Excessing Railcard Discounted Tickets Used at an Invalid Time

[Haywain]

To claim that it's intentional is an outrageous claim and has no fact

There have actually been quite a few cases on the forum over recent years where the posters have admitted that they have done that very deliberately.

 

[Snex]

There have actually been quite a few cases on the forum over recent years where the posters have admitted that they have done that very deliberately.

Yeah but to claim everyone is just silly. Obviously you'll always have some opportunists but I don't think anyone here has sympathy for them anyway and want changes so they rightfully get the book thrown at them rather than using the, 'I got confused' line.

 

[Haywain]

Yeah but to claim everyone is just silly.

From reading this thread there seems to be a lot of generalisation on both sides. I think it would make more sense to work on the basis that it is perhaps one third deliberate and premeditated, one third opportunist (which covers a significant amount of fare dodging generally), and one third accidental.

 

[Snex]

From reading this thread there seems to be a lot of generalisation on both sides. I think it would make more sense to work on the basis that it is perhaps one third deliberate and premeditated, one third opportunist (which covers a significant amount of fare dodging generally), and one third accidental.

Yeah agreed to be honest. It's why imo you need to do something to stop the 1/3 accidental. When anyone is doing anything accidental then it's failure somewhere, especially high numbers.

Take them out the question then it's a different discussion and it quite easy to see how someone would get confused really.

 

[BongoStar]

Reading the forum, a lot has to happen for it to reach prosecution. Even in the case of one highlited in news yesterday, he did not engage. Almost everyone who has done it accidentally and asked on the forum has been advised to own up, engage and ask for a settlement. There have even been cases where despite deliberate evasion over a prolonged period has resulted in only the difference in fares + £150 admin being charged. The ones who get taken to prosecution are those that dont engage, which is a small minority. ToCs are in the business to get their money and move on. They are not looking to make a moral example out of each and every evader - just those who think that they are above the rules and blatantly disregard any opportunity for a dialogue.

We can argue whether a PF is the solution in these instances or just an excess, but there has to be a deterrent element to any proposed solution. Otherwise everyone will simply buy a discounted ticket and hop on a peak train and pay only when challenged. Which the ToCs are rightly looking to avoid.

 

[quartile]

@northernassist couldn't explain the restrictions for this railcard fully in a single tweet - they missed out the minimum fare affects tickets up to £18 not £12.

The simple way to fix this would be to remove the minimum fare from this railcard. I wonder how much this would cost in lost revenue? Lets face it the prosecutions cost revenue anyhow by driving young adults and their friends away from trains and into cars.

Giving children free bus and easy access to public transport in London makes them much more likely to use to use it when older. This seems planned to do the opposite.

 

[BongoStar]

@northernassist couldn't explain the restrictions for this railcard fully in a single tweet - they missed out the minimum fare affects tickets up to £18 not £12.

The simple way to fix this would be to remove the minimum fare from this railcard. I wonder how much this would cost in lost revenue? Lets face it the prosecutions cost revenue anyhow by driving young adults and their friends away from trains and into cars.

Giving children free bus and easy access to public transport in London makes them much more likely to use to use it when older. This seems planned to do the opposite.

Actually the simplest thing for the ToCs would be to withdraw the railcard altogether. Who loses out then?

 

[AlterEgo]

The ToCs have (and I know I will get a lot of flak for this) in their generosity given additional discount to some groups but those additional discounts have come with additional restrictions. If one doesnt want to get tied up with additional restriction, then feel free to use a railcard that has fewer.

Which railcards would those be and how would one qualify for them?

Even if you go through the Disputes forum, most of the railcard issues are those with 16-17 ,18-25 or 26-30.

What does this tell you about how organised young people are and how different types of people might be dealt with when things go wrong? Your first post on this forum was about how - to your amazement - you simply lost your ticket and were let through the gates. And again, once you’d found a ticket you’d apparently forgotten about, the staff believed your story that you honestly hadn’t used the return portion of that ticket, you’d got the train there but a lift back. Why should you be believed?

The incidences of those with veteran card, senior card or network card are very few. Even then, most of the disputes are deliberate attempts to save a few quids and then complain when caught.

Yes it’s always someone else with the BS story but you were the honest one. Nobody else - especially not younger people - is deserving of the benefit of doubt, then?

What next, demanding to use Advance on a peak train and expect to pay just the difference in fare, because the ticket didnt specify the time zone!

Even you yourself don’t know what you’re talking about here. There isn’t any such thing as a “peak train”, and even if you mean “times when most off peak flows are banned on this journey”, er, you can certainly get Advances at those times! Why don’t you read the conditions? They’re very simple, after all.

 

[quartile]

Actually the simplest thing for the ToCs would be to withdraw the railcard altogether. Who loses out then?

ToC because young people buy a car instead

 

[BazingaTribe]

Haywain -- that sounds very reasonable.

On the general side of the discussion...Trying to determine mens rea on all potential instances of this sort of problem through court cases would cost a lot more for everyone concerned. Strict liability here arguably reduces the potential for thousands of cases of people arguing it out, clogging up the courts and preventing other kinds of cases, many much more serious, from being resolved.

I like the explanation elsewhere that it's like a speeding or parking ticket -- it covers both accidental and deliberate instances and is a way of ensuring that people pay attention to the way they buy tickets. With motoring offences it's least said, soonest mended, and there is often a monetary penalty to pay. My mum has a few speeding tickets -- I was with her when she was snapped once -- and while I'm guessing there are people out there who don't get them (my husband never had one while I knew him -- alas, I'm a widow at 45 -- but I vaguely remember him attending a speed awareness course when we were still just friends), they still cost a lot of money but people do move on from them quickly. (Ideally I suppose fare evasion etc could be treated in the same way as a traffic or parking offence on background checking systems if it doesn't happen on an ongoing basis.)

I was caught out in Poland once and paid the price for their system of not having a ticket and not having any checks when boarding a bus, and I actually ended up at the mercy of the ticket inspector who basically replaced the mandat I had to pay (so much a part of daily life that a section in my Polish language textbook was titled 'Greg gets a mandat' and later in my year there, my landlady's son -- funnily enough, another Greg -- was in deep trouble for getting one when they were already on thin ice financially) with a ~£40 bribe. There is even a diminutive version in Polish slang, mandacik...probably because the honour system is not necessarily better when it comes to pulling in revenue.

He saw I was a foreigner and asked me rhetorically whether people in England had to buy tickets for the buses there. I almost said 'Yes, we can't even get on to them without paying' but bit it back when I realized it wasn't exactly going to do me any good to argue. Since then, I have spent ten years commuting by rail between stations with barriers and always bought and validated a ticket from them on. The only times I've done anything dodgy were by mistake, and even then made good on the error as soon as I realised. (I will accept the price of a new e ticket as a stupid tax If I lose a paper ticket and I always get it from my point of origin.) If people are going to try and excuse deliberate fare evasion or pretend it doesn't happen, there's no point in me being honest.

The thing is that if we want things like fare evasion, speeding and parking tickets to be looked at on a case by case basis we might end up in the position where the penalties were higher simply to cover the costs that sort of arbitration would involve, particularly when found guilty.

I agree the limitations on railcards should be made clearer to try and cut way down on offences but it's naive to think all of these issues arise from simple absent-mindedness or lack of clarity. Making it a decent chunk of change in the first instance but no big deal once the penalty is paid helps deter the people who think they can get away with it, concentrate the mind of those who make a mistake (and mistakes have consequences; like, losing an £8 ticket and having to pay the price forces me to focus on keeping hold of the next one, or buying one in the wrong direction makes me pay attention when using the app) but not have a more serious court proceeding hang over someone's head beyond the immediate aftermath.

 

[Snex]

@northernassist couldn't explain the restrictions for this railcard fully in a single tweet - they missed out the minimum fare affects tickets up to £18 not £12.

The simple way to fix this would be to remove the minimum fare from this railcard. I wonder how much this would cost in lost revenue? Lets face it the prosecutions cost revenue anyhow by driving young adults and their friends away from trains and into cars.

Giving children free bus and easy access to public transport in London makes them much more likely to use to use it when older. This seems planned to do the opposite.

To be fair the simple way to fix it would be for the railway network to come into the 21st Century and have some form of tap on/tap off which is the only place railcards are valid, except advances. How we don't have it, especially in urban areas like Manchester, is just poor.

Would fix the vast majority of ticketing issues overnight, you don't have these types of problems in London with Oyster.

 

[dm1]

The thing is that if we want things like fare evasion, speeding and parking tickets to be looked at on a case by case basis we might end up in the position where the penalties were higher simply to cover the costs that sort of arbitration would involve, particularly when found guilty.

The difference is that fare evision can result in a criminal prosecution rather than a civil prosecution as is the case for speeding and parking tickets, unless it is serious enough for the CPS to be interested. That alone makes fighting even clearly unreasonable and disproportionate penalties from the railway operators a much riskier proposition. even when such a case is likely to be successfully defended in court. And in turn this gives the TOCs a disproportionate amount of leverage to extort money for an 'out of court settlement' for cases where any reasonable person would conclude that no penalty is warranted at all, let alone a criminal record.

In my view (and I'm sure it is one shared by many here) this is an unacceptable state of affairs, and TOCs should not have the power to bring private criminal prosecutions. Fare evasion should either be handled with penalty fares (with a proper, independent appeals system and/or the civil courts), or passed to the CPS in serious cases of repeated, deliberate fare evasion to be prosecuted as fraud. Situations in which the monetary loss to the TOC is significantly less than £0, as in most situations like this, should not even be considered for prosecution, let alone criminal prosecution. It's likely not even worth any back office time investigating for a single case. If TOCs want to avoid losses like this, it should be on them to design a system that does not result in confusion and ambiguities like this, and that do not in themselves violate basic consumer law.

 

[hawk1911]

I'm going back to National Rail Conditions of Travel 9.5.1 which, to remind everyone, states:

"9.5.1 (Where you) are using a time-restricted Ticket (such as an “off-peak” or “super-off-peak” Ticket) that is correctly dated but invalid for the service on which you are travelling....
you will be charged the difference between the fare that you have paid and the lowest price Ticket that is valid for the train you are using."

I'm also looking at the use of the term "Anytime" on the rail ticket. If these two are not absolute they, at the very least, bring in a large degree of ambiguity.

Now I'm no legal expert, but I feel that, with regards to any ambiguity, in the terms applying to the ticket/railcard, this paragraph in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 should apply, that is S.69 (1):

"If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail."

 

[redreni]

Sorry, but no. It’s straightforward misrepresentation naming a ticket Anytime when it isn’t. Remove that from the railway’s side and we can start to discuss those deliberately defrauding the system. Advance tickets are actually much clearer. They have their validity marked on them.

I have a horrible feeling somebody worryingly senior at Northern will be reading this and thinking "you know what the problem is, here? Flexible tickets! If only we could do away with the damn things"

 

[AdamWW]

I'm going back to National Rail Conditions of Travel 9.5.1 which, to remind everyone, states:

"9.5.1 (Where you) are using a time-restricted Ticket (such as an “off-peak” or “super-off-peak” Ticket) that is correctly dated but invalid for the service on which you are travelling....
you will be charged the difference between the fare that you have paid and the lowest price Ticket that is valid for the train you are using."

I'm also looking at the use of the term "Anytime" on the rail ticket. If these two are not absolute they, at the very least, bring in a large degree of ambiguity.

Now I'm no legal expert, but I feel that, with regards to any ambiguity, in the terms applying to the ticket/railcard, this paragraph in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 should apply, that is S.69 (1):

"If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail."

Yes this has been brought up, in this thread and before.

The argument by those defending the railway is generally that 9.5.1 doesn't apply because it's not the ticket that's time limited, it's the railcard.
(And therefore it's also OK for the railway to sell a ticket and say it's valid at all times but if someone tries to use it before 10 to then claim that it's a crime).

I'm not sure that as a legal argument this stands up anyway, but in any case as you point out consumer law attempts to prevent companies from exploiting such subtleties.

Another argument seems to be that if 9.5.1 was allowed to be applied then nobody would pay the correct fare until challenged. This argument seems to:
1) Ignore the fact that the railway accepts this situation for off peak tickets
2) Presume that a desire to prevent fare evasion entitles the railway to ignore its own terms and conditions when it wants to.
(And, perhaps, also assumes that everyone is as dishonest as the person making the argument)

 

[ainsworth74]

At that point then it's a different discussion ie. using an off peak ticket on a peak train which little will have sympathy for and rightly so.

Surely they should have more sympathy as those restrictions can make the minimum fare rule look as simple as 2+2=4!

Certainly they are treated, or should be but for some TOCs taking a dubious approach, quite leniently as the NRCoT state that a simple excess is all that's required to regularise the situation:

9.5 Where you:

9.5.1 are using a time-restricted Ticket (such as an “off-peak” or “super-off-peak” Ticket) that is correctly dated but invalid for the service on which you are travelling; or​

​

9.5.2 are using a route for which your Ticket is not valid; or​

​

9.5.3 break your journey when you are not permitted to do so;​

you will be charged the difference between the fare that you have paid and the lowest price Ticket that is valid for the train you are using.

1) Ignore the fact that the railway accepts this situation for off peak tickets

Sadly I'm not sure that that's the case anymore. Northern have definitely issued PFs to people travelling on off-peak tickets where the correct remedy was an excess.

 

[redreni]

To be fair the simple way to fix it would be for the railway network to come into the 21st Century and have some form of tap on/tap off which is the only place railcards are valid, except advances. How we don't have it, especially in urban areas like Manchester, is just poor.

Would fix the vast majority of ticketing issues overnight, you don't have these types of problems in London with Oyster.

PAYG has been used in London to deny Network Railcard holders the discounts to which they are entitled on both Oyster and Contactless, and to deny all Railcard holders the discounts to which they are entitled if they use Contactless (which is the only PAYG option if the journey extends beyond the area where Oyster is valid).

 

[BongoStar]

Which railcards would those be and how would one qualify for them?

The network rail card or F&F or 2Together have no pre-requisites. Anyone can apply for them.

For 16-17; 18-25; 26-30, you need to prove your age and once done, entitles you to better discounts most of the time. Similar for other railcards where you have to "evidence" something to be able to get them.

What does this tell you about how organised young people are and how different types of people might be dealt with when things go wrong? Your first post on this forum was about how - to your amazement - you simply lost your ticket and were let through the gates. And again, once you’d found a ticket you’d apparently forgotten about, the staff believed your story that you honestly hadn’t used the return portion of that ticket, you’d got the train there but a lift back. Why should you be believed?


Yes it’s always someone else with the BS story but you were the honest one. Nobody else - especially not younger people - is deserving of the benefit of doubt, then?

Sorry, I think you might have read that post in wrong light. Was I not trying to highlight that if one engages with inspectors, they can show discretion? I mentioned my surpise and interaction because reading the forum and based on what I heard on media, my expectation was to be PFed - which didnt happen. [Off-topic, but even if I was to be PF'ed then, I wouldn't come here to complain because it was due to my carelessness of losing a ticket.].

And that is the general theme of my posts on similar topics - be willing to engage. We have on previous posts on this thread some current/past inspectors showing how they have showed discretion. The person who has been prosecuted or threatened with one should also be transparent and let the media know about attempts by ToC to engage which he ignored. What the media is currently doing - is trying to paint a picture of ToCs which is not true.

I simply refuse to believe:
- that all inspectors are looking for the smallest mistake and ready to pounce whenever they can
- that all instances of railcard mis-use are "genuine mistake"
- that all instances of mis-use automatically result in prosecution, without giving a chance to explain/settle out of court - unless the ToC is convinced there is massive fraud going on; even in those cases a TIR or other investigation is done with the customer having an opportunity to respond with their verison of events
- people cannot read time on their watch/station/clock and get on wrong train because they think 11:12am is same as 9:12am
- ToCs and guards are some sort of evil corporations/individuals whose sole aim is to prosecute as many people as they can

I would actually argue that given 90% (and feel free to correct me on the percentage) of railcard users do manage to get it right, the problem is with those who dont.

Even you yourself don’t know what you’re talking about here. There isn’t any such thing as a “peak train”, and even if you mean “times when most off peak flows are banned on this journey”, er, you can certainly get Advances at those times! Why don’t you read the conditions? They’re very simple, after all.

noted - typed hastily. I meant using an offpeak Advance on an earlier timed train. luckily peronally I havent been caught out on that yet, because I try to make sure I understand what ticket I am buying.

I have a horrible feeling somebody worryingly senior at Northern will be reading this and thinking "you know what the problem is, here? Flexible tickets! If only we could do away with the damn things"

shhhh, don't give them ideas.

 

[skyhigh]

The network rail card or F&F or 2Together have no pre-requisites. Anyone can apply for them.

They're all useless to me though.

I don't live in the Network area and I almost always travel alone.

So what alternative Railcards can I pick?

 

[KirkstallOne]

The person who has been prosecuted or threatened with one should also be transparent and let the media know about attempts by ToC to engage which he ignored. What the media is currently doing - is trying to paint a picture of ToCs which is not true.

Maybe Northern would have more media sympathy if they hadn't wrongfully prosecuted some 30,000 people. No transparency from them on that rather inconvenient episode.

 

[FenMan]

Senior tickets etc don't have these problems because the restriction doesn't exist bar being outright banned in the SE and London before 10am.

This is incorrect. For journeys wholely within the Network South East area, Senior Railcard discounts apply M-F from when the first off peak ticket is valid for a given journey, which is normally well before 10.00am.

Some TOCs in the NSE area also offer Senior Railcard discounts on Advances during the morning peak.

 

[rs101]

It's all very well people discussing the exact wording shown on the booking sites, but that misses out one common scenario - what if the person buying the ticket isn't the one travelling?

For example, both my partner and I have Network Railcards (as we don't always travel together). I could buy an Anytime ticket with the Railcard discount and send it to her to use. The ticket says it's an Anytime Day Single and that a Network Railcard was used. Nothing to say anything about specific restrictions because of the railcard

 

[Adam Williams]

For example, both my partner and I have Network Railcards (as we don't always travel together). I could buy an Anytime ticket with the Railcard discount and send it to her to use. The ticket says it's an Anytime Day Single and that a Network Railcard was used. Nothing to say anything about specific restrictions because of the railcard

How far do you take this? The details of an Off-Peak ticket restriction aren't explicitly printed on a CCST or E-Ticket. Are those fair game to ignore?

Can you claim a refund if your partner or colleague bought you a ToD ticket, but didn't tell you it involved a rail replacement bus (which was clearly advised at purchase time)?

 

[rs101]

How far do you take this? The details of an Off-Peak ticket restriction aren't explicitly printed on a CCST or E-Ticket. Are those fair game to ignore?

Can you claim a refund if your partner or colleague bought you a ToD ticket, but didn't tell you it involved a rail replacement bus (which was clearly advised at purchase time)?

The e-ticket PDF from Greater Anglia for an Off Peak ticket says:-
Ticket Details:
This ticket can only be used at certain times, for
details ask staff or go to
www.nationalrail.co.uk/1A

So does clearly mention a restriction. A similar ticket for an Anytime ticket doesn't include any mention of restrictions caused by use a railcard to get a discount.

Your second point is irrelevant - an RRB doesn't affect the validity of the ticket.

 

[Adam Williams]

[snip]

I have an Advance Ticket. The PDF says I have to depart at 11:15, but it doesn't specifically say I can't break my journey on the ticket. Does that mean I get to break my journey if someone else buys me the Advance?

 

[rs101]

I have an Advance Ticket. The PDF says I have to depart at 11:15, but it doesn't specifically say I can't break my journey on the ticket. Does that mean I get to break my journey if someone else buys me the Advance?

What exactly does the PDF say under the "Ticket Details" section?

 

[Adam Williams]

What exactly does the PDF say under the "Ticket Details" section?

Information relating to compensation in the event of
disruption can be found here

Issued subject to the National Rail Conditions of
Travel and CIV

For refund information contact the retailer of your
ticket

Ticket Number AA123456789

Price £34.85

Purchased on 02 December 2020

NRS Booking Reference NRS4567

 

[Hadders]

Not at all.

But neither am I a big fan of a few scumbags trying to get sympathy because they didn't engage with railways when caught and pay up.

What this could potentially result in is removal of a lot of discount opportunities for those 99% who genuinely followed the rules, in interest of "simplification".

The 1% who failed to understand T&Cs now will unlikely become geniuses overnight and understand them tomorrow. Unless the T&Cs are watered down to a level of least intelligent person, social media will keep on escalating it. And we very well know what the ToCs would do to simplify - something along the lines of blanket 10% for all railcard users with no restrictions. Overall loss to most of us.

We know what happened when FCA tried to regulate deep discount in year1 in the insurance sector for someone switching the insurance providers. The overall cost of insurance went up for everyone

I have a degree of sympathy for some of your opinion but on balance I think you're wrong.

'Us' on here are experts in railway ticketing matters, we know the rules inside out. We relish the minutiae of it all, otherwise we generally wpuldn't be active in this section.

BUT - as many of my friends and family members point out, while they greatly appreciate my knowledge and assistance in helping them nagivate the complex fares system you should not need to be an expert in railway ticketing matters to travel by train.

A ticket called 'Anytime' should mean just that. Yes, the terms and conditions of the 16-25 Railcard do mention the £12 minimum fare (although it's not exactly clear that this is a minimum discounted fare). Train companies make no attempt at publicising the £12 restriction - why not have a camoaign in late August/early September publicising the 16-25 Railcard at the start of the acaedemic year. Does the railway engage with colleges and universities. Of course it doesn't. It's easier for them to threaten to prosecute.

I do fear that simplification will mean a reduction in benefits and I don't want that to happen. What I do want is the railway to keep the existing benefits but do a better job of publicising and expaining the restrictions, at stations, on board and through the ticket purchasing process.

Thinking about why the volume of these seems to have increased – is it possible that, now TOCs pass on all fares to the DfT, with controlling fare evasion being the TOCs’ contractual responsibility rather than a commercial decision, some discretion about when to pursue cases has been lost?

Digital ticketing is the reason. A human-eye scanning a ticket is far less likely to check the ticket price. Now barcodes are scanned it'll instantly flag as invalid.

 

[quartile]

I have a degree of sympathy for some of your opinion but on balance I think you're wrong.

'Us' on here are experts in railway ticketing matters, we know the rules inside out. We relish the minutiae of it all, otherwise we generally wpuldn't be active in this section.

BUT - as many of my friends and family members point out, while they greatly appreciate my knowledge and assistance in helping them nagivate the complex fares system you should not need to be an expert in railway ticketing matters to travel by train.

A ticket called 'Anytime' should mean just that. Yes, the terms and conditions of the 16-25 Railcard do mention the £12 minimum fare (although it's not exactly clear that this is a minimum discounted fare). Train companies make no attempt at publicising the £12 restriction - why not have a camoaign in late August/early September publicising the 16-25 Railcard at the start of the acaedemic year. Does the railway engage with colleges and universities. Of course it doesn't. It's easier for them to threaten to prosecute.

I do fear that simplification will mean a reduction in benefits and I don't want that to happen. What I do want is the railway to keep the existing benefits but do a better job of publicising and expaining the restrictions, at stations, on board and through the ticket purchasing process.



Digital ticketing is the reason. A human-eye scanning a ticket is far less likely to check the ticket price. Now barcodes are scanned it'll instantly flag as invalid.

I agree with this, I had Young Person railcard in the 90s, it had a minimum Peak fare and the Summer no peak fare restrictions. The difference was that if I wanted to buy tickets in advance I had to go to a ticket office and the restrictions would be explained to me at the point of sale. On the day tickets could only be bought at the station having already arrived for travel. - Also weren't tickets for use after 10 called cheap day singles? - when did they disappear - is today's off-peak day single not required to exist for all flows?

Outside of London there's already a feasible alternative in the car. Unless you are unable to get a license, Rail competes for most people with this and its easy to use. I live down south and last time I went to Northern's patch I drove across the Mersey Gateway toll bridge. I forgot to pay and received a chasing letter. The fine was waved when I paid promptly as it was my first time. Why was I treated more gently as a driver than I would have been as a train passenger?

 

[BongoStar]

I do fear that simplification will mean a reduction in benefits and I don't want that to happen. What I do want is the railway to keep the existing benefits but do a better job of publicising and expaining the restrictions, at stations, on board and through the ticket purchasing process.

This is exactly what a lot of people fail to grasp. The ToC will simply take the path of least friction and that will mean a lot of discount options will disappear.

The ToC are under no obligation to run promotions, railcard schemes, £1 fares etc. All these are commercial offerings which they decide based on overall business strategy. If it turns out to be more faff than what it's worth then it won't take long to be discontinued.

Why was I treated more gently as a driver than I would have been as a train passenger?

Unless you have come to the attention of the railways before, based on the posts on the forum, a first time offender is usually PFed on the spot or details taken for further investigation. If they find nothing else, there are enough threads where only the differential was charged. I very much doubt the leniency you are referring to would be shown the second time you fail to pay the toll - no different from the railway.