Question Regarding Dom on the Spot

centraltrains · 4 Sep 2017

Dom on the spot is back! That TV program where they follow various places where on the spot fines and fees/charges can be given out.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b094kxxw/dom-on-the-spot-series-2-episode-1

In Birmingham, Dom joins the Revenue Protection Team from London Midland Trains as they catch and fine almost a hundred fare dodgers in just two hours.

In this series, they have started following Revenue Inspectors with London Midland.

However, At around 8:40 into the program, a young lady is issued with a penalty fare for over traveling on a ticket. She claims the tickets are the same price, which after checking on the London Midland site is correct. Why couldn't she just be issued with a zero fare excess instead of issuing a penalty fare?

RailUK Forums

Merseysider · 4 Sep 2017

Because a ticket has no validity upon expiration.

Seacook · 4 Sep 2017

centraltrains said:
Dom on the spot is back! That TV program where they follow various places where on the spot fines and fees/charges can be given out.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b094kxxw/dom-on-the-spot-series-2-episode-1

In this series, they have started following Revenue Inspectors with London Midland.

However, At around 8:40 into the program, a young lady is issued with a penalty fare for over traveling on a ticket. She claims the tickets are the same price, which after checking on the London Midland site is correct. Why couldn't she just be issued with a zero fare excess instead of issuing a penalty fare?

Since she was aware that there was no difference in fare, why did it never occur to her to buy a ticket to Selly Oak instead of University?

TheManOnThe172 · 4 Sep 2017

Whatever the technicalities, common sense would say that penalties should only apply where harm has been done. In this case (ticket appears to be a return southwards from Selly Oak, but passenger needed to buy a same-price return originating at Univ, and start short) what fair-minded case can be made for a penalty?

The heavy-handed behaviour shown on the programme is one of the unpleasant consequences of privatisation. Under BR, if common sense and empathy weren't enough to ensure civilised behaviour by staff, there was always the concern that a complainant would get their MP to write to the Transport Secretary who could (in extremis) bear down on those at the top of the railway organisation - it probably happened very seldom, but the existence of that possibility will have helped concentrate minds towards setting rules and norms to deliver behaviour that would look reasonable if called into question.

Now TOCs are free to behave as unpleasantly as it suits them. Another small way in which life is made needlessly unpleasant.

Clip · 4 Sep 2017

TheManOnThe172 said:
Whatever the technicalities, common sense would say that penalties should only apply where harm has been done. .

Well she didn't present a valid ticket for the journey she was commencing so therefore a penalty fare.

mallard · 4 Sep 2017

For all we know, the decision to stay on after University could have been made after joining the train (e.g. decided to meet friends in response to text/phone call) and the customer made the entirely reasonable assumption that the "guard" (normal people don't know the difference between a guard, conductor, train manager or RPI) would be reasonable.

Of course, the primary function of an RPI has nothing to do with "revenue protection". The fact that they're almost universally "hefty" men and wear mock "body armour" clearly meant to imitate law enforcement makes the true purpose abundantly clear.

Clip · 4 Sep 2017

mallard said:
For all we know, the decision to stay on after University could have been made after joining the train (e.g. decided to meet friends in response to text/phone call) and the customer made the entirely reasonable assumption that the "guard" (normal people don't know the difference between a guard, conductor, train manager or RPI) would be reasonable.

Of course, the primary function of an RPI has nothing to do with "revenue protection". The fact that they're almost universally "hefty" men and wear mock "body armour" clearly meant to imitate law enforcement makes the true purpose abundantly clear.

Would you go about being an rpi and not wearing this 'mock' body armour you seem to 'mock?

I think youll find they need it due to rather unscrupulous people who want to lash out at them and cause them harm. but hey don't let simple facts get in the way of your ill informed rant about what RPIs do.

Lemmy99uk · 4 Sep 2017

TheManOnThe172 said:
Whatever the technicalities, common sense would say that penalties should only apply where harm has been done. In this case (ticket appears to be a return southwards from Selly Oak, but passenger needed to buy a same-price return originating at Univ, and start short) what fair-minded case can be made for a penalty?

The heavy-handed behaviour shown on the programme is one of the unpleasant consequences of privatisation. Under BR, if common sense and empathy weren't enough to ensure civilised behaviour by staff, there was always the concern that a complainant would get their MP to write to the Transport Secretary who could (in extremis) bear down on those at the top of the railway organisation - it probably happened very seldom, but the existence of that possibility will have helped concentrate minds towards setting rules and norms to deliver behaviour that would look reasonable if called into question.

Now TOCs are free to behave as unpleasantly as it suits them. Another small way in which life is made needlessly unpleasant.

Oh dear! A fine case of rose tinted spectacles I fear.

I remember revenue inspectors (as they were known in the 80s), whose sole motivation seemed to be to upset people as much as possible. Some of them were masters at finding the weak and the vulnerable who had perhaps made a simple error.

Having said that, I remember other Inspectors who were fine people, with empathy and understanding, and who went out of their way to help people and resolve any issues.

Just like today, there have always been good people and bad people who , the trick is to make sure the good outnumber the bad.

MikeWh · 4 Sep 2017

TheManOnThe172 said:
Whatever the technicalities, common sense would say that penalties should only apply where harm has been done.

Clip said:
Well she didn't present a valid ticket for the journey she was commencing so therefore a penalty fare.

Yes, by the letter of the law, she didn't have a valid ticket. The question is, what harm has been caused to the TOC? Have they lost any money?

AlterEgo · 4 Sep 2017

Clip said:
Well she didn't present a valid ticket for the journey she was commencing so therefore a penalty fare.

Well yes, but not exactly good PR for the TOC, is it? Someone paid the correct amount of money, the TOC wasn't being ripped off, and they still Penalty Fared her.

Clip · 4 Sep 2017

Apologies I didn't realise that the validity of the ticket you hold is now determined by the fare you have paid, please do excuse me for this oversight.

TheManOnThe172 · 4 Sep 2017

Lemmy99uk said:
...
Just like today, there have always been good people and bad people who , the trick is to make sure the good outnumber the bad.

The difference is that in the past, bad behaviour was the result of an isolated individual with an attitude issue. Now, the get-heavy-because-you-can culture seems to be more widespread, even institutionalised, perhaps - it looks like there is a general culture of throwing your weight around rather than just the individual transgressors of the past.

LAX54 · 4 Sep 2017

But, regardless of price, the ticket was valid to Station 'A' but went to Station B, so ticket was invalid surely ? or are we saying that tickets should just say Station A to wherever £3.40 takes you ?

AlterEgo · 4 Sep 2017

oldsiggie said:
But, regardless of price, the ticket was valid to Station 'A' but went to Station B, so ticket was invalid surely ? or are we saying that tickets should just say Station A to wherever £3.40 takes you ?

Nobody is suggesting that. The point is, it seems unnecessary and mean-spirited to ching someone £20 for it. They weren't avoiding any fare.

hairyhandedfool · 4 Sep 2017

centraltrains said:
....However, At around 8:40 into the program, a young lady is issued with a penalty fare for over traveling on a ticket. She claims the tickets are the same price, which after checking on the London Midland site is correct. Why couldn't she just be issued with a zero fare excess instead of issuing a penalty fare?

The 'over-distance' excess fare should only be given before boarding a train, unless there were no facilities to get the required fare at the origin station. Once on the train, except where noted, the 'excess fare' is simply a single for the portion of the journey for which no valid ticket is held, or a Penalty fare if applicable.

TheManOnThe172 said:
Whatever the technicalities, common sense would say that penalties should only apply where harm has been done. In this case (ticket appears to be a return southwards from Selly Oak, but passenger needed to buy a same-price return originating at Univ, and start short) what fair-minded case can be made for a penalty?.....

Technically you could say the fare due was not £0.00, but actually the cost of a single fare, after the journey had started of course. Once she had bought a ticket and started to use it, she agreed to the National Rail Conditions of Travel, and that is quite clear whose responsibility it is to buy a ticket for the entire journey, and that is before we consider the Railway Byelaws.

That all said, common sense is no-where near as common as it used to be, and discretion is frowned upon. Recently Northern had to back down from taking someone to court over a £0.00 difference in fare after it got to the media (I don't know how it would have ended otherwise, I think they were hoping the passenger would pay the £80 Failure To Pay notice without question).

TheManOnThe172 · 4 Sep 2017

oldsiggie said:
...or are we saying that tickets should just say Station A to wherever £3.40 takes you ?

That was exactly how London tube tickets worked 50 years ago before zones - you'd get a ticket that said "Tottenham Court Road 7d".

Thinking of 60's-era ticketing on BR, it seems that as technology has allowed ticketing to become more sophisticated, so we have actually lost some of the common-sense features from those Edmonson ticket days.

Tickets marked "East Croydon to Whyteleafe/Upper Warlingham" not only saved on printing variants, but also advertised an easement that some passengers would otherwise not have spotted.

Today , if the price from Selly Oak and University to New Street is the same, then selling returns from University that say "University/Selly Oak to New Street and return" would allow simpler purchase of a University-NewSt-SellyOak return.

the sniper · 4 Sep 2017

TheManOnThe172 said:
The heavy-handed behaviour shown on the programme is one of the unpleasant consequences of privatisation. Under BR, if common sense and empathy weren't enough to ensure civilised behaviour by staff, there was always the concern that a complainant would get their MP to write to the Transport Secretary who could (in extremis) bear down on those at the top of the railway organisation - it probably happened very seldom, but the existence of that possibility will have helped concentrate minds towards setting rules and norms to deliver behaviour that would look reasonable if called into question.

Now TOCs are free to behave as unpleasantly as it suits them. Another small way in which life is made needlessly unpleasant.

You've obviously never heard of what the Revenue used to get up to in BR and early TOC days from the people who actually did the job! Unless you're referring to the amount of time they spent in random Cafes, Pubs and Cinemas, where they probably did show "common sense and empathy". :lol:

mallard said:
Of course, the primary function of an RPI has nothing to do with "revenue protection". The fact that they're almost universally "hefty" men and wear mock "body armour" clearly meant to imitate law enforcement makes the true purpose abundantly clear.

Even better! :lol:

You're obviously not familiar with London Midland revenue protection Managers if you think it's made up of "hefty men"... Plus they need body armour, but they don't have anything like it.

centraltrains · 4 Sep 2017

hairyhandedfool said:
Once on the train, except where noted, the 'excess fare' is simply a single for the portion of the journey for which no valid ticket is held, or a Penalty fare if applicable.

So surely if she has changed her mind on the train, she should be able to buy that excess at the first opportunity available, given that the train which the TV camera showed coming in before the coach was 6-coaches, and the line uses 323s which have no intermediate gangways, she wouldn't have been able to buy at her first opportunity if the guard wasn't on the train half she was on and this would be her first opportunity?

AlterEgo · 4 Sep 2017

centraltrains said:
So surely if she has changed her mind on the train, she should be able to buy that excess at the first opportunity available, given that the train which the TV camera showed coming in before the coach was 6-coaches, and the line uses 323s which have no intermediate gangways, she wouldn't have been able to buy at her first opportunity if the guard wasn't on the train half she was on and this would be her first opportunity?

Right, so a passenger buys a ticket habitually, every day, between A and the first station on the route, B - the cheapest possible ticket. But they're travelling to station C, further on. They simply hope not to be checked every day, and even if they get caught, all they've got to pay is an excess.

So that's why that doesn't happen.

stevetay3 · 4 Sep 2017

The lady in question was issued with a penalty fair,a few minutes before that a clearly 20 year old child was also given the same penalty fair for holding a child Ticket.This man is a fraudster in my book,whilst the lady in question made a simple honest mistake.where is the common sense here let alone justice.All fraudsters should be sent to court to be fined and get there criminal record.I hope this lady gets her money refunded and avoids London midland and takes her custom elsewhere .

centraltrains · 4 Sep 2017

AlterEgo said:
Right, so a passenger buys a ticket habitually, every day, between A and the first station on the route, B - the cheapest possible ticket. But they're traveling to station C, further on. They simply hope not to be checked every day, and even if they get caught, all they've got to pay is an excess.

So that's why that doesn't happen.

Yeah - But this was on the return leg and there was no price difference... Seems a bit harsh. Perhaps would have been nicer if he had educated the women that she could just always buy Selly Oak to Birmingham tickets at the Same price as a University - Birmingham Ticket and that's it's fine to start late at University. Perhaps taken her over to the TVM and showed her how to buy a ticket starting from another station...

stevetay3 said:
I hope this lady gets her money refunded and avoids London midland and takes her custom elsewhere .

Not like she has much option unless she wants a slower journey by bus or is happy to wait for the new west Midlands rail franchise...

Swimo · 5 Sep 2017

I agreed with every penalty fare shown in the program with the exception of this one. I completely disagree with it.

Yes, she did not hold a valid ticket for exit/entry at Selly Oak, but I think this is one of those cases where you put people with the wrong attitude in the job, and I personally believe this would have been a good opportunity to show a good side of the railway and it's employees. However instead, they go and show that (even though it is some, people will assume everyone) we're not human and that we simply do not care.

London Midland was not at loss as a result. I would partially have agreed if she had been given the opportunity to purchase a University - Selly Oak ticket, but I still think they should have just let her go. Please bare in mind this is also a 2 minute journey, does that justify £20? The penalty fare scheme was never intended for this purpose. Maybe educating her (as suggested by centraltrains) that she can buy the ticket from Selly Oak to Birmingham, and then I believe this would have shown that we can provide good customer service. I'm not saying anyone who pays for a £3 ticket should be able to head in the opposite direction if the ticket is the same price, but you must understand the point of principle here that a better route could have been taken by the RPI dealing with this.

MikeSprint · 8 Sep 2017

What was cut from the show (imagine that, they edited it to make "good" telly) was the fact that she'd had two previous Penalty Fares, both for no ticket, I should have issued a MG11 (interview under caution), I decided that may have been heavy handed and I used my discretion but from some of the comments I've read if I'm in the same situation again instead of a (civil) penalty fare I will issue the MG. As for body armour, that's just me no body armour mock or otherwise.

yorkie · 8 Sep 2017

Swimo said:
...I'm not saying anyone who pays for a £3 ticket should be able to head in the opposite direction if the ticket is the same price...

Actually there are numerous occasions where you can do this. It depends on the circumstances. However if you are on a train that calls at your destination, then the fact the ticket is considered to expire at that point should over-rule everything else and you should alight at that point (unless there has been no opportunity to purchase an excess fare).

bb21 · 8 Sep 2017

One reason the "they are the same price so what's the harm" argument doesn't always wash is to guard against people simply picking up discarded used tickets and present as their own. Now I have not watched the clip in question, so don't know whether that may have played a part, but sometimes it may depend on whether the passenger can prove the ticket is his/hers, which is often when the "attitude test" comes in useful.

The perfect solution and balance is often difficult to find.

RJ · 8 Sep 2017

Seacook said:
Since she was aware that there was no difference in fare, why did it never occur to her to buy a ticket to Selly Oak instead of University?

Not everybody knows that you're allowed to do that.

Harbouring · 9 Sep 2017

MikeSprint said:
What was cut from the show (imagine that, they edited it to make "good" telly) was the fact that she'd had two previous Penalty Fares, both for no ticket, I should have issued a MG11 (interview under caution), I decided that may have been heavy handed and I used my discretion but from some of the comments I've read if I'm in the same situation again instead of a (civil) penalty fare I will issue the MG. As for body armour, that's just me no body armour mock or otherwise.

Id be interested to know how you knew she was previously PF'd (if you are able to)

also I don't really see what companies get out of appearing on shows like this, ok if it's the cheery gate line staff and the banterous control room but a programme the front line of revenue protection could lead to judicious editing which could lead to some sticky situations. It might scare some people into paying fares but at the cost of reinforcing negative opinions about TOC's that Might exist amongst the General public.

yorkie · 9 Sep 2017

Harbouring said:
Id be interested to know how you knew she was previously PF'd (if you are able to)

Presumably he recognised her?

causton · 9 Sep 2017

Harbouring said:
Id be interested to know how you knew she was previously PF'd (if you are able to)

When a Penalty Fare is issued, the issuer should verify the details of the person they are issuing it to. LM currently do this by phoning up a central helpdesk who have a range of sources to find people. Any Penalty Fares logged will show up, so when the RPI says they are issuing Mr Joe Bloggs of 123 Fake Street a Penalty Fare, the operator could say "Okay he's had four penalty fares this year" so the RPI can make a judgement, they could change their mind and issue an MG11 instead!

MikeSprint · 9 Sep 2017

Harbouring said:
Id be interested to know how you knew she was previously PF'd (if you are able to)

I knew she had previous PF's because when I phoned RPSS to confirm her address (there is a shot of me on the phone) they told me, that is also why she said that she knew about the appeals process and why she told Dom that there was no point appealing.

Question Regarding Dom on the Spot

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Member

New Member

Forum Staff

Emeritus Moderator

Established Member

Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

New Member