How much fare evasion is there and are barriers the way to go?

[Mintona]

Is it your problem to ensure you are eating the correct meal and paying the correct price in a restaurant?

Umm... Yes? If you're not sure... ask.

or even when rail staff usher her onto that train, then another member of rail staff says that action was incorrect, but it's the old lady who is liable.....

Or is this a different story you are referring to???

I suspect not, just the same one re-worded to suit the railways. That was one battle that the railways LOST and Virgin had to offer free tickets, refunds and apologies and it got them a huge amount of bad publicity. And rightly so!!!

No. No-one "ushered" her onto the train. The platform staff at Bolton printed off a journey itinerary to London, as she asked for. Presumeably they didn't know/ask that she had an advance ticket, and so did it for the next available train, which she boarded, and was then caught out on the train to London from Manchester.

My gut feeling is that Virgin handed out the refund because they didn't want the negative publicity, not because they felt the train manager did wrong.

 

[90019]

Is it your problem to ensure you are eating the correct meal and paying the correct price in a restaurant?

Yes.

If a restaurant under or overcharges you, would you pay that anyway because it's their responsibility to get it right?

 

[Demps]

Its the Governments nanny state.

 

[Old Timer]

For clarity it should be pointed out that the customer was actually doing the reverse journey, I should have pointed that out earlier, nevertheless he made it clear that he called the police rather than the police were called by revenue staff, might I also add that this guy's attitude was awful and he was prepared to listen to nobody's opinion or explanation but his own. I tried politely to explain why the ticket was not valid and why it was not a simple excess but he would not listen, he ordered to me to 'just sell me a ticket so I can get on my train'.

Irrespective of that, he already held a London Terminals to Clapham CDR and presented himself at Havant without a valid ticket, a PF would have been entirely appropriate. The excess was a CDR London Terminals to Havant (Network discount) and a CDR Havant to Barnham (Network discount not applicable), minus the fare he had already paid.The sum of these fares comes to around £23 which is considerably more than the £14.50 he wanted to pay.

This guy purchased a ticket to Clapham at Waterloo and then proceeded to board a train that was first stop Woking despite plenty of trains to Clapham being available, how is that anything other than deliberate fare evasion?

I dont even pretend to know the full detail of excessing passengers these days, BUT

In the circumstances explained this appears to be a clear attempt at short fare. The alarm bells are so deafening I almost cannot type ! Its absolutely classic.

As I understand it, and remember that I am no expert on this although I know Helvellyn is, surely the correct action would have been to ask for an explanation as to why he boarded the train in the first place as it did not stop at the station to which he had a ticket, and why he had travelled so far before making any effort to purchase a valid ticket, and without contacting the Guard to pay the correct amount on the train.

NRCOC Clause 2 requires a passenger to be in possession of a ticket. Clause 13 states that only a through train or the shortest route be used unless the Routing Guide states otherwise.

The Law is quite clear that ignorance is no excuse, and the legal brain has the sense at least to hold that it is for the buyer to make all necessary enquiries about their purchase...Caveat Emptor. Try claiming no knowledge of the Law next time a Traffic Policeman stops you and see where it gets you ?

You say that he does this regularly ? I think in BR days we would have applied the rule rigidly and if he refused to pay the correct fare then issued a free excess, withdraw the ticket and reported him for fare evasion on the basis that he could and should have purchased a ticket from the Guard.

At the very least he would have had a letter pointing out that he should not commence his journey with a ticket valid throughout, and also pointing out that via Havant was not a recognised route and quoting the correct ticket/price for that route.

Name would the have been passed around and the booking office staff would have kept a weather eye and one of the TTIs would have been tipped off, and then next time it would have been free excess and see you in Court chap.

I am sure there is case law somewhere, that arriving at destination without having made any attempt to contact the Guard with a short ticket was taken as Prima Facie evidence of fare evasion. That is how we Prosecuted so many people when I was involved with it.

People who deliberately work the system or try to avoid paying the fare really do p*** me off big style and are in permanent open season as far as I am concerned.

It is a bit sad also the posts that seem to suggest he has done no wrong.

The Police are also out of order here as their role is to enforce the law not to make determinations as to whether a person has paid the correct fare.

I would offer three suggestions.

1) A notice in the BO window at Barham "clarifying that tickets to London are not valid via Havant" ;
2) He should get written to advising him of that fact , and ;
3) The TTIs should make this individual a special target

Yorkie
Although NNG to London may not have been a good example, you know the point that I was trying to make and it was entirely valid if taken in the context to which it was meant.

As for the restaurant, that is a totally incomparable comparison.

 

[yorkie]

Yes.

If a restaurant under or overcharges you, would you pay that anyway because it's their responsibility to get it right?

How many people check the bill in that level of detail and how often can you even read what is on the bill when it is written by hand? I bet most people trust it's correct and don't question every detail.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We do our best but we can hardly be excused for getting it wrong sometimes.

Does the same not apply to customers?! (aimed more at daccer's reply above than you!!)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As for the restaurant, that is a totally incomparable comparison.

I'm happy to use another comparison, if a suitable one can be found. But at the end of the day the railways are the only industry I know of to try to suggest that their customers are in the wrong unless proven right, and that if the railways make a mistake it's the customers fault, and the extremely complicated fare structure that most staff cannot understand has to be rigorously adhered to by customers - who clearly have no hope of understanding it if the staff don't.

 

[Old Timer]

...But at the end of the day the railways are the only industry I know of to try to suggest that their customers are in the wrong unless proven right, and that if the railways make a mistake it's the customers fault, and the extremely complicated fare structure that most staff cannot understand has to be rigorously adhered to by customers - who clearly have no hope of understanding it if the staff don't.

I don't agree with you at all on this.

If you buy anything in a shop and it is not suitable then the problem is yours not the retailers.

Similarly if you buy a railway ticket it is up to you to specify your destination, and you will be sold the correct ticket. If you are unsure as to whether it is valid via a particular route then the onus is upon YOU to check. That is certainly in compliance with Common Law. Caveat Emptor, which also applies to railway tickets.

The difficulty the Railway has, is this lack of will to sort out fraudulent travel, and indeed to take on those abusing the system in a proper manner.

No "ordinary" traveller gets on a train travelling a long distance with a ticket to a shorter destination than they are travelling to in the normal course of events. I accept that travel patterns may change however the onus is still upon the traveller to purchase the correct ticket for the journey BEFORE travelling. Quite simple.

Moving back to this person we are discussing, it is (to my understanding) said that he is well known for this habit of travelling via Havant. So big question, why has this fact not been reported and action taken against this individual ?

This total nonesensical attitude that the Railways have had to a degree under BR, but which is more pronounced under Privatisation, that the "customer is always right" is quite frankly bollocks and a thieves charter.

Under nationalisation we were always subject to the pernicious interference of MPs at some stage whose only interest was self publicity or seking to influence votes. Many, many times I have seen letters written in by MPs about constituents who were so obviously thieves, and the standard BR response was to back off. I suspect that the TOCs back off more today for this ridiculous passenger is always right crap.

The fact is that the passenger is SOMETIMES right, mostly ill-informed in many case, and in some cases just out and out intending to abuse the system as often and as far as they possibly can.

Quite why the Railways should adopt different Policies to the airlines for example is quite beyond me.

If you buy an airline ticket the onus is very specifically upon the purchaser to make sure that they have the correct ticket and the correct routing.

I would suggest that in the majority of cases, passengers are sold the correct ticket and that only a small minority are sold incorrect tickets.

A good TTI (RPI, or whatever they are called these days) should be able to sniff out a dodger at a 100 paces.

I note that in all these Passenger Charters, as well as the Conditions of Carriage no responsibility is placed upon the passenger. Well it should be. They have a responsibility to ensure that they are purchasing the correct ticket for their journey and routing and they should declare their full journey intent to the booking clerk when booking. I always do, and when I travelled last week at very short notice, I was offered a cheaper ticket to travel back after 1830, but because I was not sure if I would be back prior to this, I asked for the more expensive ticket.

Now if I had purchased the cheaper option and then travelled in the Peak, could I have argued successfully that I did not know of the restriction ?.

Where does personal responsibility end ?

In my experience (limited I accept) fare evaders exhibit certain behaviours. They arrive with a short journey ticket, they always claim they were unable to buy one before starting the journey (there is always some reason), they can never satisfactorily explain why they did not buy a correct ticket from the Guard, they always start to raise their voice and become confrontational as a ploy to frighten staff and gain the upper hand, thye always threaten not to travel by train ever again, and to report everyone concerned. I remember once telling one of these people that we would be very pleased if he did not travel by train again. He did and he continued to thieve until we built up a sufficient head of evidence to have him Prosecuted as a serial thief.

People who have nothing to fear, or hide and are genuine exhibit totally different behaviours (although very good fare evaders can mimic this), and I am sure that guards and TTIs who may be on here will be able to verify this from their own experience.

I have no problem with leniency being show to those who have genuinely gotten into some form of problem, it is the fare evaders that I cannot stand.

Basically they should be targetted and brought before the Courts. Serial offenders should have restraining orders placed on them.

Recently by means as yet undetermined, the details of my credit card that I use for air travel were stolen. The Bank were very quick and queried the transaction. So quick that I was able to alert KLM who put a mark on the ticket in their system and when the thief tried to change the traveller details they were made aware and were able to call the Police ! Nice one !

I fail to see any TOC acting in such a manner.

 

[yorkie]

I don't agree with you at all on this.

If you buy anything in a shop and it is not suitable then the problem is yours not the retailers.

If a product is advertised as fit for a purpose and it isn't, it very much is their problem.

Similarly if you buy a railway ticket it is up to you to specify your destination, and you will be sold the correct ticket. If you are unsure as to whether it is valid via a particular route then the onus is upon YOU to check. That is certainly in compliance with Common Law. Caveat Emptor, which also applies to railway tickets.

As I've said before, can you guarantee that if asking about routeing, that staff will give a correct answer? Evidence strongly suggests this is very much not the case.

The difficulty the Railway has, is this lack of will to sort out fraudulent travel, and indeed to take on those abusing the system in a proper manner.

The railway tends to treat everyone as guilty. The problem with this is that they are then issuing PFs to people who have not intended to do anything wrong, yet also issuing PFs to people who are fully refusing to pay. People who have no intention of ever paying should be delt with far more harshly, but people who are off-route or confused about the complicated fares should be delt with much more leniently.

No "ordinary" traveller gets on a train travelling a long distance with a ticket to a shorter destination than they are travelling to in the normal course of events. I accept that travel patterns may change however the onus is still upon the traveller to purchase the correct ticket for the journey BEFORE travelling. Quite simple.

Not really that simple, given that many stations are unstaffed and even if ticket machines exist they do not sell all tickets, or do not sell rovers, do not offer certain discounts e.g. PRIV, do not sell combinations of tickets, etc...

Moving back to this person we are discussing, it is (to my understanding) said that he is well known for this habit of travelling via Havant. So big question, why has this fact not been reported and action taken against this individual ?

Why isn't the individual asked to buy a ticket from Chichester routed Any Permitted, and then a ticket between Barnham and Havant? Perhaps if the customer was offered that, then they may think it reasonable and pay, then there would be no argument!

I still think that a Barnham to London Route Havant should be introduced, at the appropriate fare as mentioned earlier.

This total nonesensical attitude that the Railways have had to a degree under BR, but which is more pronounced under Privatisation, that the "customer is always right" is quite frankly bollocks and a thieves charter.

On the contrary; the Railways have "customer is always wrong" attitude generally!

Out of interest, at restaurants and retail outlets where a "customer is always right" attitude is prevailent (quite the opposite of the railways IMO), is that a thieves charter?

Under nationalisation we were always subject to the pernicious interference of MPs at some stage whose only interest was self publicity or seking to influence votes. Many, many times I have seen letters written in by MPs about constituents who were so obviously thieves, and the standard BR response was to back off. I suspect that the TOCs back off more today for this ridiculous passenger is always right crap.

The fact is that the passenger is SOMETIMES right, mostly ill-informed in many case, and in some cases just out and out intending to abuse the system as often and as far as they possibly can.

Abuse the system? A system that charges more for A to C than the sum of A to B and B to C? Hmm...

If the system made sense in the first place, perhaps people would respect it?

Quite why the Railways should adopt different Policies to the airlines for example is quite beyond me.

If you buy an airline ticket the onus is very specifically upon the purchaser to make sure that they have the correct ticket and the correct routing.

Given that railways operate a walk-on, on-demand service that many people could just walk to from their house, the restaurant analogy is probably no less valid than the airline analogy, given that flying is hardly something you'd do on a spur-of-the moment. Travelling by train, goign to a shop, eating at a restaurant, catching a bus or getting in a car and driving somewhere are all things we could potentially do in a moments notice.

I would suggest that in the majority of cases, passengers are sold the correct ticket and that only a small minority are sold incorrect tickets.

Is £72 for Derby-York day return leaving at 0827 or 0844 "correct"? (This is what you would be sold if you ask for that journey) If so then that entire statement is utterly meaningless, given that the fare should be £27.

You can go on about "correct" fares all day but if the "correct" fare is three times the fare of splitting, then it means nothing and is ludicrous to say there is nothing wrong with passengers being asked to cough up such fares. Not sure if you are suggesting it is acceptable or not? But the railways think it is acceptable!

A good TTI (RPI, or whatever they are called these days) should be able to sniff out a dodger at a 100 paces.

I'm sure the courts would not agree that is sufficient though, even if it is usually true.

I note that in all these Passenger Charters, as well as the Conditions of Carriage no responsibility is placed upon the passenger. Well it should be. They have a responsibility to ensure that they are purchasing the correct ticket for their journey and routing and they should declare their full journey intent to the booking clerk when booking.

Why should you know your full journey intentions? What if you don't know when you are returning?

I always do, and when I travelled last week at very short notice, I was offered a cheaper ticket to travel back after 1830, but because I was not sure if I would be back prior to this, I asked for the more expensive ticket.

Now if I had purchased the cheaper option and then travelled in the Peak, could I have argued successfully that I did not know of the restriction ?.

No, but you could have paid the excess and they could not ask you to pay any more. Out of interest, what was the journey and did you travel in the evening peak?

Where does personal responsibility end ?

What about the responsibility for railway companies to charge a fair fare?

In my experience (limited I accept) fare evaders exhibit certain behaviours. They arrive with a short journey ticket, they always claim they were unable to buy one before starting the journey (there is always some reason), they can never satisfactorily explain why they did not buy a correct ticket from the Guard, they always start to raise their voice and become confrontational as a ploy to frighten staff and gain the upper hand, thye always threaten not to travel by train ever again, and to report everyone concerned. I remember once telling one of these people that we would be very pleased if he did not travel by train again. He did and he continued to thieve until we built up a sufficient head of evidence to have him Prosecuted as a serial thief.

So everyone who was unable to buy a ticket from their station is a thief, just because this person was? I'm sure you aren't actually saying that, but the implication is that such people are under suspicion and have to prove their innocence.

People who have nothing to fear, or hide and are genuine exhibit totally different behaviours (although very good fare evaders can mimic this), and I am sure that guards and TTIs who may be on here will be able to verify this from their own experience.

I have no problem with leniency being show to those who have genuinely gotten into some form of problem, it is the fare evaders that I cannot stand.

But my argument is that people who are genuine are sometimes penalised, yet people who are evading often get away with a PF. That is not appropriate.

Basically they should be targetted and brought before the Courts. Serial offenders should have restraining orders placed on them.

Yes, they should, but the railway is too lenient on serial evaders and instead targets genuine customers, I think because there is more money in it. It's the same with the police sometimes, they harras people over trivial matters, yet on the dodgy estates at night they are nowhere to be seen. It's all about statistics these days.

Recently by means as yet undetermined, the details of my credit card that I use for air travel were stolen. The Bank were very quick and queried the transaction. So quick that I was able to alert KLM who put a mark on the ticket in their system and when the thief tried to change the traveller details they were made aware and were able to call the Police ! Nice one !

I fail to see any TOC acting in such a manner.

Glad to hear it ended that way! I don't know what the TOCs would do to be fair.

 

[Old Timer]

To save space my comments are in red.

If a product is advertised as fit for a purpose and it isn't, it very much is their problem.
Missing the point. The point was that it is up to the customer to ensure they buy the correct item. Always has been.

As I've said before, can you guarantee that if asking about routeing, that staff will give a correct answer? Evidence strongly suggests this is very much not the case.
Surely that is the purpose of the RG ? I accept though that Passengers may not know of its existence, but then lets be honest unusual journeys are not the norm.

The railway tends to treat everyone as guilty. The problem with this is that they are then issuing PFs to people who have not intended to do anything wrong, yet also issuing PFs to people who are fully refusing to pay. People who have no intention of ever paying should be delt with far more harshly, but people who are off-route or confused about the complicated fares should be delt with much more leniently.
I agree about deliberate avoidance. I have absolutely no knowledge to comment on the first part, although I agree it would be harsh to penalise an innocent person. Then again there is an appeals process.

Not really that simple, given that many stations are unstaffed and even if ticket machines exist they do not sell all tickets, or do not sell rovers, do not offer certain discounts e.g. PRIV, do not sell combinations of tickets, etc...
Point accepted, however the tickets you quote are not "ordinary" tickets are they. If I wanted to buy one of those I go to the station when the booking office is manned. Simple common sense, surely ?

Why isn't the individual asked to buy a ticket from Chichester routed Any Permitted, and then a ticket between Barnham and Havant? Perhaps if the customer was offered that, then they may think it reasonable and pay, then there would be no argument!
I bow to your obvious superior knowledge on this point, but surely Barham to London via Havant would be the correct fare to pay, i. e. for the journey actually being undertaken ?

I still think that a Barnham to London Route Havant should be introduced, at the appropriate fare as mentioned earlier.
Agreed OR a notice should confirm the valid route or the ticket should say not valid via Havant

On the contrary; the Railways have "customer is always wrong" attitude generally!
I will leave others to comment on that point.

Out of interest, at restaurants and retail outlets where a "customer is always right" attitude is prevailent (quite the opposite of the railways IMO), is that a thieves charter?
Irrelevant, because again you are not comparing like with like, BUT I listened to a late night radio show the other night about M&S policy to refund only within one month (I think) instead of six. Now that WAS an interesting programme, as the only people who seemed to have a problem were those who abused the system. For example a guy who bought and then WORE the clothes before returning them for refund. He even stated the best times to return items! This guy was happy to say that he very very rarely "bought" clothes, he simply used then returned them for refund before the expiry of the refund policy. If you genuinely buy an item and it is faulty then there is no change in Policy. Why should anyone object to a month to return an item that was not suitable ???

Abuse the system? A system that charges more for A to C than the sum of A to B and B to C? Hmm...
That has been the case since selective pricing was introduced in the 1970s. Similar examples appear in all sorts of Industries, airlines for example. But here is a supermarket example which is often happening. Sainsbury's are very good at this. A bottle of beer is reduced on a buy 3 for 4 basis. The four pack is not reduced.

Boxes of 160 teabags are advertised at a reduced price, which are actually cheaper at 3 x 160 than the 480 price, yet the 480 is still prominently on sale.

Items that are reduced obviously sell quicker, and more of them, the supermarket does not however order additional stock.

Higher volume items given a more prominent (normal) pricing label, whilst reduced offers are given less. Reduced offers do not show per gram / kg / litre cost, driving people who cannot work it out to buy the bigger but more expensive volume item

If the system made sense in the first place, perhaps people would respect it?
A ticket is priced selectively on the demand. Holidays are priced the same, so are cars. Why is it possible to buy a better item cheaper than a less highly specced item in the computer world ? The alternative is to return to a price per mile rate like we used to have. I doubt many people would want to return to those days once they realised they would pay more.

Given that railways operate a walk-on, on-demand service that many people could just walk to from their house, the restaurant analogy is probably no less valid than the airline analogy, given that flying is hardly something you'd do on a spur-of-the moment. Travelling by train, goign to a shop, eating at a restaurant, catching a bus or getting in a car and driving somewhere are all things we could potentially do in a moments notice.
Many business people do fly at short notice, sometimes that day. It has happened to me, it still does from time to time.

Is £72 for Derby-York day return leaving at 0827 or 0844 "correct"? (This is what you would be sold if you ask for that journey) If so then that entire statement is utterly meaningless, given that the fare should be £27.
The point here is what ? Is the ticket machine not supposed to specify the various fares available for immediate travel ?

You can go on about "correct" fares all day but if the "correct" fare is three times the fare of splitting, then it means nothing and is ludicrous to say there is nothing wrong with passengers being asked to cough up such fares. Not sure if you are suggesting it is acceptable or not? But the railways think it is acceptable!
Splitting tickets is the downside of selective pricing. Sorry but the attitude of win, win does not work in the real world of capitalism, there is a finite minimum cost to everything. Unless we return to a fixed rate per mile then there will be selective pricing. A roughly similar comparison would be a new car. Why should you get a better deal at the end of the Car Dealer's financial year than at the beginning ? Why the need to shop around ? Why does every dealer have some way of reducing the "Standard" price of a car ?

I went into a Ford dealer on Friday who told me that whatever deal I got anywhere else he would beat. The reason ? He is on volume sales and is on the point of getting a bigger discount because he will enter the next level of discount. Now that means I can pay substantially less than the previous person, yet the dealer will actually earn more profit because he will get a volune discount at the end of the year. In effect it means I get the previous buyer's lost discount. That means that anyone who buys a car at the beginning pays far more than those who wait. Is that fair ?

I'm sure the courts would not agree that is sufficient though, even if it is usually true.
The good TTI can usually break the thinly disguised lie. It is no different to the Traffic Police or a detective who can sniff out a wrong'un and pulls them on that basis. The Courts deal with the fact irrespective of how that has initially been established.

Why should you know your full journey intentions? What if you don't know when you are returning?
The vast majority of people have full knowledge as to when they are travelling out and back. If you are not sure and you state that then the booking clerk should at least advise you of the options available to you. If you do not know your intentions why does that become the Railway's fault ? If you are unsure that you like something offered at a 2 for 3, try it and then decide that you like it what are the chances of the store saying "oh no problem just pay us for one more and here's the free one ?

No, but you could have paid the excess and they could not ask you to pay any more. Out of interest, what was the journey and did you travel in the evening peak?
The chances were high that I would be travelling back before 1830, and indeed I was anxious to do that so I exercised a judgement as to how I wished to go. Had I returned after 1830 then that is my bad luck, but I had freedom of choice.

What about the responsibility for railway companies to charge a fair fare?
Define what is a fair fare ? As far as I know even the greedy TOCs no names mentioned will still sell you the best ticket for the journey at the booking office, even though the NR website may confuse and obfuscate. Anyway why not do as I do and ask for the best fare at the time of purchase ?

So everyone who was unable to buy a ticket from their station is a thief, just because this person was? I'm sure you aren't actually saying that, but the implication is that such people are under suspicion and have to prove their innocence.
Why do you say that ? The point was about attitude and behaviour, in such circumstances I have sought the Guard and explained the situation. Honest people do this. Dishonest people will try to travel as far as they can and only come to light when challenged.

But my argument is that people who are genuine are sometimes penalised, yet people who are evading often get away with a PF. That is not appropriate.
I cannot comment but I would look towards the views of others who actually undertake TTIs duties, or Guards who check tickets. In my limited experience I have very rarely seen even people whom I considered to be evaders being treated harshly. Many times on-train staff simply issue the best ticket so as to avoid a confrontation, something these people rely on.

Yes, they should, but the railway is too lenient on serial evaders and instead targets genuine customers, I think because there is more money in it. It's the same with the police sometimes, they harras people over trivial matters, yet on the dodgy estates at night they are nowhere to be seen. It's all about statistics these days.
That is probably a reflection of the fact that most TOCs these days seem to want to employ retail people from shops. Railway travel is generally inelastic in that people need to do the journey. If they could do it by car or by coach then they would do it. It is ludicrous for others to suggest that a harsh approach to fare evasion would deter people travelling. It would only deter those who won't pay and thus never appear in the statistics anyway. Rigid parking restriction enforcement has never deterred people from shopping, it just makes those who try to work the system use the car parks.

Glad to hear it ended that way! I don't know what the TOCs would do to be fair.

 

[Helvellyn]

Even Advance Purchase tickets are abused. The press like to go on about cases where a little old lady is told she has to buy a full fare Anytime Ticket because she missed her booked train through no fault of her own.[/FONT]

or even when rail staff usher her onto that train, then another member of rail staff says that action was incorrect, but it's the old lady who is liable.....

Or is this a different story you are referring to???

I suspect not, just the same one re-worded to suit the railways. That was one battle that the railways LOST and Virgin had to offer free tickets, refunds and apologies and it got them a huge amount of bad publicity. And rightly so!!

The joys of selective quoting! I never said that instance was wrong, and the Virgin guy handled it badly. Should have used his Unpaid Fare Notice.

My original post, that you chopped the end bit off, was that we do get many people who think an Advance Purchase ticket lets them travel on whatever train they want. Yet the terms and conditions don't allow it.

As to the passenger being treated as guilty, we don't treat them like that. But they are treated fairly, and consistently. And SWT has done a lot over the last three years to ensure its staff are being consistent. Which is why fare evasion dropped from 2007 onwards - FACT. Which is why assaults on staff on trains (Guards and Revenue) dropped - FACT. It is why I've been thanked by fare paying passengers who've seen the various scams and appreciate what is being done.

There is a thing called discretion, so that rules are not applied in black and white. But discretion is not letting everyone off with a sob story, because that is not what discretion is. I recall one instance where a woman was stopped on a special exercise. Floods of tears, it was two stations she's travelled past, could she just pay the excess. People sticking up for her, saying we were bullies. Then a colleague checked her details. Eight Penalty Fares for the similar sort of thing in 12 months. She didn't get a Penalty Fare - she was reported for fare evasion.

It comes back to the fact that Revenue Protection is not just tackling people with no ticket. It's about making sure people have the right ticket. It certainly isn't a case of issuing a Penalty Fare for every error, but it's about using the tools available. Condition 2, excess fares, new tickets (e.g. no railcard carried), Unpaid Fare Notice, Penalty Fare and reporting for potential prosecution. It's about educating people on what tickets they need.

Oh, and just to add - those of us out on the frontline might have an easier job if Ticket Office clerks did their jobs properly too. Actually asked when someone was travelling. Advised them of the routes and time restrictions on the tickets they were selling them. Actually marked the tickets RA so we know the restrictions have been advised. Many do a good job, and sell people the correct (and cheapest tickets) for the journey they are making, but too many are far too sloppy, even ignoring minimum fares on railcards.

Fares and ticketing are not simple. They never were in BR days - certainly not for many years anyway. Because yield management was introduced by BR, and has been developed by the TOCs. I'm not claiming that is the fault of the passengers, but whilst we have the system we have, then it is not for individuals to decide it's wrong and start encouraging or allowing people to do what they want with their tickets in the name of "customer service." Because that is bad customer service. And whilst it might give the individual an easy life, even a warm glow inside, it's not them who gets the grief, the abuse, the hard days at work. No, that falls on their colleagues trying to do their job properly, enforcing the rules as they are.

I've experience outside the railway. I've experience as a passenger on the railways. I've experience in several roles on the railway. I don't pretend to know it all, not by a long shot, but I do look at things from the perspective of several roles, and try to strike the correct balance in what I, and others, do. Just as everyone is not guilty, so everyone is not innocent either. Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law - why should it be an excuse for fare evasion?

 

[yorkie]

Is it the Customers responsibility to ensure they memorise all the possible restrictions on Off Peak tickets out of King's Cross? or should everyone queue up for 20 minutes at the ticket office to ask the question? Do staff even know? or do staff simply get out of having to know by saying it's not their responsibility?

Validity in the evening peak out of KGX:-
(All tickets called "Off Peak", so according to NRES are all the same "type" the name Off Peak "describes when you can buy or use a ticket ". None are TOC-Specific, all routed Any Permitted so equally valid on NXEC and FCC)

Destination Ticket type   Portion   Validity
Stevenage    Off Peak Day Outward = VALID
Stevenage    Off Peak Day Return  = NOT VALID
Peterborough Off Peak     Outward = NOT VALID
Peterborough Off Peak     Return  = VALID
Peterborough Off Peak Day Outward = NOT VALID
Peterborough Off Peak Day Return  = NOT VALID

Is this really...

...?!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Oh, and just to add - those of us out on the frontline might have an easier job if Ticket Office clerks did their jobs properly too. Actually asked when someone was travelling. Advised them of the routes and time restrictions on the tickets they were selling them. Actually marked the tickets RA so we know the restrictions have been advised. Many do a good job, and sell people the correct (and cheapest tickets) for the journey they are making, but too many are far too sloppy, even ignoring minimum fares on railcards.

I totally agree with this, but they can simply counter that by asking why do they need to do their jobs properly when the excuses can be rolled out... "it's the customers responsibility, not mine"... It's time to accept that the rail industry has a duty of care to make it clear to the customer what the terms of each ticket are, what the choices are, and make sure the right ticket is sold. The onus cannot be on the customer to determine all the possible ticket types are (there can be a dozen just for one flow!!) and what all the rules are, especially when the restrictions are not readily available. Sites like Thetrainline keep the conditions secret. Customers ask for a ticket to a place, and ask for the restrictions. They then buy a ticket that appears identical to just one stop further down the line. It is not unreasonable for the customer to assume the conditions are the same, and the booking clerk or website may not give any indication that the conditions are different. How can it then be the customers' fault if the conditions are completely different?!

According to National Rail, there are only 3 ticket types. And the ticket name describes when you can travel. (Source: http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/simple_fares.html ) how can it then be that if a customer is told that one of these types is valid at a certain time, that they then discover that every journey they make on supposedly the same "type" of ticket, is subject to completely different, top secret, conditions? Given that we are told ".. the cheaper fare with more restrictions will be named Super Off-Peak.." yet that is simply a lie, pure and simple. Adding "Day" to the ticket type can add more restrictions, or even subtracting "Day" in some cases. Also making it a return portion can make it more restrictive, or even less restrictive. Or changing the destination/origin can make it more or less restrictive. Given all this, I do have to question the legality of the entire system given that we are told that the restrictions are "simple" and more restrictive is called Super Off Peak. I suspect if a legal challenge were mounted, the rail industry would be in serious trouble and would be found to be illegally charging people more money in many cases.

My favourite quote has to be this, "The new fare names simplify the choice, allowing you to choose your rail ticket with confidence." this is totally incompatible with the quotes of rail staff here who say that the customer must check the validity of every ticket. Is this an admission that the customer CANNOT choose "in confidence" and that the restrictions are NOT "simple" and that the ticket names do NOT accurately "describe when you can buy or use a ticket"??? If so, perhaps you can give evidence stating that? This evidence could then be presented to Trading Standards.

 

[Old Timer]

Is it the Customers responsibility to ensure they memorise all the possible restrictions on Off Peak tickets out of King's Cross? or should everyone queue up for 20 minutes at the ticket office to ask the question? Do staff even know? or do staff simply get out of having to know by saying it's not their responsibility?

Validity in the evening peak out of KGX:-
(All tickets called "Off Peak", so according to NRES are all the same "type" the name Off Peak "describes when you can buy or use a ticket ". None are TOC-Specific, all routed Any Permitted so equally valid on NXEC and FCC)

Destination Ticket type   Portion   Validity
Stevenage    Off Peak Day Outward = VALID
Stevenage    Off Peak Day Return  = NOT VALID
Peterborough Off Peak     Outward = NOT VALID
Peterborough Off Peak     Return  = VALID
Peterborough Off Peak Day Outward = NOT VALID
Peterborough Off Peak Day Return  = NOT VALID

Is this really.......

I am not trying to be argumentative here but at eactly WHAT point does the passenger take some responsibility for their actions in your world then ???

There are myriads of restrictions on airline and coach tickets as to flights / services that they are valid on, and the airline pricing structure is probably more complex than the Railways is. The responsibility remains the passenger's. Now I accept that it is necessary to reserve a seat and that has to be done before travelling but for other than certain types of ticket, there are very clear date/time/flight/volume restrictions which the passenger is expected to resolve. The same applies to Nat Ex coach travel.

THere is little point arriving at check-in and expecting to get a seat with a restricted ticket which you have not complied with the booking conditions for. You can see the outcome on any of the airline fly on the wall series. It don't happen, they are booked onto the next available WITH excess payable.

Saw a woman at a coach station earlier this year arrive for a coach late. The coach had gone. Sorry says the coach lady, but that ticket was only valid on that service. If you want to travel it will be £XXX. The usual scene ensues about customer service etc. Lady coach supervisor says Madam, we reserved a seat for you which you did not arrive in time to take. You have deprived another passenger of the opportunity to travel who was quite prepared to pay the full fare. We have met our part of the deal you have not met yours. What would you say if we had sold your seat and not allowed you to travel ?

The point in all this is that if you benefit from any form of reduced rate ticket, it will obviously have restrictions as to its use, and obviously the cheaper, then the more onerous they will be. The same applies to discount vouchers issued by shops, garages, etc. They are dated, specific and impose certain conditions which you have to meet. Would you make a fuss if you tried to buy an item that was outside of those conditions ? Would say Tesco let you have the discount even though you did not reach the required minimum spend ?

Why is this such a problem on the Railway ?

At the end of the day it is for the passenger to establish that the ticket they have is appropriate for the journey they are taking. There is only so much that the Railway can do. Much of the issue is that people either don't listen, or try it on. It is so much easier to try your luck on the earlier train say you were never told. Ironically I am sure that some Guards may exercise a discrete Nelson if approached and asked before travelling.

 

[stut]

The restrictions on air travel are generally very simple, although eligibility for various fare buckets in the first place may be more complex (although this is generally hidden from the public by way of the booking engine or agent).

With very few exceptions, an air ticket can be fully flexible, changeable for a fee, changeable subject to standby, or completely inflexible. The main difference is that air travel is subject to compulsory reservation. The only exception to this is where shuttle services exist - such as Madrid-Barcelona, where the frequency is such that turn-up-and-go is common. This, however, is a tiny minority of cases.

The other big difference between air and rail travel is that the distances covered by air are that much greater, as is the 'overhead' of check-in and security formalities in most cases (again, there are exceptions - I've done the London City turn-up-10-minutes-before-departure thing before, but even this is on its way out). So you will leave more time, more leeway, and this is at less of a cost to the overall journey than with the railways.

(I still find it rather daft that billions was spent on HS1 to get the end-to-end journey time for London-Paris down by 30 minutes. Yet, if you remember when it first opened, the minimum check-in time at Waterloo with 10 minutes for all passengers, not 30. See how much more cheaply the same effect could have been achieved? And as for security, well... Yes, I'm sure it's a concern. But if it's that dangerous, how come you can just drive on to a train in Folkestone?)

It's got to the point where the price difference between flexible and inflexible tickets has got so much that walk-up or flexible tickets are unaffordable to most on pretty much any journey over 2 hours. Of course people book the affordable version of the ticket.

 

[Greenback]

I am not trying to be argumentative here but at eactly WHAT point does the passenger take some responsibility for their actions in your world then ???

There are myriads of restrictions on airline and coach tickets as to flights / services that they are valid on, and the airline pricing structure is probably more complex than the Railways is. The responsibility remains the passenger's. Now I accept that it is necessary to reserve a seat and that has to be done before travelling but for other than certain types of ticket, there are very clear date/time/flight/volume restrictions which the passenger is expected to resolve. The same applies to Nat Ex coach travel.

THere is little point arriving at check-in and expecting to get a seat with a restricted ticket which you have not complied with the booking conditions for. You can see the outcome on any of the airline fly on the wall series. It don't happen, they are booked onto the next available WITH excess payable.

Saw a woman at a coach station earlier this year arrive for a coach late. The coach had gone. Sorry says the coach lady, but that ticket was only valid on that service. If you want to travel it will be £XXX. The usual scene ensues about customer service etc. Lady coach supervisor says Madam, we reserved a seat for you which you did not arrive in time to take. You have deprived another passenger of the opportunity to travel who was quite prepared to pay the full fare. We have met our part of the deal you have not met yours. What would you say if we had sold your seat and not allowed you to travel ?

The point in all this is that if you benefit from any form of reduced rate ticket, it will obviously have restrictions as to its use, and obviously the cheaper, then the more onerous they will be. The same applies to discount vouchers issued by shops, garages, etc. They are dated, specific and impose certain conditions which you have to meet. Would you make a fuss if you tried to buy an item that was outside of those conditions ? Would say Tesco let you have the discount even though you did not reach the required minimum spend ?

Why is this such a problem on the Railway ?

At the end of the day it is for the passenger to establish that the ticket they have is appropriate for the journey they are taking. There is only so much that the Railway can do. Much of the issue is that people either don't listen, or try it on. It is so much easier to try your luck on the earlier train say you were never told. Ironically I am sure that some Guards may exercise a discrete Nelson if approached and asked before travelling.

Well, at what point does the railway industry take it's responsibilty of the myriad of restrictions and fare types, often called similar names (such as Off Peak Return, Off Peak Day Return, Super Off Peak Return etc etc), with what cna be completely different restrictions that are not often understooed by some of the railways own staff?

I'm sure no one here would condone deliberate and frequent fare evasion. I have no doubt it does happen, I;ve seen people trying it on when I worked in the booking office. The we are debating here is the attitude of the railway towards people who may have made a genuine mistake with their ticket type and/ or routeing. I don't think anyone can deny that this also happens, sometimes because people are given wrong or conflicting information at the ticket office. The question is whether the fact that fare evasion is taking place justifies the apparent industry attitude of assuming the customer is evading a fare when they may not be.

You have demonstrated this attitude yourself in any earlier post, by saying hat no ordinary passenger should board a long distance train with a short ticket, simple. Well, no. I have done this myself, when i have arranged to meet a friend in Exeter, but have been phoned during the journey to change the meeting place to Plymouth. There are other scenarios I can think of too. So I didn't have buy the 'correct' ticket before boarding. Fortunately I encountered no problem when the conductor appeared, I stopped him and asked for an excess, which he was happy to provide without any questions asked! I'm not having a go at you personally OT, I found the idea that every customer was up to no good endemic amongst my colleagues when I started on the railway, and I only use your point to illustrate that everything is not as cut and dried as we might like to think. I do agree 100% that anyone regularly abusing the system should be prosecuted once robust evidence has been collecteed against them.

 

[Helvellyn]

You have demonstrated this attitude yourself in any earlier post, by saying hat no ordinary passenger should board a long distance train with a short ticket, simple. Well, no. I have done this myself, when i have arranged to meet a friend in Exeter, but have been phoned during the journey to change the meeting place to Plymouth. There are other scenarios I can think of too. So I didn't have buy the 'correct' ticket before boarding. Fortunately I encountered no problem when the conductor appeared, I stopped him and asked for an excess, which he was happy to provide without any questions asked! I'm not having a go at you personally OT, I found the idea that every customer was up to no good endemic amongst my colleagues when I started on the railway, and I only use your point to illustrate that everything is not as cut and dried as we might like to think. I do agree 100% that anyone regularly abusing the system should be prosecuted once robust evidence has been collecteed against them.

So what would have happened if the Conductor had not come through the train? If plans change then the onus is still on the passenger to ensure they have the right ticket, and that means finding a member of staff, not just sitting there. I've seen it many times where someone comes up to the Guard and asks for an extension ticket, and this is sold. But equally I've seen people make no effort to buy an extension/new ticket and only pay when challenged. On a special block exercise the argument could usually be stopped by asking, "How did you intend to pay for your journey today?" They can't answer that when they've been on a train with a Commercial Guard, walked past an open ticket office and have been stopped without a valid ticket. Now you bought a ticket, which was the thing you know you needed to do, so there was no issue.

Too often staff use their "discretion" to let passengers do things in the name of customer service. An example at the start of this thread was someone being asked for an excess fare for being off route. All that person was being asked to do was pay the correct amount for the journey they'd made. They weren't getting a Penalty Fare. They weren't being made to buy a new ticket. They weren't being reported for fare evasion. Yet the attiotude of a few is that it is all the fault of the railway, the staff member was in the wrong and the passenger should just have been sent on their way. Actually, an excess fare was the correct and appropriate thing in the circumstance. It is not appropriate to think every passenger guilty, to throw the book at them. But nor is it appropriate to blame the system and let every passenger off in the name of customer service. Commercial Guards/Conductors, and in particular Revenue Protection staff, have a range of options open to them. Most select the right one, and by that I don't mean of going for the easy option and letting everything go.

I don't think anyone in this thread has said people don't make mistakes. Nor has anyone said that if asked they won't deal with passengers as required, e.g. excess tickets, extensions. But the passenger does have a responsibility to ask someone, whether on a station, or a train.

Blaming the fares system seems to be a common theme, yet actually there are people in the industry trying to change that. Yet while we have the system we have, it's not up to individuals to blame it for any lack of responsibility on the passenger's behalf, nor to seemingly encourage undermining of the system.

As to the airline debate, yes you do have a compulsory reservation on an aircraft, for a specific flight. Last time I checked, Advance Tickets had the same restrictions. You are booked on a specific train, on a specific date, and in most cases have an allocated seat. Buy an Anytime of Off Peak ticket if you want flexibility, and make a seat reservation for when you expect to travel. But if plans change, well you can travel earlier or later.

Guards who let passengers travel on AP tickets earlier or later than the booked train don't help their colleagues. Because the passenger might be allowed on a quiet train. But they might travel again in a few weeks, and decide to come back on a packed train, thinking "that nice man let me do it last time." That's where inconsistency causes bad customer service, and it's where it causes problems for staff trying to do their jobs profressionally.

 

[ukrob]

Could I just ask why in every post you decide to use a smaller font size than the default one that everyone else uses? No offence meant, just curious. It is harder to read.

 

[gordonthemoron]

once you have inserted your ticket into the barrier, how many people can get through before the barrier will close? Tried this with my son in Leeds two weeks ago and both of us got through on one ticket (I did have tickets for both of us), no alarms sounded and the staff nearby said nothing.

 

[Greenback]

So what would have happened if the Conductor had not come through the train? If plans change then the onus is still on the passenger to ensure they have the right ticket, and that means finding a member of staff, not just sitting there. I've seen it many times where someone comes up to the Guard and asks for an extension ticket, and this is sold. But equally I've seen people make no effort to buy an extension/new ticket and only pay when challenged. On a special block exercise the argument could usually be stopped by asking, "How did you intend to pay for your journey today?" They can't answer that when they've been on a train with a Commercial Guard, walked past an open ticket office and have been stopped without a valid ticket.

I don't think anyone in this thread has said people don't make mistakes. Nor has anyone said that if asked they won't deal with passengers as required, e.g. excess tickets, extensions. But the passenger does have a responsibility to ask someone, whether on a station, or a train.

Blaming the fares system seems to be a common theme, yet actually there are people in the industry trying to change that. Yet while we have the system we have, it's not up to individuals to blame it for any lack of responsibility on the passenger's behalf, nor to seemingly encourage undermining of the system.

As to the airline debate, yes you do have a compulsory reservation on an aircraft, for a specific flight. Last time I checked, Advance Tickets had the same restrictions. You are booked on a specific train, on a specific date, and in most cases have an allocated seat. Buy an Anytime of Off Peak ticket if you want flexibility, and make a seat reservation for when you expect to travel. But if plans change, well you can travel earlier or later.

Guards who let passengers travel on AP tickets earlier or later than the booked train don't help their colleagues. Because the passenger might be allowed on a quiet train. But they might travel again in a few weeks, and decide to come back on a packed train, thinking "that nice man let me do it last time." That's where inconsistency causes bad customer service, and it's where it causes problems for staff trying to do their jobs profressionally.

The conductor came through after every stop, as it was an XC train that didn't call at every lamp post! If they hadn't, then I would probably have been charged an excess at the gates in plymouth, if they had been open I wuld have gone to the ticket office and bought an excess as I did want to return home from Plymouth and if I hadn't done this I would have been charged much the same for a single to Exeter where my original ticket ended.

Maybe I would have been accused of fare evasion at the barrier - this is the very issue that we are now discussing! However, I believe that no one should be accused without evidence in support. Fair enough, I agree that people with advance tickets should only travel on the specified train, I agree that people should not walk past an open booking office without making an atempt to buy a ticket, I agree that it's the customers repsonsibilty to speak to the TM when they appear, but I don;t think they shopuld have to leave their seat and go hunting for the staff member.

All in all, as I said, I don't think it's appropriate to generalise that someone who makes a slighlty unusual journey is evading their fare. If I drive from London to Barnham, I can easily come back via Havant if I want to. If I take the train, I might see a convenient journey by using that route on the station timetables, my ticket says any permitted and even if I ask someone I might get told the wrong info (if they are aware of the routeing guide at all!). Yet I am still automatically judged to be in the wrong at the end of my journey? In fairness, Matt says the individual in question frequently does this sort of thing, so this customer should be prosecuted using the available evidence. But what if it is an occasional traveller mystified by the rules of our increasingly complicated system? There are no easy answers, fare evaders need to be tackled effectively without the 'customer is always wrong' as situatiosn are not always as clear cut as they might appear.

My comments about railway staff are not ainmed at any particular member, I have friends still on the railway who disagree with some of the things I have saidabout customers, but we are still friends!

 

[tony_mac]

I have, in the last week, made two journeys between Darlington and Newcastle.
Now that both Darlington and Durham have barriers, the guard did not leave the cab for either journey - I haven't seen them do that before the barriers.

So now I can reuse my return tickets! Of course I won't, but that's what happens when you don't do on-train checks and just leave it to the barriers.

I don't particularly like barriers, as it causes queues, restricts access to the station facilities and my tickets usually don't work through them anyway, so it's a bit of a nuisance.

I've always thought that the 'tickets from .....' was a bit rubbish anyway - is there some secret cough or something so that I can surreptitiously alert the guard that the person sitting next to me has just boarded the train?

 

[Old Timer]

...You have demonstrated this attitude yourself in any earlier post, by saying hat no ordinary passenger should board a long distance train with a short ticket, simple. Well, no. I have done this myself, when i have arranged to meet a friend in Exeter, but have been phoned during the journey to change the meeting place to Plymouth. There are other scenarios I can think of too. So I didn't have buy the 'correct' ticket before boarding. Fortunately I encountered no problem when the conductor appeared, I stopped him and asked for an excess, which he was happy to provide without any questions asked! I'm not having a go at you personally OT, I found the idea that every customer was up to no good endemic amongst my colleagues when I started on the railway, and I only use your point to illustrate that everything is not as cut and dried as we might like to think. I do agree 100% that anyone regularly abusing the system should be prosecuted once robust evidence has been collecteed against them.

When you started your journey, you had the correct ticket is what I understand your post to say. I also said in that comment "in the normal course of events".

Now I have also stated that there are genuine people and those wo are out to defraud the system. What I do not think I have said is that I consider everyone to be on the fiddle. But it begs a question when someone starts a journey with either a ticket, or with a short ticket, when the opportunity to pay for the correct ticket existed at the time of departure.

Having had some involvement in Revenue Protection, it becomes pretty obvious, pretty quickly that fare evasion manifests itself in a limited number of ways. It is not often that a genuine passenger comes to notice in the manner that a fare evader does, but arriving at a point where checked with short tickets, or with no ticket, despite having had opportunities to pay rings the bells every time.

Most genuine travellers are very anxious not to become involved in disputes with tickets so they will always try to contact someone, somewhere. In my little experience it became easier to spot the genuine ones by their attitude and approach. The fare evaders will try to bluff it out, come up with excuses that are just quite not right, and eventually resort to agressiveness as the final approach when they realise the game is up.

If I come across as someone who thinks everyone is on the fiddle then that was not the intention, but the vast majority of scenario I have mentioned are always the basis of fraudulent travel.

I am sure the guys who are involved with Revenue Protection matters these days will still recognise the scenario, albeit it maybe more than likely has altered slightly.

With regards to the airline scenario, I have just done a quick search on the KLM website for London to New York economy and there are 8 different fares on the outward and return legs which I think works out at 64 different fare combinations.

Edit

I agree that it's the customers repsonsibilty to speak to the TM when they appear, but I don;t think they shopuld have to leave their seat and go hunting for the staff member.

Err why ?????

It is now YOU who are travelling outside the Conditions of Carriage without the appropriate ticket. When you bought your ticket you accepted the NRCOC which require you to have the correct ticket.

Had you arrived at destination and not been challenged would you have gone to the booking office and paid the excess of your own free will ?

If you go into a shop and pick something up and go to the checkout and find the assistant is down one of the isles do you walk out without paying on the basis you should not have to go hunting the member of staff ?

It is this attitude that certainly used to lead TTIs to conclude fare evasion as an option.

The impression I am starting to form here based on some of the discussions that I have read on the Forum is that fare evasion is OK IF :

1) the fares are complex
2) there is a queue and I cannot be bothered to wait
3) I get to the station too late to buy a ticket
4) I buy a ticket with restrictions but they don't apply to me, just other people
5) the guard never came around the train to where I was sitting
6) the barrier at the destination is unmanned
7) its someone elses problem to make sure I have a ticket
8 ) fares are too expensive
9) my mate, colleague, neighbour never pays

Some of these same posters will then comment about why the Railways are so expensive, why new rolling stock is not forthcoming, and why services or train sets or both are reduced.

 

[Greenback]

OT, I have read a lot of your posts and I very much respect your opinions. I hope we don't fall out as we agree on many issues! I am not having a go at you, I just detect a sort of institutional mentality from some people, the majority of whom work, or have worked on the railway, (including my friends/x colleagues) that most customers are on the fiddle in some way. This may well be the impression that grows on staff, as guards and RPI's etc are bound to remember the fare evaders more than the 'normal' passenger, they are bound to stick in the mind more. On an average train there are probably at least many more passengers that have paid the correct fare than those who are trying to cheat. but which are going to stick in the mind of anyone involved revenue protection. It's clear that there is fare evasion and it is normally the same people that try and get away with it.

To reply to the specific point about hunting the TM. If I am in a shop and there is no assistant to pay (this hapens all the time in Farm Foods!!), I wait by the till until they appear. I do not go looking for them (I might have to wait behind another customer as a result!), nor do I walk out without paying. I consider this to be the same as remaining in my seat and waiting for the guard, not least because on busy train, travelling alone, I might lose my seat! No matter how much certain TOC's might like to change the terms and conditions, I still don't believe there is any requirement for the customer to find the TM.

Yes, I would have bought a ticket at the booking office. The return to Exeter would not have allowed me to return from Plymouth in any case as I said. If I had known I was going to Plymouth originally, that's the ticket I would have bought at the ticket office. The extra £whatever was certainly cheaper than buying an Exeter - Plymouth return, or two singles, I suspect what the TOC's would really like is for the customers to be penalised when plans are changed by having to pay for new tickets at a financial disadvantage.

To digress a little, I think that the complexity of the fares/routeing system does play into some fare evaders hands, as they try to play dumb and pretend not to understand what they have done wrong. Fares simplification has made things worse, and given more opportunity both for genuine mistakes to be made, and for unscrupulous people to act confused.

For clarity, most of the excuses you have listed are unacceptablel. I don;t agree with people unwilling to queue, especially when they arrive late through no fault of the railway, I don't agree that restrcitions don't apply, but there can be genuineconfusion and mistakes over what restrictions apply, on both sides of the ticket window! Similarly, sometimes the guard cannot get through the train at all, or has insufficent time between stations to collect all fares from unstaffed halts. I don;t see how that is the fault of the customer!

 

[yorkie]

If I drive from London to Barnham, I can easily come back via Havant if I want to.

Yes, but if you do you are evading your excise duty, by not paying a higher amount to reflect the fact you take unusual routeing. You are also not paying the correct insurance, as you did not declare the fact you take unusual routeing to the insurance company. You are also paying incorrect petrol fees, as when you purchased your petrol you did not tell them you would go via Havant. What I suggest you do next time, is make your travel plans known at the petrol station, to the insurance company, and to HM Revenue & Customs. I always do this, so should you. Nearly everyone knows their travel plans when they buy their petrol, but if your plans change, then seek permission at a service station before you deviate from your original planned route. If you break your journey on discounted petrol you should expect to buy new, undiscounted petrol at the full rate. You are a petrol, tax, and insurance evader, how dare you!!!

 

[Old Timer]

OT, I have read a lot of your posts and I very much respect your opinions. I hope we don't fall out as we agree on many issues!

Don't worry old chap, I try not to fall out with people. We may have a strong debate but at the end of the day that should remain on non-aggresive terms and what is said on here stays on here.

If one cannot honestly say that they would have a drink together then things have rather gotten out of hand.

I guess it it is an inevitability that those involved in Revenue Protection will have certain opinions that may appear harsh, but no different I suspect from the Traffic Police who will have heard pretty much all of the excuses many times before, and they did not work then !

I think our difference of view is that I would consider someone who has had the opportunity to rectify a ticketing situation, and fails to take that or those opportunities, to be in effect at the commencement of a course of action that is very likely to end up as fare evasion. This is simply because in my (limited) experience this has usually been the outcome.

When I became an SM, I was responsible for a line and a series of stations where it came to light we had serious fare evasion and fraud in three distinct ways.

1) Holding a PTE area season ticket and then over-travelling to the next or second station outside of the PTE zone. THe first station was only manned in the morning and the second was unmanned.The impact of this was to affect the stations in two ways. Firstly they lost credit for revenue because the fraudsters bought a PTE zone ticket at one of those stations. Secondly because of the fact that revenue was actually decreasing, whilst passenger numbers were rising, the revenue did not reflect the true usage, and in the case of the first station did not allow for the engagement of a second shift.

2) General fraud, by walking onto and off a train without paying because of the particular Political battle that the Councillors were playing out. This manifest itself in instructions not to do barrier checks nor to close stations off with TTIs although I got around this in another way

3) Travel from / to the unmanned stations, with short fare offered / held.

Whilst I will not go so far as to say that evasion was endemic, it was sufficiently rife for double figure increases in booking office takings when we TTI'd the line. Indeed it raised eyebrows at Divisional level.

When you get involved with these sorts of exercises, and you see the same patterns then maybe it does colour your opinion, but the innocent as I keep saying do tend stick out by their behaviour.

 

[Greenback]

Cheers, I couldn't agree more about having a strong debate!

The three examples you have given from your experience are very relevant, and well illustrate the effects of political interference and demanning stations. But it has long been deemed uneconomic to staff a lot of stations, although how this is decided I daren't even guess, since it seems rather random and varies between different parts of the country. It's clear though that usage figures and revenue can be artificially depressed.

Where I live now we have Llanelli, ticket office manned until midday, six minutes down the line one way is Burry Port & Pembrey an unamnned but fairly busy station, six minutes the other way is Gowerton, an unmanned limited frequency station (with a high commuter flow in the peak) followed by Swansea a busy interchange station with barriers. Sometimes the guard has insufficient time to collect all the fares from Gowerton, particularly on Mondays when lots of people buy their weekly seasons. Barriers have been installded at Swansea, which means that the passengers do have to buy a ticket to get out, which I obviously support. In the other direction, at peak times, it is possible for someone to get on at Gowerton and get off at Llanelli or Pembrey & burry Port without paying, simply because the train is too full for the guard to get around to check everyone before the five minute journey is done. I don;t know how may people do this, but the TOC seems happy to allow the occasional person to get away with this journey, and others may well be encouraged try it themselves as a result. Short of fully staffing every station, there is always the possibility of this happening, and how can anyone prove that the person was deliberately avoiding payment? When there are people standing in the aisles (as is common at 1730) no one can get through the train at all!

I hate to see people not paying for their journeys. I was horrified when I once boarded a Camrarthen - Manchester train at Llanelli on a Saturday evening and it was so busy that the vestibules were full, mostly Saturday night revellers by the sound of them! The guard never emerged form the back cab (I was standing outside the door) and even when some people knocked on the door would not come out. It may be that they wanted to buy tickets, we will never know, but I bet a sizeable number of those people did not pay for their trip, even if they wanted to, and yes, the barriers were open at Swansea as the staff had gone home. The ticket office had long since closed. My blood was boiling!

 

[Matt Taylor]

True railwaymen/women hate to see revenue slip away like that, and I get really frustrated if I am covering a barrier line without any Revenue Protection support and a load of people get off a train without tickets, in a situation like that I have no option but to let them go-that's if they have not already jumped over the barriers. What kind of message does it send out to those decent people on the platform who pay the right fare when they see people spitting, swearing, fare evading and generally being obnoxious and yet they are left to literally get away with it?

People like that have no intention paying and will do all they can to avoid getting caught, as much as it pains me to say it we just have to accept that despite the barriers there will always be a small level of fare evasion.

 

[Aictos]

Here's a example that I read that a member here wrote which is scabs ie these who fail to buy a correct ticket when they've had every opportunity to do so could in one example travel from Finsbury Park to Welwyn Garden City, so board a semi fast FCC as far as Hatfield, jump off and board the stopper to Welwyn Garden City and then claim they only travelled from Hatfield when they actually travelled from Finsbury Park.

I was working one day and a male passenger in a suit attempted to jump the barriers at Hertford North, now bear in mind he came from Finsbury Park where there were no problems issuing tickets from either the booking office or the TVMs but this suit decided not to bothered so because a valid reason wasn't given, he got hit with a well deserved PF. Yet still, wasted time complaining and generally being abusive to the RPI who was dealing with a number of issues. When another passenger told him to stop moaning and let the RPI do his job, he started on him!

Now if the booking office is closed or the TVM cannot issue the required ticket, could be exact change only which a lot of the FCC TVMs suffer from or lack of tickets in the TVMs, then I advise passengers to buy their tickets at the first chance they get which could be from a RPI or at their destination - Now I have no way of knowing if they did buy a ticket eventually but as FCC doesn't see fit to give basic ticket training to platform staff, what else can I say other then the unhelpful reply of sorry, I don't deal with tickets.

As to gatelines, Elaine Holt is a big supporter of them and I am too but on condition they're manned during station opening hours or atleast 6am to 10pm like Stevenage and the sooner Peterborough and Kings Cross gets gated, the better for all,

 

[yorkie]

I was working one day and a male passenger in a suit attempted to jump the barriers at Hertford North, now bear in mind he came from Finsbury Park where there were no problems issuing tickets from either the booking office or the TVMs but this suit decided not to bothered so because a valid reason wasn't given, he got hit with a well deserved PF. Yet still, wasted time complaining and generally being abusive to the RPI who was dealing with a number of issues. When another passenger told him to stop moaning and let the RPI do his job, he started on him!

I do not agree that he deserved a PF. From the way you word it, he deserved prosecution.

As to gatelines, Elaine Holt is a big supporter of them and I am too but on condition they're manned during station opening hours or atleast 6am to 10pm like Stevenage and the sooner Peterborough and Kings Cross gets gated, the better for all,

Elaine Holt was caught without a valid ticket and issued a penalty fare in late 2006. This makes her a Fare Dodger according to FCC, as FCC claim that penalty fares are issued to dodgers [source] this is in contrast to NXEA who say that there is nothing wrong with getting a PF and that they are not issued to dodgers, as dodgers are prosecuted. [source]

So, there you have it, FCC issue "dodgers" with "fares", and Elaine Holt is a "fare dodger" - according to them! A completely different set of rules apply on NXEA (actually, the same rules, but different interpretations - more evidence that they are flawed), and had she been caught on NXEA she would not be put in the same category as dodgers. Unlucky for her she was caught on FCC (or WAGN as it was known then)!

 

[Helvellyn]

The conductor came through after every stop, as it was an XC train that didn't call at every lamp post! If they hadn't, then I would probably have been charged an excess at the gates in plymouth, if they had been open I wuld have gone to the ticket office and bought an excess as I did want to return home from Plymouth and if I hadn't done this I would have been charged much the same for a single to Exeter where my original ticket ended.

Maybe I would have been accused of fare evasion at the barrier - this is the very issue that we are now discussing! However, I believe that no one should be accused without evidence in support. Fair enough, I agree that people with advance tickets should only travel on the specified train, I agree that people should not walk past an open booking office without making an atempt to buy a ticket, I agree that it's the customers repsonsibilty to speak to the TM when they appear, but I don;t think they shopuld have to leave their seat and go hunting for the staff member.

Never thought you were getting at any staff members in particular!

A good RPA/RPI does not accuse anyone of fare evasion. They ask a series of questions, and from that they determine the appropriate course of action. And that can be any of the options I've mentioned in previous posts.

Penalty Fares are there to deter fare evasion, but also to encourage passengers to have the right tickets, documentation, that they need. There are clear sets of rules for when they should be issued. Yet there is also an independent appeals process, and a passenger does not have to pay anything at the time they receive a Penalty Fare. But ultimately the appeal will depend on whether there was something the passenger could have done to ensure they had the right ticket.

I'd also add that a surprising minority of people do not pay their Penalty Fares (or Unpaid Fare Notices) and are thus then prosecuted for fare evasion, based on the original fare avoided.

One of the hardest things about dealing with regulat fare evaders is that the canny ones know that if they cough up for the Penalty Fare they don't have to give any details, so it becomes difficult to build up a case that they are regulars. You can spot them on a special exercise - they have a £20 note ready, or their credit card in hand!

 

[blacknight]

I have, in the last week, made two journeys between Darlington and Newcastle.
Now that both Darlington and Durham have barriers, the guard did not leave the cab for either journey - I haven't seen them do that before the barriers.

So now I can reuse my return tickets! Of course I won't, but that's what happens when you don't do on-train checks and just leave it to the barriers.

I don't particularly like barriers, as it causes queues, restricts access to the station facilities and my tickets usually don't work through them anyway, so it's a bit of a nuisance.

I've always thought that the 'tickets from .....' was a bit rubbish anyway - is there some secret cough or something so that I can surreptitiously alert the guard that the person sitting next to me has just boarded the train?

Now stations are gated guards can get on with doing what they are employed to do-ensuring the safety of their train, DAR-NCL 35minute journey time in which time guard as to ensure a safe arrival & departure 3 times at 15 minute intervals not much time for ticket checks once all announcements have been made.
Automated gates are just TOC's way of saying look what we are doing to prevent fare evasion a big visable jesture.In time gates will be programmed to retain used tickets to prevent future misuse in the meantime I guess must put some information onto magnetic strip if a return portion passes through it just is not visable like a punched ticket so I suppose the dishonest could always try manned gate claiming the ticket is unreadable down to honesty of
Theory goes that if station is gated then every passenger should have a ticketmight not be the correct one but NXEC made the decision to pull off the handful TTI who were onboard to man gatelines at stations what TOC's win on the swings they lose on the roundabouts.
As for checking onboard do a full check after every station stop & you are a self empowered jobsworth but fail to check someones ticket & they shout from the rooftops no can win either way. Might aswell leave a collection plate at every door for collection of unpaid fares just have to bolt them firmly inplace.

 

[Greenback]

Never thought you were getting at any staff members in particular!

A good RPA/RPI does not accuse anyone of fare evasion. They ask a series of questions, and from that they determine the appropriate course of action. And that can be any of the options I've mentioned in previous posts.

Penalty Fares are there to deter fare evasion, but also to encourage passengers to have the right tickets, documentation, that they need. There are clear sets of rules for when they should be issued. Yet there is also an independent appeals process, and a passenger does not have to pay anything at the time they receive a Penalty Fare. But ultimately the appeal will depend on whether there was something the passenger could have done to ensure they had the right ticket.

I'd also add that a surprising minority of people do not pay their Penalty Fares (or Unpaid Fare Notices) and are thus then prosecuted for fare evasion, based on the original fare avoided.

One of the hardest things about dealing with regulat fare evaders is that the canny ones know that if they cough up for the Penalty Fare they don't have to give any details, so it becomes difficult to build up a case that they are regulars. You can spot them on a special exercise - they have a £20 note ready, or their credit card in hand!

Penalty Fares are a useful way of trying to ensure tpeople do not deliberately travel on a short ticket ie just to get through the barriers at each end! We still need onboard staff/checks, though to ensure that First Class is not abused, that bye laws and seat reservations are enforced, and that information or assistance is available. We also need good ticket office availability to ensure that people don't have the chance to use their excuses.

Anyone trying to jump the barriers should be prosecuted for fare evasion, as what else could tey be trying to do? (apart from being armed police chasing a suspect).

I'm not sure how PF's work in practice, as I don't live in a PF area, and didn;t work in one when I was in the booking office. Can RPI's not ask for details anyway, and don't passengers have to provide them if requested?

It's good to know that good RPI's make a decision based on any evidence/explanation provided!

 

[tony_mac]

Now stations are gated guards can get on with doing what they are employed to do-ensuring the safety of their train, DAR-NCL 35minute journey time in which time guard as to ensure a safe arrival & departure 3 times at 15 minute intervals not much time for ticket checks once all announcements have been made.

They seem to cope with 15-20 minute intervals throughout the rest of the journey, does that mean the train is unsafe then?

If guards are now routinely not checking tickets on the trains then it leaves the system just as open to abuse as before.

As for checking onboard do a full check after every station stop & you are a self empowered jobsworth but fail to check someones ticket & they shout from the rooftops no can win either way. Might aswell leave a collection plate at every door for collection of unpaid fares just have to bolt them firmly inplace.

I was musing about how partial checks do allow some people to abuse it, but don't know what you can do about it.

I really don't get what point you are trying to make. I was saying that the barriers seems to encourage guards not to check tickets, which makes it easier to evade fares.

You seem to disagree with that, and think that guards shouldn't have to bother themselves checking tickets, then complain that it is easy to evade fares?