Are out-of-court settlements a fair way of handling fares disputes?

[Starmill]

I have a job, which provides a good lifestyle and requires that I don't break the law. I also want to break the law. Is it OK if I avoid the consequences of my actions by paying a little more? Simple solution, don't break the law. Much like habitual speeders who complain when their driving licences are removed - don't speed, keep your licence.

No different to those on benefits who will not be able to take the job you have as they have a criminal conviction.

While this is all true, we know for a fact that there's a proportion of these settlements that are paid when someone has either very plainly committed no offence or where someone had a very strong defence, or the legal arguments being used to prosecute were extremely weak, but because of the resources imbalance, and the need to pay for representation, there have been settlements paid. I think this wouldn't happen in the same damaging way if TOCs tried to recover losses as civil debts. Or indeed if they were happy to do so with criminal charges but with the public interest in mind.

 

[SteveM70]

I have a job, which provides a good lifestyle and requires that I don't break the law. I also want to break the law. Is it OK if I avoid the consequences of my actions by paying a little more? Simple solution, don't break the law. Much like habitual speeders who complain when their driving licences are removed - don't speed, keep your licence.

No different to those on benefits who will not be able to take the job you have as they have a criminal conviction.

I don’t think the speeding analogy is entirely fair, as some ticketing prosecutions arise in cases where the offender is genuinely unaware that they’ve not done the right thing due to the Byzantine nature of ticketing rules and are attempting to do the right thing.

A fairer comparison might be removing most of the speed restriction signs, changing a few in an inconsistent way, and then prosecuting people for speeding

 

[ainsworth74]

I kinda of reject the premise of the question as I don't think the entire thing is fair way of handling disputes! As far as I'm concerned both RoRA S5 and Byelaw 18 should be repealed ASAP. For serious matters the Fraud Act would seem to be a useful weapon in the arsenal (such as this guy who forged his season ticket and was, as it happens, done for fraud) but otherwise I'm not sure that there needs to be a specific criminal sanction for fare evasion.

Personally I would support adapting the Penalty Fare regime to cover the majority of situations. Let's hike it up to £100 reduced by say 50% if paid or an appeal lodged (regardless of the eventually outcome as appealing would just pause the clock) within 14 days along with whatever the appropriate single fare would have been. Fail to pay within 28 days or come to a payment arrangement (or later break a payment arrangement) and they can take you to county court for the whole amount outstanding. And whilst it's a much less severe sanction (as it should be) a County Court Judgement still comes with all sorts sticks (credit rating aside) when it comes to enforcement if you still don't pay including bailiffs, attachment of earnings or charging orders.

It seems to me that fare evasion is, quite logically, a civil matter and it's time that the legislative framework was changed accordingly. Not that I have any expectation of such a thing happening.

 

[Bletchleyite]

@ainsworth74 Got it in one - this is exactly my opinion too. It's effectively equivalent to failing to pay for parking both in terms of the concept and the magnitude, and I can see no reason why it shouldn't work in the same way.

 

[py_megapixel]

I kinda of reject the premise of the question as I don't think the entire thing is fair way of handling disputes! As far as I'm concerned both RoRA S5 and Byelaw 18 should be repealed ASAP. For serious matters the Fraud Act would seem to be a useful weapon in the arsenal (such as this guy who forged his season ticket and was, as it happens, done for fraud) but otherwise I'm not sure that there needs to be a specific criminal sanction for fare evasion.

Personally I would support adapting the Penalty Fare regime to cover the majority of situations. Let's hike it up to £100 reduced by say 50% if paid or an appeal lodged (regardless of the eventually outcome as appealing would just pause the clock) within 14 days along with whatever the appropriate single fare would have been. Fail to pay within 28 days or come to a payment arrangement (or later break a payment arrangement) and they can take you to county court for the whole amount outstanding. And whilst it's a much less severe sanction (as it should be) a County Court Judgement still comes with all sorts sticks (credit rating aside) when it comes to enforcement if you still don't pay including bailiffs, attachment of earnings or charging orders.

It seems to me that fare evasion is, quite logically, a civil matter and it's time that the legislative framework was changed accordingly. Not that I have any expectation of such a thing happening.

This is exactly the kind of thing I was suggesting in a previous post. Penalty fares are, in my opinion, absolutely the correct way of dealing with this.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

IMHO it is actually one area where the US system is not too bad - a federal offence - or a misdemeanor and various grades.

On balance I prefer the option of settling out of court for some of the reasons listed above.

 

[BayPaul]

@ainsworth74 Got it in one - this is exactly my opinion too. It's effectively equivalent to failing to pay for parking both in terms of the concept and the magnitude, and I can see no reason why it shouldn't work in the same way.

Would there be room in a system of this type for a half-way position as well - a penalty for someone who has done something that is clearly worse than a minor ticket misdemeanour, but not bad enough to make a prosecution for fraud appropriate. For example, under your suggested system, if someone has been caught a second time in a year - is it a bigger penalty notice or something more significant

 

[Bletchleyite]

IMHO it is actually one area where the US system is not too bad - a federal offence - or a misdemeanor and various grades.

On balance I prefer the option of settling out of court for some of the reasons listed above.

It's RoRA that's the main issue as far as I'm concerned. A Byelaw offence is a much lesser thing. But on balance I'd rather rid of all of it.

Would there be room in a system of this type for a half-way position as well - a penalty for someone who has done something that is clearly worse than a minor ticket misdemeanour, but not bad enough to make a prosecution for fraud appropriate. For example, under your suggested system, if someone has been caught a second time in a year - is it a bigger penalty notice or something more significant

A PF system can take this into account (Metrolink's does). For instance, the reduction for prompt payment might not be offered if it's a second offence in a rolling 12 months.

 

[BayPaul]

A PF system can take this into account (Metrolink's does). For instance, the reduction for prompt payment might not be offered if it's a second offence in a rolling 12 months.

Would it also be worth having 2 scales of PF - a standard one for an 'honest mistake' (with a default assumption that borderline offences are honest) and a higher one for something that is most likely to be deliberate. For example short faring is probably deliberate, and so worse, than something like travelling on one operators train with another operators ticket, but not really bad enough for a fraud prosecution

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would it also be worth having 2 scales of PF - a standard one for an 'honest mistake' (with a default assumption that borderline offences are honest) and a higher one for something that is most likely to be deliberate. For example short faring is probably deliberate, and so worse, than something like travelling on one operators train with another operators ticket, but not really bad enough for a fraud prosecution

Someone who has clearly made an honest mistake should be sold a ticket at the walk-up fare (perhaps with details taken, so it can be monitored how often they're "making a mistake" so as to conclude that they in fact are being dishonest and should receive a PF next time). It's ridiculous that there's even any kind of penalty for a mistake that is believed to be wholly genuine.

If you wanted to formalise the process where staff felt it was a genuine error, then it could be something like "normal fare first time, PF second time, PF without early payment discount third time" (in a 12 month rolling period).

 

[Puffing Devil]

While this is all true, we know for a fact that there's a proportion of these settlements that are paid when someone has either very plainly committed no offence or where someone had a very strong defence, or the legal arguments being used to prosecute were extremely weak, but because of the resources imbalance, and the need to pay for representation, there have been settlements paid. I think this wouldn't happen in the same damaging way if TOCs tried to recover losses as civil debts. Or indeed if they were happy to do so with criminal charges but with the public interest in mind.

I don’t think the speeding analogy is entirely fair, as some ticketing prosecutions arise in cases where the offender is genuinely unaware that they’ve not done the right thing due to the Byzantine nature of ticketing rules and are attempting to do the right thing.

A fairer comparison might be removing most of the speed restriction signs, changing a few in an inconsistent way, and then prosecuting people for speeding

I agree at the moment, the TOCs and their hired hands, have too much power and it's too easy to threaten court action. However, I don't support the notion that you should be able to buy your way out of trouble.

I kinda of reject the premise of the question as I don't think the entire thing is fair way of handling disputes! As far as I'm concerned both RoRA S5 and Byelaw 18 should be repealed ASAP. For serious matters the Fraud Act would seem to be a useful weapon in the arsenal (such as this guy who forged his season ticket and was, as it happens, done for fraud) but otherwise I'm not sure that there needs to be a specific criminal sanction for fare evasion.

Personally I would support adapting the Penalty Fare regime to cover the majority of situations. Let's hike it up to £100 reduced by say 50% if paid or an appeal lodged (regardless of the eventually outcome as appealing would just pause the clock) within 14 days along with whatever the appropriate single fare would have been. Fail to pay within 28 days or come to a payment arrangement (or later break a payment arrangement) and they can take you to county court for the whole amount outstanding. And whilst it's a much less severe sanction (as it should be) a County Court Judgement still comes with all sorts sticks (credit rating aside) when it comes to enforcement if you still don't pay including bailiffs, attachment of earnings or charging orders.

It seems to me that fare evasion is, quite logically, a civil matter and it's time that the legislative framework was changed accordingly. Not that I have any expectation of such a thing happening.

Root and branch reform is certainly needed. It is always tough to decide what is an "honest mistake" and someone trying it on. There does need to be a formal sanction, tested in court. I think a more robust PF regime would achieve that - with the option to go to court in case of a dispute and/or serious cases. I like the idea of a dual-level of PF, especially for a first offence.

For a shoplifter continuing to offend, we would typically see a store ban (Civil), Penalty Notice (Criminal, Not Recorded), Police Caution (Recorded), Summons. A similar escalation would be useful for fare evasion. There's a similar proviso that a shoplifter caught nicking a Rolex would go straight to court, as would a serial doughnutter.

 

[najaB]

Are out-of-court settlements a fair way of handling fares disputes?

That's like asking "Is a hammer a useful tool?" - it depends. A hammer is exceedingly useful if you've got a bunch of nails that need to be driven home, but it can also be used as a murder weapon. The issue isn't the tool, it is how it is used.

 

[talldave]

Would it also be worth having 2 scales of PF - a standard one for an 'honest mistake' (with a default assumption that borderline offences are honest) and a higher one for something that is most likely to be deliberate. For example short faring is probably deliberate, and so worse, than something like travelling on one operators train with another operators ticket, but not really bad enough for a fraud prosecution

How would you handle the short faring situations where the difference in ticket cost is £0.00?

 

[Bletchleyite]

How would you handle the short faring situations where the difference in ticket cost is £0.00?

It is ridiculous to pursue these any further than "would you mind getting the right ticket next time please", particularly as the railway seems to have this thing about not issuing zero-fare overdistance excesses which are the correct way to fix that issue.

It is utterly ludicrous to pursue people who have not actually defrauded the railway of any money. Back in the days of Edmondson tickets the ticket would almost certainly have a list of stations on it! If the next stop is the same fare, just accept it!

 

[najaB]

How would you handle the short faring situations where the difference in ticket cost is £0.00?

As long as the difference really is £0 then the matter shouldn't be taken any further.

 

[DarloRich]

This is exactly the kind of thing I was suggesting in a previous post. Penalty fares are, in my opinion, absolutely the correct way of dealing with this.

I agree. Unless the offence is so great it deserves criminal sanction