw route.

Agreed. Penalty Fares do not apply across vast swathes of the network, can only be issued by a very small number of the staff involved in ticket checking in the areas where they do apply, and I know on my patch I can go for months without seeing an RPI.

 

[tony6499]

As most TOCs operate different systems, some do Penalty Fares, some do UFNs, some make it up as they go along, surely the first thing is to standardise the procedure for all TOCs ?

 

[Blindtraveler]

Im not going to spend ages debating the inns and outs but I will say thank god, about time! I hope positive change comes from this

 

[infobleep]

That's very easy for DfT to deal with. A clause in the TOC franchise agreement prohibiting exactly such behaviour....

The problem with that is a lot of franchises are not up for renewal right at this point in tine or have just been renewed. I doubt the government would want to change a franchise agreement on this issue if it costs loads of money to amend franchise agreements.

 

[First class]

All that will happen is that everybody moaning about a Penalty Fare and trying to avoid it on some sort of procedural or minor technical issue is going to find themselves being pursued for Byelaw 18.

At the moment, Penalty Fares are in many ways easier to administer than prosecutions, but once you take into account the cost and time of the appeals procedure, which may well start producing less favourable results anyway, then the TOCs turn to MG11 as their initial preference and abandon Penalty Fares.

That said, overuse of Byelaw 18 as a reaction to this new guidance is likely to see great pressure on DfT to restrict it's use, so it's a fine line for TOCs.

I think if the Penalty Fare minimum was raised to £80, (reduced to £50 if paid promptly), whichever is the higher, then I would be quite happy to abolish Byelaw 18.

I also think the double the fare factor should be reduced to 1.5x, e.g. a £100 Anytime Single based penalty fare would currently be £200, but should be reduced to £150.

 

[Mag_seven]

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 remember the poster campaign that introduced the London Underground penalty fare scheme. The whole emphasis was definitely about combating fare evasion rather than allowing for "genuine mistakes".

 

[Kite159]

All that will happen is that everybody moaning about a Penalty Fare and trying to avoid it on some sort of procedural or minor technical issue is going to find themselves being pursued for Byelaw 18.

At the moment, Penalty Fares are in many ways easier to administer than prosecutions, but once you take into account the cost and time of the appeals procedure, which may well start producing less favourable results anyway, then the TOCs turn to MG11 as their initial preference and abandon Penalty Fares.

That said, overuse of Byelaw 18 as a reaction to this new guidance is likely to see great pressure on DfT to restrict it's use, so it's a fine line for TOCs.

I think if the Penalty Fare minimum was raised to £80, (reduced to £50 if paid promptly), whichever is the higher, then I would be quite happy to abolish Byelaw 18.

I also think the double the fare factor should be reduced to 1.5x, e.g. a £100 Anytime Single based penalty fare would currently be £200, but should be reduced to £150.

Am I right in thinking a TOC will keep any monies raised from a penalty fare, but if it goes in front of a judge, the TOC keeps nothing?

Increase the minimum for the penalty fare, and have more ticket checks on trains, especially on short suburban trips between stations which don't have gates which run DOO.

 

[island]

Sort of. On a conviction in court the convicted will normally be ordered to pay a fine, a victim surcharge, costs, and compensation (the normal fare for the journey in question). The latter two go to the TOC but basically only put it back in the situation it would have been in had the fare been paid in the first instance. The first goes to HM Treasury and the victim surcharge I believe goes to a charity that assists victims of crime.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

As far as I am concerned, any changes to the Penalty fare process is a bit pointless . . . . .

I tend to agree, and expect it is one of the governement's several last-minute pre-election gestures to respond to public criticism, while actually not doing very much of real lasting benefit.
Though if the proposals were to be applied and if Penalty Fares were introduced in Scotland at some point in the future, then I'd be welcoming the changes. I also welcome the move towards independance of the Appeals body, while recognising that this is more a gesture towards public criticism than a truly democratic reform.

. . . .

At the moment, Penalty Fares are in many ways easier to administer than prosecutions, but once you take into account the cost and time of the appeals procedure, which may well start producing less favourable results anyway, then the TOCs turn to MG11 as their initial preference and abandon Penalty Fares.

Yes, I agree. But I see a slight benefit having this fine balance between the two strategies while also being able to make the informed choice of which is the more appropriate, workable and effective strategy in each area.

 

[infobleep]

Sort of. On a conviction in court the convicted will normally be ordered to pay a fine, a victim surcharge, costs, and compensation (the normal fare for the journey in question). The latter two go to the TOC but basically only put it back in the situation it would have been in had the fare been paid in the first instance. The first goes to HM Treasury and the victim surcharge I believe goes to a charity that assists victims of crime.

Would the TOC be considered a victim of crime and be able to claim from the charity? I'm guessing not.

 

[RJ]

Would the TOC be considered a victim of crime and be able to claim from the charity? I'm guessing not.

Said charity telephones people to support them after they have reported a crime.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Would the TOC be considered a victim of crime and be able to claim from the charity? I'm guessing not.

No.

The Ministry of Justice has identified a number of agencies, charities and organisations which receive the Vistim Support revenue under several headings - Railway Offences fall under the 'general' heading. The list of agencies under each heading can be found here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/victims-and-witnesses-funding-awards

I have worked with some of these bodies, and am very pleased that they continue to receive this kind of support from the Courts following a conviction.

 

[infobleep]

At the moment, Penalty Fares are in many ways easier to administer than prosecutions, but once you take into account the cost and time of the appeals procedure, which may well start producing less favourable results anyway, then the TOCs turn to MG11 as their initial preference and abandon Penalty Fares.

If Penalty Fares are easier to administer, why aren't all rail companies using them and for all of their lines? I mean First Great Western services covering stations from Guildford to Reading are in the penalty fare scheme but their services covering stations from Guildford to Gatwick Airport are not.

The stations towards Reading don't get a greater level of service on Sundays than those heading towards Redhill/Gatwick Airport. They do during the week day peak but Shalford, which isn't in the penalty fare scheme, also gets this increased level of service. What makes Shalford more deserving of not having a penalty fare than Sandhurst? Also why should a FGW service between Redhill and Gatwick Airport not require a penalty fare but the Southern service does? Are people more likely to make genuine mistakes on a Southern service? Note for Redhill FGW stay on their Web Site no penalty fares. Under Sandhurst they state penalty fares exist and that it applies to First Great Western services. Wouldn't it be helpful to put out that Southern issue penalty fares from Redhill? In fact no one else has a service from Sandhurst other than First Great Western.

Under ticket buying on FGW Web Site for Sandhurst they also have this

Ticket office opening
Yes*

Monday-Sunday Closed

(https://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Your-journey/At-the-station/Sandhurst-Berks)

Under Shalford it says the same thing. (https://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Your-journey/At-the-station/Shalford-Surrey). So the options to buy tickets at both are the same, yet one station issues penalties and the other doesn't. Note I didn't insert yes for comedic effect, I was genuinely surprised to see it, given the ticket offices are closed 7 days a week. I think what they are saying is yes we can tell when the ticket offices are open and the answer is never.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Said charity telephones people to support them after they have reported a crime.

OK I thought it was for people after someone had been convicted. Of course TOCs report crime.

I guess if a member of rail staff has been assaulted, the charity could offer them support.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No.

The Ministry of Justice has identified a number of agencies, charities and organisations which receive the Vistim Support revenue under several headings - Railway Offences fall under the 'general' heading. The list of agencies under each heading can be found here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/victims-and-witnesses-funding-awards

I have worked with some of these bodies, and am very pleased that they continue to receive this kind of support from the Courts following a conviction.

I agree it is good that these charities exist. However would it be good if rail companies received compensation after taking people to court? If someone is clearly not wishing to pay ever, shouldn't the rail companies get compensation for this? A kind of victim support cost but clearly not the same league as people being physically or physiologically injured by crime. Or would this lead to more prosecutions against passengers that were not fair. I mean where passengers made an honest mistake; the rail company made a mistake they didn't wish to admit to or routing anomalies someone used to get a cheaper fare and rail company decides to prosecute despite tickets being legal.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . .

. . . would it be good if rail companies received compensation after taking people to court? If someone is clearly not wishing to pay ever, shouldn't the rail companies get compensation for this? A kind of victim support cost but clearly not the same league as people being physically or physiologically injured by crime. Or would this lead to more prosecutions against passengers that were not fair. I mean where passengers made an honest mistake; the rail company made a mistake they didn't wish to admit to or routing anomalies someone used to get a cheaper fare and rail company decides to prosecute despite tickets being legal.

Compensation?
Yes, the Company receives the fare due, as island mentioned above.
The Prosecuting Company also receive the costs award (the amount of costs claimed in bringing forward the prosecution). Arguably, these are not in the league of the costs in the High Court for convoluted disputes, and are more likely to be for a few hours work by a skilled office worker, but they do cover the actual cost in investigating and Prosecuting the incident.

But if you were suggesting that the award approved by the Courts should ever exceed the actual cost incurred, then we enter a difficult and slippery slope which quickly reaches accusations of 'profit' and eventually incentivises the monetisation of crime. Perhaps this is what you were trying to illustrate with the example which only this forum could think of: 'a routing anomaly' or more realistically, the simple 'mistakes' you mention.
The Courts will not allow a prosecutor to generate a profit from crime. I get asked to provide documentary evidence of costs by Prosecutors in anticipation of their being challenged (though sadly, criminals are frequently unable to make their repayments into Court anyway, fizzling out after a few £5 contributions).

 

[Antman]

I get the impression that most people see law enforcement as a matter for the police and not company employees with a vested interest, just like traffic wardens. I believe that there is an independent ombudsman to review parking ticket disputes, surely there should be something similar for penalty fares?

I appreciate that some people have no intention of paying for their train journey but all too often they get away scot free and it is somebody who has made an innocent mistake who gets a penalty fare and is intimidated into paying up because the thought of a court appearance scares them to death. It's all very well saying it's not difficult to get the correct ticket but we can't all be perfect, haven't most of us got on the wrong train or missed our stop?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.



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

Is it really too much to expect people to keep their feet on the floor?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is it really too much to expect people to keep their feet on the floor?

I often put mine on the heating conduit if sitting in a window seat (though Merseyrail units don't have these). What is the harm?

Putting (shod) feet on the seat fabric is disgusting because people have to sit on whatever was on your feet. Putting feet on the seat frame doesn't hurt anyone (though it depends which bit), so why ban it? I only go for banning things that cause harm. A bit of muck on something that doesn't normally come into contact with anybody else isn't harm. It might need cleaning, but it probably does anyway to get dust off.

TBH I think it'd have been easier, rather than throwing the book at people, just to avoid the problem by fitting mainly airline-style seating at refurb rather than all facing, though I'm conscious that the conduit/heating unit layouts would mean you couldn't have 100% airline in a 507/508.

Neil

 

[Flamingo]

Would an appeals process or Ombudsman really make that much difference?

All it can look at is if the Penalty Fare or Unpaid Fare Notice was issued correctly or not.

If they were issued because, as in one of the examples the Metro gave, a railcard was not carried, then it was issued correctly.

Should an Ombudsman be given power to overturn correctly issued tickets and PF's?

And then what? Have an ombudsman to review the Ombudsman's decisions?

 

[Antman]

Would an appeals process or Ombudsman really make that much difference?

All it can look at is if the Penalty Fare or Unpaid Fare Notice was issued correctly or not.

If they were issued because, as in one of the examples the Metro gave, a railcard was not carried, then it was issued correctly.

Should an Ombudsman be given power to overturn correctly issued tickets and PF's?

And then what? Have an ombudsman to review the Ombudsman's decisions?

An ombudsman would probably decide that somebody who had simply left their railcard at home wasn't deserving of a penalty fare.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Would an appeals process or Ombudsman really make that much difference?

Yes. The Financial Ombudsman Service has done a lot for customer protection in the finance sector- PPI and bank charges being two of their big successes- and I don't think that it would be too different in the railways.

The problem, quite simply, with the current system is that the prosecutor is acting as judge. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I don't see an appeals process run by Go-Ahead Group being prepared to find against Go-Ahead Group too often. RJ's experiences, where IPFAS were trying desperately to find a way to reject his appeal against SouthEastern, would support my view.

 

[Flamingo]

An ombudsman would probably decide that somebody who had simply left their railcard at home wasn't deserving of a penalty fare.

Why not? That's the conditions of having a railcard discount. If that's the case, then the railcard T&C need changing, but that would be a different issue.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes. The Financial Ombudsman Service has done a lot for customer protection in the finance sector- PPI and bank charges being two of their big successes- and I don't think that it would be too different in the railways.

The problem, quite simply, with the current system is that the prosecutor is acting as judge. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I don't see an appeals process run by Go-Ahead Group being prepared to find against Go-Ahead Group too often. RJ's experiences, where IPFAS were trying desperately to find a way to reject his appeal against SouthEastern, would support my view.

Again, I don't have a problem with an independent appeals process, but I don't see why in the vast majority of cases it would make much difference, if it's mandate is to look at PF's and UFN's to see were they correctly issued.

If they were correctly issued, then why should an independent ombudsman be able to overturn them?

 

[Tetchytyke]

If they were correctly issued, then why should an independent ombudsman be able to overturn them?

It depends what you mean by "correctly issued", there are plenty of cases where a penalty was technically correct but was unfair in all the circumstances. IPFAS can't and won't look at that.

An Ombudsman would do the work of Passenger Focus too, but this time with teeth.