Chiltern Recovers £400,000 of Evaded Revenue

[flythetube]

From an article in the Banbury Guardian - link below :-

Railway recovers £400,000 from thousands of fare dodgers on Banbury line

Chiltern Railways has recovered £400,000 of lost revenue from thousands of fare dodgers on Banbury line.

www.banburyguardian.co.uk

Chiltern Railways has recovered £400,000 of lost revenue from thousands of fare dodgers on Banbury line.

The fare dodgers include people travelling between Birmingham, Banbury and Marylebone, London without a ticket, misusing rail cards, using a child fare and ‘short-faring’ where tickets are bought for a shorter leg of the trip to avoid paying for a full journey.

The rail operator has recovered the money through 3984 cases of fare evasion on the network over the last twelve months.

 

[Haywain]

Full text of article, to avoid the advert ridden link:

The fare dodgers include people travelling between Birmingham, Banbury and Marylebone, London without a ticket, misusing rail cards, using a child fare and ‘short-faring’ where tickets are bought for a shorter leg of the trip to avoid paying for a full journey.
The rail operator has recovered the money through 3984 cases of fare evasion on the network over the last twelve months.
“Fare evasion means there’s less money available to improve the railways for everyone and Chiltern has a responsibility to strongly pursue those who don’t buy a ticket before they board with the intention of not paying a valid fare,” said a spokesman.
Fare evasion is a criminal offence, meaning that some of these cases have gone to court and resulted in criminal convictions and significant court costs.
The highest single case of revenue collection over the past twelve months was a staggering £15,000. After a thorough investigation by Chiltern Railways, a settlement was reached with a customer who bought short tickets over 350 times.
To crackdown on would-be fare dodgers, Chiltern has launched its ‘Buy Before you Board’ campaign, with posters present at stations and vinyl floor signage before ticket gates, reminding customers that travelling without a valid ticket is a criminal offence.
The operator has also recently purchased new scanning equipment for ticket barriers that gives more information about whether a journey was bought with a railcard.
Railcard misuse is an increasing issue, and the new equipment allows station teams to check the existence and validity of railcards before customers exit the station.
It is expected that this equipment will mean more revenue is recovered to reinvest in the railway in conjunction with the Buy Before you Board campaign and an increased visibility of revenue protection teams across the Chiltern network.
In January 2023, following a national consultation by the Department for Transport, an increased penalty fare of £100 was introduced across the country’s rail network.
Customers can always purchase tickets on the Chiltern Railways website or app ahead of travelling, as well as at stations. For further information on the Buy Before you Board campaign, customers can visit https://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/buybeforeyouboard.
Tony Baxter, Operations Director at Chiltern Railways, said: “We have done some excellent work over the past twelve months recovering money from those who don’t buy valid tickets for our trains, but we know that there is still more to do.
“Our new campaign and ticket scanners will increase public awareness of our work in combatting fare evasion, while also deterring would-be fare dodgers from taking money out of the system. We are also increasing the number and visibility of our mobile revenue protection teams, meaning customers will see more Chiltern staff checking tickets.
“Fare evasion is a criminal offence and means there’s less money available to improve the railway for paying customers. We know that the vast majority of customers board with a valid ticket, but we are committed to strongly pursuing those who don’t.”

 

[tspaul26]

Interesting that the recovery was £400,000 from about 4,000 cases.

Only takes a couple of £15,000 whales to get the amount per capita for the rest down to a fairly low figure each.

 

[Haywain]

Interesting that the recovery was £400,000 from about 4,000 cases.

Only takes a couple of £15,000 whales to get the amount per capita for the rest down to a fairly low figure each.

Even that one case mentioned takes the average for the rest below £100, so I wonder if they are including Penalty Fares in this.

 

[Brissle Girl]

I wonder whether "recovered the money" only relates to the ticket costs recovered, and the administration charge is not included.

 

[spag23]

In what other sphere of activity can someone confess to multiple crimes worth £15,000 and not even taken to Court?
This makes the threatened prosecutions for once forgetting your photocard look even more ridiculous.

 

[tspaul26]

Even that one case mentioned takes the average for the rest below £100, so I wonder if they are including Penalty Fares in this.

The numbers suggest that this does not include penalty fares.

I wonder whether "recovered the money" only relates to the ticket costs recovered, and the administration charge is not included.

Again, the numbers indicate that the £400,000 is the lost revenue i.e. not including any of the investigation or prosecution costs.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Again, the numbers indicate that the £400,000 is the lost revenue i.e. not including any of the investigation or prosecution costs.

IN which case, do we know how much Chiltern normally takes in fares over a year? As if so, that would let us work out broadly how prevalent (detected) fare dodging is.

 

[tspaul26]

According to the latest accounts, ‘passenger income’ for the 15 months ending 31 March 2023 was circa £200million.

A crude average approach would give about £160million per annum.

So the £400,000 represents roughly 0.25% of the annual gross passenger income.

 

[Watershed]

Few surprises in that article. I note they're yet again trotting out the old line about "fare evasion means there’s less money available to improve the railways for everyone". This is nothing short of a barefaced lie; the level of fare evasion has absolutely no impact on the amount of improvement funding made available for the railway.

It's politicians, not TOCs, that make decisions on improvements - and those decisions are made first and foremost based on political expediency. Secondary factors include the business case and whether funding is available within the DfT or Treasury's annual budget. Nowhere does the level of fare evasion factor into this; it solely affects the amount of revenue that the train companies pass over to the government. In any event, a certain level of fare evasion is assumed when budgets are drawn up, and there are diminishing returns to spending more money on revenue protection staff to reduce this.

"Chiltern has a responsibility to strongly pursue those..." - well, under their own contract with the DfT, perhaps. But it's difficult to see how this has any relevance as far as a member of the public or an unfortunate passenger making an honest mistake is concerned - any more than they'd be interested in Chiltern's responsibility to comply with the GDPR, for example. It's also worth noting that the same effective contractual provisions apply to all other TOCs under their own NRCs, but not all pursue irregularities using shysters such as TIL or with as much vigour as Chiltern. So realistically they're deciding to be harsher than other operators.

Chiltern also continues to perpetuate confusion as to the role of Penalty Fares by lumping together those who are deliberately avoiding their fare, with those who have made an honest mistake: "...those who don’t buy a ticket before they board with the intention of not paying a valid fare". This completely contradicts what they say in their own materials about how Penalty Fares are merely a higher-than-usual fare (by a considerable margin!) for those who have made an honest mistake.

 

[superkopite]

Again, the numbers indicate that the £400,000 is the lost revenue i.e. not including any of the investigation or prosecution costs.

Indeed, but even as "lost revenue" the numbers are not reliable, it assumes that all those caught would have travelled and bought exactly the same tickets. In reality, a lot of the fare dodgers would not have travelled or would have bought better value tickets, such as Advance, Off-Peak or even Seasons, especially in the case of the guy caught 350 times. I suspect the true value is significantly lower

 

[tspaul26]

In reality, a lot of the fare dodgers would not have travelled or would have bought better value tickets

Then let them!

Frankly, I don’t have much truck with many of the concerns raised on here about pursuing fare evaders robustly - including through prosecution.

 

[superkopite]

Frankly, I don’t have much truck with many of the concerns raised on here about pursuing fare evaders robustly - including through prosecution.

I agree. My comment was not disputing that, just pointing out that the "lost revenue" figure is inflated

 

[Bletchleyite]

Frankly, I don’t have much truck with many of the concerns raised on here about pursuing fare evaders robustly - including through prosecution.

I have no problem with pursuing fare evaders robustly, but people who e.g. have flat phone batteries or have failed to print their ToD aren't fare evaders, they are simply people who have made a minor procedural error. And as with other crimes I'd rather see ten get away with evasion than one prosecuted or forced to pay a settlement when what's happened was not intentional evasion.

 

[fandroid]

When there's a press article like this, it's always worth looking up the source material, I'd the press release. Here's a link:

Fare dodger crackdown: over £400K recovered from nearly 4000 cases across the Chiltern network

News from Chiltern Railways

press.chilternrailways.co.uk

 

[tspaul26]

I agree. My comment was not disputing that, just pointing out that the "lost revenue" figure is inflated

Indeed, although I suspect things balance out a bit: some of the fares recovered in respect of a single occasion will be higher than they might have been had the passenger not broken the law, but on the other hand many of these cases will have only picked up one offence whilst the passenger has engaged in serial evasion on top of that incident.

 

[baz962]

I have no problem with pursuing fare evaders robustly, but people who e.g. have flat phone batteries or have failed to print their ToD aren't fare evaders, they are simply people who have made a minor procedural error. And as with other crimes I'd rather see ten get away with evasion than one prosecuted or forced to pay a settlement when what's happened was not intentional evasion.

Quite a few with flat phone batteries are evaders. At least one of our guards carries plenty of chargers for different phones and catches out many people. It's a let's pretend we can't show you game.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Quite a few with flat phone batteries are evaders. At least one of our guards carries plenty of chargers for different phones and catches out many people. It's a let's pretend we can't show you game.

Quite a few people lie about that yes, but I'd point you again to this:

And as with other crimes I'd rather see ten get away with evasion than one prosecuted or forced to pay a settlement when what's happened was not intentional evasion.

I like the idea of providing charging facilities so it can be seen when this is an excuse.

 

[tspaul26]

I have no problem with pursuing fare evaders robustly, but people who e.g. have flat phone batteries or have failed to print their ToD aren't fare evaders, they are simply people who have made a minor procedural error. And as with other crimes I'd rather see ten get away with evasion than one prosecuted or forced to pay a settlement when what's happened was not intentional evasion.

Perhaps, but since intention is irrelevant in terms of the Byelaws then it does not reflect the law as it is (as opposed to what we might wish it to be).

On a purely personal level, I am somewhat of the view that your ‘honest mistake’ case should probably get a penalty fare on the first occasion, but if after that any further offences are detected (including any ‘minor procedural error’ instances) “off to court you go my lad!”

 

[fandroid]

4000 cases is a bit over ten a day. The underlying number of actual fare avoidance cases must be higher, unless it's inflated by the incidents involving "you bought the ticket after the train left the station" many of these cases not being actual fare avoidance at all, just byelaw breaches.

The article goes on to mention enhanced digital detection at gates. I wonder how many real fare dodgers that will catch rather than simply more late payers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On a purely personal level, I am somewhat of the view that your ‘honest mistake’ case should probably get a penalty fare on the first occasion, but if after that any further offences are detected (including any ‘minor procedural error’ instances) “off to court you go my lad!”

We'll definitely differ there. Under no circumstances, in my view, should anyone ever go to court for a procedural matter, i.e. where the fare has actually been paid but the mechanism of proving it which has been outsourced to the customer (thus saving the railway money) has somehow failed.

Indeed I find putting "honest mistake" in quotes as you did says everything about the railway's bad attitude to customers who have actually made a mistake. It's automatically assumed they're on the fiddle, and that stinks.

Back to Chiltern, I bet a load of those "fares recovered" were indeed cases where people have had to pay twice (plus a PF or settlement) because the railway fails to provide, even at a reasonable administrative fee, an option to recover a ticket that exists but can't be shown due to a minor error like a flat battery.

 

[tspaul26]

Under no circumstances should anyone ever go to court for a procedural matter

We definitely do differ: such prosecutions happen across the land and are not confined to the railway either.

I have personally acted in several private prosecutions relating to such procedural failings - notwithstanding my view that England should emulate Scotland and introduce a requirement to procure criminal letters to commence such proceedings.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We definitely do differ: such prosecutions happen across the land and are not confined to the railway either.

They do and they shouldn't. Most people are struggling uphill against complex bureaucracies and unreasonable policies across the whole breadth of life, we should be a little bit nicer to them and help them in life (as they're typically poorer, and it's expensive being poor, as the old adage goes), and stick to dragging people through the Courts who have intentionally carried out a criminal act which is to someone's detriment (an act of moral turpitude, as the US has it).

And one of the most unfair things on the whole railway is how if your battery has run out you can't simply show ID and get a reprint, if necessary for a reasonable admin fee, just like you can at an airport, even when flying with the Irish lot. (Yes, the fee is a bit hefty, but you don't end up prosecuted).

 

[BanburyBlue]

I've certainly noticed the increased Chiltern presence this year. I normally travel from Banbury to Birmingham Moor Street/Snow Hill twice a week for work. It used to be pretty random whether the barrier gate line was open in the morning, and extremely rare for the gates to be in operation in the evening. There was probably a 50% chance of getting your tickets checked on the train in the morning - this seemed to coincide with the gates. If the gates were open - ticket check on the train, if the gates were in operation - no ticket check on the train. I can only remember one occasion where my ticket was checked on the way back, and this was when a couple of (what I assume were) revenue protection guys got on at Warwick Parkway.

I noticed when I went back to work in the new year, much more ticket checking going on. Still random if gates are in operation in the morning or not, but every morning my ticket has been checked on the train. On some trains the train manager has been through the train again after leaving Leamington checking tickets. Tickets are regularly checked on the way home. And I think the gate line has been in operation every evening - in the early days with a couple of beefy security guard visibly present.

 

[Fermiboson]

In what other sphere of activity can someone confess to multiple crimes worth £15,000 and not even taken to Court?
This makes the threatened prosecutions for once forgetting your photocard look even more ridiculous.

In any sphere where money is more important than justice, i.e. anything involving companies.

Law is a game for the wealthy, etc. etc.

 

[Starmill]

We definitely do differ: such prosecutions happen across the land and are not confined to the railway either.

I have personally acted in several private prosecutions relating to such procedural failings - notwithstanding my view that England should emulate Scotland and introduce a requirement to procure criminal letters to commence such proceedings.

The problem is that you used the term "fare evader" I think. For a person who dishonestly tries to avoid paying the correct fare this course of action is unlikely to meet much argument.

However your post makes an implication about Penalty Fares and other alleged transgressions under the Byelaw which are plainly not caused by dishonest representations. A good example of this is the railcard app not working properly recently, which technically resulted in thousands of people committing a Byelaw offence, or under the Regulations open themselves to the charge of a Penalty Fare, despite there being no possible argument that they were dishonestly trying to avoid paying the correct fare.

In a lot of cases it's common ground between the company and the consumer that they weren't trying to avoid paying the correct fare, but they're still charged a Penalty Fare.

 

[infobleep]

Quite a few with flat phone batteries are evaders. At least one of our guards carries plenty of chargers for different phones and catches out many people. It's a let's pretend we can't show you game.

Good for them. I'm not aware of all guards doing this and they should do. It should be mandatory so that people can be caught and honest people are not.

 

[sheff1]

I note they're yet again trotting out the old line about "fare evasion means there’s less money available to improve the railways for everyone". This is nothing short of a barefaced lie; the level of fare evasion has absolutely no impact on the amount of improvement funding made available for the railway.

Perhaps someone should ask Chiltern what improvements they will be making with the £400k

 

[infobleep]

Perhaps someone should ask Chiltern what improvements they will be making with the £400k

Are they subject to FOIs? I thought they wouldn't be as they are a private firm.

 

[Titfield]

What do you expect Chiltern to say:

Fare evasion has no impact whatsoever? Thats a bit like Tesco saying "Shoplifting has no effect on prices in our stores whatsoever".

OR

Fare evasion means we have to underpay our staff?

Be realistic. The statement they make whilst perhaps not strictly true at least has resonance for most people.