Pricing of out of court settlements and costs involved in persuing fare evasion cases

Camsus · 16 Jan 2024

Tetchytyke said:
RoRA confers that power on rail officials. If the TOCs choose not to use it because of the costs of training, etc, that’s a business decision they have made.

I’m not sure what you’re arguing. If costs are not inflated then it isn’t a deterrent. If it’s a deterrent then costs are being inflated.

So lets say a TOC identifies a suspected fare evasion case. They'd have to spend time finding and analysing the ticket purchases from ticket machines/offices and online salespoints such as The Trainline. Maybe obtain CCTV? Once all the ducks are in a row, the TOC would have to prepare the evidence to present to the person on the date they were stopped and questioned. Things like purchase data and CCTV.

On the actual day the person is stopped, I'd imagine a couple of staff would follow them on their journey before approaching them either enroute or at the destination. Present the evidence and question them before handing over the case for review by a prosecutions department or whoever handles the case post-questioning.

Contact the person to discuss the case, and potentially arrange a secondary interview. Emails and/or phonecalls. I'd imagine a settlement would then be calculated based on the correspondence outcome.

Once a settlement figure has been agreed, there must also be a certain amount of admin involved to formalise things and process paymement. Of course, the above is just my own thoughts on how the process may play out based on the little I do know.

Between staff time and resources, I don't think it's difficult to see why the costs could reach a few hundred £'s.

Royston Vasey said:
That reference is the one I found as well, and it's from 2010. I would be quite surprised if this one person was doing this most thankless of jobs for 15 years now! Imagine how draining that job would be for that period of time!

You know something, it wouldn't surprise me if she was a 15 year veteran (or more). In the rail industry, it seems to be pretty commonplace

RailUK Forums

Haywain · 16 Jan 2024

Watershed said:
Imagine if a TOC found out you'd claimed Delay Repay under a fake name. Do you think they'd write that off as "just one of those things"? I hardly think so.

What offence is committed by using a false name? If I travel and I am delayed what business is it of the train operator who is liable to pay compensation what I choose to call myself?

Llanigraham · 16 Jan 2024

Tetchytyke said:
I don’t think TOC staff will be spending £150 of time on each case. £25/hour is a salary of about £45,000. There’s no way TOC staff are spending 4-5 hours on each case and there’s no way that TOC staff are getting paid £100/hour.

You seem to be assuming that only one person is dealing with each case, something I think completely unlikely. I am sure that each case has to be authorised for prosecution by someone more senior than the clerk writing up the facts, plus there will be more staff involved in the filing of all the paperwork and then the packing and posting the documents. All have to be paid for.

Tetchytyke said:
It is fundamentally dishonest to use a fake name.

Is it? Can you please cite exactly what laws say that?
i know of some Government departments where that is exactly what they encourage. As long as they know and have a record of the name used there is no harm in it.

Bletchleyite · 16 Jan 2024

Llanigraham said:
Is it? Can you please cite exactly what laws say that?

Plenty of things are immoral without being illegal. Though in this case pseudonyms probably make sense to avoid people looking them up on social media and abusing them - the key is that you know which member of staff sent the letter so you can speak to them internally if there's an issue.

Some traincrew use fake names on their name badges, I understand. Certainly one who used to post on uk.railway did. And lots of us do on here too, indeed more than not.

SteveM70 · 16 Jan 2024

Bletchleyite said:
Though in this case pseudonyms probably make sense to avoid people looking them up on social media and abusing them

Let's hope they pick a name nobody on social media has then

Bletchleyite · 16 Jan 2024

SteveM70 said:
Let's hope they pick a name nobody on social media has then

I doubt many people would go and abuse a random person who lives in an entirely different city because it might be them.

(Though I do know someone who uses a pseudonym on Facebook because they have an extremely unusual surname - there are only about 5 of them on FB and all of them are their direct relatives)

SteveM70 · 16 Jan 2024

Bletchleyite said:
I doubt many people would go and abuse a random person who lives in an entirely different city because it might be them.

Indeed, but its highly likely that if the name chosen is relatively "normal" there will be a reasonable risk of similarly named people being active on social media nearby

Bletchleyite · 16 Jan 2024

SteveM70 said:
Indeed, but its highly likely that if the name chosen is relatively "normal" there will be a reasonable risk of similarly named people being active on social media nearby

If it's something like Bob Smith there'll be hundreds of them.

Just not going to happen.

Krokodil · 16 Jan 2024

Tetchytyke said:
The legal principle is that such fees should not be a punishment, they should reflect the costs actually incurred

Have you got a reference for that?

As far as I can see, there are no legal principles regarding out of court settlements. They are voluntary (on both sides) agreements whose very purpose is to bypass the legal system to both parties' mutual benefit.

tspaul26 · 16 Jan 2024

Krokodil said:
Have you got a reference for that?

Peachy v The Duke of Somerset (1720) 1 Strange 447; Sloman v Walter (1783) 1 Bro CC 418

Krokodil · 17 Jan 2024

tspaul26 said:
Peachy v The Duke of Somerset (1720) 1 Strange 447; Sloman v Walter (1783) 1 Bro CC 418

I was hoping that there was something that explained the interaction of the law with out of court settlements. Preferably aimed at the layman.

Titfield · 17 Jan 2024

Krokodil said:
I was hoping that there was something that explained the interaction of the law with out of court settlements. Preferably aimed at the layman.

Many lawyers websites mention out of court settlements in terms of their positivity: lower costs, certainty of outcome, timescales but I havent found any that talk about the specific issue of costs other than to say they are lower than going to court. I think it is very hard to argue that costs of say £100 - £150 as admin fees contain an element of punishment when one considers the "charge out rate" calculated for many occupations / by businesses.

Not sure if this helps but the the threat of criminal proceedings by due process does not amount to duress.

Threat of criminal prosecution by due process did not amount to duress

A settlement agreement between two parties should not be set aside for duress despite threats of criminal prosecution having been made: Al Saif Group v Robert Thomas Cable [2022] EWHC 271 (QB), 10 February 2022

www.allenovery.com

It is also worth looking at

Times Travel (UK) Ltd v Pakistan International Airlines Corp - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tetchytyke · 17 Jan 2024

bluebell81 said:
Between staff time and resources, I don't think it's difficult to see why the costs could reach a few hundred £'s.

In complicated examples, I would expect so.

But the case that started this thread was a 17yo stopped by an RPI with a child’s ticket. Five minutes whilst the MG11 was written up then a boiler plate letter from TIL- a boiler plate letter full of errors, it should be noted.

Between the RPI and the TIL person (the letter said Elaine Ashby as it happens), I’m going to estimate that’s at most 20 minutes work. £450/hour is a lot of admin. And yes, it is my estimate (what else could it be?), but I work in a very similar role in my day job and I know how long it takes for me to complete similar tasks.

Titfield · 17 Jan 2024

Tetchytyke said:
In complicated examples, I would expect so.

But the case that started this thread was a 17yo stopped by an RPI with a child’s ticket. Five minutes whilst the MG11 was written up then a boiler plate letter from TIL- a boiler plate letter full of errors, it should be noted.

Between the RPI and the TIL person (the letter said Elaine Ashby as it happens), I’m going to estimate that’s at most 20 minutes work. £450/hour is a lot of admin. And yes, it is my estimate (what else could it be?), but I work in a very similar role in my day job and I know how long it takes for me to complete similar tasks.

Whether it is right or wrong, the admin fee charged is based on a much broader basis and, like the call out charge for a tradesperson has a minimum charge embedded within it.

We can debate this till the cows come home but it is not going to change unless in the wake of a wholesale review of private prosecutions, the rail industry decides to change its revenue protection enforcement processes.

SteveM70 · 17 Jan 2024

Tetchytyke said:
In complicated examples, I would expect so.

But the case that started this thread was a 17yo stopped by an RPI with a child’s ticket. Five minutes whilst the MG11 was written up then a boiler plate letter from TIL- a boiler plate letter full of errors, it should be noted.

Between the RPI and the TIL person (the letter said Elaine Ashby as it happens), I’m going to estimate that’s at most 20 minutes work. £450/hour is a lot of admin. And yes, it is my estimate (what else could it be?), but I work in a very similar role in my day job and I know how long it takes for me to complete similar tasks.

Would you prefer the costs for each case to be individually calculated, and then the internal cottage industry that does those calculations to have a share of its costs applied to each case?

Sometimes simplicity is better, and I think this is one of those times.

Some cases will be a bit "over" and some will be a bit "under", but its the same with any other industry where there are standard charges.

For example, the cost of sending a parcel from Plymouth to Glasgow is a lot more than sending one from Birmingham to Derby, but the charges are almost always the same.

Tetchytyke · 17 Jan 2024

Titfield said:
We can debate this till the cows come home but it is not going to change unless in the wake of a wholesale review of private prosecutions, the rail industry decides to change its revenue protection enforcement processes.

Absolutely.

They charge it because they can. Some people will agree with that, some won’t. But nothing will change until they no longer can charge it.

I fully expect inflation to continue, £200 by the of the year would be my estimate.

jumble · 17 Jan 2024

Tetchytyke said:
It is fundamentally dishonest to use a fake name.

Do you believe that this alleged dishonesty applies to Sir Elton John and hundreds of other Pop stars and actors ?
Am I considered to be dishonest by posting as here as Jumble which is not actually my real name?
Is your real name is Tetchytyke ?

Tetchytyke · 17 Jan 2024

jumble said:
Do you believe that this alleged dishonesty applies to Sir Elton John and hundreds of other Pop stars and actors ?

Elton John doesn't use a fake name- he legally changed it in 1972.

But stage names and usernames are not fake names.

Dai Corner · 17 Jan 2024

Tetchytyke said:
Elton John doesn't use a fake name- he legally changed it in 1972.

But stage names and usernames are not fake names.

I fail to see why singing, acting or posting on Internet forums under an assumed name is fundamentally different to writing letters under one. There is no fraudulent intent, which probably would be illegal.

Tetchytyke · 17 Jan 2024

Dai Corner said:
I fail to see why singing, acting or posting on Internet forums under an assumed name is fundamentally different to writing letters under one.

Because if I'm acting or singing or writing nonsense on a railway-related internet forum I am presenting a character. That character has a name. It might match my legal name, but it might not. This is really quite an important thing to note- it is why Lorraine Kelly won her tax appeal in 2019.

But if I'm writing a letter as "Bob Smith, Revenue Inspector", I'm not presenting a character, I'm presenting that as my true identity. I didn't say it was illegal, I said it was dishonest.

Dai Corner · 17 Jan 2024

Tetchytyke said:
Because if I'm acting or singing or writing nonsense on a railway-related internet forum I am presenting a character. That character has a name. It might match my legal name, but it might not. This is really quite an important thing to note- it is why Lorraine Kelly won her tax appeal in 2019.

But if I'm writing a letter as "Bob Smith, Revenue Inspector", I'm not presenting a character, I'm presenting that as my true identity. I didn't say it was illegal, I said it was dishonest.

When writing a business letter you're 'playing the part' of your employer. The legal entity is Transport Investigations Ltd, not Elaine Ashby.

Tetchytyke · 17 Jan 2024

Dai Corner said:
When writing a business letter you're 'playing the part' of your employer. The legal entity is Transport Investigations Ltd, not Elaine Ashby.

Then use the name of your employer, and sign it as your employer. Don't put a name on it at all. Simple.

If you have a different professional and personal identity that's one thing, loads of people do, but creating a fictitious name is something else. Companies that routinely do it tend to have a team of people all using the same fictitious identity. It just looks dodgy.

It's like when you go on a company's website and the 'meet the team' section is all stock photos. It makes you look shady even if you're not. Don't do it.

Haywain · 17 Jan 2024

Tetchytyke said:
If you have a different professional and personal identity that's one thing, loads of people do, but creating a fictitious name is something else

If someone has different professional and personal names one of them will be fictitious, won't it? What about people who are known by different names because of marriage (married/maiden names), race (people of Asian heritage choosing to use an English name) or simply personal choice?

Tetchytyke · 17 Jan 2024

Haywain said:
What about people who are known by different names because of marriage (married/maiden names), race (people of Asian heritage choosing to use an English name) or simply personal choice?

What about them? None of those are examples of fictitious identities. You can have more than one real name.

The Phoenix · 17 Jan 2024

When considering costs it has to be properly costed assessment of the average amount of time and cost needed to properly process a typical case and should never be used as a punitive sum.

You do not just have to consider a person’s time you have to look at all the other costs associated with each case such as the costs of having an office office and other incidentals telephone etc and then divide the costs by the number of cases per hour to bring up the actual costs with dealing with the cases.

You only need to look at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/solicitors-guideline-hourly-rates to see how much can be charged per hour for Solicitors ,legal executives and paralegals.

If costs were not recovered from those who had actually committed an offence, then it would all have to be recouped from those genuine fare paying passengers. I do not see 150.00 per person as an out of court being high at all given that an individual has been given the option and let’s not forget the railways are not obliged to make such an offer.

There has been a great deal on Costs and out of court settlements over the years. I understand that in response to queries about this, in 2013 the then Association of Train Operating Companies sought a Barrister’s opinion on the subject. I am advised that his summary was as follows:

“Whether or not the recipient of any opportunity to settle letter enters into the arrangement is entirely at the discretion of that passenger. The sum quoted is a properly costed assessment of the average amount of time and cost needed to properly process a typical case of this kind and is not intended to represent a punitive sum. Any use of the word ‘penalty’ gives a misleading impression that this is a step in the road of the process of prosecuting rather than reflecting the reality which is that it is an offer to allow a passenger to adopt an alternative arrangement that allows him to avoid Court proceedings.”

Haywain · 17 Jan 2024

Tetchytyke said:
What about them? None of those are examples of fictitious identities. You can have more than one real name.

So what's the difference between these, that you acknowledge are legitimate, and using an alternative name in a working environment for correspondence?

furlong · 17 Jan 2024

The Phoenix said:
When considering costs it has to be properly costed assessment of the average amount of time and cost needed to properly process a typical case and should never be used as a punitive sum.

Close, but technically it is the actual not the average. In other words, the costs incurred in cases that involve noticeably more work than normal should be paid only by those people and not spread across other cases. An average charge for an average case isn't going to be objectionable. Costs of dealing with cases where no money is ever recovered have to come out of a different budget - they cannot be spread across those who do settle.

Wolfie · 17 Jan 2024

Bletchleyite said:
It's completely normal for Chinese people to have "English names" due to the difficulty pronouncing the correct one. These often do sound a bit odd because there's often an understandable lack of Western cultural understanding behind the choice (in the case of people who live in China).

My ethnic Chinese friends, one "Arthur" of Malaysian origin, the other "James" of Hong Kong origin, certainly do so as does every single one of their friends who l've met.

simonw · 17 Jan 2024

furlong said:
Close, but technically it is the actual not the average. In other words, the costs incurred in cases that involve noticeably more work than normal should be paid only by those people and not spread across other cases. An average charge for an average case isn't going to be objectionable. Costs of dealing with cases where no money is ever recovered have to come out of a different budget - they cannot be spread across those who do settle.

Why? An organisation that works on a cost plus rate will add overheads to its direct costs to get a chargeable rate. The overhead rate will cover costs incurred where no revenue generated.

bingleybong · 17 Jan 2024

furlong said:
Close, but technically it is the actual not the average. In other words, the costs incurred in cases that involve noticeably more work than normal should be paid only by those people and not spread across other cases. An average charge for an average case isn't going to be objectionable. Costs of dealing with cases where no money is ever recovered have to come out of a different budget - they cannot be spread across those who do settle.

If it is an out of court setlement surely they can charge whatever they think people will pay though there might be redress on grounds of abuse of process if the amount were truly absurd. It seems most settlements are way below what it would cost to go to court in any case as the costs then would be more and the fine etc on top. The punitve element in most settlements is asking for the full fare not the difference between whatever you paid and the correct fare (I believe courts have held the difference to be the correct amount in at least some cases).

Replacing all this with a formal system would be way better but I suspect the actual amounts would not be much less.

Pricing of out of court settlements and costs involved in persuing fare evasion cases

Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member