Amount of cash raised by TOC's in fines and UPN's etc

[jon0844]

We've probably all seen the people who have the £20 in hand to pay the penalty fare, so are clearly working on that basis.

These people are probably the ones where a PF should never be offered but I've seen it happen and assumed that RPI couldn't go down the MG11 route as the money held out was usually accompanied with a wry smile that said everything.

There's a massive difference between being caught for the first time and actually having committed the offence for the first time. I doubt many are caught on the one and only occasion someone has not got a ticket, or has the wrong ticket etc.

 

[Tibbs]

I'm in a similar position regarding house contents insurance - even having been burgled once, I'm still way up after having replaced the stuff that was stolen compared to if I had bought insurance all these years.

Without the whole breaking the law thing, obviously!

 

[glasgowguy1984]

I'm not saying that a procurator fiscal couldn't prosecute purely on cost, murder trials are an example very expensive but in the public interest but a £40 rail ticket for the expense and time of the court? Very unlikely. Courts are under pressure to catch murders, serious assault etc not some guy for a rail fare. Part of society today I'm afraid cases get binned daily that are more in the public interest add to that I do know a junior fiscal. From what he and others have said if he put even the clearest cut case in front of a sheriff his boss would want to know what he's playing at wasting time and if he ended up in front of one of the more infamous sheriffs he may find himself on a very public roasting from said sheriff especially with plead early take a fine no record procedure. Courts are under financial constraints and train fares are not a good use of finite resources.

Many have mentioned FCC, maybe they should invest their money on ticket inspectors on all trains not only would they help stop ticketless travel they would also allow the driver to carry out his duties in the event of an emergency as driver wouldn't need to deal with customers. Scotrail has done this since day dot on their suburban services which although not close to London in size glasgow does have the largest suburban services outside the capital in the uk. Plus they could just charge the standard price no need for large legal departments stop wasting the courts time and increase revenue and everybody would know they will run into a inspector at some point so why bother skipping paying. They wouldn't do that though cos much more cost effective to hammer commuter sheep cos they'll just take it and they make a killing.

 

[Ferret]

Do you have any actual evidence to back up what you're saying here Glasgowguy, or is this just the gospel according to Glasgowguy?

As regards your point about ticket inspectors, there is as such one on every train run by my company. However, we still have to bring many prosecutions - you may find it surprising to learn that some people just don't want to pay! How rude

 

[glasgowguy1984]

So, would an RPI taking a statement with a colleague witnessing it be sufficient to satisfy the Procurator Fiscal?

There is currently a debate on collaboration in Scotland more to make rape crimes easier to prosecute as an example the Scottish government want to push it through the law society are opposed. So in theory you may only need one RPI in future but personal safety and common sense will be they still work in pairs. However any defence lawyer will probably take them apart accuse them of lieing etc they do it to police all the time sometimes both fairly and unfairly standard operating procedure. Again untested though cos you aren't seeing inside of a court in Scotland.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
How often do you see people on this board asking for advice on fines or unpaid fares in Scotland? Is there even 1? I haven't seen it, I come from a family of legal professionals in Scotland all work in different firms are in court daily as well as a friend in the fiscal a office the type of cases that get binned daily is scary! No I'm not talking bout failure to pay a train ticket scary properly serious stuff.

At the end of the day if its in England or Scotland is the cost of these cases going to court worth it, the answer if your sensible is no. So why do they put we will prosecute criminal conviction etc to entrap people into paying a unreasonable amount for a small mistake. Now if your using a fake season ticket fair enough you deserve it but turning up at a booth in Manchester to pay your fare getting dragged off to the side to get an £80 fine for a £3 ticket do you call that proportionate? I don't its verging on blackmail.

 

[Ferret]

Hmmmm, from what I'm seeing on the ground (so to speak) is that people who are being caught are not making 'innocent mistakes', but only paying when they are challenged - the most widespread form of fare evasion that there is. There are a small minority of people to whom you refer, of which we have seen some on here who have been caught in the net, which is regrettable.

From my point of view, my main job is not to sell tickets - I'm responsible for the safety of a train. My job is not to catch the ones who only pay when challenged and pack them off to the Magistrates Court. However, those who don't want to pay me and instead have their details taken - well, the chances are, they will be off to the Magistrates, in some cases having been given a further chance to pay, be it through a UFN or through a letter being sent from the appropriate department within our organisation.

Overall, I see what some of the railway companies are doing as a good thing - making sure that people pay their fares is ultimately for the good of us all be we employees or the public.

Edit: with regard to the example you used, would those people be paying if the RPIs weren't there at the destination? We both know the answer to that, I am sure.

 

[jb]

At the end of the day if its in England or Scotland is the cost of these cases going to court worth it, the answer if your sensible is no. So why do they put we will prosecute criminal conviction etc to entrap people into paying a unreasonable amount for a small mistake. Now if your using a fake season ticket fair enough you deserve it but turning up at a booth in Manchester to pay your fare getting dragged off to the side to get an £80 fine for a £3 ticket do you call that proportionate? I don't its verging on blackmail.

So, after all those words, you're ultimately suggesting that "they" should go and catch some real criminals. Righto.

 

[jon0844]

I'm not saying that a procurator fiscal couldn't prosecute purely on cost, murder trials are an example very expensive but in the public interest but a £40 rail ticket for the expense and time of the court?

I guess it depends on how you view how society might change when people realise they can push the boundaries because the chances of being prosecuted are slim.

The odd rail fare not paid for here, the odd thing slipped in the pocket there - and gradually getting more confident and cocky until suddenly you make it onto the radar - with a huge history of petty offences that cost everyone loads of money.

We seem to live in an era where people argue that some things are not a big deal, ignoring the multiplication of all those 'not a big deal' situations into something that IS a big deal.

Still, that's my opinion and we seem to be happy with things as they are.

Many have mentioned FCC, maybe they should invest their money on ticket inspectors on all trains not only would they help stop ticketless travel they would also allow the driver to carry out his duties in the event of an emergency as driver wouldn't need to deal with customers.

A revenue inspector is never going to be trained to the level of a guard and if they were, I bet the unions would have a thing or two to say about it.

While I know FCC revenue inspectors can adopt customer service duties during disruption, they would NOT be dealing with emergencies beyond contacting the relevant people. I am not sure if they are first aid trained, but that's still a lot different to what you're suggesting.

 

[455driver]

I'm not saying that a procurator fiscal couldn't prosecute purely on cost, murder trials are an example very expensive but in the public interest but a £40 rail ticket for the expense and time of the court? Very unlikely. Courts are under pressure to catch murders, serious assault etc not some guy for a rail fare. Part of society today I'm afraid cases get binned daily that are more in the public interest add to that I do know a junior fiscal.

Did "the big man" get prosecuted? (I cant remember)
Was chasing him "in the public interest?

You say you come from a family of lawyers but are you yourself actually a lawyer?
My 9 year old son comes from a railway family but cant drive a train!

 

[michael769]

Did "the big man" get prosecuted? (I cant remember)
Was chasing him "in the public interest?

No the case was NFA (No Further Action) on the grounds that it was not in the public interest to proceed.

 

[glasgowguy1984]

No I'm not a lawyer, I was using my experience of listening to a vast number of people who are in court daily, that their are far more important cases being dropped than train ticket cases.

I wasn't saying that ticket inspectors can act in the role of a guard, Bathgate line had that dispute when it opened, what I meant was in a customer service role answering customers questions keeping them calm allowing driver to get on with his important safety role. Sorry if you thought I meant he should be in hi viz in the four foot putting out detonators my mistake.

I got side tracked was trying to use scotrail as an example, not petitioning government to change the law but instead of investing in large legal departments and RPI's they in the past few years have gated every main station in city's and gated all main artery stations in towns outside the city. It isn't perfect but neither is life I still fail to see how catching two fare evaders while also catching an innocent commuter who has made a mistake is just or fair. As the saying goes two wrongs don't make a right.

At the end of the day this is simply another race to the bottom, because x number of people actively avoid paying this means that everyone with the incorrect ticket must be the same. I just think its a sign of pure corporate greed that its easier to hammer all your customers if they make a mistake than try and catch persistent fare avoiders. To many people in the rail network look at things in black and white when life is just shaded of gray. Oh and all holy one who thinks that society letting off anybody who makes a mistake deliberatly or not should be flogged I hope your sainthood come soon lest you have to live like the rest of us meer mortals.

Just to reiterate never had problems in Scotland or England have always had correct ticket, I'm off to float on my high ideal cloud of correct paperwork where the ticketing angels will sing my name!

 

[jon0844]

Living near London, I accept I can't speak for the whole country where trains might be infrequent and many stations are ungated and don't have any methods to buy tickets (or rely on, say, one TVM on one platform).

Down here, and I'd expect in the more populated parts of Scotland, there's really no excuse to 'make a mistake' and if you aren't paying to travel then I see no reason for letting people off with a puny £20 penalty, which is sod all compared to the cost of many tickets. And for those fares over £10, the TOC can double the cost of a single ticket - big wow. Get caught every day and it's a problem, get caught once a week/month and that sounds like a bargain.

It's NOT greed - these companies have every right to get the money that is owed to them. Given how much the taxpayer helps subsidise many services, it's actually you and me that end up paying for these people who would rather not pay.

As I get older, I get less sympathetic to those committing 'petty crimes' and think we're definitely going the wrong way by making more crimes seem trivial and letting people believe that the only crimes worth investigating are things like murder and rape.

 

[glasgowguy1984]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree then. All good banter I suppose.

As someone pointed out I am not a lawyer so I called a friend who until recently worked as a prosecutor and asked her what her view would be in taking a case involving ticketless travel. Her response was even if it was £100 I wouldn't in a month of Sundays take that to a court it's not in the public interest due to the burden of proof and the cost. She also added that her boss would have shredded her for waste of time and money plus she would become the joke of the bar common room.

I will add one thing though if everybody who gets stopped just gave name contact details didn't say anything else and lawyered up straight away I think any sensible toc would fold their aggressive revenue protection very quickly as it would clog the legal department, RPI's would constantly be in court and thus render it uneconomical. That isn't gonna happen though so unless a proper arbitrating body that's open and independent with the ability to use common sense then I can't see certain toc's taking advantage to make money out of commuter sheep. People even in urban areas are pretty stupid just follow the crowd baa baa.

 

[SF-02]

Living near London, I accept I can't speak for the whole country where trains might be infrequent and many stations are ungated and don't have any methods to buy tickets (or rely on, say, one TVM on one platform).

Down here, and I'd expect in the more populated parts of Scotland, there's really no excuse to 'make a mistake' and if you aren't paying to travel then I see no reason for letting people off with a puny £20 penalty, which is sod all compared to the cost of many tickets. And for those fares over £10, the TOC can double the cost of a single ticket - big wow. Get caught every day and it's a problem, get caught once a week/month and that sounds like a bargain.

That's one main reason why it's such a shame Southeastern and Greater Anglia have now got a long extension and the chances of TfL taking over seemingly gone. There would be a better chance of barriers and staff to stop the evasion if the LO model was followed. Currently even the big stations (which aren't NR managed in central London) leave barriers open pretty much all day long and trains are DOO.

 

[jon0844]

As someone pointed out I am not a lawyer so I called a friend who until recently worked as a prosecutor and asked her what her view would be in taking a case involving ticketless travel. Her response was even if it was £100 I wouldn't in a month of Sundays take that to a court it's not in the public interest due to the burden of proof and the cost. She also added that her boss would have shredded her for waste of time and money plus she would become the joke of the bar common room.

I have to say that I find this very disappointing, but not much of a surprise. What a great message to send out to people!

What's the value you'd put on fare evasion before it does become public interest? Clearly nobody asked me or the many people on here, or anyone else that pays thousands of pounds a year on travel.

I will add one thing though if everybody who gets stopped just gave name contact details didn't say anything else and lawyered up straight away I think any sensible toc would fold their aggressive revenue protection very quickly as it would clog the legal department, RPI's would constantly be in court and thus render it uneconomical.

With all due respect; whose side are you on? That's a very surprising attitude to take, suggesting TOCs might as well give up on trying to stop fare evasion and fraud. I find it hard to believe that you could suggest it unless you're of the opinion that it's okay not to buy a ticket when the opportunity arises, and think that if anyone would dare try and enforce the rules, you'd suddenly do everything in your power to avoid punishment.

I used to think Scottish law was in many ways more advanced than English law, but now I'm not so sure. It seems to make it very easy for criminals to get away with their crimes - which, to me, isn't in the public interest.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

To put the comparisons in some sort of context - the potential for bringing a private prosecution for a (relatively minor) criminal offence to Court in Scotland may be very limited, but I think the unusual factor is not to be found in Scottish law and practice, but in the fact that our Railway Operators have the potential for bringing criminal prosecutions at all.
It is not common for commercial institutions to have such recourse at their disposal, and most Companies would be obliged to, either, prosecute a civil action for a debt (plus reasonable costs and interest), or, invite the Police to investigate the potential for a Criminal prosecution (which would be brought forward by the state).
There are plenty of well established systems for recovering debts, many of them being very effective, and very few involving Criminal Law.

Its definitely the UK-wide rail industry which is the exception, not the Scottish legal system.

 

[Ferret]

And a bloody good job for us that it is that way too Dave - from what I've learned today about the Scottish legal system today, we'd be almost toothless in attempting to enforce the law (which south of the border, BTP couldn't care less about).

 

[cjp]

A very interesting thread with points gently made

With all due respect; whose side are you on? That's a very surprising attitude to take, suggesting TOCs might as well give up on trying to stop fare evasion and fraud. I find it hard to believe that you could suggest it unless you're of the opinion that it's okay not to buy a ticket when the opportunity arises, and think that if anyone would dare try and enforce the rules, you'd suddenly do everything in your power to avoid punishment.

I used to think Scottish law was in many ways more advanced than English law, but now I'm not so sure. It seems to make it very easy for criminals to get away with their crimes - which, to me, isn't in the public interest.

What glasgowguy1984 said was Scotrail have adopted methods other than prosecution to ensure they received the revenues due. He cited the practise of guards or ticket inspector people being on every train (a requirement I understand of the PTA) and installing gates at stations within Glasgow and on commuter routes.
A similar intense method was commended to FCC to get every penny rather than their present method which I understand to be one of not total checks - thus everyone will have ticket - but one of random checks with serious consequences when people are found wanting.

Two different ways of ensuring people to pay what is due?

Me I like having my valid ticket checked especially on the rare occassions FGW put people on their Thames Turbo local services as I have serious doubts about many of those those I see in the first class sections just travelling one or two stations:cry:

 

[Ferret]

CJP, talk of having open ticket offices and people checking on the train is a ridiculous concept and you should be sent off to the gulags for having the temerity to suggest it!

Seriously, this aspect of what's happening in (for example) the Manchester area sits very uncomfortably with me. If people are deliberately ignoring an opportunity to pay, then they are fare game to be dealt with accordingly - but what will bring the whole prosecutions thing to an end will be trying to 'do' people who have not had a chance to pay.

 

[jon0844]

If you have staff on all trains, that still wouldn't solve a problem if nobody would see court for anything up to £100. You'd just laugh and say 'sue me' and expect the most that could happen was being thrown off the train.

And now days you'd probably threaten the staff with an assault charge if your were made to leave by force.

It would be a farce if that was the way things were set up, with only the honest paying and gradually even them wondering why they pay when others don't.

Buses are already like this in many a places where people get on and refuse to pay and the driver is instructed not to get involved and just carry them. I expect that's half the reason so many people in London now get free travel - they wouldn't pay anyway!

 

[glasgowguy1984]

I have to say that I find this very disappointing, but not much of a surprise. What a great message to send out to people!

What's the value you'd put on fare evasion before it does become public interest? Clearly nobody asked me or the many people on here, or anyone else that pays thousands of pounds a year on travel.



With all due respect; whose side are you on? That's a very surprising attitude to take, suggesting TOCs might as well give up on trying to stop fare evasion and fraud. I find it hard to believe that you could suggest it unless you're of the opinion that it's okay not to buy a ticket when the opportunity arises, and think that if anyone would dare try and enforce the rules, you'd suddenly do everything in your power to avoid punishment.

I used to think Scottish law was in many ways more advanced than English law, but now I'm not so sure. It seems to make it very easy for criminals to get away with their crimes - which, to me, isn't in the public interest.

A little harsh as I said I always buy my ticket for my journey and for you to suggest otherwise is a little insulting its probably that kind of thinking that means you assume everybody's a thief. Kinda sad state of society people thinking the worst of people automatically.

On the positive side of scots law if you take out a loan from a dodgy pay day loan company who encourage the most desperate knowing they'll be owing them cash forever you can get rid of them. I have a friend who's a single parent of a disabled child, in council house always struggling to make ends meet took out a loan in desperation after a few months had no way to pay back with the massive interest rate. Starts getting harassed by said company threating all sorts, she was very stressed falling behind on rent not eating half the week trying to pay this back, sent her to a lawyer I know very well who basically sent letter off to these cowboys informing them that she had no cash couldn't pay and where they could go shove their demand letters. Companys fault if they carried out the most basic credit check or didn't care then they could kiss goodbye to their loan as bailiffs are impotent in Scotland and even if they go to court get sheriff officers they can't take anything anyway. So scots law helped out the most needy in society and no I'm not crying about the poor pay day loan cowboys!

 

[jon0844]

I don't assume everyone is a thief but find it odd that you're either so trusting or just assume that everyone can get a lawyer and get out of anything. To the level where you're suggesting TOCs might as well get rid of their RPIs and just have people selling tickets on trains.

For one, on busy services people would easily be able to avoid having to buy a ticket and I imagine you'd argue that it's the TOCs fault for not trying hard enough to sell a ticket.

Loan sharking seems a bit of a different story, however.

I'm going to continue to say I believe in more enforcement and even the threat of a criminal record. That seems, from the tens of threads on here, to be the one thing that really terrifies people.

 

[glasgowguy1984]

If you have staff on all trains, that still wouldn't solve a problem if nobody would see court for anything up to £100. You'd just laugh and say 'sue me' and expect the most that could happen was being thrown off the train.

And now days you'd probably threaten the staff with an assault charge if your were made to leave by force.

It would be a farce if that was the way things were set up, with only the honest paying and gradually even them wondering why they pay when others don't.

Buses are already like this in many a places where people get on and refuse to pay and the driver is instructed not to get involved and just carry them. I expect that's half the reason so many people in London now get free travel - they wouldn't pay anyway!

In my 30years in Glasgow I have to say I've never seen anyone refuse to pay the other passengers tend to see to that its the Celtic nation crack 'ah now your pushin it attitude'. Have to say though that I think assaulting a member of staff would be dealt with severely in a court sheriffs don't put up with assaulting someone doing their job getting assaulted, that's a book thrown at defendant if found guilty.

I have never heard or seen anybody being allowed on bus when they state they won't pay. I've been on glasgow buses where this has occurred but usually driver parks the bus and dosen't move or on one occasion the bus was stopped outside the local police station and police came out to give him a new lift.

Glasgow must be getting soft nowadays!

 

[jon0844]

I am referring to buses in and around London. Some drivers will refuse to move, but even then some will eventually cave in - especially when there's little chance other passengers will step in. Perhaps we are more scared of the consequences than up there? It takes guts but as I said before, when the legal system starts to fail or is seen as week, people get more confident (and cocky).

I did refer to an assault charge against a TM/guard that tried to throw someone off the train, not an assault ON the staff. I'd hope that this would be dealt with properly, although we do remember the 'big man' incident.

 

[glasgowguy1984]

I realised you were talking about London buses but maybe it's just a different attitude to life between glasgow and London. Glasgow is a confused city though murder capital of Europe yet wins friendliest city in Britain, a contradiction wrapped inside an enigma.

I think scotrail has good practice in its revenue department, you never see gates open they're always manned and working. Horses for courses I guess.

 

[Nick W]

If a few poor people/children get free bus travel, does it really matter? How is it fair that some people earn little over £10k a year and struggle to pay for bus travel while some people can afford to drive Jaguars and pay the congestion charge.

I think giving such people free travel is a good idea-solves the problem, forms a constant revenue stream (the subsidy) from transport, gives the people a better life and hopefully one day they will earn more money and be able to pay their fares or pay taxes for others to get free travel.

Obviously avoiding a fare in front of everyone is awkward and shameful so I doubt the majority of the population will suddenly start doing it...

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I think scotrail has good practice in its revenue department, you never see gates open they're always manned and working. Horses for courses I guess.

Although that is a sweeping generalisation, I would tend to agree, from experience. It's certainly a contrast with the views of some of the London-centric perspectives posted in this thread, about staffing levels in the London area (and elsewhere).

A simplistic assessment might be to suggest that the London area (and presumably the same applies around Manchester and other areas with high denssity commuter services) would benefit from higher levels of staff presence. The difficulty which the London areas faces, however, is the in the choices already implemented, to introduce electronic ticketing, along with the claim that the system would allow widespread reduction in staffing without a negative impact on revenue. Whether the early expectations of Oyster have been achieved or not, we must accept that we are where we are, with greatly reduced staffing on the south east of England's railways and criticism from fare-paying passengers of the lack of front-line staff.

I only rearely see an un-staffed barrier in a Scottish station.

 

[jon0844]

London Overground has restored the staffing levels and is a sign of what should be done for other services around London. But it will either require TfL taking over more services, or the DfT writing it into future franchise specifications.

 

[455driver]

No the case was NFA (No Further Action) on the grounds that it was not in the public interest to proceed.

That is good, but its a shame he had to go through all the uncertainty because he "did the right thing", cant see him (or anyone who knows about it) helping the guard out in a similar situation after that.

 

[Tibbs]

London Overground has restored the staffing levels and is a sign of what should be done for other services around London. But it will either require TfL taking over more services, or the DfT writing it into future franchise specifications.

This sums up quite neatly why allowing private companies with shareholder return as their only motive enforce the law sits very uneasily with me. Catching one person and charging them £100 in 'costs' is far far cheaper than getting 27 people to buy a ticket (assuming the average price of a ticket is £3.70).

I think everyone on here agrees that the best solution is one that means everyone who uses the railway pays for their journey. However, that solution is expensive (gate every station and have it manned from first to last train).

A TOC will never do this on their own because it would make them less profit than doing what they're doing now, they would never get a return on their investment in time.