Northern and prosecutions for railcard use before 10am

[rob.rjt]

I saw this thread on X/Twitter this morning https://x.com/jackfifield/status/1843648136268656806 by Jack Fifield, currently of the Bolton News, detailing instances of S5(3) RORA being used to prosecute people where they had used a railcard but whilst a minimum fare applied:

Here we go, this 26-year-old man was fined £462.30 at Cheshire Magistrates' in September after he bought an 'anytime' ticket and used it before 10am.
@northernassist
brought this case in a private prosecution. Their own app will tell you this ticket can be used any time of day

This is in response to another thread (https://x.com/SamMarkWill/status/1843731064025690266) of someone else being prosecuted in the same circumstances. This person relies on a screenshot from the Northern app showing the prices of Anytime tickets:


I'm sure many on the forum will take the company side that this does deserve prosecution, but it seems like something that people here would like to discuss.

(Posting here rather than Disputes as it is not a dispute or prosecution I am actively involved with)

 

[deltic]

The other issue apparently is that the Northern Rail app automatically applies Railcard discounts but does not record when the railcard expires leading to prosecutions for use of out of date Railcard. This seems a case of Northern failing to protect their revenue which should be addressed first.

 

[Watershed]

I would suggest it's unreasonable and immoral for the company to be prosecuting people over piddling sums like this. Most civilised countries wouldn't allow a dispute over a few pounds to be taken to Court, at least not until someone is "caught" several times, but the British obsession with criminalising minor misdeeds leads us to this unpalatable outcome.

Regardless of the moral side, I also have significant doubts about the legality of prosecuting people under s5(3)(a) RoRA. For a conviction under this section there needs to be evidence of intent to avoid payment of the fare. It will be tricky to prove this in most cases.

I don't accept that the mere act of selecting a later train and travelling on an earlier one is evidence of such intent. Most, if not all, retailers don't point out the "not valid before 10am" restriction that such sub-£12 tickets have. In fact, in most cases they will just tell you that you have an Anytime ticket without further comment.

How is the average person supposed to know there is also a time restriction arising from the small print of the Railcard terms (which they agreed to, but which realistically 99% of people won't read)?

I think there are significant questions to ask over whether this is compliant with consumer law and if nothing else, condition 2.3 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT) which says that:

When purchasing your Ticket, we will make available information on specific restrictions that apply to your Ticket (for instance the train services on which you can use your Ticket or the route(s) you are entitled to use) and, where possible, any known changes to planned services.

It is highly doubtful whether burying time restrictions in T&C's, without pointing them out, constitutes "[making] available".

There is also the question of whether these are "time restricted" tickets for which the penalty for using them at an invalid time is, under NRCoT condition 9.5.1, simply to have to pay the excess to the cheapest valid fare (i.e. the undiscounted fare).

Undefined words take their natural English meaning; it would be stretching the semantic resources of the English language to suggest that a ticket not valid before 10am isn't "time restricted", although of course those defending the industry's actions may seek to do so!

If this is the case, there would be no legal basis for any of these prosecutions - even if alternatively brought under Byelaw 18 - unless there is evidence of the passenger repeatedly using the discounted ticket before 10am, and never paying the excess despite being informed of the restriction (e.g. when stopped on a previous occasion).

Unfortunately I cannot see anything changing anytime soon. The SJPN scandal seems to have ended up being a bit of a damp squib, with no major media outlet picking up the deeper issues that lay behind the industry's prosecution-happy attitude.

 

[BazingaTribe]

The screenshot shows the case is correct though? The price takes a sharp downward turn on the first train after 10am. 9.59 is not 10am (unfortunately, because many people would assume that, and there's the potential for it to become 10am if it's delayed by even a minute!).

Former political campaigner here. I mention it because you have to get really good at reading between the media lines and interpreting even friendly journalists' copy rather than taking it at face value. (It's not easy as autistic but I honed my skills on a handful of futile campaigns!) I'm trying to be non-judgenental of the actual fare evader here, but it's hard. I know how the media works -- the devil is in the detail and we've seen over the past decade and a half just how much media can spin a story to get the result they want, because people only look at the headlines rather than the actual circumstances they're reporting on.

The X thread is full of people arguing with the journalist about how he should have dealt with it before it reached court.

Not necessarily defending the companies here but the guy was trying to use a discounted ticket too early. You're showing the off peak fares on the screenshot but he was travelling at peak times where his railcard would not have been valid.

I've commuted using the GWR shuttle to Reading from Basingstoke for over ten years (at a mixture of peak and off-peak times due to varying shift patterns) and for a good chunk of time -- when I was able to walk to and from work by getting off at Reading West -- from stations that didn't have barriers. It's cost an astronomical amount on what was a comparatively low wage. I never once shorted my fare or tried to use an off-peak ticket on a peak service; until recently there was a guard selling tickets on the train and the advent of mobile apps helped with the occasional time I lost my paper ticket and had to buy a new one (calling it a tax on stupidity was helpful!) and, after a night staying with my parents I forgot to buy a single for the journey back to Basingstoke at pre-gates Reading West and had to flag down the guard and pay on the train. Since then I've just used the app.

It helps, obviously, that Basingstoke and Reading are barriered stations and that now Reading West has its swanky new gates at both ends of the station. I hope Mortimer and Bramley-Hampshire follow suit to close off the big gaps in the line there because ultimately fare evasion hurts us all. I've seen people quizzed about how they got onto the station in the first place by GWR operators and it varies in demeanour, and been a fly on the wall to a lot of challenges by the guards on that service. I've heard all the excuses from phone battery (I offered them a charging lead as sockets were installed on 165s mid way through my commuting career!) to someone jumping the gates at Reading. It's quite illuminating and to be honest, you can tell the difference between someone genuinely caught short and the people who actually did it deliberately. Again, I've been in a fly-on-the-wall sort of career for long enough that you can tell a lot from someone's response to a situation.

I did cock things up on a Plymouth to Reading service once (bought advance ticket, got on the wrong Reading train that left an hour after the one I'd planned to be on, saw the right train leave the station while sat reading on the wrong one!) but sought out a guard to explain the situation and paid an excess and all was well.

The journalist sees the story as 'poor guy oppressed by big rail companies' and that's the angle he's taking to get the most sympathy for the subject of his case, the guy being prosecuted (because 'big corporations trying to get legitimate recompense from someone who effectively stole their services' isn't going to get clicks, for all sorts of legitimate reasons). But the truth of the matter is buried in the details of the case, which is that the guy did not actively engage with the process before prosecution.

For the sake of two quid, he's facing a significant penalty. It's sad -- and it's quite possible that this kind of thing hits people who don't have the education, skills or socio-economic privilege to know how to work the system to their advantage the hardest, and it's a case for compassion for someone who simply didn't have the resources to respond to the documentation he presumably received -- but it's not wrong to say that the journalist is also taking advantage of the situation for their own ends.

Two pounds adds up over time.

As a commuter, my fare rose from £5.90 to £8.30 over the decade I was travelling. That's obviously due to inflation (and unfortunately the fares changed in either January or March but thanks to NHS bargaining over payrises my wages only increased in the summer or even autumn) but fare evasion costs an awful lot and it frustrates me to see people take advantage of a system that I've paid to use honestly.

(I've certainly been in countries with an honour system but that's not to say they don't do thorough checks as well and getting caught out stings. I actually prefer our system where you do generally have to pay to even get on to a bus or train -- it makes it a lot more comfortable later on. Also there's a lot more corruption if you are caught, because you're at the mercy of the inspection agents and they don't pull punches if they think they can get money out of you personally directly into their pockets. I learned my lesson about honour systems very thoroughly through knowing all I was doing was enriching a criminal inspector rather than the actual bus company.)

 

[Watershed]

The journalist sees the story as 'poor guy oppressed by big rail companies' and that's the angle he's taking to get the most sympathy for the subject of his case, the guy being prosecuted (because 'big corporations trying to get legitimate recompense from someone who effectively stole their services' isn't going to get clicks, for all sorts of legitimate reasons). But the truth of the matter is buried in the details of the case, which is that the guy did not actively engage with the process before prosecution.

The fact he didn't engage obviously didn't help, but it doesn't justify the excessive penalisation that's been applied. How can the "legitimate recompense" for a dispute over a few pounds be a conviction. That is clearly out of all proportion with the amount (let alone supposed "crime") at stake.

And where is the evidence of "stealing"? There is a bare assertion by the train company of intent to avoid payment, but I cannot see how that is made out in most cases.

People get less for crimes involving violence and threats, let alone shoplifting large amounts of goods. Here we are just talking about a trifling sum of money.

Car drivers would rightly go ballistic if there were a proposal to make it a criminal offence to overstay the paid parking duration, or to forget to pay for a ticket. How is this any different? People by and large accept there might be civil penalties, but not fines and convictions.

For the sake of two quid, he's facing a significant penalty. It's sad -- and it's quite possible that this kind of thing hits people who don't have the education, skills or socio-economic privilege to know how to work the system to their advantage the hardest, and it's a case for compassion for someone who simply didn't have the resources to respond to the documentation he presumably received -- but it's not wrong to say that the journalist is also taking advantage of the situation for their own ends.

That's as many be, but if - as you admit - the system is harsh then why are you seemingly suggesting there's been a reasonable outcome here?

 

[JBuchananGB]

This topic has recently been discussed at great length

Excessing Railcard Discounted Tickets Used at an Invalid Time

Moderator Note = split from: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/reported-for-using-railcard-discount-before-10am.274823/#post-6964875 Presume NOT a Trainline price error. Was the appropriate sanction for just the excess (to the minimum fare) to have been charged? Or will this matter likely...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[AlterEgo]

I would suggest it's unreasonable and immoral for the company to be prosecuting people over piddling sums like this. Most civilised countries wouldn't allow a dispute over a few pounds to be taken to Court, at least not until someone is "caught" several times, but the British obsession with criminalising minor misdeeds leads us to this unpalatable outcome.

It is very symbolic of our culture, and not in a good way.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is very symbolic of our culture, and not in a good way.

Surely Penalty Fares are for this sort of thing, anyway?

I think that justifies a thread in its own right:

Why do Penalty Fares TOCs prefer prosecutions?

I think this deserves a speculative thread in its own right. It is very symbolic of our culture, and not in a good way. The thing I don't wholly get is why prosecutions are used to get settlements when the Penalty Fares system is intended for precisely this sort of thing, and was increased...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Somewhere]

When I used to work in the ticket office, we wouldn't ordinarily sell off-peak tickets until after the last peak train had gone.
Perhaps these apps should do the same, perhaps they shouldn't sell Railcard discounted tickets until the discount is actually valid, for non-advance tickets

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

All of these convictions would have been preventable had the customer responded to the settlement offer of £150. The fact that they obviously ignore it, and from looking at the value of the fines, likely ignore the court correspondence too, means they're being found guilty in their absence.

Northern is entitled to allege whatever it likes,.if it thinks it can convince a court that the components of the offence is met. As it's Regulation of Railways Act, it's not going via SJPN, they're going through a full bench of magistrates aor a Deputy District Judge / District Judge.

Let's also be real here - most of these customers will know exactly what the restrictions are and will be proactively seeking ways of circumventing them. They're willfully selecting later, cheaper trains and then travelling on earlier ones, with no intention whatsoever of taking the train they search for online/in apps. Most of these customers are also doing this repeatedly until they are caught, and abruptly stopped by revenue staff. The digital footprint left behind in these matters certainly points towards attempt to avoid paying their fare.

All that is being shared on social media are case summaries/outcomes - when there is usually a whole pack of statements and associated evidence.

Personally, I'd amend the Penalty Fare rules to make this a specific offence for which a PF can be issued, and then any subsequent offending results in prosecution. I suspect you could also potentially cancel and withdraw the Railcard for intentional misuse.

 

[Watershed]

All of these convictions would have been preventable had the customer responded to the settlement offer of £150. The fact that they obviously ignore it, and from looking at the value of the fines, likely ignore the court correspondence too, means they're being found guilty in their absence.

That's as may be, but I still don't see how it makes the convictions reasonable.

Northern is entitled to allege whatever it likes,.if it thinks it can convince a court that the components of the offence is met. As it's Regulation of Railways Act, it's not going via SJPN, they're going through a full bench of magistrates aor a Deputy District Judge / District Judge.

Who will take the absence of a plea as a guilty plea. So the substance of Northern's case isn't tested at all.

Let's also be real here - most of these customers will know exactly what the restrictions are

Really? I suspect if you conducted a strawpoll of Railcard holders, the overwhelming majority wouldn't be able to tell you the correct restrictions. Many wouldn't even be aware there are restrictions at all, since as mentioned, they aren't indicated at all at the point of sale.

and will be proactively seeking ways of circumventing them

And your evidence for this would be...? This seems little more than a bare assertion to me, much like Northern's allegations of intent to avoid payment.

They're willfully selecting later, cheaper trains and then travelling on earlier ones, with no intention whatsoever of taking the train they search for online/in apps.

That's entirely correct but to most people it would not at all be clear that if they select an Anytime ticket on a later train, that ticket isn't actually valid at any time (as the description will misleadingly say).

The industry really doesn't help itself here. The average person is, if anything, going to suspect they are somehow being overcharged for the earlier trains (because it's not offering a Railcard discount) and are avoiding this overcharging by selecting the seemingly correct discounted fare.

Most of these customers are also doing this repeatedly until they are caught, and abruptly stopped by revenue staff. The digital footprint left behind in these matters certainly points towards attempt to avoid paying their fare.

The fact they're doing it repeatedly doesn't prove they are doing it knowingly. It just proves they've done it on lots of occasions. If someone were caught a second or subsequent time, that's a different matter of course - but I think most people wouldn't be foolish enough to repeat the mistake.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The industry really doesn't help itself here. The average person is, if anything, going to suspect they are somehow being overcharged for the earlier trains (because it's not offering a Railcard discount) and are avoiding this overcharging by selecting the seemingly correct discounted fare.

It wouldn't be particularly hard to amend the app (which would fix all Trainline based apps) to, for the Anytime (Day/Short) Single and Return, remove the text saying "Valid at any time" and replace it with "Valid at any time, subject to the restrictions on any Railcard used", which would introduce enough doubt that anyone genuine would likely check. Bonus points if it linked to a web page stating what the minimum fare restrictions/bars on all Railcards are.

Indeed, does this come from a feed somewhere so RDG could change it and do that across every app in one go?

What really doesn't help here is that with Northern offering Advances all over the place many people caught out may simply have travelled on Advances most of the time and be encountering their first Anytime - and Advances discount at any time on a 16-25.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

The absence of a guilty plea means that the court must treat the defendant as pleading not-guilty. They are then entitled to try the case on the facts reported by the prosecution. Northern still has to reach the same criminal standard of proof for the court to then convict.

It does mean that there's little chance of Northern's evidence being disputed, because the defendant hasn't bothered to enter a plea or a defence. However, the court still ensures that all elements of the offence are proven.

There is also probably an argument to be made that if Northern writes to you with an out of court settlement for £150 and a request for the fare due - even if you don't pay the £150, you certainly do owe at least the fare, and there's a solid argument that refusing or neglecting to pay the fare component is indicative of intent.

It's not like civil court where one party automatically wins if the other doesn't show up or contest.

 

[AlterEgo]

All of these convictions would have been preventable had the customer responded to the settlement offer of £150.

They shouldn't have to.

Let's also be real here - most of these customers will know exactly what the restrictions are and will be proactively seeking ways of circumventing them.

Like by using an Anytime ticket which is valid, and I quote: "at any time of day"...at any time of day.

Sorry I have very little sympathy for the railway here. The proper disposal is an excess, in any case, and if the railway wanted to make things clearer, they should.

The railway: "This ticket is valid at any time of day unless it's Railcard discounted (which it is lololol and we know this in the booking process but we won't point it out), but if it's July and August it's fine, because your Railcard is subject to a minimum fare of £12 in the morning (except sometimes it isn't) oh and if it's an advance don't worry about it, that is fine, yeah seems weird as those fares are really cheap right! But yeah that’s fine for *reasons*”

 

[TUC]

The other issue apparently is that the Northern Rail app automatically applies Railcard discounts but does not record when the railcard expires leading to prosecutions for use of out of date Railcard. This seems a case of Northern failing to protect their revenue which should be addressed first.

That is the passenger's own responsibility. Why should I expect a TOC to check for me?

They shouldn't have to.


Like by using an Anytime ticket which is valid, and I quote: "at any time of day"...at any time of day.

That is the ticket, not the nature of the discount.

Sorry, but anyone using that excuse is either not very bright or on the make, usually the latter.

 

[AlterEgo]

Sorry, but anyone using that excuse is either not very bright or on the make, usually the latter.

Imagine making one simple change where people couldn’t use that excuse though.

 

[Somewhere]

Or the website should just state something like 'Railcard discounted ticket not valid before 10.00' or something.
This is the problem with this industry - they changed the name of Day and Open tickets to Anytime to simplify ticketing, and made it more complicated in the process. Only the railway could do that

 

[Dirty_Mac]

What I find infuriating about this is that this is always, by definition, over differences of less than £4. Even a blanket, on the spot £20 fine is a better solution than what we have now.

 

[rob.rjt]

Or the website should just state something like 'Railcard discounted ticket not valid before 10.00' or something.
This is the problem with this industry - they changed the name of Day and Open tickets to Anytime to simplify ticketing, and made it more complicated in the process. Only the railway could do that

This would also help people who forget the terms and conditions - if you have a 3-year railcard, are you necessarily going to remember the Ts & Cs when you signed up. I have a Two Together railcard that I signed up for last year and I can't remember every part of the contract, neither do I check the terms every time I buy a ticket.

 

[RyanOPlasty]

There seems to be an assumption on the forum that tickets are bought with a specific train in mind. It is not unreasonable to buy a ticket for future travel without knowing exactly when that will be; advance singles can be used in the next 2 days.

Furthermore if I hold an anytime ticket and look at The anytime ticket terms and conditions on the National Rail website it says right at the top Anytime Single and Return tickets are fully flexible with no restrictions on when you can travel. Why would I bother looking further to look for anything that contradicts this clear statement, particularly if I was buying a number of tickets for different people with different railcards at the same time.

Only the 16-25 Railcard has this 10am minimum fare restriction, but not on all dates. Indeed all the railcards seem to have slightly different validities and restrictions. It is a minefield for the unwary.

 

[185]

50/50 on this, there's a lot of did theys with the customer that are not clear here. Did they buy the ticket for an itinerary after 10am? Did the app allow sale of the incorrect ticket? It looks to me like the customer (probably) intentionally selected trains at 1005am to generate this fare, it would have been interesting to see if they had provided any rebuttal or mitigation to Northern's claims. Just tried three sales apps using dummy accounts and all three require you to select an itinerary after 10am to obtain the lower (<£12) fare.

Going forward, the app providers should be forced to have popup messages where the user confirms validity eg (YP = £12 before 10am) or (ALL = I hold this railcard and it's in date).

 

[Haywain]

the app providers should be forced to have popup messages where the user confirms validity eg (YP = £12 before 10am) or (ALL = I hold this railcard and it's in date).

No, they don't. They can simply display a message, as I think Trainsplit already does, saying that a valid railcard must be held and that can also state that additional time and use restrictions may apply, directing to railcard T&Cs for details.

 

[WelshBluebird]

There seems to be an assumption on the forum that tickets are bought with a specific train in mind. It is not unreasonable to buy a ticket for future travel without knowing exactly when that will be; advance singles can be used in the next 2 days.

Except the way the apps and journey planners now work is that you do have to select a specific train. That is the issue here. People selecting a train that is after 10am, choosing to travel before instead whilst not knowing (or conveniently forgetting) about the railcard terms and then those people and others on twitter getting confused between a ticket name and the railcard terms.

 

[TUC]

In the decades before online purchasing, people could buy an anytime ticket with a railcard from a ticket office in the days before they plan to travel, so no one would say 'you can't use your railcard at this time', and it being down to their own responsibility to know when it could be used. Why do the current generation claim to be so incapable?

 

[LJA]

I guess its probably a ridiculous suggestion (especially when you have various railcards with differing restrictions), but maybe there’s an argument for removing the minimum fare restriction all together…

I’ve no doubt plenty of people are fully aware and chancing it, but it does seem a bit illogical that you can buy a cheap railcard discounted advance single that’s valid at 9am but an anytime wouldn’t be.

 

[deltic]

That is the passenger's own responsibility. Why should I expect a TOC to check for me?

Because normally when you have a time limited discount offer the provider automatically blocks the discount when it has expired. One would expect Northern to do the same to protect its own revenue and remind the user to renew their card and hence generate further revenue. This would seem to be very basic measures that any half decent retailer would implement.

 

[WelshBluebird]

The other issue apparently is that the Northern Rail app automatically applies Railcard discounts but does not record when the railcard expires leading to prosecutions for use of out of date Railcard. This seems a case of Northern failing to protect their revenue which should be addressed first.

Does it automatically apply a railcard discount or does it just remember your previous search so if you previously searched for a railcard fare it remembers that? I suspect it's the latter.

 

[ainsworth74]

Really? I suspect if you conducted a strawpoll of Railcard holders, the overwhelming majority wouldn't be able to tell you the correct restrictions. Many wouldn't even be aware there are restrictions at all, since as mentioned, they aren't indicated at all at the point of sale.

On Reddit and there's been a raft of posts in the last month on some UK subreddits of people asking questions to the effect of "Why has my commute suddenly jumped in price since the summer?!" and in basically every case it's turned out that they held a 16-25 Railcard and were buying tickets that cost less than the minimum fare over the summer but now that its September they can no longer buy the tickets at the railcard discounted price.

The industry and it's supporters love to claim that this is all clearly explained but it really isn't. When I bought my 16-25 Railcards I had no idea that there was a minimum fare that applied to the journeys I made and no-one ever explained it to me. They just gave me a leaflet to fill out to get my railcard and away I went happy. I suspect most users of the railcard are the same (thought they probably buy them online now!).

 

[WelshBluebird]

On Reddit and there's been a raft of posts in the last month on some UK subreddits of people asking questions to the effect of "Why has my commute suddenly jumped in price since the summer?!" and in basically every case it's turned out that they held a 16-25 Railcard and were buying tickets that cost less than the minimum fare over the summer but now that its September they can no longer buy the tickets at the railcard discounted price.

I'm not sure getting rid of a nice perk during some of the year is the answer for people not reading the terms of what they sign up for. Maybe you can make the argument the min fare shouldn't exist in the first place but in that case something else will have to give to make up for the reduced revenue - I'd imagine the percentage discount would be the obvious thing to reduce!

The industry and it's supporters love to claim that this is all clearly explained but it really isn't. When I bought my 16-25 Railcards I had no idea that there was a minimum fare that applied to the journeys I made and no-one ever explained it to me. They just gave me a leaflet to fill out to get my railcard and away I went happy. I suspect most users of the railcard are the same (thought they probably buy them online now!).

I'm not sure about the leaflet (I've not seen one in a long long time) but it is made pretty obvious on the website. How in your face that is made when buying is a legitimate question but they certainly don't try to hide it either - there seems to be quite a few parts of the site where it is pretty clearly mentioned.

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm not sure getting rid of a nice perk during some of the year is the answer for people not reading the terms of what they sign up for.

I wasn't suggesting that? My point was that it does seem quite a number of non-experts aren't aware of the minimum fare rule.

How in your face that is made when buying is a legitimate question but they certainly don't try to hide it either.

I mean I just looked up a fare on the Northern app using a 16-25 Railcard (just to test, I wish I was still entitled to one ) and whilst it applied the discount correctly it gave no warning at all that the Anytime ticket I had just selected was not, in fact, valid at Anytime. Indeed quite the opposite!


(Image shows screenshot from Northern app with a 16-25 Railcard discount applied and the description of the available ticket reads "Anytime Day Single - Travel any time of day.")

I don't think we should absolve passengers of all responsibility for knowing what they can and cannot do. But at the same time that screen clearly says that the ticket can be used to travel at any time of day even though it cannot. Perhaps some sort of warning might be a wise idea? It surely wouldn't' be beyond the whit of man to have a pop-up that read words to the effect of "Please Note: Due to the type of railcard selected you CANNOT use this ticket to travel before 10am. If you wish to travel before 10am please remove the railcard and then search for your journey again". Rather than the present screen which just says "Travel at any time of day."