Paying only when challenged – cash vs card

island · 25 Dec 2019

Suppose a passenger is in possession of £100 in cash and of a personal Visa debit card with £5,000 funds to the credit of the account. The debit card is in the passenger’s own name, the passenger has no immediate need to make any other purchases with the card, has no transactions due to leave the account in the near future, the passenger knows the PIN of the card, and the card is in date.

The passenger arrives at (say) Stone Crossing railway station desirous of travelling to Northfleet. The station is unbarriered and unstaffed, and the ticket vending machine is in full working order. It accepts only card payments, as do a number of ticket machines on that line.

Does the passenger commit an offence by joining his train to Northfleet without a ticket, because he wishes to pay cash rather than use his card? He is of course happy to pay for his fare in cash at the first opportunity, but the destination station is also unstaffed and the line is DOO.

RailUK Forums

yorkie · 25 Dec 2019

Very short answer: the railway has no business knowing anyone's financial affairs; the passenger is entitled to pay by cash.

The conditions and law would need to be changed if this was to become an offence; I would not support this.

The method of train operation is a red herring; the best trains for revenue collection in my experience are DOO trains in th Glasgow area; friendly staff constantly selling tickets and patrolling the train.

LMS 4F · 25 Dec 2019

yorkie said:
Very short answer: the railway has no business knowing anyone's financial affairs; the passenger is entitled to pay by cash.

The conditions and law would need to be changed if this was to become an offence; I would not support this.

The method OOof train operation is a red herring; the best trains for revenue collection in my experience are DOO trains in th Glasgow area; friendly staff constantly selling tickets and patrolling the train.

I would agree that the Scotrail staff are the best I have seen at ensuring travellers have a ticket and at dealing with those who are unwilling to pay.

paddington · 25 Dec 2019

If cash is advertised as a valid payment method by national rail and a TOC doesn't make it possible to pay by cash, the TOC deserves to not be paid.

If the TOC wants to collect more fares, they could open the ticket office at Stone crossing for longer or even have ticket machines on trains which take cash.

I would support using the "promise to pay" system provided that it was implemented properly and fairly, for example if the wording was amended to say simply that the desired ticket was unable to be purchased before boarding. So more of a proof of origin station rather than a promise to pay.

JamesT · 25 Dec 2019

It might not be committing an offence, but I’d consider someone in the the situation described in the OP to be somewhat taking the mickey getting on board without paying. It seems like bloody mindedness to insist on cash when you’re in possession of a perfectly good card.

kristiang85 · 25 Dec 2019

JamesT said:
It might not be committing an offence, but I’d consider someone in the the situation described in the OP to be somewhat taking the mickey getting on board without paying. It seems like bloody mindedness to insist on cash when you’re in possession of a perfectly good card.

Maybe they had a purchase of £5000 to make soon and needed all the space on the card? Nobody knows the circumstances, so if the passenger wants to pay in cash only, then that is their entitlement.

Abpj17 · 25 Dec 2019

JamesT said:
It might not be committing an offence, but I’d consider someone in the the situation described in the OP to be somewhat taking the mickey getting on board without paying. It seems like bloody mindedness to insist on cash when you’re in possession of a perfectly good card.

^^ This.

The OP, however, leaves out the motivation other than the asserted willingness to pay cash at the first opportunity. There would seem to be a number of passengers that might take a similar approach and aspire to avoid paying fares, say, 90% of the time they travel due to travelling between unstaffed stations. As the purchaser of a high-cost, undiscounted annual season ticket, it would be more just if all passengers paid their fare.

py_megapixel · 25 Dec 2019

Abpj17 said:
^^ This.

The OP, however, leaves out the motivation other than the asserted willingness to pay cash at the first opportunity. There would seem to be a number of passengers that might take a similar approach and aspire to avoid paying fares, say, 90% of the time they travel due to travelling between unstaffed stations. As the purchaser of a high-cost, undiscounted annual season ticket, it would be more just if all passengers paid their fare.

This is sort of a viscous circle.

High fares leads to fare evasion which leads to loss of revenue which leads to fares being increased higher which leads to fare evasion etc etc.

Metal_gee_man · 25 Dec 2019

By the letter of the law if there is no cash taking option, they cannot be commiting an offence if there is no way to hand it over.
A promise to pay slip has been discussed but must be written into the byelaws for that to be come the standard, and a communication/information package to passengers to educate.

Wallsendmag · 25 Dec 2019

py_megapixel said:
This is sort of a viscous circle.

High fares leads to fare evasion which leads to loss of revenue which leads to fares being increased higher which leads to fare evasion etc etc.

Fare evasion is rife on short, relatively cheap journeys as well though

Bletchleyite · 25 Dec 2019

Metal_gee_man said:
By the letter of the law if there is no cash taking option, they cannot be commiting an offence if there is no way to hand it over.

Is there actual legal precedent that walking past a method of payment that you could viably use but are choosing not to (or walking onto a train with a mobile phone supporting a ticketing app and suitable card in your pocket) does not class as an opportunity to pay if you happen to simply prefer to pay cash?

It would strike me that, in a "man on the Clapham omnibus" sense, an opportunity to pay is one that you could use even if not your preference, as otherwise the law would state "an opportunity to pay using the payment method of the passenger's choice"? As method of payment is surely only one aspect of preference - many people find fares confusing and would prefer to purchase from a human on board than use a TVM, say, and surely this is a far stronger argument than that you don't want to use a card when you have one and it would not cause you financial problems to use it?

Killingworth · 26 Dec 2019

An objection to card only TVMs was raised in another thread for unaccompanied children. I have secondary school grandchildren who commute to school on two Greater Anglia trains every day - between manned stations. I've checked how they pay. They have Scholar Season Tickets so don't pay cash. Northern offer similar although they're harder to find.

I heard that Northern had considerable difficulty with large numbers of children boarding trains for one or two stops between unnanned stations. Apparently there were several hot spots for this on their system from Derbyshire to Cumbria and places between. Supposedly enforcement may have encouraged more to purchase such season tickets.

Back in the 1970s my sons had bank cards from a very early age, although they only provided cash. I believe things have moved on since then and young people can have prepaid cards and even debit cards. Using Barclays as an example (I assume other banks will be similar) that appears to be the case. My grandsons suggest they have such cards.

So there's little excuse for regular scholars not being able to pay for their travel before boarding the train because they only had cash. They should get used to the system and find it easy to pay.(Being able to afford it applies however they pay, but there are big savings from using a season ticket.)

Of course the argument that any citizen may excercise their right to offer cash still holds, but doing so when other methods are easily available smacks of bloody mindedness, if it's not deliberate fare evasion. The Promise to Pay ticket is the get out of gaol card. Many seem adept at getting them quickly, but not so adept at performing a similar set of key strokes to pay for a ticket.

I don't buy the suggestion that a large proportion of the population travelling by train doesn't have a valid card with adequate funds to pay for their ticket, yet has cash. A fairly small proportion certainly.

Others have pointed out that TOC's are heavily state subsidised, particularly Northern. Those who don't pay are further subsidised by those willingly paying the full fares, be they first class season ticket holders or standard class singles.

Abpj17 · 26 Dec 2019

py_megapixel said:
This is sort of a viscous circle.

High fares leads to fare evasion which leads to loss of revenue which leads to fares being increased higher which leads to fare evasion etc etc.

That's true. But in the ?hypothetical case, there are £5k electronically available funds. And the single ticket is £3.10.

On the other hand, I wouldn't dream of fare evasion. It's morally wrong, unfair on everyone else, (and as a further incentive, am pretty sure it's a firing offence - certainly if on a sustained basis).

An interesting spin would be if e.g. the machine took cash but said that change wasn't available. So putting in £20 for a £3.10 fare and not getting change would feel rather more objectionable.

Wallsendmag · 26 Dec 2019

Abpj17 said:
That's true. But in the ?hypothetical case, there are £5k electronically available funds. And the single ticket is £3.10.

On the other hand, I wouldn't dream of fare evasion. It's morally wrong, unfair on everyone else, (and as a further incentive, am pretty sure it's a firing offence - certainly if on a sustained basis).

An interesting spin would be if e.g. the machine took cash but said that change wasn't available. So putting in £20 for a £3.10 fare and not getting change would feel rather more objectionable.

In that case our machines are set up not to take the note at all.

Belperpete · 26 Dec 2019

How does a conductor or an RPI know if someone has a credit card on them, let alone what credit limit is available on that card, or what a passenger's motivation for wanting to pay by cash might be? They don't. While paying by cash is an option, then it must be honoured.

On my next journey I will have adequate cash and credit cards to pay for my journey, but I don't intend to use either of these to purchase a ticket. And I will be doing nothing wrong.

yorkie · 26 Dec 2019

Belperpete said:
How does a conductor or an RPI know if someone has a credit card on them, let alone what credit limit is available on that card, or what a passenger's motivation for wanting to pay by cash might be? They don't. While paying by cash is an option, then it must be honoured.

On my next journey I will have adequate cash and credit cards to pay for my journey, but I don't intend to use either of these to purchase a ticket. And I will be doing nothing wrong.

Exactly. It appears some people propose changing the law but this is just not a viable law to have; a train company can't read someone's mid or pry into their financial affairs.

AM9 · 26 Dec 2019

As a traveller I never seek to avoid payment of the appropriate fare and on the couple of instances where I have made a mistake and I have realised it I have been ready to pay at the first opportunity and tell the truth. However, I accept that there some who would chance it and then try to lie their way out of a penalty even though I am paying even more towards their misdemeanour than most season ticket holders. I despite but there are many more serious cases of theft that society has to put up with, some of which are seen as 'victimless crimes' by others.
However, back on topic, on lines where both train staffing and shortfalls in ticket purchase exist, that is a money-saving choice made by the TOC. If the loss of revenue exceeds the savings, then it is up to them to enforce sufficient (maybe random) checks to reduce it. That is something that should be priced into every bid for a franchise.
Given that most TVMS are connected to TOCS most of the time, they would have continuous visibility of permit to travel tickets issued and be able to correlate the number of actual fares paid against them. Where there hot spots of theft persist, occasional flying RPIs would be able to dissuade many of the serial offenders at a lower cost than continuous manning. That is a consideration for the TOC, and doesn't directly impact on the funding from public funds.

GEM08 · 26 Dec 2019

This might be semantics but i think some of the posts of referring to insisting on paying by cash as evasion is entirely wrong as evasion is illegal whereas purchasing a promise to pay and insisting on paying with cash is entirely within the rules as they currently exist. It’s no different to tax avoidance and evasion which
People
Pay a good accountant to legally minimise their tax bill. If Unhappy change the rules until then someone is perfectly entitled to work within the rules as laid out in law. Now we can discuss character but that’s completely separate. The rules completely need changed to stop this behaviour....until then quite understandably some people will always legally try to reduce there commuting costs by avoidance similar to minimising a tax bill within the rules. Until then people will do what they do.

Belperpete · 26 Dec 2019

GEM08 said:
purchasing a promise to pay and insisting on paying with cash is entirely within the rules as they currently exist.

Many types of TVM don't offer a "promise to pay" option. And of course many stations don't even have a TVM. Passengers just get on the train.

I can foresee a time coming when paying by cash ceases to be an option, just like it already is with London buses. But until such time comes, people are perfectly entitled to insist on paying by cash without having their motivation for doing so questioned.

As I have said previously, I don't think the current situation is helped by TOCs accepting paying on the train. This only leads people to believe that paying on the train is accepted practice. They are then aggrieved (and rightly so, IMHO) when out of the blue they are penalised for doing something they have been led to believe is acceptable.

As AM9 said, the choice not to make full ticket-issuing facilities available for all is a money-saving choice made by the TOC. I don't see why passengers should suffer as a result.

yorkie · 26 Dec 2019

GEM08 said:
This might be semantics but i think some of the posts of referring to insisting on paying by cash as evasion is entirely wrong as evasion is illegal whereas purchasing a promise to pay and insisting on paying with cash is entirely within the rules as they currently exist...

I think some people want to change the rules, but it isn't going to happen.

GEM08 said:
It’s no different to tax avoidance..

Analogies can be difficult to get right, and I don't think this is an appropriate analogy (for a more suitable analogy with tax avoidance, see this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...hat-are-the-implications.170529/#post-3663293 )

Belperpete said:
Many types of TVM don't offer a "promise to pay" option. And of course many stations don't even have a TVM. Passengers just get on the train.

Promise to Pay notices have no legal basis and are a Northern franchise thing.

Belperpete said:
I can foresee a time coming when paying by cash ceases to be an option, just like it already is with London buses. But until such time comes, people are perfectly entitled to insist on paying by cash without having their motivation for doing so questioned.

Indeed.

Belperpete said:
As I have said previously, I don't think the current situation is helped by TOCs accepting paying on the train....

They don't really have any viable alternative though; it would cost far too much money to provide adequate and infallible ticket issuing systems at all remote stations.

But you're right that the answer isn't to penalise people, and certainly not to try to read people's minds and pry into the status of their bank accounts!

Busaholic · 26 Dec 2019

I have no credit card any longer, and even my sole debit card is not a contactless one, which would prevent me using it on a London bus, not that I should need to. I do try to have £20 or so in cash on me if I'm travelling anywhere, but I'd have a very tart response to any official suggesting I was trying to evade a fare when I wished to pay with cash.

AM9 · 26 Dec 2019

Busaholic said:
I have no credit card any longer, and even my sole debit card is not a contactless one, which would prevent me using it on a London bus, not that I should need to. ...

I don't have one but if Oyster cards can have credit added by paying in cash, then there's no bar for passengers without any bank cards from using TfL services. Can anybody here confirm whether cash can be used at the various option locations for charging?

Hadders · 26 Dec 2019

AM9 said:
I don't have one but if Oyster cards can have credit added by paying in cash, then there's no bar for passengers without any bank cards from using TfL services. Can anybody here confirm whether cash can be used at the various option locations for charging?

Yes it can.

paddington · 26 Dec 2019

AM9 said:
I don't have one but if Oyster cards can have credit added by paying in cash, then there's no bar for passengers without any bank cards from using TfL services. Can anybody here confirm whether cash can be used at the various option locations for charging?

Yes, it is possible to buy and use an Oyster card with cash only, except (obviously) buying travelcards or topping up online. Many independent shops which sell Oyster top-ups will actually refuse payments by card (unless you buy something from the shop), even if they shouldn't.

gray1404 · 26 Dec 2019

The customer is entitled to choose the payment method they wish to use and no reason is required for making such a decision. If that method of payment is not accepted before starting the journey, the customer is entitled to buy at the first suitable opportunity. It really is as simple as that. Any suggestion that I should have paid by another method because I had it on my person is an invasion of privacy.

AM9 · 26 Dec 2019

Hadders said:
Yes it can.

Thanks Hadders. Then that demonstrates that there's no reason why any TOC must introduce card-only payment in the future. If TfL can introduce a smartcard payment system which not only reduces the opportunities for ticket fraud but also enables those who have no alternative to cash to continue to use public transport, then so can any other TOC, including Northern.

Bletchleyite · 26 Dec 2019

yorkie said:
Exactly. It appears some people propose changing the law but this is just not a viable law to have; a train company can't read someone's mid or pry into their financial affairs.

Is this even necessary? The law change would simply be to make ticketless travel absolute as it is on, say, Metrolink. Passengers would be prosecuted (or if applicable PFed) simply for being on a train with no valid ticket - end of. No need to pry into anything.

In London hardly anyone uses cash. This will progress through the country, to the extent that I reckon very, very few people will use cash in any form within 10 years.

There must come a point where accepting it is a huge cost for a tiny benefit.

Dai Corner · 26 Dec 2019

When does a passenger's (a) legal and (b) moral obligation to pay the correct fare expire? On leaving railway premises after completing a journey without encountering an opportunity to pay using his preferred method?

If he knows or is pretty sure only card payments will be possible on his intended journey and deliberately only carries cash is that an attempt to evade paying the fare?

bkhtele · 26 Dec 2019

Agree currently if you want to pay cash that is fine at the 1st opportunity. In future I can see the card only option as cash gets less popular and everyone is (allegedly) entitled to a card bank account. Also prepaid card options are available for all ages.

AM9 · 26 Dec 2019

Dai Corner said:
... If he knows or is pretty sure only card payments will be possible on his intended journey and deliberately only carries cash is that an attempt to evade paying the fare?

So if the passenger dosen't have any cards and needs to get to, say, a Hospital for an appointment, does that mean that they are legally required to obtain a credit card, debit card or end get a bank account before they can attend that hospital appointment? And if any bank that they attempt to join refuses to let them have an account, are they therefore excluding from all rail travel forever? You really need to think this through if you are seriously proposing that the law is changed because it is beneficial to TOC's profits and convenient to you.

Paying only when challenged – cash vs card

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Forum Staff

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member