Do railstaff understand the prosecution procedures and consequences of their actions?

[robbeech]

For some time now, reminded a few time more recently we see instances where rail staff (be it station staff, guards or dedicated revenue protection) give advice to passengers which can end up with the passenger getting into trouble, or more trouble than implied.

Some examples,
1) A passenger boards the same train they get 3 or 4 times a month with the intention of buying a ticket from the guard. There ARE ticketing facilities at their origin and what they are doing IS against the rules. It's unclear (and irrelevant) whether they know they're taking a chance or not. Every time for several years the guard has come through the train and sold a ticket. On a particular day the guard cannot sell a ticket due to a fault with their machine. The guard is apologetic (as if it is their fault the passenger doesn't have a ticket) and explains quite politely that the passenger need not worry as they'll be able to purchase a ticket when they get to where they are going which will allow them to exit the barriers.
When they get to their destination they are (rightly) issued a penalty fare or is referred for prosecution.

2) A passenger travels from an unstaffed station with no TVM and arrives at a staffed, barriered station and goes to pay for their ticket, the staff at the excess fares window is fully prepared to sell the correct ticket as they should but revenue teams spot an easy target (perhaps the passenger ticks some easy target boxes, the descriptions of which are not to discuss here) and disallows the perfectly legal transaction in favour of unlawfully issuing a penalty fare or referring for prosecution. When the passenger explains they had no previous opportunity to pay they are told that this is ok, all they have to do is appeal and explain and it will be cancelled.



In both of these cases, do the members of staff giving out these facts and information have the slightest clue about the processes and procedures they are describing?

The importance is one of the examples above (the first one) sees the passenger firmly in the wrong, but the second sees the railway in the wrong yet both examples show the staff they encounter essentially misleading the passenger into thinking the situation is less serious than it is. We can argue that in the first example the passenger should be issued with the necessary penalty but is it not about time it was made mandatory for all on board staff to at least explain the rules to passengers they encounter without a ticket, even if they then use discretion and go on to "let them off this time"?
Surely an organisation so fixated on cutting down on fare evaders would take every necessary step to inform its passengers of the rules to minimise the risk of passengers failing to understand and falling foul of the rules? One could assume that an organisation and its staff that deliberately avoids reminding passengers of the rules and wilfully assisting the breaking of these rules by selling tickets on board may actually be trying to encourage fare evasion due to the easy additional revenue it generates when people can be caught.

In the second example the railway sits in the wrong but misleads the passenger into thinking that the process they are going through is the correct one. When the passenger gets a letter through the post it quickly becomes clear that the member of revenue staff simply lied to them. The passenger is put into a position through no fault of their own whereby they are guilty of a criminal offence unless they can somehow prove they are innocent. We can argue until the cows come home that guilty until proven innocent is not the way things work but there are countless examples showing this to be the case on this forum, and it is ALWAYS the case outside court as no evidence is required to demand whatever figure the railway chooses. Either way, proving this innocence requires a level of knowledge about the railway that no regular passenger could possibly be expected to have, and indeed the railway makes difficult to obtain.

So the basis for the overall question here is as follows. Do railway staff KNOW the results and consequences of their actions?

In example 1, does the guard know that in actual fact there's a good chance the passenger (who we must remember IS in the wrong) could end up paying hundreds of pounds but decides to lie about the consequences to avoid confrontation, or because it's a game to them? Or are they actually genuinely unaware of what will happen?

In example 2, does the member of revenue team understand that once they take their details to refer for prosecution that there is no real chance to appeal unless it goes to court in which case the railway wins by default if the passenger doesn't have extensive knowledge of the rules as they will be able to provide no defence? Does this member of revenue staff understand that the appeals body staff wear the same shirts and use only advice given to them by the operator? Or, do they genuinely not have an understanding of the procedure and do genuinely think that the passenger will be able to resolve it easily with a phone call and paying nothing but the fare due over the phone? If the latter is true, what is it that makes them want to go through the whole rigmarole of filling in forms, if they were already trying to buy a ticket as per the rules, as we are told incredibly frequently these staff do not earn commission, they have no targets to meet and there are no internal or external incentives or competitions for them to write up the highest number of MG11s in a given time period.

I'd be really interested to hear from staff here that offer advice but also revenue staff to see what their views are on this.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Has scenario 2 ever come up in disputes and prosecutions? I don't recall it having done, most similar ones seem to be "there was a TVM but <poor excuse for not using it>".

 

[RyanOPlasty]

A further complication is that a ticket machine may be partially working. Touch screens can be awkward to use and may seem to work for some people/transactions but not others. I have had difficulty with a particular machine where I could not collect a pre-booked ticket after several attempts ( the machine was not responding to some of my touches). As there was someone waiting I stood aside and he could buy a ticket with no problems.

How can it be established that a ticket machine is FULLY working at a particular point in time? Are any diagnostics of failed transactions kept?

 

[bramling]

Has scenario 2 ever come up in disputes and prosecutions? I don't recall it having done, most similar ones seem to be "there was a TVM but <poor excuse for not using it>".

I don’t really see how (2) could arise for a station with no ticket issuing facilities at all. As you suggest, quite probably more of an issue for stations where facilities are present but not working, not taking particular forms of payment, etc.

In the situation of no facilities at all, I would certainly refuse to engage with revenue, whilst at the same time not refusing to pay the fare due but only the fare due.

I suspect many guards work on the basis that “some revenue is better than none”, and of course in some cases they will presumably earn some commission on that.

I do agree with the point made initially that in that situation they really should be adding a disclaimer that “I’m issuing the ticket as a goodwill gesture, but in future you should buy beforehand as if you encounter revenue protection staff you may well be reported”.

 

[Snow1964]

2 is annoying as it seems often upto the passenger to show a photo of the out of service (or certain type of payment) TVM, otherwise they have to jump through hoops to get out of the penalty.

So I too am against the passenger getting a penalty in this situation. The burden of proof is wrong way around, it's like the customer (even if telling truth) is lied to as assumed to be a liar. If anything the Revenue person should phone the station to check, or if not possible, get themselves there and check, and then perhaps stay there and sell tickets until someone comes to fix the TVM.

 

[Tallguy]

Get your phone out and record any such interaction. You then Have proof.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

2 is annoying as it seems often upto the passenger to show a photo of the out of service (or certain type of payment) TVM, otherwise they have to jump through hoops to get out of the penalty.

So I too am against the passenger getting a penalty in this situation. The burden of proof is wrong way around, it's like the customer (even if telling truth) is lied to as assumed to be a liar. If anything the Revenue person should phone the station to check, or if not possible, get themselves there and check, and then perhaps stay there and sell tickets until someone comes to fix the TVM.

Thought scenario 2 was for travel from an unstaffed station with no TVM?

 

[3rd rail land]

Many years ago I started a journey at a station that had a TVM out of order and the ticket office was closed. No staff anywhere to be seen. When I got to my destination I was fully prepared to explain the situation to the gateline staff but as the barriers were open I decided to simply walk through and nobody challenged me. When I got home I bought a ticket for the journey I had made and never used it. This was to avoid any chance of scenario 2.

 

[MotCO]

When I got home I bought a ticket for the journey I had made and never used it. This was to avoid any chance of scenario 2.

Was that actually making the situation worse? The time on the ticket would prove that you did not have a valid ticket when boarding the train.

 

[robbeech]

Thought scenario 2 was for travel from an unstaffed station with no TVM?

It’s what I initial used as an example but a broken machine or a ticket office that would normally be open but isn’t due to staff shortages would add other complications so should not be ignored.

 

[wilbers]

Was that actually making the situation worse? The time on the ticket would prove that you did not have a valid ticket when boarding the train.

..and bought a ticket at the first opportunity, which was when they got home.

 

[spag23]

Was that actually making the situation worse? The time on the ticket would prove that you did not have a valid ticket when boarding the train.

But going instead to the destination window would still have proved he'd not had a valid ticket when boarding AND run the risk of being intercepted in the queue by an RPI.

 

[najaB]

..and bought a ticket at the first opportunity, which was when they got home.

They said there was a gateline at their destination station. Are there any gated stations that don't have ticket vending facilities?

 

[spag23]

They said there was a gateline at their destination station. Are there any gated stations that don't have ticket vending facilities?

I wouldn't expect a TVM to be able to sell me a ticket TO the station I am already at. Much easier to input the correct route from home (where there are no prowling RPIs!).
Incidentally you have to admire the poster's (#8) honesty.

 

[robbeech]

I wouldn't expect a TVM to be able to sell me a ticket TO the station I am already at.

Nowadays a few machine types will let you do this but by no means all of them and the process is different on each one.

 

[Wallsendmag]

Nowadays a few machine types will let you do this but by no means all of them and the process is different on each one.

The vast majority of TVMs will do this now. In fact Peterborough , Wakefield, Darlington and Newcastle have TVMs as X/S fare payment points

 

[spag23]

The vast majority of TVMs will do this now. In fact Peterborough , Wakefield, Darlington and Newcastle have TVMs as X/S fare payment points

But not a lot of people know that. Including perhaps 3rd Rail Land, who - not unreasonably - made amends from home.

 

[Edsmith]

Staff all seem to have their own set of 'rules' and on 2 it's beyond ridiculous for a passenger to be issued a penalty fare and have to appeal it in that situation. I was told by revenue staff that if there is no ticket office at the station you board at, or it's closed, then a PF should not be issued even if there's a TVM but like I said they all seem to have their rules.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Staff all seem to have their own set of 'rules' and on 2 it's beyond ridiculous for a passenger to be issued a penalty fare and have to appeal it in that situation. I was told by revenue staff that if there is no ticket office at the station you board at, or it's closed, then a PF should not be issued even if there's a TVM but like I said they all seem to have their rules.

Years ago when TVMs were basic and unreliable (and only took cash) a TVM wasn't considered an opportunity to purchase (in PF areas you'd chuck 5p in the PERTIS instead, in non-PF areas you could just pay on board), but that hasn't been the case for a long time.

 

[Edsmith]

Years ago when TVMs were basic and unreliable (and only took cash) a TVM wasn't considered an opportunity to purchase (in PF areas you'd chuck 5p in the PERTIS instead, in non-PF areas you could just pay on board), but that hasn't been the case for a long time.

Well some TVM's don't take cash now and there are people who will have difficulty using them anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well some TVM's don't take cash now

If you wish to pay cash and the only TVM doesn't take cash, you can pay at the first opportunity where cash is taken, though on some TOCs you may need to obtain a Promise to Pay to do so (which is a bit like a Permit to Travel).

and there are people who will have difficulty using them anyway.

If this is due to a disability, reasonable adjustments must be made in law, which would be to allow on-board purchase.

if it's because you don't like TVMs and won't use all this new-fangled technology nonsense, tough.

 

[Sheffcaster202]

You could spin this whole query round and ask "Do passengers understand the prosecution procedures and the consequences of their actions?" Your whole post seems very derogatory towards railway staff, you seem to have a dislike towards them and I wonder somewhat if you have had some sort of issue with buying on board, penalty fares, prosecution etc in the past. . .

That being said. . .

1) A passenger boards the same train they get 3 or 4 times a month with the intention of buying a ticket from the guard. There ARE ticketing facilities at their origin and what they are doing IS against the rules. It's unclear (and irrelevant) whether they know they're taking a chance or not. Every time for several years the guard has come through the train and sold a ticket. On a particular day the guard cannot sell a ticket due to a fault with their machine. The guard is apologetic (as if it is their fault the passenger doesn't have a ticket) and explains quite politely that the passenger need not worry as they'll be able to purchase a ticket when they get to where they are going which will allow them to exit the barriers.
When they get to their destination they are (rightly) issued a penalty fare or is referred for prosecution.

So in this situation, its quite black and white, there are facilities to buy tickets at the station, options to buy online or at least obtain a promise to pay permit. Quite rightly so, this example should be issued a penalty fare or be referred up the chain for prosecution.

2) A passenger travels from an unstaffed station with no TVM and arrives at a staffed, barriered station and goes to pay for their ticket, the staff at the excess fares window is fully prepared to sell the correct ticket as they should but revenue teams spot an easy target (perhaps the passenger ticks some easy target boxes, the descriptions of which are not to discuss here) and disallows the perfectly legal transaction in favour of unlawfully issuing a penalty fare or referring for prosecution. When the passenger explains they had no previous opportunity to pay they are told that this is ok, all they have to do is appeal and explain and it will be cancelled.

In this situation a penalty fare/referred for prosecution would be wrong, on the routes I work (some rural, some busy commuter routes and a few in between) there are very few stations that do not have any kind of ticket purchasing facilities. Those in this case are well known by staff working the routes, taught as part of route learning and easily checked up on station facilities lists to verify. I feel this is a very extreme example and it would be very unlikely to actually happen.

In example 1, does the guard know that in actual fact there's a good chance the passenger (who we must remember IS in the wrong) could end up paying hundreds of pounds but decides to lie about the consequences to avoid confrontation, or because it's a game to them? Or are they actually genuinely unaware of what will happen?

It is the person travelling's responsibility to ensure they hold a valid ticket for travel and purchase this before boarding the service, it is very well known if you travel without a ticket you can be 'fined', stations have signage (debatable subject at times) and even ticket stock itself explains how you must hold a valid ticket. The guard you are referring to here has many onboard duties, revenue being at the lower end of the scale, and may just tell the passenger to go and speak to dateline/excess fares window staff and see what can be done. There may be revenue staff on duty at the gate line, there could be agency staff conducting a revenue block, there could be a staff shortage the gate line wide open and no one there to challenge anyone. It's virtually impossible to explain what could happen without further detail to your example, unless you would like all guards/conductors/train managers to have a pre-prepared speech of worst case scenarios, bare in mind most trains now announce that should hold a valid ticket and have posters and signage stating the possible consequences. Can't see anyone deliberately telling a "lie" to avoid confrontation from your example.

In example 2, does the member of revenue team understand that once they take their details to refer for prosecution that there is no real chance to appeal unless it goes to court in which case the railway wins by default if the passenger doesn't have extensive knowledge of the rules as they will be able to provide no defence? Does this member of revenue staff understand that the appeals body staff wear the same shirts and use only advice given to them by the operator? Or, do they genuinely not have an understanding of the procedure and do genuinely think that the passenger will be able to resolve it easily with a phone call and paying nothing but the fare due over the phone? If the latter is true, what is it that makes them want to go through the whole rigmarole of filling in forms, if they were already trying to buy a ticket as per the rules, as we are told incredibly frequently these staff do not earn commission, they have no targets to meet and there are no internal or external incentives or competitions for them to write up the highest number of MG11s in a given time period.

There is an "appeals process" for both penalty fares and prosecution. If you receive a penalty fare you can submit an appeal 3 times, state your case and provide any evidence or supporting documentation you feel necessary. In the case of prosecution, a letter is received asking for your version of events from XYZ situation, this is then sent back and assessed by prosecutions team before a case is brought forward.
From example 2, if there are genuinely no ticket purchasing facilities at a station, a conductor has not been through the train to check/sell any tickets and you were to arrive and try to purchase a ticket and (incorrectly) issued a penalty fare/referred for prosection, there is very very little chance anything could stand and an appeal would be upheld. As I previously said, staff know these stations as they are very few and far between (generally speaking and area dependent)
Few extra points here - appeals body are independent, especially at 2nd and 3rd stages, they look at the facts, did you have a ticket, could you have bought a ticket, was the penalty issued fairly, end of.
The staff have a job to do, if that means filling in forms or doing it via handheld devices, the job needs doing, like in many other jobs in other industries, staff have performance reviews, if you're employed to do a job then you do the job, if you don't and are just in it for the free wage its not going to last very long.

I generally find the revenue and on train staff I work with to be very fair and consistent, personally I treat each case individually and will allow some leniency where required and where the situation demands it. For example, regular commuter travelling using his 16-25 card, found to be out of date and using an advance purchase ticket for a train in 2 hours time, explained the issue and offered the opportunity to correct this with a new ticket and surrender railcard, informed by passenger that he would rather not pay a large chunk of money, take my name and address and send me a fine, do your worst (wording somewhat altered for public reading)
Details taken, TIR submitted, investigation carried out by prosecutions team and lots more instances of travel fraud uncovered, case continues...
However, elderly lady who has a local authority travel pass, going 3 stops for a bit of shopping, knows she gets some money off her ticket with her pass, hasn't even got a mobile phone or any other technology filled devices, genuinely cannot understand ticket machines and has the exact change, she comes straight to the conductor, explains she has tried and cannot do it, has worked herself up and become flustered common sense prevails here and the correct ticket is sold to her, advice given about a promise to pay, have a go on the machine when you come home or when at the staffed station you're travelling to go and see if they will have a minute spare to explain the machine or sell a ticket for the following Friday when you're coming shopping again

Like I said before, I get the hint there's a bit of dislike towards revenue/on train staff from the OP and I could write pages more about all of this but I'll see if anyone else wants to drop something in then reply

 

[najaB]

Well some TVM's don't take cash now and there are people who will have difficulty using them anyway.

If they don't take cash (and you intended to pay using cash) then a Penalty Fare should not be issued. In the instances where someone has 'difficulty using' the TVM it depends on if someone is truly unable to use the machine (e.g. through disability) or just can't be bothered to use it.

In the former they would be protected from prosecution by the TOC's disability policy, in the latter then the passenger would be liable to be issued a PF.

 

[spag23]

Like I said before, I get the hint there's a bit of dislike towards revenue/on train staff from the OP

Personally I can't read anything in the OP's posts that "hints at any dislike" towards staff.
He merely outlines certain scenarios, as gleaned from posts on this thread, asks a few neutral questions, and invites constructive responses from staff involved in these processes.
The responses may have led forum readers to develop a negative view of some revenue/on train staff. But don't blame the question-setter.

 

[Edsmith]

If they don't take cash (and you intended to pay using cash) then a Penalty Fare should not be issued. In the instances where someone has 'difficulty using' the TVM it depends on if someone is truly unable to use the machine (e.g. through disability) or just can't be bothered to use it.

In the former they would be protected from prosecution by the TOC's disability policy, in the latter then the passenger would be liable to be issued a PF.

Well it's difficult, if not impossible, to know who genuinely cannot use a TVM and who can't be bothered, I've certainly helped out a few people who were baffled by them and if there's a queue behind them they're likely to become flustered.

2 is annoying as it seems often upto the passenger to show a photo of the out of service (or certain type of payment) TVM, otherwise they have to jump through hoops to get out of the penalty.

So I too am against the passenger getting a penalty in this situation. The burden of proof is wrong way around, it's like the customer (even if telling truth) is lied to as assumed to be a liar. If anything the Revenue person should phone the station to check, or if not possible, get themselves there and check, and then perhaps stay there and sell tickets until someone comes to fix the TVM.

I totally agree with you about the burden of proof being the wrong way round.

 

[robbeech]

Like I said before, I get the hint there's a bit of dislike towards revenue/on train staff from the OP and I could write pages more about all of this but I'll see if anyone else wants to drop something in then reply

Far from it, but feel free to write pages more about it if you wish as it’s useful reading for people. The point of this thread is to look at the different opinions from a variety of people, from regular passengers to rail staff which it appears to have achieved.
I encounter almost zero issues with rail staff myself, but I read about and get sent cases about situations where there are issues quite frequently.
Both the examples I made have been seen on this forum. There have been more cases with broken machines etc.

 

[Sheffcaster202]

Personally I can't read anything in the OP's posts that "hints at any dislike" towards staff.
He merely outlines certain scenarios, as gleaned from posts on this thread, asks a few neutral questions, and invites constructive responses from staff involved in these processes.
The responses may have led forum readers to develop a negative view of some revenue/on train staff. But don't blame the question-setter.

Ok...From a member of rail staff that, in my opinion, does my job fairly, consistently and by the book and proud of it too.

Do rail staff understand the prosecution procedures and consequences of their actions. . .rail staff go through weeks/months of training to learn about their job and what it entails, rail staff do not prosecute people, they complete reports and a dedicated team decide if its for prosecution, after input from both the rail staff member and passenger involved

In both of these cases, do the members of staff giving out these facts and information have the slightest clue about the processes and procedures they are describing? . . . See above, weeks/months of training and hard work, insulting to say the least

One could assume that an organisation and its staff that deliberately avoids reminding passengers of the rules...See above

does the guard know that in actual fact there's a good chance the passenger (who we must remember IS in the wrong) could end up paying hundreds of pounds but decides to lie about the consequences to avoid confrontation . . . See above and, trains auto announce about tickets and penalty fares, there are posters and signage on trains and in stations, the ticket machines themselves and stock have this information on, its been in the press from the penalty fares increase and dare I use the phrase 'common sense' should be applied that you need a ticket to travel, just because the guard says you may be able to buy a ticket at destination, it doesn't exempt you from the fact you have broken the rules and does not mean they are lying

In example 2, does the member of revenue team understand that once they take their details to refer for prosecution that there is no real chance to appeal unless it goes to court in which case the railway wins by default if the passenger doesn't have extensive knowledge of the rules as they will be able to provide no defence? Does this member of revenue staff understand that the appeals body staff wear the same shirts and use only advice given to them by the operator? Or, do they genuinely not have an understanding of the procedure and do genuinely think that the passenger will be able to resolve it easily with a phone call and paying nothing but the fare due over the phone? If the latter is true, what is it that makes them want to go through the whole rigmarole of filling in forms, if they were already trying to buy a ticket as per the rules, as we are told incredibly frequently these staff do not earn commission, they have no targets to meet and there are no internal or external incentives or competitions for them to write up the highest number of MG11s in a given time period . . . I've covered off a lot of this already, this forum has many examples of both successful and unsuccessful appeals, details of which companies handle the appeals and now it can be independently dealt with, if you have had a real genuine issue that meant you could not pay for your ticket then you will win your appeal, if you have any of the wide range of excuses that aren't good enough you won't. That does not mean the rail staff are being dishonest, lying or not know what happens when they do their job correctly.

 

[[.n]]

They said there was a gateline at their destination station. Are there any gated stations that don't have ticket vending facilities?

Not sure if this is still the case - but West Brompton (fully gated) used to only sell Tube tickets from their TVM - I've had various issues with that in the past.

 

[fandroid]

In the instances where someone has 'difficulty using' the TVM it depends on if someone is truly unable to use the machine (e.g. through disability) or just can't be bothered to use it.

In the former they would be protected from prosecution by the TOC's disability policy, in the latter then the passenger would be liable to be issued a PF.

I have known TVMs, especially on small stations, that have been unusable due to glare on the screen. As this requires a particular combination of weather and time of day, and even time of year, it's difficult to imagine how a passenger could convince a member of staff at another station that a machine that is otherwise fully functional can actually be unusable.

 

[3rd rail land]

But not a lot of people know that. Including perhaps 3rd Rail Land, who - not unreasonably - made amends from home.

I do know this however it was quite a number of years ago so I don't know if it was possible back then. Anyway I wanted to avoid any risk of being cornered for walking through the barriers without inserting a ticket. I knew I was in the right but as we all know the railway can be a law unto itself at times. If I got stopped by staff they would probably have insisted I prove what I was claiming and I didn't have any evidence as after all I am required to provide proof. I might even have been told I was required to seek out the guard to buy a ticket, which we all know is not true. Much less hassle to go home and purchase the ticket online. Ultimately the railway didn't lose out and I did purchase a ticket at the end of my journey, which I was entitled to do in those circumstances.