Decriminalise ticket offences?

[jon0844]

There's always a chance that some offers of an out of court settlement wouldn't actually go to court if the evidence is very flimsy and you told them to sod off.

It's easy to threaten court action, and say that £80 will stop you going there, and be bluffing all the time.

Who's going to chance calling their bluff though?

Yet, I bet there are a few cases where if you said you wanted to take it all the way, they'd back down or reduce the penalty to try and get something.

This is why this unofficial penalty fare route being employed by some TOCs probably needs to stop.

 

[LateThanNever]

There is very little in common between the two nations in terms of railway ticketing offences, now or in the recent past. They couldn't be more different. Have you seen a railway ticketing case in the Sheriff Court or either of the Court of Sessions? I haven't. (Seems to me that they're far too busy with rape, wind farms and medical negligence; which tells me something about the Judiciary's priorities).

Does this indicate, I wonder, that the Scots are more honest or that Scotrail looses lots of money?
Or that there is another way?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If I get on a train from Halifax to Bradford hoping to buy on board, I commit a criminal offence if it is painted purple and I don't if it is painted black and orange.

If you could explain how that is "common sense", I'd be very grateful.

Penalty Fares and the restriction of discounted ticket sales cover people who pay when challenged. RoRA covers people who try and short-fare or doughnut.

The Byelaws are simply being abused by TOCs (yes, you, Northern) who don't want the faff of having to abide by DafT guidance on Penalty Fare scheme rules.

Thoroughly agree!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Intrigued at the case law quoted here. It is so ancient that it would be most surprising if it were still entirely fit for purpose. Transportation didn't end till the 1860s and there wasn't a proper police force till the 1850s at earliest.

By coincidence, this discussion came up in the Appeal Court just this afternoon (in relation to the London riots in Enfield). The argument concerned the duties of the Police and the wording in common law which refers to constables. The skilled but young counsel for the Apellant admitted that it was only last night that he'd found a reference to a constable in the 18th c. One of the Lord Justices, older, wiser, and better read, promptly quipped that Shakespeare refers to a constable in Much Ado About Nothing.
It's never wise to disregard historic judgements and common law reports.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Fraud continues to be used to prosecute passengers who practice deliberate deceptions with rail travel. Not Theft.

There is very little in common between the two nations in terms of railway ticketing offences, now or in the recent past. They couldn't be more different. Have you seen a railway ticketing case in the Sheriff Court or either of the Court of Sessions? I haven't. (Seems to me that they're far too busy with rape, wind farms and medical negligence; which tells me something about the Judiciary's priorities).

Dave, we usually agree on almost everything it seems, however in terms of the legislation as I'm sure you know, RoRA and Railways Byelaws are exactly the same both sides of the border.
It is a combination of different railway retailing practices and the restrictive practices in force in the Court system north of the border that determines why such cases are rarely brought before the Courts up there.

That aside, the main things that I think that we all agree on is that a very improved availability of ticket retailing facilities, improved signage and an improved programme of education in terms of traveller responsibility along with a more consistent and fair application of rules & appropriate remedies is desirable throughout the system.

Opportunist fair avoidance is rife in a good many areas and very substantial revenue is being lost daily to the habit of 'paying only if asked'. You and I and those great may contributors on here who work with it daily will recognise that it wasn't some truly archaic judgement that criminalised this practice, it was a late twentieth century Appeal Court judgment that confirmed this should rightly be seen as a serious offence.

However, it is recognised that too many occasional and otherwise innocent travellers may be caught up in catch-all campaigns intended to stamp out that particular habit and sometimes may ultimately result in convictions for one offence or another. Frequently this may be because of a 'head in the sand' response to correspondence

A scrupulously fair application of the existing ticketing rules is an essential requirement to be implemented by all TOCS, but one question does remain.

When the all terms, conditions and existing rules have been fairly applied and a traveller still refuses or persistently fails to pay the correct fare that has been legitimately requested, what effective alternative remedy can there be?

 

[island]

Does this indicate, I wonder, that the Scots are more honest or that Scotrail looses lots of money?
Or that there is another way?

As I understand it private prosecutions are only permitted in Scotland with leave of the High Court, which has been given only a tiny handful of times.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

As I understand it private prosecutions are only permitted in Scotland with leave of the High Court, which has been given only a tiny handful of times.

That is factually correct, but how determined have 'private prosecutors' (in this case, ScotRail) been in bringing cases forward?

I see a great appetite in the Courts of Sessions for hearing cases, almost as great as the English Lords/Supreme Court who will hear matters that have no prospect of public benefit. I think it's a culture of habit around poor engagement with the Courts, rather than a ruling.

 

[Flamingo]

A scrupulously fair application of the existing ticketing rules is an essential requirement to be implemented by all TOCS, but one question does remain.

When the all terms, conditions and existing rules have been fairly applied and a traveller still refuses or persistently fails to pay the correct fare that has been legitimately requested, what effective alternative remedy can there be?

The nub of the arguement.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Dave, we usually agree on almost everything it seems, however in terms of the legislation as I'm sure you know, RoRA and Railways Byelaws are exactly the same both sides of the border.
It is a combination of different railway retailing practices and the restrictive practices in force in the Court system north of the border that determines why such cases are rarely brought before the Courts up there.

Yes, we are in agreement, but what is not clear to me is the extent to which what we refer to as 'restrictive practices' is an imutable ruling from the judiciary, or is a custom and practice which, with some bullish advances from the incumbent operator, ScotRail, could be relaxed. I attend the Scottish High Courts, the Courts of Sessions, from time to time, and as I noted in this thread, I see a remarkable amount of time in the Courts of Sessions (more than the London High Court would allow) be allocated to personal claims for civil or criminal matters of little consequence to the public. Some cases run over 10 or so days where the London Courts would constran them to 3.
I remain genuinely unclear about the underlying reason why private prosecutions for Railway offences are not brought before the Scots Courts. But I fully agree with you that they do not.

That aside, the main things that I think that we all agree on is that a very improved availability of ticket retailing facilities, improved signage and an improved programme of education in terms of traveller responsibility along with a more consistent and fair application of rules & appropriate remedies is desirable throughout the system.

Absolutely!
And urgently.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If anybody thinks it's unfair and they have a valid defence, they can argue their case in front of a totally impartial magistrate.

"Unfair" and "valid defence" are, of course, two entirely separate things.

The Byelaws are unfair, or at least wildly inconsistent- getting on a black train without a ticket should be no different to getting on a purple one without a ticket. There is no criminal offence with the former, whilst there is no valid defence to a criminal charge with the latter. It's ridiculous.

And all the while people on this forum- many of whom work in ticketing- can't even agree if a card-only TVM is an "opportunity to buy".

I would like to see the Penalty Fare scheme get more teeth- uplifting the fee to TfL levels would be a start- because that deals with most people who "pay when challenged". But we also have to question why people "pay when challenged"; it's rarely through intent to defraud, rather than taking advantage of lax ticketing practices with the hope of occasionally getting away with the guard not getting through the train. That attitude isn't right, but you have to question whether TOCs have brought in on themselves by closing ticket offices left, right and centre.

 

[Yew]

Could it be because in scotland the regulations are consistently applied by one operator, whereas there is (or was) a vast difference between Northern and FCC's policies on ticketing and prosecution. Alongside the GC issue mentioned above.

 

[glasgowguy1984]

On the Scots courts issue, most rail company's down south use evidence from a statement and inference can be drawn on a 'no comment'. Under Scots law no inference can be drawn from 'no comment', making it extremely difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt hence why every regular offender in Scotland knows shut up and don't say anything till you see a lawyer. Also the ability to collect payment of a fine on a civil or criminal matter is extremely difficult and low level crimes are now dealt with through the courts by a plead guilty early get £150 fine and no criminal record, hence why shoplifting is now a career. Criminal prosecutions will never occur in Scotland in regard to railway ticketing as the amount of legislation required would be the equivelant of a heart transplant to the legal system.

 

[LateThanNever]

By coincidence, this discussion came up in the Appeal Court just this afternoon (in relation to the London riots in Enfield). The argument concerned the duties of the Police and the wording in common law which refers to constables. The skilled but young counsel for the Apellant admitted that it was only last night that he'd found a reference to a constable in the 18th c. One of the Lord Justices, older, wiser, and better read, promptly quipped that Shakespeare refers to a constable in Much Ado About Nothing.
It's never wise to disregard historic judgements and common law reports.

Not sure we should go there as the office of Constable is long before Shakespeare and is French in origin!
(And where is the common law in France?!)

Not suggesting that historic common law reports should be ignored - just that of their nature it should be simpler to 'distinguish' them from circumstances currently, where things are so different.

On the Scots courts issue, most rail company's down south use evidence from a statement and inference can be drawn on a 'no comment'. Under Scots law no inference can be drawn from 'no comment', making it extremely difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt hence why every regular offender in Scotland knows shut up and don't say anything till you see a lawyer. Also the ability to collect payment of a fine on a civil or criminal matter is extremely difficult and low level crimes are now dealt with through the courts by a plead guilty early get £150 fine and no criminal record, hence why shoplifting is now a career. Criminal prosecutions will never occur in Scotland in regard to railway ticketing as the amount of legislation required would be the equivelant of a heart transplant to the legal system.

Very interesting. So do ScotRail have penalty fares, lots of ticket offices or lose lots of money to fare evasion I wonder?
We do not seem to hear them - or their passengers - complain!

 

[Flamingo]

But we also have to question why people "pay when challenged"; it's rarely through intent to defraud, rather than taking advantage of lax ticketing practices with the hope of occasionally getting away with the guard not getting through the train. That attitude isn't right, but you have to question whether TOCs have brought in on themselves by closing ticket offices left, right and centre.

If hoping to get away with it is not intent to defraud, can you explain what it is?

Most people I see "hoping to get away with it" have boarded from stations with a full range of ticketing facilities, or a major London terminus.

Saying it is the fault of the TOC for not preventing them from boarding without a ticket is a bit disengenious, to say the least.

 

[PermitToTravel]

I think (and this is not at all a defence of them!) that these people genuinely think that if the guard doesn't come round, their journey is legally free. There's not really a quick fix for this, particularly as nobody ever reads signs or posters on the railway.

 

[34D]

I think (and this is not at all a defence of them!) that these people genuinely think that if the guard doesn't come round, their journey is legally free. There's not really a quick fix for this, particularly as nobody ever reads signs or posters on the railway.

Yes. Backed up by barrack room lawyers saying things like 'past consideration is no consideration.'

 

[island]

On the Scots courts issue, most rail company's down south use evidence from a statement and inference can be drawn on a 'no comment'. Under Scots law no inference can be drawn from 'no comment', making it extremely difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt hence why every regular offender in Scotland knows shut up and don't say anything till you see a lawyer. Also the ability to collect payment of a fine on a civil or criminal matter is extremely difficult and low level crimes are now dealt with through the courts by a plead guilty early get £150 fine and no criminal record, hence why shoplifting is now a career. Criminal prosecutions will never occur in Scotland in regard to railway ticketing as the amount of legislation required would be the equivelant of a heart transplant to the legal system.

Not to mention that Scots law also requires corroboration of evidence so inspectors would have to go around in pairs.

 

[LateThanNever]

I think (and this is not at all a defence of them!) that these people genuinely think that if the guard doesn't come round, their journey is legally free. There's not really a quick fix for this, particularly as nobody ever reads signs or posters on the railway.

Quite the old 'Paytrain' slogan encouraged people to treat (little used) trains like a bus where you boarded and the conductor collected your fare. Much higher numbers of passengers seem to have made this more difficult, so some operators seem to have decided this can be made easily illegal...

 

[PermitToTravel]

Yes. Backed up by barrack room lawyers saying things like 'past consideration is no consideration.'

Sorry, please could you elaborate on this?

As far as I can tell every use of that phrase on this website has been by you

 

[glasgowguy1984]

Not to mention that Scots law also requires corroboration of evidence so inspectors would have to go around in pairs.

Well yes corroboration is required at present but the Scottish government are trying to change that, I've got close family in the legal profession and the lectures on the importance of corroboration could bore you to tears!

 

[34D]

Sorry, please could you elaborate on this?

As far as I can tell every use of that phrase on this website has been by you

There is a perception (not on our forum, I might add) that once ones journey has come to an end it becomes free.

 

[island]

Well yes corroboration is required at present but the Scottish government are trying to change that, I've got close family in the legal profession and the lectures on the importance of corroboration could bore you to tears!

As I understand it it's done and the final vote was to leave corroboration as it is.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If hoping to get away with it is not intent to defraud, can you explain what it is?

Intent requires actively doing something (e.g. hiding in the toilet, pretending to be asleep) to avoid paying. Many people, rightly or wrongly, feel that if the guard doesn't get down the train then that's the railway's problem and not theirs.

I can see both sides of the argument.

Most people I see "hoping to get away with it" have boarded from stations with a full range of ticketing facilities, or a major London terminus.

Not every ticketing offence happens between Reading and Paddington though.

I've committed a criminal offence if I get on one of your First Great Western trains without a ticket. Five miles up the road I can get on a First Hull Trains train and buy whatever I want from the guard, without a penalty. If you can explain how this is consistent, I'd be very grateful.

Ticketing practices are very lax in many parts of the country, and people get confused by it. I've said before, I thought it was ok to buy on board until I started posting here. I'll give a few examples:

TPE's automatic announcements say "if you choose to walk past an open ticket office, you will only be sold full price tickets on board". That implies that I can get on board without buying a ticket, but that it'll cost me more money, a simple cost/benefit exercise. In reality I am committing a criminal offence. TPE don't tell me this.

I travel to work from Apsley every morning. The guard is selling tickets throughout the journey- "does anyone need a ticket?"- and there is an excess fares window at Euston. For over a week now the station ticket office has been closed, apparently due to staff sickness according to London Midland's twitter, with only a solitary card-only TVM available. Taking the ticket office away due to staff cuts (if there is no spare staff then LM are understaffed) only emphasises this point. These things imply that buying on board is an option, when in reality it is not.

In Yorkshire, most ticket offices were closed during the 1980s, with everyone having to buy tickets on board the train. People get used to this, and expect that this is how things are done, just like on the bus. Guards are usually happy to sell tickets, and appreciate the commission, again implying that buying on board is acceptable.

And I've already mentioned the Open Access operators- your employer owns one of them- who make an advertising feature of buying on board.

The current situation is farcical, and I think it boils down to penny-pinching from TOCs and then profiteering from the confusion. Northern are particularly guilty of it, using the PayTrain idea to cut ticket office hours (outside of PTE areas) and then using fear to profiteer from the confusion.

I can't think of another industry where they would try and prosecute you for paying at the wrong till.

 

[Yew]

Dont forget that FHT and FGW are the same company, so it wouldnt be unreasonable for a regular FHT customer to assume that paying on the train is acceptable of FGW.. or even FCC

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I was familiar with the recent debate (and vote) in Scotland over the corroboration of Criminal evidence, as would be relaxed by the Criminal Justice Bill.

Under Scots law no inference can be drawn from 'no comment', . . . .

the ability to collect payment of a fine on a civil or criminal matter is extremely difficult and low level crimes are now dealt with through the courts by a plead guilty early get £150 fine and no criminal record . . . .

The 'no comment' response does not, to my mind, present an unsurmountable barrier to the detection and prevention or prosecution of fare evasion, though it does require some skill in the gathering of witness statements and evidence.

The virtual maximum of £150 does remove some of the deterrent, however, I'm sure so many passengers regularly playing 'fares-roulette' would be effectively deterred by multiple £150 settlements. I don't pretend to have the answer, and I'm sure the Revenue Protection team at ScotRail have weighed up the options carefully, but I still suspect that the Company could do more to reduce evasion and to improve revenue by more robust and systematic revenue protection and prosecution schemes. I'd be looking at complex schemes such as Northern Rail's FTP and radical revisions such as a challenge on Appeal in addition to the obvious and expensive introduction of more front-line staff.
Probably a task for an incoming franchisee with a long payback period ahead.

Thanks for your observations, glasgowguy1984.

 

[glasgowguy1984]

I was familiar with the recent debate (and vote) in Scotland over the corroboration of Criminal evidence, as would be relaxed by the Criminal Justice Bill.


The 'no comment' response does not, to my mind, present an unsurmountable barrier to the detection and prevention or prosecution of fare evasion, though it does require some skill in the gathering of witness statements and evidence.

The virtual maximum of £150 does remove some of the deterrent, however, I'm sure so many passengers regularly playing 'fares-roulette' would be effectively deterred by multiple £150 settlements. I don't pretend to have the answer, and I'm sure the Revenue Protection team at ScotRail have weighed up the options carefully, but I still suspect that the Company could do more to reduce evasion and to improve revenue by more robust and systematic revenue protection and prosecution schemes. I'd be looking at complex schemes such as Northern Rail's FTP and radical revisions such as a challenge on Appeal in addition to the obvious and expensive introduction of more front-line staff.
Probably a task for an incoming franchisee with a long payback period ahead.

Thanks for your observations, glasgowguy1984.

The corroboration thing is more like the current battle is over but the war isn't won yet, the government have a big event in September and don't want any issues at present. I also think if you took northern's stance you would only catch unintentional fare evaders, anyone who regularly breaks the law will automatically shut up and you'd never prove jack. Plus with the more left wing social tendency a government wouldn't allow such blatant law breaking by a toc, the public would be up in arms and courts simply would destroy cases regularly, should see what they do to social workers if they don't have a case, it's like drowning a sack of puppy's.

 

[amcluesent]

A criminal record is disproportionate for what is a victimless 'crime'.

As many have pointed out the ToC operate confusingly different payment schemes and have arcane carriage rules which, arguably, are a form of entrapment with bonus-driven RPI's overly reliant on getting people to incriminate themselves before being informed of their rights.

Plus there is the obdurate refusal to use technology to simplify the life of the unfortunate pax with regard to ticketing.

 

[PermitToTravel]

By that logic shoplifting Tesco is also victimless. You get a criminal record for doing that.

 

[Flamingo]

A criminal record is diproportionate for what is a victimless 'crime'

Using that reasoning, most offences on the statute books are "victimless"...:roll:

 

[amcluesent]

Using that reasoning, most offences on the statute books are "victimless"...

Policing and justice in UK is grounded in the Victorian desire for firm control over the 'lower orders'

 

[Flamingo]

So what's the reasoning in every other country?