Do train companies have too much power in relation to ticketing disputes?

[AlterEgo]

The bylaws would be updated to make accusing a passenger of breaking the law when they hadn't a criminal offence.

As for actual laws, you'd make it an absolute offense (false imprisonment) for anyone other than a police officer to detain a passenger with a valid ticket on the person who is in charge of the barriers preventing their departure.

Detached from reality I'm afraid.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

As the CPS say, fraud and related offences should be considered where there is:


The vast majority of current railway prosecutions do not fall into any of those categories, and would not constitute an offence in any other context.

It's not about "category". Sorry you're talking nonsense. It's about a very simple gain or loss.

Providing a false origin / destination - fraud by false representation

Buying a discounted ticket when not entitled - fraud by false representation / possession of article for use in fraud

Deliberately not paying for a ticket - Section 11 Fraud Act - Obtaining services dishonestly. In fact the law for this particular situation fits very nicely indeed.

I've seen people prosecuted under Section 11 for running out of a taxi without paying, so you can easily make it work for a railway!

The only fare evasion offences which aren't strictly covered under the Fraud Act 2006 are Byelaw offences.

The bylaws would be updated to make accusing a passenger of breaking the law when they hadn't a criminal offence.

As for actual laws, you'd make it an absolute offense (false imprisonment) for anyone other than a police officer to detain a passenger with a valid ticket on the person who is in charge of the barriers preventing their departure.

Aside from this being wrong on so many levels, you forget that railway stations, trains etc are usually private property. You have no absolute right to be allowed on their property. In fact, the railway even has stricter than normal trespass laws which criminalise remaining on the premises when asked to leave. They conditionally allow you access on to their property for certain purposes, providing certain conditions are met, like having a valid ticket. Even if you have a valid ticket, they still have the right to refuse you access to their premises for any reason they like, although they'd open themselves up to consumer rights (civil) action if they didn't provide a full refund, not to mention the customer service implications.

 

[Titfield]

The fares system needs simplifying.

To Nanstallon please suggest the simple fares system you envisage?

Here is a starter for you: If for example there were no railcards then the problem of expired / forgotten railcards would disappear.

 

[nanstallon]

To Nanstallon please suggest the simple fares system you envisage?

Here is a starter for you: If for example there were no railcards then the problem of expired / forgotten railcards would disappear.

I'm old enough to remember when it was simply 3d per mile, and a day return was the same price as a single. At least the railway didn't gouge people for travelling in the peak time of day. The present day obsession with maximising revenue train by train has made it way too complicated.

It's not about "category". Sorry you're talking nonsense. It's about a very simple gain or loss.

Providing a false origin / destination - fraud by false representation

Buying a discounted ticket when not entitled - fraud by false representation / possession of article for use in fraud

Deliberately not paying for a ticket - Section 11 Fraud Act - Obtaining services dishonestly. In fact the law for this particular situation fits very nicely indeed.

I've seen people prosecuted under Section 11 for running out of a taxi without paying, so you can easily make it work for a railway!

The only fare evasion offences which aren't strictly covered under the Fraud Act 2006 are Byelaw offences.


Aside from this being wrong on so many levels, you forget that railway stations, trains etc are usually private property. You have no absolute right to be allowed on their property. In fact, the railway even has stricter than normal trespass laws which criminalise remaining on the premises when asked to leave. They conditionally allow you access on to their property for certain purposes, providing certain conditions are met, like having a valid ticket. Even if you have a valid ticket, they still have the right to refuse you access to their premises for any reason they like, although they'd open themselves up to consumer rights (civil) action if they didn't provide a full refund, not to mention the customer service implications.

Perhaps it is time these laws were changed.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I'm old enough to remember when it was simply 3d per mile, and a day return was the same price as a single. At least the railway didn't gouge people for travelling in the peak time of day. The present day obsession with maximising revenue train by train has made it way too complicated.


Perhaps it is time these laws were changed.

They were only made in 2006!

 

[miami]

Aside from this being wrong on so many levels

What's wrong, what I believe should happen? It's called an opinion, you can disagree, but it can't be wrong.

you forget that railway stations, trains etc are usually private property. You have no absolute right to be allowed on their property. In fact, the railway even has stricter than normal trespass laws which criminalise remaining on the premises when asked to leave.

If you actually read it, I'm talking about train staff detaining you (by use of barriers) on private property. You can't detain someone and then charge them for tresspassing.

You are ranting about what only exists in your own mind.

But you do raise another point, I would certainly change those "stricter than normal" laws. Remove the privileged position the railway has. A taxi driver can't lock the doors and refuse to let you out if he errantly believes you haven't paid.

Detached from reality I'm afraid.

Yes, god fordbid trained railway staf

Just the other day people were saying that railway security guards that broke someone's arm when removing them should be held to higher standards due to their training. I agree with that. Same with ticket staff -- their training should mean they don't get things wrong, yet all the time we see barrier staff at paddington, euston, victoria etc rejecting legal tickets. If the training isn't enough then they shouldn't be attempting to enforce the rules, the reality is they make stuff up, and use the threat of turning a law abiding person into a criminal, or at the very least face a very expensive defence.

My prefered solution would be to remove the criminal element completely. Get rid of the bylaws around passengers and tickets, and treat the railway the same as coaches. A national express driver can't give you a criminal record for sitting in the wrong seat.

 

[Haywain]

I'm old enough to remember when it was simply 3d per mile, and a day return was the same price as a single.

If it was simply 3d a mile how could a day return and a single be the same price - after all, a return must involve twice the distance of a single?

 

[185]

The underlying definition of intent to defraud a business of a monetary amount for services delivered should be reviewed and clarified ..considering how various companies all prosecute and interpret the law differently at present.

At station A, a passenger is sold a ticket and faces no penalty, whereas at station B the guillotine is out and he/she is subsequently decaffeinated.

 

[Haywain]

If fraud laws were used for a significant number of railway offences these would be much more damaging than Bye-law or RoRA offences.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

If fraud laws were used for a significant number of railway offences these would be much more damaging than Bye-law or RoRA offences.

My point exactly. Abolishing/amending railway specific legislation is not going to help matters, I believe it would make things worse, as you say whilst a Regulation of Railways Act 1889 conviction is not great, employers may be more understanding about "dodging a train fare under some Victorian law" rather than being convicted of fraud by false representation! May well also end up with a CIFAS marker to boot.

Byelaw offences, for the vast majority of people, are completely harmless (aside from financial penalties). Yes there are records kept, intelligence recorded on policing / justice systems - but save for certain particular career paths requiring more stringent vetting/pre-employment checks, a Byelaw conviction makes no difference to them whatsoever.

 

[43096]

The underlying definition of intent to defraud a business of a monetary amount for services delivered should be reviewed and clarified ..considering how various companies all prosecute and interpret the law differently at present.

At station A, a passenger is sold a ticket and faces no penalty, whereas at station B the guillotine is out and he/she is subsequently decaffeinated.

 

[robbeech]

Fully agree. I’d be much more comfortable for low level offences - and especially the strict liability ones - to be scrapped altogether, which would avoid criminalising a lot of people who make an innocent mistake.

I’d also be comfortable with actual, proven deception to go to a fraud trial. It’s harder to prove and the railway companies would have to work harder to prove intent than they currently do.

In summary, at the bottom end of the culpability scale - decriminalisation, and at the top end of the scale harsher penalties and actual fraud charges.

This seems very sensible in theory, however, and some may need to ensure they're sat down, I do agree with some of :

The TOC would also only have to make their case to the civil standard, on the balance of probabilities.

A customer is also unlikely to be able to recoup their defence costs even if successful. Whereas a claimant winning gets the case issuing fee awarded, around a £50 contribution to their legal/solicitor costs plus the amount being sued for.

I suspect the vast majority of fare evaders are criminal, and will not pay or pay the right amount regardless of whether it's civil or criminal.

Pros and cons of both, but you do not want a repeat of the private car parking industry.

We all know that a balance of probabilities has some deceptively heavy weights, and the TOC get to use all of them. Outside of court, if the TOC says you did this pay us money, you have to pay it, or escalate at your own risk and cost. We see frequently from many TOCs this sort of behaviour so it is clear they're happy to take the Michael.

Indeed, if someone is evading a fare (or evading tax), then prosecute them for fraud. If someone forgot the railcard they haven't used for 18 months had expired, then in a sane world you help them buy a new one, not drag them through the courts.

I'd be happy if every time the railway made a mistake, refusing to let people board the train despite having a valid ticket for example, they were fined a portion of their revenue (not profit), say 1 weeks revenue, and the staff member(s) involved was given a criminal record.

The obvious question (which i feel is a fair one) is how does the operator distinguish the difference? If my and my partner went out now and bought a brace of Retford to Edinburgh FOR with a two together railcard discount, how does the guard determine whether our Railcard running out in December was a genuine mistake or an attempt to evade the fare, given i've only needed to show the railcard around 3 times since we have had one in 2015 (excluding purchase of tickets at a ticket office) it is easy to argue i could be trying it on (which in scenario i would be because i know it has run out).



A word i use frequently (and even more so of late it seems) is CONSISTENCY. It is a word and concept that i believe to be banned within the railway. If one guard or revenue inspector is going to prosecute someone for an expired railcard of xx days then every guard or revenue inspector must do the same. Alternatively, another penalty can be introduced but it must be consistently applied and enforced.

To directly answer the topic heading, in my opinion, do train companies have too much power in relation to ticketing disputes, i think in general terms NO, what i think they DO have too much of, is discretion. It leads to more situations where passengers are inconsistently treated. Have the rules and stick to them. By all means have suitable, documented exceptions, by all means have a suitable appeals process but if the rules are enforced uniformly across the network you solve many problems.

And to reply to the last sentence from Miami above, I do agree that better understanding of the rules is required for many staff on the railway and those found to be deliberately taking steps to secure additional financial gain for themselves (selling tickets where not required in order to obtain commission) should be dealt with accordingly but it is crucial to identify the route cause of this failure and take steps to eliminate the cause. Most of the time it will be poor training that leads to this result. It is unacceptable to penalise a guard for charging for a new ticket if they have been led to believe that the passenger does not have a valid ticket. Some operators are taught in their training to default to the passenger being in the wrong.
For example :

1 : A valid ticket is passed
2 : An invalid ticket is rejected and it is down to the staff member to choose what to do, be it a new ticket, penalty fare if they are allowed to issue, or prosecution.
3 : A ticket that (through no fault of the passenger) the staff member is unsure about, treat it as an invalid ticket and invite the passenger to appeal the decision by contacting customer services.

If this is sort of thing is still being taught (i'm not guessing, this is the gist from documents from a now superseded operator that i sadly would never be able to put here publicly as it would likely get me and the forum into trouble) then it is incredibly difficult to justify penalising a member of staff for making a "mistake", and the idea of a criminal record is really quite ludicrous.

 

[LondonExile]

To rebalance things between passengers and TOCs - I'd propose the following:

• Repeal Byelaw 18 (and equivalents on TfL etc.)
• Prohibit out of court settlement payments for criminal matters.
• Extend Penalty Fares Universally.

This removes the opportunity of criminalising those making simple mistakes - some dishonesty needs to be shown before it crosses into a criminal matter.
It also removes any financial incentives for TOCs to prosecute - they can still go to court for RORA s5 offences if they wish and be awarded the fares avoided + costs, but there's no direct incentive to do so.

Most evasion should then fall into the civil penalty fares scheme - but where it's important to set a deterrent, both fraud and RORA offences are still available to prosecute.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To rebalance things between passengers and TOCs - I'd propose the following:

• Repeal Byelaw 18 (and equivalents on TfL etc.)
• Prohibit out of court settlement payments for criminal matters.
• Extend Penalty Fares Universally.

This removes the opportunity of criminalising those making simple mistakes - some dishonesty needs to be shown before it crosses into a criminal matter.
It also removes any financial incentives for TOCs to prosecute - they can still go to court for RORA s5 offences if they wish and be awarded the fares avoided + costs, but there's no direct incentive to do so.

Most evasion should then fall into the civil penalty fares scheme - but where it's important to set a deterrent, both fraud and RORA offences are still available to prosecute.

I'd repeal RoRA s5 as well, but I can see the merit in what you are suggesting.

To be honest, I'd ban out of court settlement of private prosecutions generally (because that's extortion, indeed I'd ban it by bringing it under extortion regulation to threaten prosecution on someone unless you are intending to pursue it), if not ban private prosecutions entirely (they are as good as banned in Scotland). That way the CPS (who admittedly aren't always right to be fair) at least get to put a public interest filter on all prosecutions, not just some of them.

 

[Haywain]

Prohibit out of court settlement payments for criminal matters.

Just for train companies or for everybody? Are you going to prevent HMRC from settling out of court where they would gain far, for more than a criminal case would?

Extend Penalty Fares Universally.

Under the present rules or revised? And at the present levels or a higher and genuinely deterrent level?

This removes the opportunity of criminalising those making simple mistakes - some dishonesty needs to be shown before it crosses into a criminal matter.
It also removes any financial incentives for TOCs to prosecute - they can still go to court for RORA s5 offences if they wish and be awarded the fares avoided + costs, but there's no direct incentive to do so.

Most evasion should then fall into the civil penalty fares scheme - but where it's important to set a deterrent, both fraud and RORA offences are still available to prosecute.

How are you going to distinguish simple mistakes and dishonesty? And do you think that going to court comes without additional costs when you talk about financial incentives?

That way the CPS (who admittedly aren't always right to be fair) at least get to put a public interest filter on all prosecutions, not just some of them.

Would you put a lot more money into the CPS and court systems to cope with their increased workload? And who would you expect to carry out the investigation before handing it to the CPS?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just for train companies or for everybody? Are you going to prevent HMRC from settling out of court where they would gain far, for more than a criminal case would?

Yes, absolutely.

Settlement out of court should only be for where someone is being sued for financial settlement, i.e. it's a means of agreeing what that financial settlement should be with the "fallback" of the Court deciding. It should never be used in criminal matters, which should, if started, be seen through to their proper legal conclusion involving the proper judgement of a Court.

To do otherwise allows for extortion, which is what the TOCs do (and I'm sure they do it often enough even when they're not sure they'll win).

Furthermore it should be an offence under laws relating to extortion to threaten someone with Court action in order to obtain financial gain.

If you want to press charges, press them. But it should not be an option to use that to extract the sum of your choice from someone.

 

[35B]

Yes, absolutely.

Settlement out of court should only be for where someone is being sued for financial settlement, i.e. it's a means of agreeing what that financial settlement should be with the "fallback" of the Court deciding. It should never be used in criminal matters, which should, if started, be seen through to their proper legal conclusion involving the proper judgement of a Court.

To do otherwise allows for extortion, which is what the TOCs do (and I'm sure they do it often enough even when they're not sure they'll win).

Furthermore it should be an offence under laws relating to extortion to threaten someone with Court action in order to obtain financial gain.

If you want to press charges, press them. But it should not be an option to use that to extract the sum of your choice from someone.

It's been suggested many times that the Scottish system, effectively barring private prosecutions, means that Scotrail do not apply settlements out of court in lieu of prosecution. That seems to be enough to prevent the oppressive behaviours we see from English TOCs, without requiring more complex legislation that would retain the powers granted to bodies like HMRC while preventing the TOCs from behaving as they do.

I also suggest that "financial gain" is inappropriate - the settlements they offer are based on their costs, albeit spread across quite a wide base.

 

[XAM2175]

It leads to more situations where passengers are inconsistently treated. Have the rules and stick to them. By all means have suitable, documented exceptions, by all means have a suitable appeals process but if the rules are enforced uniformly across the network you solve many problems.

This has got me thinking about the approach taken for the Melbourne suburban network - the various operators employ their own revenue staff (referred to as Public Transport Authorised Officers), but each officer is accredited by the Department of Transport and is subject to a defined Code of Conduct. If they suspect a revenue or behavioural offence they complete a Report of Non-Compliance that is assessed by civil servants at the DoT; who are empowered to issue warnings, fixed penalties, or - for serious or repeated offences - to summons people to appear before a magistrate.

Transport fines - Public Transport Victoria

If you don’t have a valid ticket when you travel or you commit a transport offence, you may be fined. See what happens next, how to pay a fine and more.

www.ptv.vic.gov.au

It obviously isn't going to be perfect but it does introduce a far greater level of oversight and consistency of process, as well as keeping the enforcement process in public hands.

 

[scrapy]

I personally wouldn't repeal any act but I would make it clear that on a first offence for a byelaws matter such as unintentional out of date Railcard that only the equivalent of a penalty fare can be charged (as an invoice so not through the judicial system) and there needs to be consistency to how this is applied. If the invoice isn't paid it can then be processed under RORA as a deliberate act to avoid payment unless a truly independent appeal is successful.

I would keep the bylaws in place and allow them to be used on any subsequent offence for that person who should at that point be extra careful.

I would issue guidance for courts to throw out anything that could be dealt with through a penalty fares (an official one) scheme for a first offence.

 

[Haywain]

It's been suggested many times that the Scottish system, effectively barring private prosecutions, means that Scotrail do not apply settlements out of court in lieu of prosecution. That seems to be enough to prevent the oppressive behaviours we see from English TOCs,

The lack of private prosecutions in Scotland is why there are no out of court settlements. The so called oppressive behaviours don't happen because there is very little operators in Scotland can do about fare evasion other than try to collect the fare. A recent post on another thread pointed out that fare evasion is rife in Scotland for this reason.

On certain routes in Scotland it is highly unusual to find passengers with tickets let alone valid tickets. Fare evasion is absolutely rife in parts of Scotland and there seems to be no effective deterrent.

 

[35B]

The lack of private prosecutions in Scotland is why there are no out of court settlements. The so called oppressive behaviours don't happen because there is very little operators in Scotland can do about fare evasion other than try to collect the fare. A recent post on another thread pointed out that fare evasion is rife in Scotland for this reason.

I rather suspect that the level of fare evasion correlates more to the level of ticket checking and enforcement under the prevailing legal regime than it does to the specific regime in force. Where a railway is run with open stations and a sampling approach to revenue protection, the probability of evasion will rise.

Railway operators are companies, and can legitimately take a cost/benefit view to determine what level of enforcement is needed. However, a regime where the hand is stacked so that they can consistently over-recover on individual cases increases the incentives to rely on that sampling based approach.

My sympathy for the TOCs would increase significantly if my experience of rail travel were that they were consistently doing their best to make sure that passengers are able to acquire tickets easily, and then those tickets are checked routinely. As my experience is otherwise, my sympathy for their need for these levers is limited.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The lack of private prosecutions in Scotland is why there are no out of court settlements. The so called oppressive behaviours don't happen because there is very little operators in Scotland can do about fare evasion other than try to collect the fare. A recent post on another thread pointed out that fare evasion is rife in Scotland for this reason.

They could make it a bit less rife by way of decent revenue protection, though, such as travelling ticket inspectors and barriers.

 

[Watershed]

The so called oppressive behaviours don't happen because there is very little operators in Scotland can do about fare evasion other than try to collect the fare. A recent post on another thread pointed out that fare evasion is rife in Scotland for this reason.

There is plenty of recourse if it does happen; for example, the powers under RoRA to detain a person who refuses to pay or give their details, extend to Scotland. Beyond that, the position is identical to that faced by shops when shoplifting occurs.

The railways could also do a lot more to prevent fare evasion from occurring in the first place. For example, installing barriers at more stations, and increasing the frequency of ticket checks. The low or negative cost/benefit ratio of these measures doesn't justify giving the railway draconian powers. Again, supermarkets accept that having a security guard at virtually all shops is simply the cost of doing business.

It ultimately boils down to "why should the railway be treated differently", just because it has historically had the law on its side?

 

[scrapy]

They could make it a bit less rife by way of decent revenue protection, though, such as travelling ticket inspectors and barriers.

I've seen ticket examiners in Scotland deal with regular Fare evaders almost embarrassed saying I've got to let them travel there's nothing I can do. Admittedly no barriers on this route (between Greenock and Paisley) but what can they do if someone arrives at barrier and wonr pay if no criminal deterant?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've seen ticket examiners in Scotland deal with regular Fare evaders almost embarrassed saying I've got to let them travel there's nothing I can do. Admittedly no barriers on this route (between Greenock and Paisley) but what can they do if someone arrives at barrier and wonr pay if no criminal deterant?

You need to barrier both ends, or do enough on-board revenue protection and chuck evaders off short of their destination.

I also have no issue with Penalty Fares (which, give or take the specific legislation, are effectively simply a higher ticket price for purchasing after starting travel) and pursuing non-payment of those via the civil Courts.

One important aspect is that if the railway was not abusing the criminal sanctions they have available to them, by RoRAing people who have erroneously travelled on a one-day-out-of-date Railcard, for example, people might not be quite so opposed to them. But they are used as a means of extortion of their arbitrarily desired sum, and I have a problem with that. A big problem.

And I say that having never so much as had a PF, let alone a prosecution. But I have made unwitting mistakes, I have just been fortunate to meet a ticket machine-equipped guard and not an RPI after having done so, so have just been sold a ticket.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

To rebalance things between passengers and TOCs - I'd propose the following:

• Repeal Byelaw 18 (and equivalents on TfL etc.)
• Prohibit out of court settlement payments for criminal matters.
• Extend Penalty Fares Universally.

This removes the opportunity of criminalising those making simple mistakes - some dishonesty needs to be shown before it crosses into a criminal matter.
It also removes any financial incentives for TOCs to prosecute - they can still go to court for RORA s5 offences if they wish and be awarded the fares avoided + costs, but there's no direct incentive to do so.

Most evasion should then fall into the civil penalty fares scheme - but where it's important to set a deterrent, both fraud and RORA offences are still available to prosecute.

What happens if a Penalty Fare is not paid?

It's been suggested many times that the Scottish system, effectively barring private prosecutions, means that Scotrail do not apply settlements out of court in lieu of prosecution. That seems to be enough to prevent the oppressive behaviours we see from English TOCs, without requiring more complex legislation that would retain the powers granted to bodies like HMRC while preventing the TOCs from behaving as they do.

I also suggest that "financial gain" is inappropriate - the settlements they offer are based on their costs, albeit spread across quite a wide base.

Scotrail fare dodger hit with £3000 bill after taking free trains for 53 days

The team at Edinburgh’s Waverley station were altered to the repeated misuse of the Ticket On Departure option.

www.dailyrecord.co.uk

I think it appears as though ScotRail are doing more than you think!

ScotRail (or any other company up there) can still offer an out of court settlement, as they can just tell the passenger that if they don't wish to settle, they'll pass the details of the matter on to the British Transport Police. Theoretically, BTP could not refuse to investigate a report of a crime, although I'm not sure how impressed they'd be, aside from occasional operations specifically focusing on this kind of issue.

If the media reports that this company is going to public ownership, I'm pretty sure the Scottish Government will be keen to ensure public funds are protected.

 

[thedbdiboy]

I'm old enough to remember when it was simply 3d per mile, and a day return was the same price as a single. At least the railway didn't gouge people for travelling in the peak time of day. The present day obsession with maximising revenue train by train has made it way too complicated.


Perhaps it is time these laws were changed.

That will be the 'good old days' when the railways lost money and half the network closed down. Part of the process that started to stem that decline was the introduction of selective pricing (i.e. market based pricing) from 1968.

 

[Horizon22]

A word i use frequently (and even more so of late it seems) is CONSISTENCY. It is a word and concept that i believe to be banned within the railway. If one guard or revenue inspector is going to prosecute someone for an expired railcard of xx days then every guard or revenue inspector must do the same. Alternatively, another penalty can be introduced but it must be consistently applied and enforced.

To directly answer the topic heading, in my opinion, do train companies have too much power in relation to ticketing disputes, i think in general terms NO, what i think they DO have too much of, is discretion. It leads to more situations where passengers are inconsistently treated. Have the rules and stick to them. By all means have suitable, documented exceptions, by all means have a suitable appeals process but if the rules are enforced uniformly across the network you solve many problems.

Well a lack of consistency has resulted from the fragmented nature of the rail industry where different TOCs (and even internal by depot) & owning groups have diverged over decades to the situation we find ourselves in today. Of course there are many similarities - more so than the differences - but 'discretion' for example is variant on many factors. This lack of consistency also effects other areas of the railway too.

 

[LondonExile]

Just for train companies or for everybody? Are you going to prevent HMRC from settling out of court where they would gain far, for more than a criminal case would?

Under the present rules or revised? And at the present levels or a higher and genuinely deterrent level?

How are you going to distinguish simple mistakes and dishonesty? And do you think that going to court comes without additional costs when you talk about financial incentives?


Would you put a lot more money into the CPS and court systems to cope with their increased workload? And who would you expect to carry out the investigation before handing it to the CPS?

I don't have a problem with private prosecutions in theory - so the TOCs could still use RORA s5 under my proposals, but they would have to show evidence of dishonesty. Byelaws with strict liability are a harsh way to deal with mistakes when you consider the impact of a criminal prosecution on some people. Given the strict liability nature - it is perfectly possible for there to be a scenario where the passenger acted completely honestly at all times and yet ends up convicted in a criminal court. An example would be travelling on an advanced ticket having missed their booked train after being advised by someone they mistook for staff on the platform that it's OK due to a missed connection, but the missed connection was for a different TOC (so not covered under NRCOC) and revenue staff on the train they take decide to report for prosecution.

As with anything legal - each case would be fact dependent, but travelling with no ticket, no railcard, wrong class, wrong route, wrong train (for advanced tickets) etc. should all be matters for civil enforcement (i.e. penalty fares)

Travelling with fake tickets, doughnutting or similar would be in my eyes at least, the kind of area that criminal prosecutions should be considered. Anything where it's proportionate to investigate a passenger's journey in depth with CCTV, barrier usage etc. would be obvious cases for prosecution.

My key thought is that where the aim of the TOC is to protect revenue - a civil rather than criminal procedure is the right balance. There is a deterrent effect from the penalty fares as they stand, and they should be priced to cover enforcement costs.

Compensation orders can and should be attached to sentencing - there shouldn't need to be an out of court settlement option to recover the fare avoided and reasonable prosecution costs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Travelling with fake tickets, doughnutting or similar would be in my eyes at least, the kind of area that criminal prosecutions should be considered.

That sort of thing would easily fit a normal fraud charge - the passenger has obtained pecuniary advantage (saved money) by deception (lying about the journey they were making to pay less money).

I'm quite happy for people to be prosecuted for obviously wilful, deceitful fraud. Just not for forgetting their Railcard is a day out of date.

I wouldn't even have an issue with prosecution for repeated offences.

But for one-off minor lapses, civil Penalty Fares are the way.

And Transport Investigations Ltd needs to be put firmly out of business. They are worse than the private parking sharks.