Expired railcard

[John R]

Perhaps I am too cynical in my assumption ie there would be consequences. However if their purpose was putting it on file, no further action at this time then I do not think it unreasonable for the Inspector to say that. Though of course the Inspector might not know this has happened previously.

The more I think about it the more I see why the Inspectors do what they do and why they do it. I come back to an earlier point that the rail fares system needs simplifying to reduce the incidence of honest mistakes.

Though in this case the problem was an expired railcard. So whilst we still have a system including railcards, I’m not sure simplifying the fares would have done anything to help the OP.

 

[Titfield]

Though in this case the problem was an expired railcard. So whilst we still have a system including railcards, I’m not sure simplifying the fares would have done anything to help the OP.

Going OTT.

I include railcards within the fares system.

Looking at the posts on this forum a very significant proportion are issues relating to expired railcards, no railcard and confusion between the 16-17 and 16-25 railcard types.

If the issues related to "advance fares" (which are restricted to one train only) were also removed then a further tranche of "honest mistake" problems would also be removed.

IMHO revenue protection needs to be focused on no ticket (at all) and doughnutting.

 

[island]

If the issues related to "advance fares" (which are restricted to one train only) were also removed then a further tranche of "honest mistake" problems would also be removed.

So you want to remove advance fares and return to a 1980s world where everyone paid the open or saver fare?

I think a lot of people would be against that! But feel free to post about your idea in the speculative ideas forum where it can get a proper debate without impinging on the advice we give to the OP here.

 

[ssan]

Reporting for Investigation is arguably the fairest methodology as it removes "visual bias" and allows the passenger to state their case with the benefit of having been allowed time to gather their thoughts and present their case methodologically.

My name reveals that I am not white.

 

[Titfield]

My name reveals that I am not white.

With all due respect not necessarily.

 

[ssan]

As the amount requested for investigation costs is below what the railway normally ask for, it is possible that the Inspector did you a favour by putting in a report that hinted (or more) that he was satisfied that it was a genuine mistake, rather than deliberate evasion or gross carelessness. This has inclined the railway to relative leniency. This is my opinion only.

It's actually above the normal amount. According to the website (https://northernrail.my.site.com/s/article/Penalty-Fares), my case should be a Penalty Fare of £50 if it is paid within 21 days. I don't know why I received a fixed penalty notice of £106.50.

 

[signed]

According to the website (https://northernrail.my.site.com/s/article/Penalty-Fares), my case should be a Penalty Fare of £50 if it is paid within 21 days

A Penalty Fare can only be issued on the spot, it can't be issued after the fact

A fixed penalty notice is just another name for the tradionnal out-of-court settlment

 

[Haywain]

According to the website (https://northernrail.my.site.com/s/article/Penalty-Fares), my case should be a Penalty Fare of £50 if it is paid within 21 days. I don't know why I received a fixed penalty notice of £106.50.

You received a 'Fixed Penalty Notice" because your matter was reported for further investigation. You were not issued a Penalty Fare Notice which is a different matter, and they cannot be issued retrospectively. The amount for the notice you have received is on the low side for out of court settlements, which is what it amounts to. A reason that matters such as yours are handled in this way is to establish whether this was really a one-off or part of a pattern of behaviour. If you look across this forum you will find quite a few other threads concerning expired railcards being handled in exactly the same way.

 

[skyhigh]

You received a 'Fixed Penalty Notice" because your matter was reported for further investigation. You were not issued a Penalty Fare Notice which is a different matter, and they cannot be issued retrospectively. The amount for the notice you have received is on the low side for out of court settlements, which is what it amounts to. A reason that matters such as yours are handled in this way is to establish whether this was really a one-off or part of a pattern of behaviour. If you look across this forum you will find quite a few other threads concerning expired railcards being handled in exactly the same way.

Even then, a Penalty Fare would have been £50 plus the appropriate fare, not a flat amount.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's actually above the normal amount. According to the website (https://northernrail.my.site.com/s/article/Penalty-Fares), my case should be a Penalty Fare of £50 if it is paid within 21 days. I don't know why I received a fixed penalty notice of £106.50.

It's now common for inspectors to *not* penalty fare people who have expired railcards, because a PF disposes of that offence on the spot. A report means it goes to a back office who can check how many journeys and fares have been evaded since expiry, by auditing ticket purchasing accounts and so on.

The system isn't particularly fair, but it is what is is.

There is no formal appeal process for this sort of out of court settlement. The company can withdraw it and prosecute you for the offence. I regret that in any case, you would have no grounds for appeal of a regular Penalty Fare either.

 

[ssan]

Even then, a Penalty Fare would have been £50 plus the appropriate fare, not a flat amount.

I know this. The ‘plus’ in my case is £6.5. My question is why I don't have an opportunity to get a penalty fare of £50.

You received a 'Fixed Penalty Notice" because your matter was reported for further investigation. You were not issued a Penalty Fare Notice which is a different matter, and they cannot be issued retrospectively. The amount for the notice you have received is on the low side for out of court settlements, which is what it amounts to. A reason that matters such as yours are handled in this way is to establish whether this was really a one-off or part of a pattern of behaviour. If you look across this forum you will find quite a few other threads concerning expired railcards being handled in exactly the same way.

My case is a one-off.

A Penalty Fare can only be issued on the spot, it can't be issued after the fact

A fixed penalty notice is just another name for the tradionnal out-of-court settlment

Under what circumstances would a Penalty Fare be issued?

 

[furlong]

I know this. The ‘plus’ in my case is £6.5. My question is why I don't have an opportunity to get a penalty fare of £50.

Or more to the point, why weren't you able to resolve the matter by renewing your railcard on the spot, perhaps with an administrative surcharge, backdated to when the previous one expired? A customer-focussed system would facilitate that, instead of imposing penalties (that don't officially count as penalties). An even more customer-focussed system would have let you set things up to renew automatically by direct debit! But it is what it is. Unless you've got the money to throw at the legal profession to challenge the system, you've just got give in to their unfair demands like everyone else does.

 

[ssan]

Or more to the point, why weren't you able to resolve the matter by renewing your railcard on the spot, perhaps with an administrative surcharge, backdated to when the previous one expired? A customer-focussed system would facilitate that, instead of imposing penalties (that don't officially count as penalties). An even more customer-focussed system would have let you set things up to renew automatically by direct debit! But it is what it is. Unless you've got the money to throw at the legal profession to challenge the system, you've just got give in to their unfair demands like everyone else does.

I renewed my railcard on the spot and showed it to the inspector.

 

[Titfield]

Or more to the point, why weren't you able to resolve the matter by renewing your railcard on the spot, perhaps with an administrative surcharge, backdated to when the previous one expired? A customer-focussed system would facilitate that, instead of imposing penalties (that don't officially count as penalties). An even more customer-focussed system would have let you set things up to renew automatically by direct debit! But it is what it is. Unless you've got the money to throw at the legal profession to challenge the system, you've just got give in to their unfair demands like everyone else does.

Because renewing your railcard on the spot is tantamount to being a form of "pay when challenged" which is much discussed on this forum. Having an "administrative surcharge" would create further complexities to an already complex system and be a bone of contention as to its fairness for example my card ran out 6 months ago so why should I have it back dated to then? (Though I agree the financial penalty by being back dated is actually a very small penalty pro rata).

If you allowed a system of "automatic renewal" that would undoubtedly cause problems for example deceased senior citizens or 16 - 25 year olds being permitted to renew a card when they had ceased to be eligible.

 

[Haywain]

My case is a one-off.

The train company had no way of knowing that, did they? Youmigjt say they could have asked you, but it's pretty obvious what snswer anyone would give regardless of the truth of the matter.

 

[furlong]

Because renewing your railcard on the spot is tantamount to being a form of "pay when challenged" which is much discussed on this forum. Having an "administrative surcharge" would create further complexities to an already complex system and be a bone of contention as to its fairness for example my card ran out 6 months ago so why should I have it back dated to then? (Though I agree the financial penalty by being back dated is actually a very small penalty pro rata).

If you allowed a system of "automatic renewal" that would undoubtedly cause problems for example deceased senior citizens or 16 - 25 year olds being permitted to renew a card when they had ceased to be eligible.

We are digressing, but any other business wouldn't let easy-to-handle edge cases like those get in the way! This is not "pay when challenged" - the passenger believes they have bought a valid ticket - and the back-dating plus surcharge removes any advantage from the mistake so people aren't going to gain by doing it deliberately. It puts right any other journeys made in the interim, and most importantly avoids treating good customers as criminals by default. (It's common for organisations to permit subscriptions and memberships to be renewed late and get back-dated, while taking into account continued eligibility - why not the railway?)

 

[island]

We are digressing, but any other business wouldn't let easy-to-handle edge cases like those get in the way! This is not "pay when challenged" - the passenger believes they have bought a valid ticket - and the back-dating plus surcharge removes any advantage from the mistake so people aren't going to gain by doing it deliberately. It puts right any other journeys made in the interim, and most importantly avoids treating good customers as criminals by default. (It's common for organisations to permit subscriptions and memberships to be renewed late and get back-dated, while taking into account continued eligibility - why not the railway?)

Or, passengers could just take responsibility and renew their Railcards on time.

 

[Adam Williams]

If you allowed a system of "automatic renewal" that would undoubtedly cause problems for example deceased senior citizens or 16 - 25 year olds being permitted to renew a card when they had ceased to be eligible

No it wouldn't.

When you die, your bank account and cards stop working. That's how dying works.

When you age out of the Railcard (age 26 for YNG), the system refuses to renew your Railcard automatically because it can calculate your age at the time of renewal. The mature students are a tiny majority of cases and can be handled manually.

It's not hard.

 

[Titfield]

No it wouldn't.

When you die, your bank account and cards stop working. That's how dying works.

When you age out of the Railcard (age 26 for YNG), the system refuses to renew your Railcard automatically because it can calculate your age at the time of renewal. The mature students are a tiny majority of cases and can be handled manually.

It's not hard.

Not always. Sometimes accounts stay active as has been demonstrated by some poor souls have died at home only for their body to be discovered months / years later and all along their direct debits have continued going out.

 

[skyhigh]

Not always. Sometimes accounts stay active as has been demonstrated by some poor souls have died at home only for their body to be discovered months / years later and all along their direct debits have continued going out.

I'm not entirely convinced that's a brilliant argument against auto renewals of Railcards...

 

[Titfield]

I'm not entirely convinced that's a brilliant argument against auto renewals of Railcards...

It may not be the most brilliant of arguments but I was responding to a specific point that bank account transactions cease when someone passes away.

Auto renewals can be seen as a form of inertia selling and generally speaking many consumer organisations advise customers to think carefully before entering into such a contract.

 

[Hadders]

Can we focus on helping @ssan with their case. Discussion about whether out of date railcards could be removed if a surcharge is payed and whether railcards should auto-renew is interesting but really needs to be in a separate thread.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Perhaps I am too cynical in my assumption ie there would be consequences. However if their purpose was putting it on file, no further action at this time then I do not think it unreasonable for the Inspector to say that. Though of course the Inspector might not know this has happened previously.

The more I think about it the more I see why the Inspectors do what they do and why they do it. I come back to an earlier point that the rail fares system needs simplifying to reduce the incidence of honest mistakes.

But the "mistake" here was claiming a discount on the basis of a railcard that didn't (validly) exist. No "simplification" will enable someone to get away with claiming a discount they're not entitled to ... other than the "simplification" of stopping discounted tickets. But let's not put ideas in their heads...

A Penalty Fare can only be issued on the spot, it can't be issued after the fact

A fixed penalty notice is just another name for the tradionnal out-of-court settlment

Yes - this clearly wasn't a Penalty Fare. It's Northern's standard short-cut to an out-of-court settlment (which I presume is legally a bit dodgy??) without starting with the court threat and waiting for you to ask for a settlment instead.

 

[skyhigh]

(which I presume is legally a bit dodgy??)

I don't think so?

 

[Haywain]

which I presume is legally a bit dodgy??

Not in the slightest.

 

[RHolmes]

I renewed my railcard on the spot and showed it to the inspector.

You did but only after being asked for your railcard presumably?

You must have a valid ticket for travel before stepping onto the train to start your journey, in your specific case, you don’t have a valid ticket at the time your journey began. If you would have renewed your railcard before stepping onto the train, you wouldn’t have been travelling on an invalid ticket and therefore not reported by the revenue officer.

I notice earlier on that you were wondering why you had not been issued with an on-the-spot £50 penalty fare and had been issued with a Ticket Irregularity Report (TIR). The usual reason for this is that with an expired railcard, the railway companies check your previous booking history to ensure you haven’t previously travelled with an out of date rail card on previous journeys (therefore travelling on invalid tickets) on or after the point at which the railcard expired, this is the correct procedure.

 

[Knoodlepot]

This might sound harsh, but as far as the Inspector is concerned you might of only bought the renewal because you were checked and for that reason he/she might have suspicion that you have traveled with the discount but without a valid railcard.

The only difference I think we do is that we would of Penalty Fared you (£100 + Ticket if paid in 21 days £50 + ticket).
And we send off the scan to our Digital Fraud department. They will look into it, if it is a first time offence you have already been dealt with by the Penalty Fare. If not then letters will be sent.
Northern might have a different practice.

 

[Titfield]

This might sound harsh, but as far as the Inspector is concerned you might of only bought the renewal because you were checked and for that reason he/she might have suspicion that you have traveled with the discount but without a valid railcard.

The only difference I think we do is that we would of Penalty Fared you (£100 + Ticket if paid in 21 days £50 + ticket).
And we send off the scan to our Digital Fraud department. They will look into it, if it is a first time offence you have already been dealt with by the Penalty Fare. If not then letters will be sent.
Northern might have a different practice.

Without wishing to labour the point, it could be that you had seen a Ticket Inspector or there had been an on train announcement that tickets and railcards would be checked.

In many cases it is impossible to differentiate between the genuine mistake or oversight and those who know that they do not have a valid ticket but will persist in this behaviour until either challenged or they become aware that they will be challenged.

 

[ssan]

You did but only after being asked for your railcard presumably?

You must have a valid ticket for travel before stepping onto the train to start your journey, in your specific case, you don’t have a valid ticket at the time your journey began. If you would have renewed your railcard before stepping onto the train, you wouldn’t have been travelling on an invalid ticket and therefore not reported by the revenue officer.

I notice earlier on that you were wondering why you had not been issued with an on-the-spot £50 penalty fare and had been issued with a Ticket Irregularity Report (TIR). The usual reason for this is that with an expired railcard, the railway companies check your previous booking history to ensure you haven’t previously travelled with an out of date rail card on previous journeys (therefore travelling on invalid tickets) on or after the point at which the railcard expired, this is the correct procedure.

According to Northern's website (https://northernrail.my.site.com/s/article/Penalty-Fares), in what circumstances do you think one could be issued a Penalty Fare for being unable to produce an appropriate Railcard for a discounted ticket?

 

[30907]

According to Northern's website (https://northernrail.my.site.com/s/article/Penalty-Fares), in what circumstances do you think one could be issued a Penalty Fare for being unable to produce an appropriate Railcard for a discounted ticket?

If the Inspector concerned chooses to do so.

However, since the regulations were made, train companies have realised that railcard misuse (out of date/non existent) is common and that they can investigate many people's behaviour online, so uncovering repeated offences (and recovering a considerable amount of public money), and they increasingly instruct staff to take that option.
They can also easily follow up the "left railcard at home" issue (which is allowable once a year) as part of the process.