Comparisons with Scottish enforcement policies

[kermit]

Having read many posts about train fare enforcement measures and consequences, it seems to be the case that there are policy extremes within the UK - from Transport for London apparently churning through tens of thousands of criminal court convictions, to the apparent marked absence of people from Scotland seeking help via this forum. Is it the case that in Scotland, rail fare evasion has effectively been decriminalised, and is there any evidence that fare gathering (which should be the whole point of any system?) is more efficient or effective in London than in Scotland?
Apologies if this thread should go in another section of the forum!

 

[cadder toad]

Two recent observations.
Exiting the barriers at Glasgow. "I've lost my return half of my ticket from Paisley. I've only got the outward half.
-That's fine, is the barrier person's response, opening the gate.
Second, on a train. "We need two tickets to Glasgow.
-Have u got a railcard?
-Iv got a senior railcard but I don't have it with me.
-You do have one though?
-Yes
-Fine.

What a different world!

 

[AlterEgo]

Having read many posts about train fare enforcement measures and consequences, it seems to be the case that there are policy extremes within the UK - from Transport for London apparently churning through tens of thousands of criminal court convictions, to the apparent marked absence of people from Scotland seeking help via this forum. Is it the case that in Scotland, rail fare evasion has effectively been decriminalised, and is there any evidence that fare gathering (which should be the whole point of any system?) is more efficient or effective in London than in Scotland?
Apologies if this thread should go in another section of the forum!

In Scotland private prosecutions are extremely rare because of the law.

TfL has a unique problem which explains why prosecutions are so high. Firstly, TfL has a more expensive to use network and there are several types of free pass which dishonest people can use to circumvent the system. It also has a lot of people of overseas origin who do not realise that this is illegal or don't care, for myriad reasons. And, frankly, they are just better resourced and more determined to act in the public interest.

 

[Pushpit]

The system in Scotland is probably better overall but I've seen that for youngsters payment is often a voluntary process. Guards do actively recover ticketing costs though they aren't going to put themselves in danger. It is a more customer friendly approach overall. That said, I've encountered gate blocks and large numbers of rail staff and BTP in attendance quite regularly in Waverley and the two main Glasgow termini. Plus some Glaswegian guards tolerate absolutely no nonsense in their approach, and the male ones almost as much.

 

[kermit]

In Scotland private prosecutions are extremely rare because of the law.

TfL has a unique problem which explains why prosecutions are so high. Firstly, TfL has a more expensive to use network and there are several types of free pass which dishonest people can use to circumvent the system. It also has a lot of people of overseas origin who do not realise that this is illegal or don't care, for myriad reasons. And, frankly, they are just better resourced and more determined to act in the public interest.

This is an interesting viewpoint. Just to be clear on what you are saying, you believe that a highly proactive prosecution policy reflects a "determination to act in the public interest"? And that therefore, people being scooped up into the criminal justice system irrespective of intent, frequency of travelling with an incorrect ticket, or likelihood of doing it again, serves the public interest? Including people who have sought assistance on this forum, who seem likely to be honest, but have been confused by the most complicated ticketing system in the world, and now seem terrified of train travel?
I think I prefer the Scottish approach, if it can be shown to make no substantial difference to the bottom line, when costs of RPIs, back office work and prosecutions are factored in. That seems, to me, to be more in the public interest. But inevitably it is an opinion, rather than a provable fact.

 

[Haywain]

Including people who have sought assistance on this forum, who seem likely to be honest,

In what way is using a high value pass with a photo of another person on it considered honest?

 

[kermit]

In what way is using a high value pass with a photo of another person on it considered honest?

When did I say it was? It isn't honest at all, that isn't what I said - there are many examples on here of people who have been dreadfully and repeatedly dishonest. My point is that in using criminal prosecution processes - and in TfL's case, pretty much blanket use of them - then that process will include, and disproportionately punish, a significant number of people for whom prosecution is not appropriate.

And that the Scottish system appears to offer a comparison model worthy of consideration.

 

[AlterEgo]

This is an interesting viewpoint. Just to be clear on what you are saying, you believe that a highly proactive prosecution policy reflects a "determination to act in the public interest"? And that therefore, people being scooped up into the criminal justice system irrespective of intent, frequency of travelling with an incorrect ticket, or likelihood of doing it again, serves the public interest? Including people who have sought assistance on this forum, who seem likely to be honest, but have been confused by the most complicated ticketing system in the world, and now seem terrified of train travel?

No, wrong.

As alluded to in the post, TfL mostly prosecute people with stolen or borrowed high value passes, like Freedom Passes, staff travel cards, and the like. Those passes have the holder’s name and face on them. The people using them are abundantly dishonest, do it repeatedly, and defraud the public purse often to the tune of hundreds or thousands of pounds. Yes, it’s quite proper those people get prosecuted and to be quite honest I think many of them are fortunate to only be taken to court under a non-recordable Bylaw rather than fraud.

I don’t think we have seen a case of someone on TfL getting stung for an expired railcard or some other minor misdemeanour, but if you can find an example on the forum, be my guest. They’re basically all people using stolen and borrowed passes, almost every single case, although we see a few people caught for tailgating or jumping a barrier too. No, the TfL prosecution approach is fair, protects the public purse, targets the worst offenders and does not generally scoop up unsuspecting people who’ve had a minor lapse with an irregular ticket.

When did I say it was? It isn't honest at all, that isn't what I said - there are many examples on here of people who have been dreadfully and repeatedly dishonest. My point is that in using criminal prosecution processes - and in TfL's case, pretty much blanket use of them - then that process will include, and disproportionately punish, a significant number of people for whom prosecution is not appropriate.

TfL do not have a blanket prosecution policy. Can you find a few cases here where people have been done in court by TfL for the sort of misdemeanours you state where they “seem likely to be honest”? You can exclude everyone caught using stolen or borrowed passes lots of times to get free travel.

 

[Pushpit]

I would also agree, reluctantly, that TfL's position is logical and sane. They do invest a lot on infrastructure - gates, touch points, contactless systems, straightforward ticket machines which work each and every time, multiple payment methods and locations - and have a relatively straightforward and reasonably priced fare system. Almost all the cases reported in this forum relating to TfL prosecutions relate to someone obviously, deliberately and often systematically trying to steal from the public. I really dislike the idea of prosecuting thousands of generally young people every month, and I really don't understand why old lags like me are not normally prosecuted, but still, the logic is clear: minor offence = penalty fares or similar; major offences = SJP or in person magistrate appearance. Whereas many train companies seem to do revenue protection on the cheap with hamfisted outcomes.

 

[Egg Centric]

I really don't understand why old lags like me are not normally prosecuted

I think this is because 60 year old Londoners are entitled to a 60+ Oyster card (and 60 year old non-Londoners who dishonest enough and in a position to defraud the system are a tiny group) so the actual loss is tiny compared to the effort that would be spent investigating you oldsters.

 

[Pushpit]

I think this is because 60 year old Londoners are entitled to a 60+ Oyster card (and 60 year old non-Londoners who dishonest enough and in a position to defraud the system are a tiny group) so the actual loss is tiny compared to the effort that would be spent investigating you oldsters.

Possibly. A more cynical version would be that these OK Boomers won't be bothered about a criminal record, and would see a spell in Wormwood Scrubs as one way to get the Winter Heating Allowance.

 

[Egg Centric]

Possibly. A more cynical version would be that these OK Boomers won't be bothered about a criminal record, and would see a spell in Wormwood Scrubs as one way to get the Winter Heating Allowance.

OK Boomer