Avoiding Penalty Fare Liability

[Weary Walker]

No I haven't been penalty fared/threatened with PF or any other form of sanction.

I have found myself unable to obtain a ticket twice in a few days before boarding a train in (what I believe) to be a penalty fare zone.

Firstly, I ended a days walking at a station where the ticket office was locked up. No problem a nice shiny ticket machine outside - except the screen was various shades of grey - totally unreadable.

Secondly I reached a station with a permit to travel machine. Except money dropped through it. At this point I noticed the red light and the message along the line of 'when lit machine is not in use'. This station had no booking office.

Neither station had any staff
On each occasion I watched the train arrive, no guard was visible. Boarded, walked the length of the train to find a member of staff. Failed in this regard.

If a revenue officer had boarded at the next stop how would I have justified not having a ticket? (None did in either case.)
What should I do if this situation arose again to avoid liability?

 

[bb21]

Firstly, I ended a days walking at a station where the ticket office was locked up. No problem a nice shiny ticket machine outside - except the screen was various shades of grey - totally unreadable.

Secondly I reached a station with a permit to travel machine. Except money dropped through it. At this point I noticed the red light and the message along the line of 'when lit machine is not in use'. This station had no booking office.

Neither station had any staff
On each occasion I watched the train arrive, no guard was visible. Boarded, walked the length of the train to find a member of staff. Failed in this regard.

You're not liable in either case.

If a revenue officer had boarded at the next stop how would I have justified not having a ticket? (None did in either case.)
What should I do if this situation arose again to avoid liability?

To protect yourself, I would say take a picture on your camera phone, if you have one, however you're not obliged to do so.

If you could see the guard as you boarded, obviously it would be better to speak to him before boarding, however you're also not obliged to do this.

The reasons you stated above are perfectly valid.

 

[Chapeltom]

No I haven't been penalty fared/threatened with PF or any other form of sanction.

I have found myself unable to obtain a ticket twice in a few days before boarding a train in (what I believe) to be a penalty fare zone.

Firstly, I ended a days walking at a station where the ticket office was locked up. No problem a nice shiny ticket machine outside - except the screen was various shades of grey - totally unreadable.

Secondly I reached a station with a permit to travel machine. Except money dropped through it. At this point I noticed the red light and the message along the line of 'when lit machine is not in use'. This station had no booking office.

Neither station had any staff
On each occasion I watched the train arrive, no guard was visible. Boarded, walked the length of the train to find a member of staff. Failed in this regard.

If a revenue officer had boarded at the next stop how would I have justified not having a ticket? (None did in either case.)
What should I do if this situation arose again to avoid liability?

I'd think virtually all revenue protection officers would definitely NOT penalty fare you. You've had no opportunity to buy your ticket so you are not committing any kind of offence.

 

[Yew]

You havent had the oppotunity to buy, so the penalty fare wouldnt apply. It might be nice to let the guard know if ther eis one on the train, or the RPI at the barrier/other station so that they can ring for maintainance (if you tell them they might even let you off the fare if they are feeling nice, like if it is at an open station with a ticket office you get off)

 

[allticketspls]

Speaking from experience.

There are a number of stations on the network that have ticket machines that either very rarely work or are regularly vandalised. The number of permit to travel machines seems to have dropped to the point that I have not seen one for ages.

Any RPI/RPO worthy of their job would know which machines these are and would not penalty fare in a million years. A prime example is when I worked at Hertford North, we had regular travellers from 2 stations who could never purchase a ticket because the ticket machines were set not to take cash as they were vandalised almost every month.

In these cases I just issued the appropriate fare for the time of day and let them through the barriers. I have heard of PF's issued in similar circumstances but these were all quashed on appeal.

 

[flymo]

. I have heard of PF's issued in similar circumstances but these were all quashed on appeal.

But why were the PF's issued in the first place? Why is it incumbent on the passenger to accept the tickets cannot be issued, receive a penalty fare through no fault of their own, have to go through the whole appeals process to have the penalty fare, that should never have been issued in the first place, quashed.

What if the passenger did not appeal? The TOC has received monies they should not have received. Isn't this some kind of foul play on the part of the TOC, or whoever is responsible for the ticketing facilities at such stations, in this case?

 

[Greenback]

But why were the PF's issued in the first place? Why is it incumbent on the passenger to accept the tickets cannot be issued, receive a penalty fare through no fault of their own, have to go through the whole appeals process to have the penalty fare, that should never have been issued in the first place, quashed.

What if the passenger did not appeal? The TOC has received monies they should not have received. Isn't this some kind of foul play on the part of the TOC, or whoever is responsible for the ticketing facilities at such stations, in this case?

As VirginRPO implies, they may have been issued by someone not worthy of their job!

Seriously, this is a weakness of the PF scheme. There ar esome people who, even though they should not have received a PF, do not want the hassle of fighting it. They prefer, for whatever reason, simply to pay the penalty and move on. In some cases, they may even never travel by train again.

 

[yorkie]

But why were the PF's issued in the first place?

Because there are no effective controls in place to prevent some jobsworths and bullies from getting jobs in revenue protection on the railway. Complaints are - in my opinion - not dealt with properly and such people are allowed to remain in their jobs for far too long. Yes they often do get the sack eventually, but not after they have been able to harras customers and treat them as potential criminals. There are very few industries where someone can get a job and treat customers so badly, sadly the railway industry is one of them. If they acted this way in many other jobs they would not last more than a day - if they even got the job in the first place.

 

[Greenback]

Unfortunately, the job titles do not help. The poor RPI's see their title as justification to behave in any way they like as long as they are 'protecting revenue'. In my view, there needs to be more emphasis on the customer service aspects of the role, from recruitment, through the training to the day to day management of the role.

Of course, the majority of staff are fair, good at their jobs and do their best within the system they have to work to. As usual, they are let down by the minority.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Unfortunately, the job titles do not help. The poor RPI's see their title as justification to behave in any way they like as long as they are 'protecting revenue'. In my view, there needs to be more emphasis on the customer service aspects of the role, from recruitment, through the training to the day to day management of the role.

What was wrong with the old Travelling Ticket Inspectors? I suppose that went when guards became conductors and train managers.

 

[allticketspls]

There is one TOC (not going to name names) that put their RP staff through 2 weeks of training on tickets, PF's, etc.

The only problem is that as soon as they start work, their management virtually tell them to throw their training out the window. I have seen Penalty Fares issued by this TOC that are for the most minor of offences, including a 78 year old woman who did not realise that her freedom pass had run out.

They are very adept at putting on revenue blocks at which there is no discretion shown at all and their fraud team look like they were trained in 1940's Germany.

Unfortunately, some people in these jobs take a little power and let it go to their head. There are certain RPO's at this TOC who go out looking for trouble, finding it and then calling the BTP to deal with the aftermath.

As a Revenue Officer with a heart (yes we do exist), I will always try and find a sensible solution to problems and to me, the customer service side of the job is more important.

 

[dotdavid]

Unfortunately, some people in these jobs take a little power and let it go to their head. There are certain RPO's at this TOC who go out looking for trouble, finding it and then calling the BTP to deal with the aftermath.

As a Revenue Officer with a heart (yes we do exist), I will always try and find a sensible solution to problems and to me, the customer service side of the job is more important.

I'm just curious, and sorry if you've been asked before a lot (I'm sure it's likely), but do RPOs have any kind of performance-related pay, targets or bonuses for issuing penalty fares?

 

[DelayRepay]

In these cases I just issued the appropriate fare for the time of day and let them through the barriers. I have heard of PF's issued in similar circumstances but these were all quashed on appeal.

In these cases, the TOC should be obliged to compensate the passenger for the inconvenience they've been caused. I think twice the single fare for the journey they were making, or £25, whichever is greatest sounds fair.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

In these cases, the TOC should be obliged to compensate the passenger for the inconvenience they've been caused. I think twice the single fare for the journey they were making, or £25, whichever is greatest sounds fair.

Ridiculous suggestion. If you appeal and it is quashed, no one has lost anything, so no one is entitled to any kind of compensation.

 

[yorkie]

I'm just curious, and sorry if you've been asked before a lot (I'm sure it's likely), but do RPOs have any kind of performance-related pay, targets or bonuses for issuing penalty fares?

Virgin are not applicable, but I suspect so (for the TOCs that do issue PFs).

In these cases, the TOC should be obliged to compensate the passenger for the inconvenience they've been caused. I think twice the single fare for the journey they were making, or £25, whichever is greatest sounds fair.

Agreed, although first I'd like them to be questioned, and if they admit that they knew they were wrong, then it would go for prosecution, leading to a hefty fine. If it was a mistake, then I agree charging them in accordance with what you say seems reasonable. This would be fair and proportionate and in line with what they can do to us.

In an ideal world a team of ticket experts would go in plain clothes observing RPIs and any found to be acting incorrectly would be brought to justice. Also, failure by the RPI to provide their details would be an offence. I suspect they would not like it if they were treated the way they treat others. I wonder why? Hmm...!

Of course, the majority of RPIs are fine, but there are no effective controls to deal with the unruly minority. Something should be done to address that balance. But, I fear, nothing suitable ever will be...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ridiculous suggestion. If you appeal and it is quashed, no one has lost anything, so no one is entitled to any kind of compensation.

Totally unfair. I strongly disagree. The TOCs are always keen to levy "admin fees" to us, yet the stress of dealing with a PF/UPFN that is unwarranted should be compensated, in addition to our time.

When you consider that a TOC feels it is reasonable to charge £10 just to change a ticket from one date to another, or to change the time of departure on an AP ticket, then a much higher charge is therefore appropriate, in situations like this.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Totally unfair. I strongly disagree. The TOCs are always keen to levy "admin fees" to us, yet the stress of dealing with a PF/UPFN that is unwarranted should be compensated, in addition to our time.

An admin fee could be seen as reasonable, compensation is not. No loss or harm or damage has occured, thus compensation would be, quite frankly, silly.

 

[yorkie]

The admin fee should be based around the fact that the TOCs think it is reasonable for £10 to spend no more than 5 minutes changing a ticket. Providing we were given an admin fee that would allow for a similar per-minute rate that the TOCs command, then I would be satisfied with that.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

The admin fee should be based around the fact that the TOCs think it is reasonable for £10 to spend no more than 5 minutes changing a ticket. Providing we were given an admin fee that would allow for a similar per-minute rate that the TOCs command, then I would be satisfied with that.

The difference is that the TOC and the passenger can both verify the time spent changing a ticket - as they're both present - but in this case, only the passenger can verify the time spent. A system very open to abuse.

 

[yorkie]

The difference is that the TOC and the passenger can both verify the time spent changing a ticket - as they're both present - but in this case, only the passenger can verify the time spent. A system very open to abuse.

Well, assuming that it takes 5 minutes to change a ticket and that costs £10, a limit of an hour to write a letter, with the same costs that the TOC charges, would be fair. An hour to write a letter isn't too long. That'd be £120. As for being "open to abuse", I suspect that if it cost a TOC a sum of £120 (which it should) to get a PF incorrect, then perhaps the TOCs would ensure that incorrect PFs are no longer issued? The current system is far too "open to abuse" - by RPIs that is.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

So what you are saying is we should have an open-to-abuse system because they have an open-to-abuse system? An eye for an eye is a little immature. Remember the quote "Be the change you want to see in the world".

 

[londonmidland]

A bit off topic
I was on board an EMT HST and it stopped at Luton, an old woman had board the train but her ticket was FCC only. The ticket inspector had come and looked at her ticket and explained to her that she could only use it on a FCC train only. Apart from that, the ticket inspector didn't even give her a warning nor ask for any contact details Was very nice of the ticket inspector to let her off and she got a fast ride to London St Pancras!

 

[yorkie]

So what you are saying is we should have an open-to-abuse system because they have an open-to-abuse system? An eye for an eye is a little immature. Remember the quote "Be the change you want to see in the world".

Well, ideally I'd like to see a change in the rules to prevent rouge RPIs from operating and also to make the rules far more pro-customer. However, that is highly unlikely to ever happen. I am not suggesting we should have an "open-to-abuse" system. If you have been given a PF incorrectly then I don't see why you shouldn't get a reasonable sum to compensate for your time as an absolute minimum and preferably to deal with the stress of dealing with it. The demands for payment can be very intimidating. I've been involved in helping people who have been incorrectly charged and it is stressful and time consuming for them. They deserve to be given a suitable "admin fee" or compensation, or whatever you want to call it. These customers are not "abusing" the system - they are the abused and wrongly accused, by the TOCs.

 

[MikeWh]

Well, ideally I'd like to see a change in the rules to prevent rouge RPIs from operating and also to make the rules far more pro-customer. However, that is highly unlikely to ever happen. I am not suggesting we should have an "open-to-abuse" system. If you have been given a PF incorrectly then I don't see why you shouldn't get a reasonable sum to compensate for your time as an absolute minimum and preferably to deal with the stress of dealing with it. The demands for payment can be very intimidating. I've been involved in helping people who have been incorrectly charged and it is stressful and time consuming for them. They deserve to be given a suitable "admin fee" or compensation, or whatever you want to call it. These customers are not "abusing" the system - they are the abused and wrongly accused, by the TOCs.

I agree 100%. You can't really understand what it feels like to be wrongly given a PF unless it happens to you. Even worse is when the RPI takes your insistance that you have done nothing wrong to mean you are evading the fare and takes away a PF in favour of a referal for prosecution. And yes, it does happen. And I can assure you it is extremely stressful.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Why should the rules be made pro-customer? Surely they should be neutral?

 

[yorkie]

Why should the rules be made pro-customer? Surely they should be neutral?

Well, I said "more pro-customer" as at the moment they are very anti-customer. Whether that ends up as a "neutral" position or one that is slightly pro- or anti- will probably be subjective!

 

[John @ home]

Why should the rules be made pro-customer?

Because "acquirers of goods and services should be protected against the abuse of power by the seller or supplier, in particular against one-sided standard contracts and the unfair exclusion of essential rights in contracts".

Council of the European Communities Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts

 

[Clip]

Because "acquirers of goods and services should be protected against the abuse of power by the seller or supplier, in particular against one-sided standard contracts and the unfair exclusion of essential rights in contracts".

Council of the European Communities Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts

And in the same article

Whereas it is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure that contracts concluded with consumers do not contain unfair terms;

Our government and the previous ones have obviously declared that the terms and conditions are not unfair and have infact sanctioned this PF and associated means of getting the monies from passengers as all above board.


Whilst i dont wholly agree with how the PF system works, I have yet to hear a proper valid alternative.Though that may be another thread

 

[ralphchadkirk]

And I think that is entirely wrong. Law should be neutral, it should not favour one party over another. That directive is going too far. In any case, it does not mean the rules have to be pro-customer, only that if not individually negotiated, they have to be fair. That does not necessarily mean pro-customer.

 

[Clip]

And I think that is entirely wrong. Law should be neutral, it should not favour one party over another. That directive is going too far. In any case, it does not mean the rules have to be pro-customer, only that if not individually negotiated, they have to be fair. That does not necessarily mean pro-customer.

I agree with you there. A balance between them must be struck. But again, we all know that fare evasion in some parts of the country is still rife so we need something that tries to deter them from travelling without a ticket and unfortunately it needs to cover everyone - you cant just pick and choose.

 

[John @ home]

And in the same article "Whereas it is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure that contracts concluded with consumers do not contain unfair terms".

For the UK, this was done by Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999).

Our government and the previous ones have obviously declared that the terms and conditions are not unfair

Can you please point me to the declaration by the current government, and the one by the 1997-2010 Labour government?