£250 contribution towards admin fee?

[CyrusWuff]

Whilst the full amount of a PF doesn't have to be paid on the spot, an authorised collector can ask you to pay at least the original fare that was due.

I suspect it's the OP's inability to do this which has resulted in the situation escalating the way it has, though £250 seems excessive unless this isn't the first time.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Whilst the full amount of a PF doesn't have to be paid on the spot, an authorised collector can ask you to pay at least the original fare that was due.

I suspect it's the OP's inability to do this which has resulted in the situation escalating the way it has, though £250 seems excessive unless this isn't the first time.

The old Regulations permitted this, but the new ones do not. There is no obligation upon the passenger to pay a Penalty Fare at the time of issue - and indeed the validity of the Penalty Fare is unaffected by whether or not the passenger has paid part or all of it yet, or not, as indicated by Regulation 5(9) of The Regulations.

 

[CyrusWuff]

The old Regulations permitted this, but the new ones do not. There is no obligation upon the passenger to pay a Penalty Fare at the time of issue - and indeed the validity of the Penalty Fare is unaffected by whether or not the passenger has paid part or all of it yet, or not, as indicated by Regulation 5(9) of The Regulations.

Just going by RDG's "Guide to Understanding the Railway (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018", linked to from here.

Asking the customer if they can make that part payment will form part of the decision making process. If they don't have the means to pay the fare originally due, it's highly likely the offer of a PF will be withdrawn and the TOC will seek a Byelaw or RoRA s5(3) prosecution.

Ultimately, there is no "right" to a Penalty Fare in lieu of prosecution, but TOCs prefer to dispose of trivial cases by way of a PF because they earn more money by doing so than they would if it went to Court, and the associated overheads are significantly lower.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Just going by RDG's "Guide to Understanding the Railway (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018", linked to from here.

Asking the customer if they can make that part payment will form part of the decision making process. If they don't have the means to pay the fare originally due, it's highly likely the offer of a PF will be withdrawn and the TOC will seek a Byelaw or RoRA s5(3) prosecution.

Ultimately, there is no "right" to a Penalty Fare in lieu of prosecution, but TOCs prefer to dispose of trivial cases by way of a PF because they earn more money by doing so than they would if it went to Court, and the associated overheads are significantly lower.

Indeed - all of what you have said is true. So one can summarise that there is no obligation to pay a Penalty Fare, whether in part or in full, directly when it is issued - however if the passenger is unable to pay at least the ordinary fare they were expecting to pay, prosecution may be sought and a Penalty Fare might not be offered.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just going by RDG's "Guide to Understanding the Railway (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018", linked to from here.

Asking the customer if they can make that part payment will form part of the decision making process. If they don't have the means to pay the fare originally due, it's highly likely the offer of a PF will be withdrawn and the TOC will seek a Byelaw or RoRA s5(3) prosecution.

The problem with this is that it leaves those in one genuine "use case" - forgetting their wallet - in Court because of a simple error. It's very easily done when in a hurry (more so for a woman who won't feel it in her pocket if it's in her handbag) and leaves you with neither ticket nor means of payment.

It's one reason I am quite a fan of barriers. I can't accidentally board a train without my ticket.

 

[gray1404]

This bothers me too that someone can end up with the TOC going down the prosecution route because they have no ticket or money. In my case my ticket and my money are both in my wallet. So if I forget one, I forget them both.

This is exactly why I helped a customer out once on Merseyrail. It was last year but basically he had boarded the train and forgot his wallet. It looked so genuine and I'd actually made the same mistake the week before. Realised when I got to my destination I had no means of payment and I'd left my ticket and money at home. Thankfully no ticket checks. On the way home though I had a word with the guard as I boarded who was understanding (i.e. if RPI boarded I'd had permission to travel). So anyway I said I would pay the singe fare for this guy so a PF could be issued rather then a report as the RPI was saying he couldn't issue a PF as he had no money. I handed the passenger £20 to hand over and then he gave me change. The fare was only about £3 so I didn't mind helping out.

I really do think the system should allow for the fact occasionally people make a genuine mistake.

 

[furlong]

If they don't have the means to pay the fare originally due, it's highly likely the offer of a PF will be withdrawn and the TOC will seek a Byelaw or RoRA s5(3) prosecution.

Under the new regulations I think that is completely wrong and if TOCs are doing this it may need to be escalated to the DfT for resolution.

Ultimately, there is no "right" to a Penalty Fare in lieu of prosecution

While there is no requirement to do so, when the necessary conditions (in the new regulations) are met, there seems to be a strong expectation that a PF would normally be issued.

From the Second Reading:

Mr. McNair-Wilson...What is more important, the trained, authorised personnel will be given discretion. If a person says, "I have lost my ticket"—not a completely unknown predicament, in which some of us may have found ourselves—it will be possible for the official to say, "That is all right, you can go." There will also be a 21-day discretionary period. If a notice is issued to a passenger, he will be able to put his case in writing. The matter will then be examined by the appropriate authorities at head office. There will be no attempt to bulldoze or bully passengers. If a reasonable excuse is given, discretion can be exercised by those in authority.

Mr. Portillo...As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest made clear, the penalty fare will be a civil penalty, not a criminal one, and that will mean that most offences for non-payment of fares will no longer be heard at magistrates' courts. But BR would still have the right to prosecute in serious cases of fraud.

 

[furlong]

I handed the passenger £20 to hand over and then he gave me change.

Being careful not to buy the ticket yourself!

22 (1) No person shall buy a ticket on behalf of another intending to enable another person to travel without having paid the correct fare.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What an utterly bizarre Byelaw. Why on earth does it matter who pays as long as someone does?

 

[najaB]

What an utterly bizarre Byelaw. Why on earth does it matter who pays as long as someone does?

I suspect the key word is 'correct' - as in don't buy ticket for someone else unless it is the right ticket.

 

[anme]

Being careful not to buy the ticket yourself!

What an utterly bizarre Byelaw. Why on earth does it matter who pays as long as someone does?

22 (1) No person shall buy a ticket on behalf of another intending to enable another person to travel without having paid the correct fare.

I think I can see the purpose of this bylaw, but it is very poorly written.

I think it is intended to make it an offence to buy a ticket for another person which is not valid for the journey they are intending to make. For example, if an employer requests an employee to travel from A to C in the course of their work, but only buys a "short fare" ticket from A to B (which is closer to A than C) for that employee with the intention of avoiding the correct fare, then the employer has committed an offence (as will the employee if they use the ticket).

However, read literally it is naturally interpreted as making it an offence to buy even the correct ticket for a journey on behalf of another person, who will then be travelling "without [the travelling person] having paid the correct fare".

 

[Blinkbonny]

Or using your railcard to buy somebody else a ticket. Or a 15 year old buying a ticket for his older mate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or using your railcard to buy somebody else a ticket. Or a 15 year old buying a ticket for his older mate.

Terribly worded, though.

It should really say something like:

No person should knowingly buy a ticket on behalf of another person which is not valid for that person to make the journey they intend to make.

As it is it could be used to prosecute someone who comes forward and volunteers to end a ticketing dispute on board by paying the requested fare. Quite a lot of guards and RPIs have an issue with this, mainly because it removes their ability to teach the "errant" (usually confused) passenger a "lesson". I'm sure I've read posts on here describing precisely such a situation.

 

[gray1404]

Which is what I was worried might have happened given the militant attitude shown by the RPI (actually the whole group of them) so I gave the lad the money and told him to say he wanted to make the minimum payment.