There is undoubtedly a deterrent element to the level chosen too, and I support that approach
Perhaps there is, perhaps there isn't. Punitive approach or price gouging from a position of strength. You say tomato, I say tomato.
Of course the underlying legal principle is that these types of things should not be punitive, they should be there to place the aggrieved party back into the position it would have been in had the event not taken place. Which is why TIL persist in the fiction that it is an administrative penalty which accurately reflects their costs incurred
in that case. Which, unless you genuinely believe E Ashby is paid £1500 an hour, is clearly nonsense.
In the Penalty Fare system- where this would have ended up had Avanti done Penalty Fares- the punitive element (inclusive of administration costs) is £50. I do not understand how anyone can justify TIL attempting to charge three times this amount of money.
And it’s an offer. It needn’t be accepted
A viewpoint which, whilst strictly accurate, does not even come close to accurately representing the power dynamics involved. "Pay our rip-off fees or we'll prosecute you" is not the starting point for an offer. Particularly where, even if you plead not guilty, have your day in court, and win, you will be more than £150 out of pocket. If you win in a Magistrates Court you don't normally get your lost earnings back.
The problem, in my view, is rather more that there is little incentive in the railway handling irregularities by means of a Penalty Fare. That seems to me to be the most appropriate course of action for 95% of cases, with only the most exceptional cases of fraud or long-standing fare evasion warranting prosecution.
Indeed. The punitive element (inclusive of administration costs) of a Penalty Fare is £50, and it is fair to say there is more administration required in the issuing of a Penalty Fare.
In this example, E Ashby, with her £1500/hour wages(!), couldn't even type the correct fare into her template letter. With a Penalty Fare that would render the entire notice invalid. But because it's not a Penalty Fare, the choice is cough up/get prosecuted.
I would ban the ability for the railway industry to prosecute people. They cannot do it fairly whilst having a financial incentive in the outcome. The railways resolve unpaid fares by Penalty Fare or they get the police involved. Look at the scandal at the Post Office, which all stemmed from the fact that the Post Office has a financial stake in the prosecution and behaved accordingly- including by not disclosing anything to the defendant that prejudiced the Post Office case. The railways are just as bad, as we see with Northern and Merseyrail routinely and deliberately misrepresenting s.5(1) RoRA and pursuing prosecutions under this act even where someone has provided their name and address to an officer of the railway.
they can charge what they like
That is precisely the point I was making. Thank you!
It's a shame so many people on here think that attitude is acceptable.
If you don’t travel without a valid ticket then you won’t end up paying TIL’s or whoever’s investigation costs etc.
If you don't travel without a valid ticket
on an operator who doesn't offer Penalty Fares then you won't end up paying TIL
unless you're one of the significant minority of people who *did* have a valid ticket but the railway inspector disagreed, and you also understand that it'll cost you more than £150 even if you have your day in court and win.
No wonder there is so much shoplifting if courts take that 'liberal' view that in-store security is a cost to be paid for by everyone, whether they steal or not.
If an RPI doesn't catch a single fare evader all day, they are still there getting paid and doing their job.
It costs the railway huge sums (in both lost revenue and employment of revenue protection and recovery/prosecution) and this ultimately falls on all rail travellers/taxpayers.
No it doesn't. Even if everyone was completely honest and fare evasion was entirely eliminated you'd still have all/the vast majority of the revenue protection staff in post, because if you don't have them then you're running an honesty box system.