Fair evasion?

[BrianW]

I am pleased to see such sensitively offered advice and comfort to folk who have shared their anguish on the forum. I am surprised not to see more censure, however softly put, by forum members who I would have imagined to be rather 'pro-rail' (my prejudged supposition) and therefore keen for rail companies to not be deprived (defrauded?) of income rightly due to them; and thinking of those who can ill-afford the fares charged but do pay, as they should.
I am conscious that there are 'legal advisers' 'out there' who specialise in 'getting people off' parking offences, speeding etc (Loopholes, improper procedure etc) - are there similar for rail passengers? I don't expect to see firms 'recommended' here, whatever caveats may be attached, but note there are ads from sponsors.
I recognise that for some 'hanging's too good for them' and hope that 'miserable offenders' do truly repent. I 'd be pleased to be directed to some outcomes of that kind beyond the understandable claim 'I'll never do it again' so easily said.
Apologies if this has been addressed before- happy to be directed there or to have this 'transferred'.

 

[island]

I am not sure what exactly it is you are asking. Would you be good enough to summarize the gist of your post in a couple of sentences please?

 

[LowLevel]

There's not much point in indulging in a rant at each individual who has done something stupid/sly/unwitting.

I am a ticket inspector. People who take fare evasion personally and feel the need to have a pop don't tend to have particularly long careers.

People who are here tend to know they've done wrong, have been caught unawares without realising the consequences, or have been mistreated by an individual or a company. You will sometimes see the first and second category being firmly told but I don't think there's any point in lecturing people.

 

[sheff1]

It is not at all clear what you are attempting to ask when you say "Fair evasion ?".

Are you anticipating/suggesting that there are/might be circumstances where it is fair that someone evades their fare ?

 

[yorkie]

I am pleased to see such sensitively offered advice and comfort to folk who have shared their anguish on the forum.

Yes, I agree that's nice to see.

I am surprised not to see more censure, however softly put, by forum members who I would have imagined to be rather 'pro-rail' (my prejudged supposition) and therefore keen for rail companies to not be deprived (defrauded?) of income rightly due to them; and thinking of those who can ill-afford the fares charged but do pay, as they should.

I think you are saying here that you are surprised not to see unconstructive, negative posts aimed at people who are seeking advice?

I am glad you have not seen such posts; they are rare, though occasionally such unconstructive postings are made. If anyone does see such a post, please do report it using the report button.

If anyone does reply to a thread, it does need to be a constructive, helpful reply.

I am conscious that there are 'legal advisers' 'out there' who specialise in 'getting people off' parking offences, speeding etc (Loopholes, improper procedure etc) - are there similar for rail passengers?

Not really, no.

I don't expect to see firms 'recommended' here, whatever caveats may be attached, but note there are ads from sponsors.

Not sure what you mean by this but the concept of getting people off parking offences just doesn't have a railway equivalent.

I recognise that for some 'hanging's too good for them' and hope that 'miserable offenders' do truly repent.

Not sure what you are saying here.

I 'd be pleased to be directed to some outcomes of that kind beyond the understandable claim 'I'll never do it again' so easily said

I am not sure what you are asking here.

Apologies if this has been addressed before- happy to be directed there or to have this 'transferred'.

I'm not really sure what you are asking but two threads that may be of interest include:

• There must be a better way
• Why is advice offered to those who cheat the system

Do bear in mind that the railway has specialist legislation; so much so that someone who is alleged to have evaded as little as 10 pence, or even paid the correct amount but had the wrong ticket issued, could potentially end up with a criminal record and would potentially be treated more harshly than someone who was caught stealing from a shop.

You may find the following sections of our fares guide to be of interest:

• RailUK Fares & Ticketing Guide - Section 8 - Legal
• RailUK Fares & Ticketing Guide - Section 10 - Disputes

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I think I understand the point you're making: why don't we understand a little less and condemn a little more?

I won't try to speak for anyone else, but for me, that's a job for the railway and the justice system. When I contribute here, I try to
- explain what will happen, and
- give the tools for a fair outcome.

Obviously 'fair' is a very woolly term, but I think of it meaning a quick result where an offender will be incentivised not to offend again, while not facing disproportionate ongoing consequences. Again, there's a fair number of subjective terms there, but it will often amount to advising that the offender does everything they can to get an out of court settlement.

Given where I am coming from, it probably won't surprise anyone that I don't feel we are giving the best advice when we start offering loopholes (was the penalty fare signage exactly right? How long was the queue at the ticket office?) At the risk of playing both ends against the middle, I worry that this doesn't involve getting an offender to recognise that what they did was unacceptable and so they should face a penalty, but at the same time I worry that we are holding out false hope and will just prolong the agony.

In general, I think we get the balance about right. But it's good for us to look at this every so often, to think about whether we are doing the best we can.

 

[swt_passenger]

It is not at all clear what you are attempting to ask when you say "Fair evasion ?".

I expect it’s just the regular typo that people make...

 

[Brissle Girl]

Like Fawkes Cat I do sometimes worry when we try to find minor technicalities in the way the railway dealt with a case to get someone off the hook when they were clearly fare dodging. It reminds me of a well known lawyer who celebrities use to get off motoring offences on the most trivial of technicalities.

Eg someone didn’t pay a penalty fare and is now taken to court. The penalty fare was 20p more than it should have been. Should the whole case be struck off as the penalty fare was incorrect.

I’m not sure I’d put the long ticket queue in that category though. If the queue is so long that it puts an unreasonable barrier in the way of a passenger buying a ticket in a timely manner, and the alternative is missing their train, being late for work or maybe missing a connection or similar, then I have a lot of sympathy with the passenger. What is reasonable depends on the norm for a given location of course, along with other relevant factors, which is where of course it moves from black and white to being subjective.

 

[yorkie]

Eg someone didn’t pay a penalty fare and is now taken to court. The penalty fare was 20p more than it should have been. Should the whole case be struck off as the penalty fare was incorrect.

Has that actually happened?

I’m not sure I’d put the long ticket queue in that category though. If the queue is so long that it puts an unreasonable barrier in the way of a passenger buying a ticket in a timely manner, and the alternative is missing their train, being late for work or maybe missing a connection or similar, then I have a lot of sympathy with the passenger. What is reasonable depends on the norm for a given location of course, along with other relevant factors, which is where of course it moves from black and white to being subjective.

Some train companies actually post what maximum queuing times should be and some even issue guidance to say passengers can buy on board without penalty under certain circumstances. This is heavily dependant on the specifics of the case in question though.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Has that actually happened?

I should probably have caveated it as a hypothetical example. But I have certainly seen discussions where there has been a relatively minor discrepancy in the amount of penalty fare and posters have offered advice to the effect that it could be used as an argument as to why the railway should drop the case. Not 20p admittedly, and it would probably take an inordinate amount of time to find them.

(I'm not talking about cases where a full anytime fare has been charged against the cheapest fare which was available and should have been used. That's a material difference.)

 

[BrianW]

Glad to see my original posting, however confusingly convoluted, has generated this discussion. Thank you all; I can see the diversity of views- long may it be so- while also knowing I'm not alone,

 

[Enthusiast]

There is a well used motoring forum where posts offering criticism or judgement of a posters' misdemeanours are simply removed. The forum exists to offer advice on processes, procedures and legalities, not to pass judgement. If a driver has no viable defence or "loophole" to take advantage of he is told. Most of those who transgress know they have broken the law and whether it is deliberate or a mistake makes no difference. I suggest a similar approach is adopted here.

 

[D.K.TAYLOR]

What is all this thread about ??????

 

[Brissle Girl]

I suggest a similar approach is adopted here.

No need to suggest, it already is, which may explain the OP's puzzlement. The guidelines for the sub-forum specifically spell out what a response to a query should cover, and I don't think you'll find criticism or lecturing of the person requesting help being on that list.

 

[30907]

There is a well used motoring forum where posts offering criticism or judgement of a posters' misdemeanours are simply removed. The forum exists to offer advice on processes, procedures and legalities, not to pass judgement. If a driver has no viable defence or "loophole" to take advantage of he is told. Most of those who transgress know they have broken the law and whether it is deliberate or a mistake makes no difference. I suggest a similar approach is adopted here.

With respect, a fair number of posters on this forum appear NOT to believe they have done wrong, or that they have merely made a " mistake" by so doing, or they post a creative version of events. In those cases, they need challenging - and sometimes that results in a story that provides a valid defence.
I agree with Brissle Girl that lecturing people in that situation isn't helpful and should be reported - indeed, I could have sworn that one such post had been deleted within the last couple of days.

 

[malc-c]

With respect, a fair number of posters on this forum appear NOT to believe they have done wrong, or that they have merely made a " mistake" by so doing, or they post a creative version of events. In those cases, they need challenging -

I must admit it does seem strange that in cases where people knowingly defraud the system (eg using someone else's ID card, season ticket, or pay for a short trip and travel further to name a few of the regular posts that appear) they do come over as being the injured party when they get caught, and seek some form of sympathy when requesting advice on the likely outcome and how best to mitigate the damage. It's only human nature that others who do things correctly and pay for their travel may feel aggrieved or annoyed by the actions of those who have been caught and feel that they need to express their feelings by challenging the offender. Granted it may have no bearing on things, and may not achieve anything other than making the person feel better for ranting at the offender, but unless the rant is extremely rude and breaches forum rules on swearing or race, should that post be removed ? If the posts are removed (assuming its not racist etc), is that not censorship, and in doing so makes the forum seem to appear to support fare evasion or other criminal activities like fraud ?

 

[30907]

Granted it may have no bearing on things, and may not achieve anything other than making the person feel better for ranting at the offender, but unless the rant is extremely rude and breaches forum rules on swearing or race, should that post be removed ? If the posts are removed (assuming its not racist etc), is that not censorship, and in doing so makes the forum seem to appear to support fare evasion or other criminal activities like fraud ?

Given the clear advice in the second post
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/please-read-before-posting-in-disputes-prosecutions.77759/
the answer to your first question is "generally yes" and to the second "no., because there are large numbers of appropriate posts to counter that impression."

 

[Typhoon]

I am pleased to see such sensitively offered advice and comfort to folk who have shared their anguish on the forum. I am surprised not to see more censure, however softly put, by forum members ....

Because this forum is the equivalent of an 'Advice Line' not an 'opinion' forum. Experts in the field, some of which have posted above, others I could name, offer their advice based on years of working in the industry on the likely outcome of a particular scenario. They are not judgemental because they are not judging. They support the advice seeker when it appears that they have been mistreated, otherwise (and this is more often the case) indicate what the consequences for the advice seeker are likely to be of particular actions. They are providing what you would pay a lawyer for, but without cost but with expertise.

 

[Typhoon]

If the posts are removed (assuming its not racist etc), is that not censorship, and in doing so makes the forum seem to appear to support fare evasion or other criminal activities like fraud ?

I am only an occasional viewer of this forum and have not compiled the stats but I believe the most common response could be summarised as "Pay up, otherwise it could get a lot worse", that does not support fare evasion, it is in the best interest of all concerned.

 

[MotCO]

The other positive to take from this forum is that when people are seeking advice about what to do about a case of fare evasion, they often do not understand the rules the railway operates under. For example, I have learnt about 'strict liability'. Posters on this forum often set out a balanced view as to why the rail companies have acted as they have, and this allows the person caught up in a dispute to understand how the process works, and rather than being a victim of unfair play, they understand the rules better and probably pay up. The forum acts as an 'honest broker' to the advantage of all.