CC of letter I'm about to send to Northern Fail, sorry, Rail

[323235]

I made a visit to Manchester Piccadilly this week by train and it was interesting to witness a change made recently. They have now moved the ticket seller on Platform 2/3 further down the platform away from the barriers and I almost missed him until I became aware of him as he is a known G4S employee and had an Avantix Traveller machine, which from first glance was hidden by the top of the ticket selling "Cart". He wasn't selling any tickets when I arrived and was making no attempt to make his presence known to arriving passengers.
It seems therefore that by walking past this opportunity to buy, I could potentially have been the subject of one of these penalty warnings from the barrier staff at the end of the platform. The two employees checking tickets at the platform end on this occasion were allowing many people to walk past without showing tickets, which is fairly common at both Manchester Piccadilly and Stockport at busy times, whether or not they are talking to a passenger about a travel issue or ticketing irregularity.

To me they do appear to be turning to more underhand tactics to catch people which considering their lax attitude to buying on board and the number of stations without ticket issuing facilities is pretty concerning.

 

[jonbyrne]

I travel Stockport to Manchester Piccadilly and back every week day in what I would consider a busy time (approx 0820 and 1738) and I have never seen the staff at either end actively allow people to pass, they just sometimes cannot deal with the flow especially 6 & 7 at about 0845. Same at Stockport they usually concentrate on the people coming off the platform as the ones going up have the opportunity to be "got" again.

I do agree they have made the sellers at Manchester less obvious than they used to be, but on the flip side where they used to stand they where in the way.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I made a visit to Manchester Piccadilly this week by train and it was interesting to witness a change made recently. They have now moved the ticket seller on Platform 2/3 further down the platform away from the barriers and I almost missed him until I became aware of him as he is a known G4S employee and had an Avantix Traveller machine, which from first glance was hidden by the top of the ticket selling "Cart". He wasn't selling any tickets when I arrived and was making no attempt to make his presence known to arriving passengers.
It seems therefore that by walking past this opportunity to buy, I could potentially have been the subject of one of these penalty warnings from the barrier staff at the end of the platform. The two employees checking tickets at the platform end on this occasion were allowing many people to walk past without showing tickets, which is fairly common at both Manchester Piccadilly and Stockport at busy times, whether or not they are talking to a passenger about a travel issue or ticketing irregularity.

To be they do appear to be turning to more underhand tactics to catch people which considering their lax attitude to buying on board and the number of stations without ticket issuing facilities is pretty concerning.

All that is, it is because G4S now have to send people back to the ticket office/machines before allowing them onto the platforms, where they were previously situated caused a lot of confusion, I had doubts at the start but it does seem to be working, I have never been a fan of G4S as only a minority of their staff actually seem to know the rules and are a credit but this new system seems to be successful.

 

[323235]

I travel Stockport to Manchester Piccadilly and back every week day in what I would consider a busy time (approx 0820 and 1738) and I have never seen the staff at either end actively allow people to pass, they just sometimes cannot deal with the flow especially 6 & 7 at about 0845. Same at Stockport they usually concentrate on the people coming off the platform as the ones going up have the opportunity to be "got" again.

I do agree they have made the sellers at Manchester less obvious than they used to be, but on the flip side where they used to stand they where in the way.

I've seen many people escape without showing there tickets at both stations. At Piccadilly its mainly because there are not enough of them to cope with the flow as you have pointed out.

Even I've walked through myself when in position of a ticket without being asked to show it at both locations or with my wallet open ready to get it out but not needed to.
One man at Stockport breezed past, told them he had left his ticket on the train and he was told not to do it again and he was on his way. On another occasions they were standing next to the table chatting to each other while countless people walked past, many briskly in the hope they wouldn't get challenged. It was only when I went to buy a ticket and broke up their conversation that they even started to shout tickets and passes.

 

[jonbyrne]

I think it does depend who is on but the usual team at Stockport are pretty on the ball, the afternoon shift seem to be a little less. That being said i cannot remember an occasion in the last 12 months on my way to work in the morning that my ticket is not checked at least once, usually twice and occasionally 3 times.

A number of the fare dodgers from Stockport seem to follow the same pattern only using the Virgin trains, if the get asked to buy a ticket at Stockport getting the Virgin only £2.10 single and then travelling on a Virgin service on the way home with no ticket, £10.50 for the week.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Northern don't operate a Penalty Fares scheme, do they? I'm not sure what the correct terminology is here, but I'm pretty certain it's not PF.

Ah, I was trying to work out what "charge sheet" referred to - I expected it to be a list of suspected crimes.

What rule? The rule in the NRCoC that says you will be charged the full single fare in these circumstances? The commuter is happy to play but the rules, but are Northern? Northern have moved the goalposts and ask for £80 (which may, or may not, be legal and has not been sanctioned by the DfT, who are taking an interest in these charges) plus the full single fare. Hmm!

Correct, this isn't the same as in the South East where you have Penalty Fare stations and Penalty Fare trains where it is mandatory to pay before boarding or a Penalty Fare will apply. In my opinion it is permitted to pay the full fare on board the train in these circumstances according to the NRCoC.

There should be no Penalty Fare in this case, what is happening is Northern are by-passing the DfT's safeguards regarding PFs and have implemented their own dubious quasi-PF scheme without DfT authorisation. Hopefully someone at Northern will be in deep trouble over this but I very much doubt it as the DfT isn't a fully effective regulator*

(*I hope that when people at the DfT read this, they will try to prove me wrong by taking effective action!)

I read the OP as having been given a Unpaid Fares Notice, he then forgot to pay it leading to additional administrative charges or penalties for late payment. Is this not the usual way of these things?

Sorry, yes, I had just read Nick W's comments about the Northern £80 fake penalty fares, but the £80 in this case appears to co-incidentally be an administration charge that Northern have applied. It's not clear to me why Northern issued an unpaid fare notice and did not simply collect the fare on the day.

The £80 sounds suspiciously like Northern's trial to try to educate people to buy before they board (offhand I can't remember which line this is supposed to be on). The idea is that for a first offence the passenger gets a warning sheet (this is something opponents of the scheme fail to ever mention, presumably in an attempt to make out that the scheme is worse than it actually is) and advised to buy before boarding at manned stations in future. On a SECOND occasion a payment of £80 is required. If the system works as I am informed it works then the Op has failed to buy a ticket from the origin station atleast twice in to be required to pay the £80, if so, how many warnings does the op need?

The scheme is not as bad as a penalty fare (as you get a warning) and not as bad as getting a letter from the prosecutions department warning of potential legal action (and at best being followed by an out of court settlement for over £100!) for a first offense. I'm not sure what people have against the idea to be honest, perhaps they'd prefer to be taken to court?

 

[Fuming]

hairyhandedfool

Your quote: "If the system works as I am informed it works then the Op has failed to buy a ticket from the origin station atleast twice in to be required to pay the £80, if so, how many warnings does the op need?"

No! I couldn't get a ticket, was ushered towards an inspector at Victoria and given a sheet to send payment of £3.80 within 28 days. Forgot to pay, then got a letter to pay £83.80. Never been issued any warnings beforehand, i merely stated that on more than one occasion me and many others have had to abandon a long queue to get on our train, paid at the destination or on the train without any problems. It just so happened that on this day they had a platoon of inspectors ready to throw the book at anyone like me getting off the train without a ticket. I understand the reasons why they did it, but in my opinion they should be pooling these resources elsewhere, hence my 'mr angry from mossley' letter.

 

[34D]

Has the OP given us straight answers to how long he was stood in a queue, and what time he arrived at the station and what time his train was?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No! I couldn't get a ticket, was ushered towards an inspector at Victoria and given a sheet to send payment of £3.80 within 28 days. Forgot to pay, then got a letter to pay £83.80. Never been issued any warnings beforehand, i merely stated that on more than one occasion me and many others have had to abandon a long queue to get on our train, paid at the destination or on the train without any problems. It just so happened that on this day they had a platoon of inspectors ready to throw the book at anyone like me getting off the train without a ticket. I understand the reasons why they did it, but in my opinion they should be pooling these resources elsewhere, hence my 'mr angry from mossley' letter.

Hmm. I would send a cheque for £3.80 and see what if anythinh they do to persue the remaining £80. I fail to see how a criminal prosecution would succeed when the fare due has been paid, and a civil claim could use Dunlop v New Motor of 1915 as a defence.

Now I await the post from davenewcastle telling me I am completely wrong.

Actually, is a copy of your paperwork (sanitized) available?

 

[Nick W]

The scheme is not as bad as a penalty fare (as you get a warning) and not as bad as getting a letter from the prosecutions department warning of potential legal action (and at best being followed by an out of court settlement for over £100!) for a first offense. I'm not sure what people have against the idea to be honest, perhaps they'd prefer to be taken to court?

Two problems:

1. The "fine" (ok penalty) is disproportionate compared to other offences
2. Northern Rail earn money from it

If the charge was £30, with the proceeds given to charity, and Northern Rail were required to top that up with another £30 (since long queues, lack of ticket machines etc will have contributed), then it'd be an acceptable (though not completely fair) system.

 

[bb21]

The £80 sounds suspiciously like Northern's trial to try to educate people to buy before they board (offhand I can't remember which line this is supposed to be on).

I believe we have already reached a consensus that the OP was in all likelihood not charged the sum of £80 because a warning had previously been given, but rather given a UPFN and subsequently had £80 added as "admin fees" for non-payment of the fare within the allotted time-scale.

If the charge was £30, with the proceeds given to charity, and Northern Rail were required to top that up with another £30 (since long queues, lack of ticket machines etc will have contributed), then it'd be an acceptable (though not completely fair) system.

Nice thought, however I don't see how it is relevant. The scheme is either legal or it is not.

 

[323235]

I think it does depend who is on but the usual team at Stockport are pretty on the ball, the afternoon shift seem to be a little less.

Yes it is the afternoon shift I normally see.

 

[Nick W]

Nice thought, however I don't see how it is relevant. The scheme is either legal or it is not.

True - it'll never happen. The best case scenario would be that that all the money from penalty fares schemes above the due far go to central Government, IMO. There is at least an incentive for TOC not to issue incorrect penalty fares as they lose a fee for an appeal.

I miss the days of customer friendly train operating companies that strived to provide customer service. Anyone remember Anglia Railways?

 

[Ferret]

The best case scenario would be that that all the money from penalty fares schemes above the due far go to central Government

Argh, please no! They'd end up seeing penalty fares as an alternative to collecting proper taxes!!!!

I miss the days of customer friendly train operating companies that strived to provide customer service. Anyone remember Anglia Railways?

WSMR anyone?!

 

[Nick W]

Argh, please no! They'd end up seeing penalty fares as an alternative to collecting proper taxes!!!!

A bit like the TOC's using them as an alternative to collecting proper fares.

Back in the days of Anglia Railway's, I never saw anyone being charged for a full fare, even if they'd walked past an open ticket office. If the ticket wasn't valid on the train (GER only), the passenger was suggested to get off at the next stop. I once left my season ticket, wallet and mobile phone at home, and got given a free ticket.

 

[Fuming]

UPDATE.

I've edited the letter and posted it off, CC'd to Ian Bevan. I've sent a cheque for £3.80 but also included one for £80.00 in the hope that after reading the letter they return the £80.00 one back to me! I know that may be naieve but I was also getting close to the deadline date on that 'admin fee' so didn't want to delay the issue further and risk getting extra surcharges added on.

If I get any kind of acknowledgement I will conclude the thread with its contents on here. In the meantime, thanks to all for your patience (it's a long letter) and helpful hints and support.

 

[jon0844]

I guess you've got nothing to lose at this stage!

 

[Fuming]

QUICK UPDATE...

Letter received today from Debt & Prosecutions, with second cheque for £80 returned as a good-will gesture! Result!

If I have time I will copy the contents later.

 

[richw]

QUICK UPDATE...

Letter received today from Debt & Prosecutions, with second cheque for £80 returned as a good-will gesture! Result!

If I have time I will copy the contents later.

Ahh the gesture of goodwill gesture AKA we were wrong but were not going to admit it.

 

[34D]

QUICK UPDATE...

Letter received today from Debt & Prosecutions, with second cheque for £80 returned as a good-will gesture! Result!

If I have time I will copy the contents later.

Good to hear. If you could upload their text this would be appreciated.

 

[Fuming]

The letter in full coming up.

I'm glad for obvious reasons that they returned the £80.00 cheque, despite the fact that technically I 'deserved' to pay it due to my own delay in airing my grievances. There doesn't seem to be much of a response or explanation to my points regarding broken card readers and long queues but I assume that those points are probably the reason why the cheque was returned.

Good to know though that the letter was read in full, considering that they could have just cashed both cheques as feared by an early reply to my original post.

The main content of the letter though seems to be nothing more than a synopsis of their FTP scheme, which I suppose is fair enough, and the final paragraph sounds a bit sinister but I know from my own personal experience with this that I will be doing my best to make sure I never have to leave the queue again to run for a train - in fact I'm going to look into this web retailing facility mentioned to see if this si something that could help me in the future.

Here's the letter:

Thank you for your letter, and I am sorry that you feel that you have been wrongly treated by the issue of the new Failure to Purchase form.

If I may take a little time, to explain what we are doing and why we are doing it.

As a train operating company, we have a clear duty to enable our customers to obtain their rail tickets in the easiest way possible. Indeed, we have invested in extra facilities right across the North to make this happen, and in addition introduced our own web retailing facility.

Couple to this of course, our customers have a duty to use these facilities and where possible to be in possession of a ticket before they board the train.

There is in fact a Railway Bylaw (Bylaw 18) which is intended to force compliance of the above.

Research carried out by the railway watchdog Passenger Focus shows the importance of protecting revenue, with many customers feeling aggrieved when they see customers who do not pay for their ticket getting away without paying.

Many rail operators have attempted to introduce strict compliance to Bylaw 18: often they do this by simply refusing to allow customers to purchase discounted tickets on board the train if they have passed by an open ticket office.

This approach not only creates conflict and complaints, but also would be impossible for us to implement, because Northern’s journey times are so short would not have time to deal effectively with the consequent issues.

Therefore, in conjunction with legal professionals and the British Transport Police we designed the Failure to Purchase process that you experienced.

The methodology behind the process is quite complex. We set it up on a given route where past research has indicated a problem, we confirm that all of the ticket purchasing facilities are available, and then barrier the terminus station.

Anyone asking for a ticket from a station that has a ticket office will be issued with a ‘Failure to Purchase’ form, which allows (within 14 days of receipt) him or her to pay for his or her journey without any penalty, but which clearly explains the relevant rules regarding Bylaw 18 and points out that a fine will be imposed should the outstanding amount not be paid or if they repeat the offence.

We appreciate that this may be somewhat inconvenient, but the problem is real; a fact that has been clearly demonstrated by the success of the scheme and by the sharp upturn in takings from the ticket offices along the line, and the reduction in queuing times at the Manchester termini.

Before we do all of this we spend some time issuing warning notices at the destination stations, and we have produced a number of posters to help explain what we are doing, these being in place at the effected departure stations.

The secret to the above of course is education, we do not want to be heavy handed or intransigent, but we have a duty to protect revenue, just as much as our customers have a duty to use the facilities provided. Therefore, the warning element of the notice is designed to help explain this.

No one who received a failure to purchase notice could pay for their travel at the station, because the tickets need to be recorded, and as such, payment is handled through our in-house Debt Recovery and Prosecutions Unit.

I accept what you say about custom and practice but just because something has happened for a long time doesn’t make it correct.

As I say above, it is all part of a strategy to help protect the revenue that is so important to the North. In all of this however, I want to make it clear that no one is accusing you (or anyone else for that matter) of committing ticket fraud of any kind (that is why we issue the warning notice), if that is how it felt then clearly we have got something wrong and for this again I wholeheartedly apologise.

Ticket Offices are an important asset, and form the first line of our revenue protection strategy; it is the purpose of the Failure to Purchase system to ensure that they are used, and to remind customers of their obligations under the Bylaws to use them.

Please find enclosed your cheque for £80.00 which is returned to you as a good will gesture following the issues you have raised.

When travelling in future please ensure you purchase your ticket at the manned booking office provided. It remains throughout the passenger’s responsibility to ensure they hold and can subsequently offer up valid travel documents when requested.

Consequently your actions placed you in a very serious and unlawful position. This particular offence is subject to prosecution under Railway Bylaws. In accordance with data protection this incident and your details have been recorded. Following the date of this letter any further occurrence of this nature will result in an automatic Fixed Penalty.

 

[Wath Yard]

I'm not sure why you think the final paragraph is sinister. You've received a ‘Failure to Purchase’ form, you've received a detailed letter from Northern explaining your responsibility to purchase a ticket prior to travel and spelling out the potential consequencies, so you couldn't possibly think you could carry on not purchasing a ticket at your origin and nothing would happen.

 

[Fuming]

I'm not sure why you think the final paragraph is sinister. You've received a ‘Failure to Purchase’ form, you've received a detailed letter from Northern explaining your responsibility to purchase a ticket prior to travel and spelling out the potential consequencies, so you couldn't possibly think you could carry on not purchasing a ticket at your origin and nothing would happen.

it's just the tone of it - "very serious and unlawful position". All I did (and many others that day) was leave a long queue to get on a train without realising I broke a bylaw. Anyway as far as I'm concerned the matter is closed. i now know the law and won't be putting myself in that position again so all in all everything has worked out okay.

 

[wintonian]

Well the last paragraph suggests to me that it is their' data protection policy' to create a kind of 'fixed penalty database' - I'm not entirely convinced that this is the purpose of data protection polices or even a lawful use of them.

Data protection arises out of a need to retain information as a result of revenue protection rather than the ability to protect revenue coming from the creation of a database for such purposes.

Maybe I'm just reading it wrong but that's what it says to me.

 

[34D]

and points out that a fine will be imposed should the outstanding amount not be paid or if they repeat the offence.

No. Northern cannot impose a 'fine'. Only a court can. This is a violation of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

In accordance with data protection this incident and your details have been recorded.

I would complain about this bit, under the Data Protection Act 1980. You couldn't pay due to long queues in excess of their passengers charter target, not because you are a fare dodger.

Following the date of this letter any further occurrence of this nature will result in an automatic Fixed Penalty.
[/I]

No. Northern Rail are not authorised to issue 'penalties'. Penalties unless authorised by legislation are unlawful, see Dunlop v New Garage & Motor, the leading case on penalties, of 1915.

 

[wintonian]

I would complain about this bit, under the Data Protection Act 1980. You couldn't pay due to long queues in excess of their passengers charter target, not because you are a fare dodger.

Do you mean the 1998 act?

Anyway clarifying what I said above; the act does not place any requirement on TOC's to retain the details of passengers in order to protect revenue - what it does is say how such data should be handled if a TOC chooses to collect/ retain it.

I think that's a simpler way of putting it rather than the waffle I came out with earlier.

 

[island]

I would complain about this bit, under the Data Protection Act 1980. You couldn't pay due to long queues in excess of their passengers charter target, not because you are a fare dodger.

Which specific part of the Data Protection Act 1998 (I believe the 1980 act has been revoked) do you feel is being violated in this instance? I ask because there are a lot of people going around who throw around the DPA without being precise as to (or sometimes even knowing) what section or principle they have in mind.

 

[richw]

Perhaps a data subject access request to find out what info they hold. I believe the dpa act means they have got to retain the information they hold about you in a secure manner for 6 years.

 

[wintonian]

Perhaps a data subject access request to find out what info they hold. I believe the dpa act means they have got to retain the information they hold about you in a secure manner for 6 years.

Umm, my understanding is that organisations that process such data are required to retain is for no longer than is necessary, which is defined in each organisations DPA policy.

Ah maybe this is the confusion; the Limitation Act 1980 sets time-scales for which actions can be taken, and I believe for actions founded on simple contract it is 6 years.

 

[richw]

Umm, my understanding is that organisations that process such data are required to retain is for no longer than is necessary, which is defined in each organisations DPA policy.

Ah maybe this is the confusion; the Limitation Act 1980 sets time-scales for which actions can be taken, and I believe for actions founded on simple contract it is 6 years.

I work for a mortgage company and we are required to keep customer information for 6 years after the closure of their mortgage. The number of customers who closed their account 4-5 years ago calling for information is unbelievable (a majority of these queries aren't even PPI related). It may be that we may require the info for 6 years under the limitation act.
Looking at money saving forum, there is advise that it is an offence if a company cant provide info for 6 years after account closure.

 

[wintonian]

I work for a mortgage company and we are required to keep customer information for 6 years after the closure of their mortgage. The number of customers who closed their account 4-5 years ago calling for information is unbelievable (a majority of these queries aren't even PPI related)

Yes but that's FSA rules not DPA ones.

To quote the 5th principle of the DPA

Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes.

The ICO website also provides us with the following guidance along with various examples:

What the information is used for

How long you should keep personal data depends on the purpose for which it was obtained and its nature. If it continues to be necessary to hold the data for one of the reasons set out in Schedules 2 and 3 of the Data Protection Act (such as the performance of a public function or compliance with employment law), then you should retain it for as long as that reason applies. On the other hand, information with only a short-term value may have to be deleted within days.