Are fine consequences too overkill?

[Falcon1200]

then chooses to let them start their journeys without checking they have a valid ticket

Many, many stations have no ticket barriers, and in some cases no staff at all, so how can the railway check that each passenger has a valid ticket before boarding? And even at those stations with barriers, good luck at (for example) Glasgow Central examining, in detail (eg checking photos against faces) each and every ticket before letting people through to catch their train! At the end of the day, there has to be a level of personal responsibility; And also, as mentioned above, deterrence to dissuade the dishonest from taking advantage of leniency.

 

[daodao]

IMO the wrong question is being asked, or rather the thread title addresses a secondary issue that arises out of the excessive complexity of the fares system on the British national mainline railway network. The way to reduce the number of "innocent" individuals being trapped accidentally by penalty fares/prosecutions is to reduce this complexity, not for TOCs to back off on their attempts to pursue ticket offenders. However, most of the individuals seeking advice in threads on this sub-section of the forum do appear to be deliberate fare evaders.

 

[Richardr]

There's a simple answer to Railcard offences.

Get rid of railcards altogether.

There is a simple answer to rail fare evasion - shut down the railways. That would stop it.

Back in the real world, the calculation is that railcards add to he industry's income by encouraging people who would be less likely to use the railway to use it, or use it more frequently. This then reduces the fares charged to others.

If the consequences of being caught for fare evasion are too high, then it would die out?

 

[RPI]

Some interesting thoughts in this thread, ultimately the nail has been hit on the head a few times using the words "personal responsibility", as for members of staff being held accountable for their errors, if a member of staff completes an MG11 then they most definitely are culpable for their actions, when you complete one you sign a declaration at the top of the page where you are liable to prosecution if you knowingly state something that you believe to be untrue.

Some TOC's are better than others, certainly at GWR as an RPI it is made abundantly clear to me that I need to make the right choices and would be held accountable for not doing so.

There's a big difference between error and lying, there are times where I've made errors on notices, by errors I mean such things as mistakenly noting the wrong address or wrong fare and they have been withdrawn in favour of the passenger, and rightly so.

There is currently refresher training going on for us, I had mine the other week and it is being delivered personally by the most senior manager in Revenue Protection and in my opinion was most welcome, for me personally it was nice to see that I do get the majority of calls right in what actions I take.

That said, I read some stories on here from other TOC's and cringe at what some staff do.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Pretty much nowhere else in the world will you be asked to pay 2k pounds after using an expired railcard once.

Is that really so? Can't imagine that scenario ever happening.

Using an expired railcard on lots and lots of occasions and then being caught the once, perhaps?

 

[RPI]

And to add, so many people who I stop and go to issue a PF or conduct an interview under caution, seem so surprised sometimes, they clearly know they're in the wrong (not always, but most) as there's always "well you can use your discretion", if they know that discretion is an outcome of their actions then they clearly know that they are in the wrong.

But while I think about it, something funny did happen the other day, I actually witnessed a young lad who had a 16-25 discount on his ticket but had a 16-17 saver card.... And obviously no I didn't take any action and pointed out to him that he had paid too much. I can no longer say that I've never seen it happen that way around

Is that really so? Can't imagine that scenario ever happening.

Using an expired railcard on lots and lots of occasions and then being caught the once, perhaps?

Beat me to it

 

[gravitystorm]

Are fines on the UK railways too overkill?

In general, no, but there are two specific aspects of the system which I think are unfair and unjustifiable.

The first is using Anytime fares when calculating settlement offers for Off-Peak journeys. There's no moral basis for doing so, since the Anytime fare bares no relation to the fare that was avoided i.e. the fare that would otherwise have been paid. The only basis for doing so is that the TOCs can, and therefore they do. I would like to see this changed, in legislation if necessary.

The second is in the specific case of expired railcards which the holders are eligible to renew (e.g. two-together railcards, not 16-17 railcards when the holder is no longer eligible). The loss to the railway should be calculated based on the cost of the railcard, not the cost of the fares, since if the holder had done what they should have done (i.e. renew the railcard) then that's the extra revenue that would have been received.

Where it becomes particularly unfair is when these two aspects are combined into the same event. For example someone forgets to renew their two-together railcard for an offpeak return from London to Manchester:

• What they should have paid: two off-peak returns plus two-together railcard = £143.80 + £30 = £173.80
• What they actually paid: two off-peak returns = £143.80
• Loss to the railway = £30
• What the railway calculates: Four anytime singles = 4 x £184.70 = £738.80 (+ investigation costs)

That's a 2462% markup when calculating their losses!

The genuine revenue lost is £30 and that should be the basis of the TOC calculations. And even for those ineligible for railcard renewal, then the revenue loss is the discount given (e.g. £71.95 in this example). Of course there should be some form of discouragement, but that should be in the order of the penalty fare (e.g. £100) or investigation costs (e.g. £150). Not with thousands of percent markup in addition.

I read the forums regularly and variations on this scenario crop up from time to time, and my heart goes out to the people involved since it's manifestly unfair.

 

[Skymonster]

Reflecting on my last dozen or so return rail journeys, some involving multiple trains, I have had my ticket checked at very best on maybe 50% of occasions - and this includes those when it went through barriers but no on board examinations took place. During those I have never proffered my railcard because its usually tucked away in my bag in the overhead rather than about my person with the ticket - even when staff announce that tickets and railcards should be ready for checking as they enter the carriage. On those latter occasions I have verbally offered to show it but not once has my offer been followed up on; invariably the answer has been that it isn’t necessary. Maybe I look honest - or look my age - but this does sometimes make me wonder why I bothered spending £70 to renew my railcard. The answer is because I’m aware of the potential consequences of that one occasion when I could be asked but can’t produce it. But I‘m not surprised if other would-be railcard holders take the alternative view, then get annoyed (with the railway, or in truth with themselves) and thus feel that they need to try to dig themselves out of the hole they eventually find they are in. My point is that the railway doesn’t always help itself. In my experience it often fails to perform basic checks that are handed to it on a plate, and yet reacts (often with a big stick) when it finally catches someone out. In my opinion there are two sides to capturing the correct revenue on trains - customers play by the rules, and the railway enforces the rules. Anything else just leads to leakage and frustration on both sides.

 

[Fermiboson]

Is that really so? Can't imagine that scenario ever happening.

Using an expired railcard on lots and lots of occasions and then being caught the once, perhaps?

We have multiple threads in which this is exactly what is asked of OP - and one in which in fact the railcard was valid all along. Of course, it is possible to defend such a claim, but only with knowledge and attention that one is not generally expected to require to travel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But while I think about it, something funny did happen the other day, I actually witnessed a young lad who had a 16-25 discount on his ticket but had a 16-17 saver card.... And obviously no I didn't take any action and pointed out to him that he had paid too much. I can no longer say that I've never seen it happen that way around

It certainly doesn't make sense to be doing anything other than informing people of their mistake if they've done something wrong that hasn't resulted in them paying less (or has resulted in them paying more). Selecting the wrong Railcard (unless a minimum fare was evaded as a result) is certainly one of them. The only time it would make sense would be if it gave rise to the suspicion the ticket was used and had just been picked up from the floor or passed on.

 

[Fermiboson]

Some interesting thoughts in this thread, ultimately the nail has been hit on the head a few times using the words "personal responsibility", as for members of staff being held accountable for their errors, if a member of staff completes an MG11 then they most definitely are culpable for their actions, when you complete one you sign a declaration at the top of the page where you are liable to prosecution if you knowingly state something that you believe to be untrue.

Some TOC's are better than others, certainly at GWR as an RPI it is made abundantly clear to me that I need to make the right choices and would be held accountable for not doing so.

There's a big difference between error and lying, there are times where I've made errors on notices, by errors I mean such things as mistakenly noting the wrong address or wrong fare and they have been withdrawn in favour of the passenger, and rightly so.

There is currently refresher training going on for us, I had mine the other week and it is being delivered personally by the most senior manager in Revenue Protection and in my opinion was most welcome, for me personally it was nice to see that I do get the majority of calls right in what actions I take.

That said, I read some stories on here from other TOC's and cringe at what some staff do.

And to their credit, GWR staff do appear some of the most well trained in my personal experience - but they also have a easier job since most GWR stations in their core area are gated and staffed major stations, and where they are not (Cotswolds mostly?) the usual journeys undertaken are long enough allow time for a guard to walk through and check everyone etc. Revenue staff at TOCs that have a much larger proportion of ungated, unstaffed stations, where people may be commuting regularly between two such stations (e.g. WM, Northern, Merseyrail) and perhaps also serving more deprived areas may find it much more difficult to do their job properly - and from the stories we hear on here and elsewhere, it appears that management of those TOCs also alternate between a state of giving up and of cracking down hard on the wrong things.

It certainly doesn't make sense to be doing anything other than informing people of their mistake if they've done something wrong that hasn't resulted in them paying less (or has resulted in them paying more). Selecting the wrong Railcard (unless a minimum fare was evaded as a result) is certainly one of them. The only time it would make sense would be if it gave rise to the suspicion the ticket was used and had just been picked up from the floor or passed on.

We’ve seen several cases of people with 26-30 railcards travelling on tickets for 16-25 railcards within the appropiate time validity on here being prosecuted - are these cases isolated or common practice? [SEE POST #61]

Also notable though not exactly related - I learned of a case the other day whereby someone intended to fare evade on a train valid for off peak tickets by buying a child ticket, but bought the anytime child ticket instead, which was considerably more expensive than the off peak undiscounted adult ticket. Apparently British ticketing is so complex that even fare evasion requires competence.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We’ve seen several cases of people with 26-30 railcards travelling on tickets for 16-25 railcards within the appropiate time validity on here being prosecuted - are these cases isolated or common practice?

This is particularly bad because when the 26-30 first came out the railway actually specifically said "if you can't get a 26-30 ticket buy a 16-25 one". (Not all TVMs had the button at first).

Unless money has been saved prosecuting this is just making the railway look stupid.

Also notable though not exactly related - I learned of a case the other day whereby someone intended to fare evade on a train valid for off peak tickets by buying a child ticket, but bought the anytime child ticket instead, which was considerably more expensive than the off peak undiscounted adult ticket. Apparently British ticketing is so complex that even fare evasion requires competence.

I'd probably just do a deep belly laugh at that, point out that the muppet had paid more, point out that if they were caught again they'd be prosecuted and leave it at that.

 

[ATS3]

So are you saying you want it to be a requirement to carry ID when travelling by train? I would be totally against this.

Why? I'd gouge the vast majority already carry ID in their wallets, I don't see the issue here.

So you support what @Hadders was saying i.e. that the option to buy a ticket in advance (up to 3 months before it's travel date when a bargain may be available), should be removed by your suggestion.

No, do not put words into my mouth. I invite you to reread what I and then he said.

I suggest using a reputable retailer when purchasing something like a digital railcard.

The issue is not what I think, its what the masses think. The masses think that trainline for instance, which is known on here to be plagued by issues, is the only place you can buy railcards and tickets.

 

[Haywain]

The masses think that trainline, which is known on here to be plagued by issues, is the only place you can buy railcards and tickets.

I believe most people on the forum acknowledge that Trainline's app for railcards works very well and allows railcards to be viewed without a data connection.

 

[ATS3]

I believe most people on the forum acknowledge that Trainline's app for railcards works very well and allows railcards to be viewed without a data connection.

Well I may be mistaken but from what I've read on here and on other forums its negative. It was only a example anyway.

 

[etr221]

Many, many stations have no ticket barriers, and in some cases no staff at all, so how can the railway check that each passenger has a valid ticket before boarding? And even at those stations with barriers, good luck at (for example) Glasgow Central examining, in detail (eg checking photos against faces) each and every ticket before letting people through to catch their train! At the end of the day, there has to be a level of personal responsibility; And also, as mentioned above, deterrence to dissuade the dishonest from taking advantage of leniency.

Those are the choices that the railway has made: to not have barriers, and to not thoroughly check each ticket - they could have chosen otherwise. As to whether they are the right choices, I won't comment, but consequences follow from them.

 

[AM9]

No, do not put words into my mouth. I invite you to reread what I and then he said.

The net result of saving those that can't remember to renew or even carry their railcards embarassment or penalties would also make advance purchasing of bargain priced tickets before a valid in-date railcard difficult or even impossible. The deal no, to get about 33% discount on a range of tickets,

1) purchase a railcard (nominally £30 per year),​

2) only travel when it is valid and​

3) carry it and be able to present it when travelling. This bit is especially important if the railcard and/or ticket is held on your own electronic device.​

It is not a any one or two from the above, all three are part of the offer.​

Fot those that find this unacceptable and are expecting some form of hand-holding to prevent themselves making mistakes*, be careful of what you wish for. If as @Hadders might say one wants to purchase tickets well in advance of the railcard's start date, the holder has two choices: a) renew the railcard early or b) take advantage of the bargain price but forgo the railcard discount.

* I doubt that excusing being unable to access documents on your own mobile phone can become offical as it would also become a significant means of ticketless travel fraud, if only by a few.

 

[northwichcat]

There's an easy way around it, which is to prevent people who don't have the correct ticket from boarding the train.

That does require proper training. For instance, if I have a Manchester to Northwich ticket in the evening peak I might need to board the next train to Stockport and change there. And even if the next train is direct, unless I have an Advance, I could break my journey at Stockport if I wanted. That should mean my ticket is accepted for any train going to Stockport but maybe should be accompanied by a staff member saying "Are you changing at Stockport? to ensure I haven't mistaken a Buxton train for a Chester train.

 

[AM9]

That does require proper training. For instance, if I have a Manchester to Northwich ticket in the evening peak I might need to board the next train to Stockport and change there. And even if the next train is direct, unless I have an Advance, I could break my journey at Stockport if I wanted. That should mean my ticket is accepted for any train going to Stockport but maybe should be accompanied by a staff member saying "Are you changing at Stockport? to ensure I haven't mistaken a Buxton train for a Chester train.

Nope, that level of hand holding for every passenger would be quite disruptive and almost inevitably requiring more staff, (which then becomes an additional cost on ticket prices.

 

[Starmill]

That does require proper training. For instance, if I have a Manchester to Northwich ticket in the evening peak I might need to board the next train to Stockport and change there. And even if the next train is direct, unless I have an Advance, I could break my journey at Stockport if I wanted. That should mean my ticket is accepted for any train going to Stockport but maybe should be accompanied by a staff member saying "Are you changing at Stockport? to ensure I haven't mistaken a Buxton train for a Chester train.

I agree that's a baseline level of training that ought to be organised by the employer for all ticket trained staff.

 

[185143]

There's an easy way around it, which is to prevent people who don't have the correct ticket from boarding the train. See Colchester as an example where an extra check at the platform often happens, or London Euston where there's often a manual check for Avanti West Coast services instead of ticket gates. Sometimes evening services from York, Nottingham or Birmingham New Street are boarded through just one door in aid of this manual check, but it requires a lot of staff - even if you could argue it's just the staff that should be provided anyway.

The downside for the operators to this approach is that preventing people from committing the offence usually results in their clearing off or paying the correct fare, which is vastly less lucrative than issuing a Penalty Fare or making a report of an offence.

I was sat near a group of RPIs on the Bromley North branch the other day who were talking about various methods of stopping fare dodgers.

One of them said that they should block Bromley North and Sundridge Park simultaneously, but then they wouldn't be issuing any Penalty Fares as people would touch in at the start of their journey. One of his colleagues then (rightly, IMO) pointed out that their purpose is to deter ticketless travel. If people see them and touch in, who wouldn't have done without RPI presence, they're effective in being there.

I thought that was a very good point, and sadly one I imagine the TOCs don't appreciate.

 

[Haywain]

One of his colleagues then (rightly, IMO) pointed out that their purpose is to deter ticketless travel.

I would have said their role is to deter and detect ticketless travel.

If people see them and touch in, who wouldn't have done without RPI presence, they're effective in being there.

But they are only effective for that day and it probably has no longer term impact on those who prefer not to pay.

 

[Sonic1234]

That's a 2462% markup when calculating their losses!

Pricing in the likelihood such a passenger is not going to return to the railways.

It would be interesting to see how people approach ticketing after having to cough up a settlement, especially if it was for an honest mistake.

 

[jumble]

Yes, that's literally what I was getting at.

Can you see an obvious flaw in insisting on a valid railcard at time of purchase
I pesonally dont have one now.
I want to buy an advance to travel in 10 weeks time which I might or might not use
Why should I need to buy a rail card now and not until just before travel time?
( I would also lose just under 10 weeks of validity )

 

[RailWonderer]

My theory has always been the UK is far stricter with penalties because govt subsidy is less and penalty paying is a lucrative revenue stream. Having to buy a new ticket if you miss your advance train rather than paying the difference is another lucrative scheme. Nationalisation won't change that. If anything they have no incentive to cut fares.

Get rid of railcards altogether. Then reduce the price of ALL tickets by ~20% (exact figure to be determined)
There could be a case of offering discounts where you have multiple people traveling together on one ticket

An interesting solution would be to have one universal 'loyalty' or 'frequent traveller' railcard - one third off all rail travel, £50 per year and people in different groups would pay different sums for it.

 

[northwichcat]

My theory has always been the UK is far stricter with penalties because govt subsidy is less and penalty paying is a lucrative revenue stream. Having to buy a new ticket if you miss your advance train rather than paying the difference is another lucrative scheme. Nationalisation won't change that. If anything they have no incentive to cut fares.

I suspect the business model for Advances relies on some people (especially business people) being uncertain on their return travel time. But 3 x Advance singles can still be cheaper than one return. So what do they do? Buy one Advance single for the outbound journey, an Advance single for the train they intend to catch to return home and an additional Advance single for a backup train.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Can you see an obvious flaw in insisting on a valid railcard at time of purchase
I pesonally dont have one now.
I want to buy an advance to travel in 10 weeks time which I might or might not use
Why should I need to buy a rail card now and not until just before travel time?
( I would also lose just under 10 weeks of validity )

Personally, I don't think that would be an unreasonable condition tbh. I don't really see how you choosing not to travel in the 10 weeks between tickets purchase and travel date is the any different to going 10 weeks without travelling at any other point during the validity of the railcard.

 

[fandroid]

I suspect the business model for Advances relies on some people (especially business people) being uncertain on their return travel time. But 3 x Advance singles can still be cheaper than one return. So what do they do? Buy one Advance single for the outbound journey, an Advance single for the train they intend to catch to return home and an additional Advance single for a backup train.

I'm sure that some variation on this occurs a lot, going by the astonishing high rate of "no shows" I have seen on reserved seats over the years on LNER. I even did it myself on one occasion, as (in this case, SWR) advances were astoundingly cheap.

 

[northwichcat]

I'm sure that some variation on this occurs a lot, going by the astonishing high rate of "no shows" I have seen on reserved seats over the years on LNER. I even did it myself on one occasion, as (in this case, SWR) advances were astoundingly cheap.

There will of course be other reasons for reserved seats not being taken e.g. late connecting train, ticket holder ill, or someone with an unrestricted ticket who changes their travel plans. However, from my own journeys on Avanti services to London I notice reserved seats on AM trains to London are almost always taken but it's less likely to be the case on PM trains from London.

The £1 Edinburgh to Manchester tickets in the TPE sale earlier in the year were in the astoundingly cheap category. However, with them not being available on every service and Edinburgh TPE services only being 2 hourly the idea of buying two tickets may not have been as popular.

 

[800001]

There's an easy way around it, which is to prevent people who don't have the correct ticket from boarding the train. See Colchester as an example where an extra check at the platform often happens, or London Euston where there's often a manual check for Avanti West Coast services instead of ticket gates. Sometimes evening services from York, Nottingham or Birmingham New Street are boarded through just one door in aid of this manual check, but it requires a lot of staff - even if you could argue it's just the staff that should be provided anyway.

The downside for the operators to this approach is that preventing people from committing the offence usually results in their clearing off or paying the correct fare, which is vastly less lucrative than issuing a Penalty Fare or making a report of an offence.

Which evening services from York are boarded from one door only? Never ever seen that at that station.