Discussion about "Train ticket enforcement must be fair and proportionate, watchdog warns"

[Bletchleyite]

At the moment, yes, but there is an increasing push for verification of Railcards before they can be applied. In one fell swoop, it almost entirely solves the problem of expired Railcards.

With tickets increasingly bought further in advance it'd be a nice money spinner too if you needed validity both on the day of purchase and on the day of use.

 

[Titfield]

At the moment, yes, but there is an increasing push for verification of Railcards before they can be applied. In one fell swoop, it almost entirely solves the problem of expired Railcards.

yes absolutely agreed. A measure which would resolve one of the biggest "problems" would be a great step in enabling Rev Protection to focus on persistent deliberate fare evaders rather than the "mistake".

With tickets increasingly bought further in advance it'd be a nice money spinner too if you needed validity both on the day of purchase and on the day of use.

Yes, something National Express have long since done.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

So mainly a vague "may be asked to show your Railcard" with no actual explicit indication of if you will or will not still be sold a discounted ticket if you cannot show your Railcard. Even the ones which state you must have/produce your Railcard don't explicitly state that you must show a valid Railcard (pedantic I know...)

Does it have to be in date? in January you are buying tickets fot travel in March. You have a current Railcard, but it expires in February.

 

[ricoblade]

The terms and conditions ( https://www.senior-railcard.co.uk/help/railcard-terms-conditions/ ) state something like

and

but no actual requirement to hold a railcard when buying a ticket.

I bought my first Senior Railcard this week and the Ts anc Cs sent to me state:

2.5 You cannot buy discounted tickets unless you have your Railcard

 

[Titfield]

Does it have to be in date? in January you are buying tickets fot travel in March. You have a current Railcard, but it expires in February.

I think that is the ambiguity being discussed, there is no stated requirement for it to be in date at both time of booking and time of travel.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jun 2025 ==

I bought my first Senior Railcard this week and the Ts anc Cs sent to me state:

2.5 You cannot buy discounted tickets unless you have your Railcard

This is again the ambiguity we are discussing. Having something and it being valid are not the same thing. It may be implied but it doesnt say it explicitly.

 

[SuspectUsual]

With tickets increasingly bought further in advance it'd be a nice money spinner too if you needed validity both on the day of purchase and on the day of use.

Definitely for those who either don't have a railcard regularly, and those approaching qualification for one; for those who renew annually it would be OK as long as the legislation only required a valid railcard at booking and travel rather than the same railcard.

It would also need thinking through for those who are approaching the transfer from one type of railcard to another.....

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think that is the ambiguity being discussed, there is no stated requirement for it to be in date at both time of booking and time of travel.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jun 2025 ==


This is again the ambiguity we are discussing. Having something and it being valid are not the same thing. It may be implied but it doesnt say it explicitly.

It is (or was) I believe possible to post-date first Railcards (not renewals) so it would be possible to both have it and it not be in date.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Did they raise the difference in practices between TfL and the rest of the TOCs? TfL's practice being to either prosecute or issue a warning, the latter seemingly more frequent when a solicitor is involved.

 

[jfollows]

I bought my first Senior Railcard this week and the Ts anc Cs sent to me state:

2.5 You cannot buy discounted tickets unless you have your Railcard

I quoted the current online terms and conditions, so there's a disconnect in some way!

 

[ricoblade]

I think that is the ambiguity being discussed, there is no stated requirement for it to be in date at both time of booking and time of travel.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jun 2025 ==


This is again the ambiguity we are discussing. Having something and it being valid are not the same thing. It may be implied but it doesnt say it explicitly.

Agreed, the Ts and Cs state it (and I thought it odd when I read it) but there's nothing to stop you buying a ticket in advance and then getting the relevant railcard for when you travel.

 

[jfollows]

Does it have to be in date? in January you are buying tickets fot travel in March. You have a current Railcard, but it expires in February.

I do this currently, and it's fine. That's to say, I only buy a Two Together railcard around my travel plans, and sometimes let the railcard expire if I don't plan on using it. Then buy an advance ticket with railcard discount but make to note to buy a new railcard before I travel. That works fine today but I can see that at some point in future it might not.

The whole railcard thing grew up around showing the railcard at time of purchase at a ticket office and before advance tickets were a thing (although of course you could buy a normal ticket dated in the future). They haven't moved on.

 

[SuspectUsual]

One of the things that really sticks in my craw about the current system - especially it seems with TfL where an out of court settlement isn't an option - is that those with money can (it seems, based on what we see) use a solicitor to essentially buy off an impending prosecution.

I have no idea at all what the solution to this is, but it would be nice to think that equality of access to justice might be a reasonable objective of a review

 

[Bletchleyite]

One of the things that really sticks in my craw about the current system - especially it seems with TfL where an out of court settlement isn't an option - is that those with money can (it seems, based on what we see) use a solicitor to essentially buy off an impending prosecution.

I have no idea at all what the solution to this is, but it would be nice to think that equality of access to justice might be a reasonable objective of a review

Arguably that's also true of an out of court settlement. Someone who has been offered a substantial one due to a long period of evasion might have to pay £1000+ and be unable to afford to do so, and TOCs never rarely offer payment plans, so may be forced to accept a criminal conviction in order to get a payment plan from a Court.

 

[jfollows]

and TOCs never offer payment plans,

There are cases reported here when they have done.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are cases reported here when they have done.

OK, TOCs *rarely* offer payment plans.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Arguably that's also true of an out of court settlement. Someone who has been offered a substantial one due to a long period of evasion might have to pay £1000+ and be unable to afford to do so, and TOCs never offer payment plans, so may be forced to accept a criminal conviction in order to get a payment plan from a Court.

At the high end of the scale, yes, but I think for the overwhelming majority we see that a well worded response elicits a settlement

 

[yorkie]

One of the things that really sticks in my craw about the current system - especially it seems with TfL where an out of court settlement isn't an option - is that those with money can (it seems, based on what we see) use a solicitor to essentially buy off an impending prosecution.

I have no idea at all what the solution to this is, but it would be nice to think that equality of access to justice might be a reasonable objective of a review

There is no way you could eliminate out-of-court settlements, unless you plan to replace them with fixed penalties, or spend a lot of money expanding the legal system to drag people through the courts and criminalise many more people. Not only would it incur huge costs, but it would also reduce the income of some train companies who implement such settlements.

This thread shouldn't be to discuss proposals, though; they belong in a separate thread within the speculative discussion section.

I bought my first Senior Railcard this week and the Ts anc Cs sent to me state:

2.5 You cannot buy discounted tickets unless you have your Railcard

This is only really true at a ticket office; buying online avoids any such requirement.

Very few people use ticket offices these days, at least in parts of the country where the train companies have embraced digital technologies.

 

[Titfield]

One of the things that really sticks in my craw about the current system - especially it seems with TfL where an out of court settlement isn't an option - is that those with money can (it seems, based on what we see) use a solicitor to essentially buy off an impending prosecution.

I have no idea at all what the solution to this is, but it would be nice to think that equality of access to justice might be a reasonable objective of a review

Agreed but (1) we do not know how many times a solicitor is involved and it still proceeds to court (2) the cost of a solicitor may exceed the fine etc if convicted in court ie the monetary sanction is larger (3) this forum has long sought to reassure those at risk of prosecution how low the actually impact of a conviction is.

It begs the question which actually has more impact (1) a £1K solicitors bill OR (2) a conviction and a £500 financial penalty (fine, victim surcharge etc)

NB this disregards those in regulated professions.

 

[AlterEgo]

With tickets increasingly bought further in advance it'd be a nice money spinner too if you needed validity both on the day of purchase and on the day of use.

It would, and much as I like to bang the drum about railcard reform I do recognise this and think the latter bolded portion should not be a requirement.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Very few people use ticket offices these days, at least in parts of the country where the train companies have embraced digital technologies.

I think it’s still 15% of revenue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think it’s still 15% of revenue.

I wonder what the split is in terms of parts of the country where that is the case? There are a few factors that could influence it, be that traditionalism away from London or the lack of e-ticket acceptance on TfL services.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I wonder what the split is in terms of parts of the country where that is the case? There are a few factors that could influence it, be that traditionalism away from London or the lack of e-ticket acceptance on TfL services.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66ed5b768fa6c55fe4b05397/dft-ticket-purchasing-behaviour-rail-passengers.pdf

Figure 3 on page 31 has some data you might find interesting, albeit 3 years old

(Link is to a DfT report on ticket purchasing behaviour)

 

[MatthewHutton]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66ed5b768fa6c55fe4b05397/dft-ticket-purchasing-behaviour-rail-passengers.pdf

Figure 3 on page 31 has some data you might find interesting, albeit 3 years old

(Link is to a DfT report on ticket purchasing behaviour)

The big change in purchasing location was in the 2010s I believe where it went from 80% at the station to 20%. It hasn’t changed much since then.

 

[Gloster]

One of the things that really sticks in my craw about the current system - especially it seems with TfL where an out of court settlement isn't an option - is that those with money can (it seems, based on what we see) use a solicitor to essentially buy off an impending prosecution.

I entirely agree with this, including ‘sticks in my craw’. The choice of whether to offer an out of court settlement should be based on the nature and extent of the offence: deliberate or accidental, small scale or long-term, etc. I don’t see why someone who has the money, which they could have used to purchase a valid ticket, should be able to buy themselves out of the consequences of their calculated dishonesty, while someone who makes a mistake or a momentary lapse of judgement is equally penalised. And it is all because the railway reckons it can grab more money more quickly that way. It should be done on the basis of what is a reasonable and proportionate sanction under the law and best for society, not what is best for the railway company’s profit.

I know that this makes me sound like Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells, but I am of the left and I do not like people being allowed to act in a way that is contrary to the commonweal. Particularly when they use money to do so.

 

[Haywain]

It hasn’t changed much since then.

It is still changing, just more slowly.

One of the things that really sticks in my craw about the current system - especially it seems with TfL where an out of court settlement isn't an option - is that those with money can (it seems, based on what we see) use a solicitor to essentially buy off an impending prosecution.

I'm not sure that's as true as you think. We help plenty of people to avoid prosecutions and it is clear that many of them have limited means, so it isn't just about having the money. As for TfL, they have clearly taken a view that incurring a bill in excess of £500, whether through solicitor's fees or fines and costs, is the 'punishment' they want. However, a couple of recent TfL cases here has seen them seeking to recover significant amounts for "offences taken into consideration" and this may signal a slight change in policy leading to more prosecutions.

 

[35B]

It would, and much as I like to bang the drum about railcard reform I do recognise this and think the latter bolded portion should not be a requirement.

Then age restricted railcards need to be available for purchase in advance, from the opening of the normal booking window.

 

[Richardr]

Did they raise the difference in practices between TfL and the rest of the TOCs? TfL's practice being to either prosecute or issue a warning, the latter seemingly more frequent when a solicitor is involved.

Yes - they consider TfL to be the good guys. The following is from the report:

Good practice: TfL on behalf of Elizabeth line and London Overground
Elizabeth line and London Overground (both contracted to TfL) may refer suspected fare
evasion to TfL which then brings any prosecutions on their behalf. TfL’s approach to
prosecutions, including its test for prosecution, is clearly defined in its publicly available
Revenue Enforcement and Prosecutions Policy. The policy provides a consistent
framework for decision-making across all of TfL’s public transport networks, including a
two-stage test for prosecution and clearly articulated public interest considerations.

A couple of times it describes

TfL is a public prosecutor

Does anyone know if that is true? Isn't it just a private prosecutor?

 

[jfollows]

In the attached memorandum it states:

.... Transport for London (“TfL”) as a “public prosecutor” for the purposes of section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”).

Criminal Justice Act 2003

www.legislation.gov.uk

29New method of instituting proceedings​

(1)A public prosecutor may institute criminal proceedings against a person by issuing a document (a “written charge”) which charges the person with an offence.

(2)Where a public prosecutor issues a written charge, it must at the same time issue a document (a “requisition”) which requires the person to appear before a magistrates' court to answer the written charge.

(3)The written charge and requisition must be served on the person concerned, and a copy of both must be served on the court named in the requisition.

(4)In consequence of subsections (1) to (3), a public prosecutor is not to have the power to lay an information for the purpose of obtaining the issue of a summons under section 1 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43).

(5)In this section “public prosecutor” means—

(a)a police force or a person authorised by a police force to institute criminal proceedings,

(b)the Director of the Serious Fraud Office or a person authorised by him to institute criminal proceedings,

(c)the Director of Public Prosecutions or a person authorised by him to institute criminal proceedings,

(d)the Attorney General or a person authorised by him to institute criminal proceedings,

(e)a Secretary of State or a person authorised by a Secretary of State to institute criminal proceedings,

(f)the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or a person authorised by them to institute criminal proceedings,

(g)the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or a person authorised by them to institute criminal proceedings, or

(h)a person specified in an order made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section or a person authorised by such a person to institute criminal proceedings.

(6)In subsection (5) “police force” has the meaning given by section 3(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (c. 23).

The words "public prosecutor" have been replaced in revisions to the legislation since it was enacted (changed in 2015) with “relevant prosecutor” and also adds provision for Single Justice Procedure Notices.

 

[yorkie]

I think it’s still 15% of revenue.

In mid-2025? Really? Any source for that? Not at York, it isn't! Maybe in parts of the country which haven't embraced Digital ticketing in quote the same way?

 

[Watershed]

In mid-2025? Really? Any source for that? Not at York, it isn't! Maybe in parts of the country which haven't embraced Digital ticketing in quote the same way?

I think it's fair to say there are huge differences in ticket buying habits between different parts of the country. Those ticket office percentages are no doubt lifted by areas like Merseyside, where there is often still no alternative but to use the ticket office, and ScotRail where many cheaper fares (e.g. Super Off-Peak Day Returns and concessionary senior fares) are only available at the ticket office.

And of course in and around London it's a whole different kettle of fish due to eTickets not being available for many popular flows.