Discussion About What Action Should be Taken Against Passengers With Expired Railcards

[Tevion539]

Of course validity can be back dated. Turn up with an out of date railcard: that will be £35 to cover the period up to now. (ie regardless of the actual previous railcard expiry date in the last 12 months). Then charge another £35 for another railcard from that point to 12 months in the future. If you turn up with a railcard 12 to 24 months out of date charge £70 plus £35. In other words put right previous non validity in yearly chunks and enforce a new railcard for the following 12 months. For most people that will cost them a bit more than if they had done things properly, but not an outrageous amount more. If they indulge in more complex and deliberate fraud then prosecute for fraud.

Just so I’m clear on what you’re suggesting.

If your railcard expired at any point in the last 12 months it’s £35 plus £35 to cover you for the next 12 months? 70 all in? £105 if your railcard expired in the last 24 months? Where do you cut off that leniency? What if you go 11.5 months without one, is that still £70 all in? Thats a deterrent if your railcard it a month or two out of date, but the longer you go without it being checked it becomes less of a deterrent.

 

[jthjth]

Just so I’m clear on what you’re suggesting.

If your railcard expired at any point in the last 12 months it’s £35 plus £35 to cover you for the next 12 months? 70 all in? £105 if your railcard expired in the last 24 months? Where do you cut off that leniency? What if you go 11.5 months without one, is that still £70 all in? Thats a deterrent if your railcard it a month or two out of date, but the longer you go without it being checked it becomes less of a deterrent.

If someone presents a two or three year out of date railcard they pay for those two or three years. There’s no need for any further deterrence. If you think someone can regularly travel for that period of time without ever being caught I’d suggest that’s a reason for reviewing revenue protection. Much other evasion would be going on that route.

 

[Tevion539]

If someone presents a two or three year out of date railcard they pay for those two or three years. There’s no need for any further deterrence. If you think someone can regularly travel for that period of time without ever being caught I’d suggest that’s a reason for reviewing revenue protection. Much other evasion would be going on that route.

So the deterrent you’re suggesting is no deterrent. Got it.

 

[jthjth]

So the deterrent you’re suggesting is no deterrent. Got it.

No. Let’s assume no allowance for a recently out of date card. Present a 1 month out of date card. That would cost £35 for the historical issue and £35 for a new card for the future. So £70 in total. That’s more than of the card had been renewed a month ago. Only if the card was exactly 12 months out of date would you be no worse off. You could add a £10 admin fee if you feel some extra punishment is needed.

 

[Tevion539]

No. Let’s assume no allowance for a recently out of date card. Present a 1 month out of date card. That would cost £35 for the historical issue and £35 for a new card for the future. So £70 in total. That’s more than of the card had been renewed a month ago. Only if the card was exactly 12 months out of date would you be no worse off. You could add a £10 admin fee if you feel some extra punishment is needed.

Which goes back to my point - the longer it goes on, the less of a deterrent it becomes. The way things things are currently, the onus is solely on the passenger to ensure their tickets are valid.

Revenue protection could do with strengthening in some areas of the network, sure. But by your suggestions they’d be very limited in how they could deal with people who “forget” to renew their railcard.

To go back to Hadders earlier analogy. Just because I forgot to pay my £30 road tax in the last 9 months, when I’m caught, I should just pay the £30 and off I go? It it goes on any longer the police should just ramp up enforcement?

 

[35B]

It’s really simple. If I buy Disabled Railcard tickets with a third off, how much has the railway lost in revenue?

The answer to that questions depends on whether I’ve bought a railcard or not. If I’ve got a railcard they’ve lost nothing, and in the case of a Disabled Railcard it’s £20 for a year. If I still qualify but forget to renew, the railway has lost out on £20 regardless of how many tickets I buy after expiry.

Anyway while all this is being argued about, a proper fare evader simply travels about with an in-date railcard obtained by one of a few fraudulent means. That’s the higher hanging fruit you never hear of on the forum; they don’t get caught. The system is designed so they don’t.

The railway has lost £20 in revenue plus the discounts claimed for which no railcard was held. So if someone has claimed a discount of £5 once a week for 6 months, the railway's loss is £20 + (26*£5) = £150. Possession of the railcard is an essential part of the fare, so a loss has been incurred.

It is unreasonable to say that, because there was a way that the ticket holder could have claimed the discount legally, their failure to do so should not be factored into any assessment of loss. It is equally unreasonable to assess that loss against the most expensive possible ticket, without giving credit for the fare already paid.

That assessment is independent of what should be done in the case of someone who has consistently underpaid for a significant time, as in the thread that gave rise to this question. My own view is that, while the railway are entirely legally justified in seeking recompense where they can assess it, their failure to effectively check tickets for so long means that they have not sought to mitigate their own losses effectively.

What then follows depends entirely on an assessment of whether the error is innocent, or deliberate. If innocent, it points towards what others have said, which is that the railway needs to make it easier to recognise an expiring railcard, and remember to renew*. If deliberate, then that points towards prosecution.

* - for those pleading "personal responsibility", they should remember that railcards are used as a marketing tool by the railway industry. Behaviour should follow that basic observation.

 

[AlterEgo]

The railway has lost £20 in revenue plus the discounts claimed for which no railcard was held. So if someone has claimed a discount of £5 once a week for 6 months, the railway's loss is £20 + (26*£5) = £150. Possession of the railcard is an essential part of the fare, so a loss has been incurred.

I’m happy to agree with this as a middle ground. Whichever, the grift towards extorting full Anytimes is, in my view, at the least unethical.

My own view is that, while the railway are entirely legally justified in seeking recompense where they can assess it, their failure to effectively check tickets for so long means that they have not sought to mitigate their own losses effectively.

What then follows depends entirely on an assessment of whether the error is innocent, or deliberate. If innocent, it points towards what others have said, which is that the railway needs to make it easier to recognise an expiring railcard, and remember to renew*.

Quite!

It’s actually bonkers that passengers can get to 50+ journeys and not be checked.

If deliberate, then that points towards prosecution.

Yes - for passengers who have never held a railcard or do not/have ceased to qualify one, it is almost certainly deliberate if done over a longer period of time.

 

[MotCO]

Surely this is all an education process. Everyone can easily lay their hands on store loyalty cards etc, so why is it that difficult to be able to lay your hands on a railcard?

The other option is to do away with all railcards, except those required to prove your age, and reduce off peak fares by around a quarter. Are there many people who travel off-peak without a railcard? I say reduce fares by a quarter which would roughly equate to the third off currently given on railcards less the cost of buying the card in the first place. Also it would help offset any revenue loss from those not previously being entitled to railcards, getting cheaper fares.

 

[Haywain]

do away with all railcards, except those required to prove your age,

What are you actually suggesting here, as railcards are not required to "prove your age"? If you are suggesting abolishing all but age related railcards this would have little effect as they make up the very significant bulk of railcards.

 

[Tevion539]

There definitely is a middle ground to be had. Unfortunately it’s impossible to guarantee that railcards will be checked on every journey. If someone has a run of luck, the time between checks can rack up quick as evidenced on here.

If there was a reliable way to ensure people were notified about railcard expiration, maybe a confirmation once a month from retailers when purchasing tickets to remind passengers to check their railcards? Maybe this could be a way to weed out those that do “forget” and this that actually forget.

 

[43096]

Something like pay £35 (or a bit more?) to cover travel up to the point of being stopped. Then require a new rail card to be purchased at another £35 valid from that point onwards. You can have a debate about what to do about a railcard that is recently out of date, but that’s a secondary argument.

Knowing that if you get caught you essentially have to buy both and “old” railcard and a new one should cover most cases. If you argue that the evasion has gone on for more than 12 months then perhaps the railway should examine its revenue protection techniques.

I think I’m arguing for something that is fair and proportionate. I don’t think the current system is such.

It rather depends on intent, and how you prove it. Just paying the railcard value in retrospect is going to be a very cheap get out for those who deliberately claim the railcard discount with no intention of having a railcard.

The problem is proving that intent...

 

[Lewisham2221]

Are there many people who travel off-peak without a railcard?

Yes, lots, in my experience - although there will no doubt be significant regional differences.

 

[Tevion539]

Yes, lots, in my experience - although there will no doubt be significant regional differences.

On the routes I serve, there’s railcard users, lots of them all times of day. Like, quite a lot. Regardless of whether it’s peak or not. A lot of people that use their TfW bus passes too. Which acts as a railcard on certain tfw routes.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Are there many people who travel off-peak without a railcard?

Almost everyone over 30 and under 60 who isn’t travelling with a partner?

 

[bahnause]

When I was young and working at a station, expired Half-Fare travel cards were not uncommon.

However, these were recorded in a database, so lost cards could be replaced.

It was not unusual for travelers to overlook an expiration date. On long-distance trains, a new ticket was sold with a note saying "Travelcard expired," and on a DOO train, a penalty fare was issued.

At that time, paying the penalty fare at the ticket counter was commonplace. If a customer arrived with a ticket or penalty fare bearing the note "Travelcard expired," the official procedure was to cancel it and sell a new Half-Fare Travelcard backdated to the travel date. This was usually in the customer's best interest as well. These customers were regulars, and we wanted to keep them.

 

[Haywain]

Almost everyone over 30 and under 60 who isn’t travelling with a partner?

Apart from holders of Disabled, HM Forces, Veterans and Network Railcards, a variety of regional railcards and Annual Gold Cards.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It is unreasonable to say that, because there was a way that the ticket holder could have claimed the discount legally, their failure to do so should not be factored into any assessment of loss.

If I am entitled to purchase a Railcard for £35 but I don’t then the loss to the railway is £35. I failed to pay the Railcard fee and so the loss to the railway is the value of that Railcard fee. The loss to the railway isn’t the discounts I’ve claimed; if I’d paid the Railcard fee of £35 I’d have been entitled to those discounts. The loss is therefore quite simply the Railcard fee that I failed to pay.

The way of regularising this situation is to sell a Railcard and backdate it. The railway get the revenue that they were entitled to and everyone can get on with their day.

Whether there should be an additional punitive element is a different discussion. I’d have no issue with charging a reasonable admin fee (say £50) on top of the backdating. Beyond that? Personally I think it’s morally a bit dubious. As for basing any settlement on the Anytime fare, I’d go so far as to say that I consider that to be extortion.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Sunday at 18:52 ==

Thing is, it would be very helpful for email reminders to be issued approaching the expiry date - at next to no cost for the sender.

Railcards send an email 30 days in advance to tell you to renew. I’ve just had one as my Two Together runs out next week.

The app also tells you in huge letters that it’s about to expire:

 

[etr221]

Part of my thinking is that - for the case of people who have bought tickets which would be valid but for the fact that their railcard has expired - is that the railway has sold them their tickets, without (by negligence or design) checking that they have a valid railcard, and so - as it has mis-sold them - is at least partially responsible.

So, when inspection finds this case (of an expeired railcard being the issue), my thinking is the course of action that should be taken is that the railcard should be withdrawn, and either a new card sold (backdated), or an excess to the non-railcard fare charged.

And - if a ticket is being bought for travel at a future date - then from the date such tickets go on sale, then railcard renewals/sales should be available.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We've discussed this extensively before but (as ever) it isn't that simple. I assume your plan would mean buying railcard disciounted tickets for someone else would no longer be possible.

Pre online sales, if you wanted to do this you had to take the Railcards to the station with you. This would be easier as they could simply send you their card number.

 

[Haywain]

Pre online sales, if you wanted to do this you had to take the Railcards to the station with you.

But that isn't strictly true either, as I recall. If you were buying tickets for travel after the expiry of the railcard, you would just be reminded to renew it if it was too far out to do at the time. You didn't have to show the railcard you would use at the time of travel.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Part of my thinking is that - for the case of people who have bought tickets which would be valid but for the fact that their railcard has expired - is that the railway has sold them their tickets, without (by negligence or design) checking that they have a valid railcard, and so - as it has mis-sold them - is at least partially responsible.

So, when inspection finds this case (of an expeired railcard being the issue), my thinking is the course of action that should be taken is that the railcard should be withdrawn, and either a new card sold (backdated), or an excess to the non-railcard fare charged.

And - if a ticket is being bought for travel at a future date - then from the date such tickets go on sale, then railcard renewals/sales should be available.

But this then negates the ability purchase a Railcard discounted for someone else (an elderly relative, say) or to purchase an advance ticket for travel in, let's say, 6 weeks time, that you don't yet hold the Railcard for, but will do by the time you travel.

The flexibility of being able to do this is, apparently, worth more than conducting "point of sale" checks which would significantly reduce the number of people falling foul of "forgetting" to renew their Railcard.

 

[Hadders]

Thing is, it would be very helpful for email reminders to be issued approaching the expiry date - at next to no cost for the sender.

They do. I've had emails and even a post card to tell me my railcard is about to expire. But this relies on the correct contact details being given when the railcard is purchased and marketing/contact options being allowed.

Also, the person receiving the emails has to make sure it isn't marked as spam etc. And they actually have to read and understand it!

 

[MotCO]

Apart from holders of Disabled, HM Forces, Veterans and Network Railcards, a variety of regional railcards and Annual Gold Cards.

Exactly - most people therefore get a discount.

What are you actually suggesting here, as railcards are not required to "prove your age"? If you are suggesting abolishing all but age related railcards this would have little effect as they make up the very significant bulk of railcards.

I was actually thinking of under 16's (or is it 18?) to prove entitled to half fares.

 

[Tevion539]

Exactly - most people therefore get a discount.


I was actually thinking of under 16's (or is it 18?) to prove entitled to half fares.

16-17 savers require proof. But under 16s? I don’t think many under 16s can prove their age, unless they have a passport and carry it with them.

 

[35B]

If I am entitled to purchase a Railcard for £35 but I don’t then the loss to the railway is £35. I failed to pay the Railcard fee and so the loss to the railway is the value of that Railcard fee. The loss to the railway isn’t the discounts I’ve claimed; if I’d paid the Railcard fee of £35 I’d have been entitled to those discounts. The loss is therefore quite simply the Railcard fee that I failed to pay.

The way of regularising this situation is to sell a Railcard and backdate it. The railway get the revenue that they were entitled to and everyone can get on with their day.

I disagree. The railcard is a prerequisite for a valid fare, and a customer has a choice of whether to purchase a railcard or not - including on renewal. If they have not exercised that choice, it’s not safe to assume that this is an error.

If a customer purchases discounted fares without confirming their entitlement, the railway loss includes the discounts that the customer has not purchased validity for.

Retrospective regularisation in this situation is no different to any other ticket that hasn’t been fully paid for.

 

[Alex C.]

As a somewhat hyperbolic comparison, imagine if your TV license direct debit failed or you missed the renewal and the BBC charged you the full commercial licensed rates for any show they could identify you had watched on iPlayer since the failed payment.

It is only in the last few years that the data trawling approach has taken hold, and I think the train companies have seen it as an obvious source of revenue. I don't think many people would think it reasonable for someone to be charged thousands for travel that would have been fine if they'd just paid £35 for the railcard renewal.

As someone with ADHD, this stuff can be very taxing - despite having multiple ways of trying to manage these things, I still book my tickets the wrong way round occasionally, or for the wrong dates. And I accept that it is my responsibility to manage that and pay plenty of amendment fees as a result. Renewing my railcard recently was a chore because I get it free it via Monzo but they only give the renewal code once the previous card has expired (or the day before, I can't remember which). There have been times when I've been 100% convinced I'd done something that was on my todo list and then realised later that I'd been distracted half way through. I would much, much rather just have an annual or monthly direct debit for my railcards.

 

[AlterEgo]

I disagree. The railcard is a prerequisite for a valid fare, and a customer has a choice of whether to purchase a railcard or not - including on renewal. If they have not exercised that choice, it’s not safe to assume that this is an error.

If a customer purchases discounted fares without confirming their entitlement, the railway loss includes the discounts that the customer has not purchased validity for.

Retrospective regularisation in this situation is no different to any other ticket that hasn’t been fully paid for.

It is worth noting that the railway does allow respective regularisation of fares not fully paid when changing route or travelling during the peak when holding a restricted walk up ticket.

 

[35B]

It is worth noting that the railway does allow respective regularisation of fares not fully paid when changing route or travelling during the peak when holding a restricted walk up ticket.

But those scenarios apply when sought at the time - not after the event

 

[AlterEgo]

But those scenarios apply when sought at the time - not after the event

No, not when sought. When caught. Even upon exiting the station.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If they have not exercised that choice, it’s not safe to assume that this is an error.

It doesn’t matter if it was deliberate or if it was an error, the actual revenue lost to the railway is the purchase price of the railcard.

Clearly it’s a different situation if someone isn’t otherwise eligible for the railcard. But for those who are otherwise eligible then the only thing the railway has actually lost out on is the railcard fee.

If they’d paid their £35 like they should have done then they’d have been eligible for the 33% discount. It’s therefore disingenuous of the railway to claim that the revenue lost is the 33% discount. It isn’t. It’s the £35 they should have paid but didn’t.

But those scenarios apply when sought at the time - not after the event

Not when sought, when caught. If the ticket examiner doesn’t come round or the lack of validity isn’t detected then the upgrade fee is not paid.