Fairest way to deal with expired railcards **Not a specific dispute**

[XAM2175]

My digital Railcard has a 15-character "number", just before too many people get attached to the idea of making me type it in for every ticket I buy using it

 

[Cdd89]

My digital Railcard has a 15-character "number", just before too many people get attached to the idea of making me type it in for every ticket I buy using it

This is only a problem for TVMs, since for apps/websites it can be copy+pasted and saved to an account.

TVMs could have scanners (which they’ll need eventually anyway), or amend physical railcards to include the data via NFC which already exists. For digital railcards, instead of scanners, the TVM could display a QR code of their own on screen that could be scanned by the digital railcard app in order to supply the data. Manual entry would be the last resort / fallback.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't really see why all these new add-ons are needed to help customers remember they have a valid railcard. It is entirely their responsibility, and while the railway ought to do basic things like send reminders (and perhaps ask for expiry dates upon booking!), all this talk of scanners and stuff is a bit overwrought, no? The direct debit idea is, to me, the easiest of the fixes and would be revenue-positive, too.

 

[najaB]

TBH I would not really mind if a Penalty Fare was applied to every case without discretion, £20 is hardly heavy handed.

£20 plus the Anytime fare, maybe. The loss to the railway can be significantly more than £20 in many cases. And the "without discretion" is maybe an issue.

 

[FootballBloke]

And even if you aren't, it will be checked before boarding, so while you could lose the cost of your trip you won't end up with a criminal record.

TBH I would not really mind if a Penalty Fare was applied to every case without discretion, £20 is hardly heavy handed. It's prosecution that is very heavy handed and to me puts a real duty on the railway to make it easy for people not to be caught in the trap. One of the many reasons that I believe the railway should lose the right to prosecute, to be fair; a national Penalty Fares scheme could be used to decriminalise it instead, bringing it into line with Council parking enforcement.

£20 or double single fare whichever is greater.

Just £20 wouldn't be enough to deter people from travelling, especially on long distance journeys.
Anytime single according brfares websites from Manchester Stations to London Terminals is £184.70.
With Railcard you can get it for £121.90.
Even if you would add £20 as a penalty fare, that still would save you £43 comparing to full price ticket.

 

[30907]

£20 or double single fare whichever is greater.

Just £20 wouldn't be enough to deter people from travelling, especially on long distance journeys.

Agree, but double the single fare is harsh for a one-off.

I would reduce it to the appropriate walk-up fare as if they were misusing an Advance, provided they pay on the spot. Perhaps plus a railcard voucher as suggested

I realise that doesn't cover the repeat "forgetters."

 

[najaB]

I would reduce it to the appropriate walk-up fare as if they were misusing an Advance, provided they pay on the spot. Perhaps plus a railcard voucher as suggested

I'd suggest the full fare plus £20. Wouldn't require it to be paid on the spot though as it could be quite a wedge of money. The £20 would be due on the spot and the remainder within 14 days.

Allow them to refund the original ticket on the first instance as well, so at most they'd be out £30 over the full-price ticket (£20 penalty plus £10 refund fee).

 

[swt_passenger]

The second half of my response did say we should ask people to buy their railcard on the spot. If they can't then penalty fare them.

Being able to buy a railcard on the spot when caught? That’s not much of a deterrent. People know the areas where they’re never likely to be checked on board…

 

[LouRf]

For online purchases of discounted tickets on Trainline, as above posters mostly point out, there is no check you have a railcard at all, let alone expired.

It seems to be up to the inspector if he uses Penalty Scheme .
I suggest TIL or the railways send the passenger a form to fill showing what trips they made under the (unintentionally expired) railcard. Then they calculate the fee and fine appropriately. At present its a sort of bartering situation, half driven by TIL and half driven by customer pleading and apologising.

I was on a train recently when the guard announced anyone here who has a West Midlands ticket (it was an Aviva train) get off at next stop or you'll be asked to pay a £40 penalty. Most of my carriage looked puzzled but got off.
So it all seems a bit random whether the guard will use the Penalty Fare scheme , or not and report you for prosecution on the basis you did it intentionally and there may be other trips.

 

[Haywain]

Being able to buy a railcard on the spot when caught? That’s not much of a deterrent. People know the areas where they’re never likely to be checked on board…

Similarly, a £20 penalty will be seen as little deterrent if the saving is (say) £6 per journey and the chance of being caught is low. Pay £20 extra a couple of times a year and you can be quids in.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Similarly, a £20 penalty will be seen as little deterrent if the saving is (say) £6 per journey and the chance of being caught is low. Pay £20 extra a couple of times a year and you can be quids in.

The key to me is that prosecution needs to be avoided. It's similar in magnitude to a Council parking offence, and needs treating similarly.

I have no issue with a proper fraud charge being brought to someone who e.g. falsified a ticket, and the Byelaw offence is just a way of applying a fine to some extent. But I have a problem with the mere existence of RoRA offences, and they are not at all suitable for "genuine mistakes" like this.

 

[LouRf]

TIL replied when asked to give a breakdown of an excessive demand that they are very busy and reply might take 28 days .

I see it was started as a small business. Their 'pre-action' letter (which I presume is what it is if they are threatening legal action) should explain what sum represents that they are demanding ie for the recipient. I find it very unprofessional.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Any suggestion of needing to enter numbers or expiry dates before being able to buy a ticket is just going to cause too much hassle for regular passengers IMO. Especially at ticket machines which are often under provisioned and a pain in the backside to use (typing in a reservation collection code is often difficult enough with barely working poorly calibrated touch screens) and also especially for people who book tickets for multiple people for the same journey.

 

[najaB]

Any suggestion of needing to enter numbers or expiry dates before being able to buy a ticket is just going to cause too much hassle for regular passengers IMO. Especially at ticket machines which are often under provisioned and a pain in the backside to use (typing in a reservation collection code is often difficult enough with barely working poorly calibrated touch screens) and also especially for people who book tickets for multiple people for the same journey.

Which is why there should also be a "I will check the validity of my railcard before travel" tickbox.

 

[AlterEgo]

I suggest TIL or the railways send the passenger a form to fill showing what trips they made under the (unintentionally expired) railcard. Then they calculate the fee and fine appropriately. At present its a sort of bartering situation, half driven by TIL and half driven by customer pleading and apologising.

Why would a TOC just accept the customer's word? At present, TIL/TOCs usually ask the customer for their side of events and do the work themselves by scouring online purchases. Unless you want them also to know about all the offline purchases too?

So it all seems a bit random whether the guard will use the Penalty Fare scheme , or not and report you for prosecution on the basis you did it intentionally and there may be other trips.

There is no requirement for there to be intent for a prosecution. Bylaw offences are strict liability. RORA offences require intent.

 

[londonteacher]

Being able to buy a railcard on the spot when caught? That’s not much of a deterrent. People know the areas where they’re never likely to be checked on board…

It will weed out those who genuinely forgot and those who willingly deceived.

 

[AlterEgo]

It will weed out those who genuinely forgot and those who willingly deceived.

But what about railcards which require specific criteria to qualify, like Disabled or Forces? Renewing railcards on the spot isn’t quite a silver bullet. Even 16-25 needs proof of age or student status.

 

[py_megapixel]

It will weed out those who genuinely forgot and those who willingly deceived.

How? Those who willingly deceived will probably just buy a railcard and still be up on the deal...

 

[LouRf]

Why would a TOC just accept the customer's word? At present, TIL/TOCs usually ask the customer for their side of events and do the work themselves by scouring online purchases. Unless you want them also to know about all the offline purchases too?


There is no requirement for there to be intent for a prosecution. Bylaw offences are strict liability. RORA offences require intent.

my point is there is no uniformity in the inspectors action

regarding taking a customers word, they can be required to provide evidence

 

[AlterEgo]

my point is there is no uniformity in the inspectors action

regarding taking a customers word, they can be required to provide evidence

The issue with demanding uniformity is that it doesn’t leave any room for discretion whatsoever.

 

[swt_passenger]

It will weed out those who genuinely forgot and those who willingly deceived.

just like those whose homework was genuinely eaten by a dog?

 

[LouRf]

The issue with demanding uniformity is that it doesn’t leave any room for discretion whatsoever.

however the discretion is applied randomly adding to the circus

 

[AlterEgo]

but the discretion is applied randomly
it could be based on the mood of the inspector, for example

That’s how our police forces work too. Removal of discretion might seem utopian but the reality is when it comes to enforcing things you almost always end up with zero tolerance rather than something everyone is happy with.

 

[Haywain]

but the discretion is applied randomly

Discretion that is applied in any other way is not discretion.

 

[LouRf]

just like those whose homework was genuinely eaten by a dog?

in the current system its quite possible to penalise a person who genuinely without intention forgot to renew a railcard , more than a person who never had a card and knew it when booking

Discretion that is applied in any other way is not discretion.

I don't quite agree as TIL have the discretion to act according to their judgment, whether they accepts offers of payment or not
ie there is discretion which can be applied at various points in the chain.

fro the forum you can see random sums of money are being paid to TIL to 'settle' based on certain bartering which seems odd in UK

 

[najaB]

however the discretion is applied randomly adding to the circus

I think you'll find that "discretion" and "consistency" are antonyms!

 

[LouRf]

yes and it appears to be a market stall mentality if you get a TIL letter as people have pointed out it takes a bit of to-ing and fro-ing !

 

[Haywain]

I don't quite agree as TIL have the discretion to act according to their judgment, whether they accepts offers of payment or not
ie there is discretion which can be applied at various points in the chain

Yes, that's discretion being applied somewhat randomly.

 

[norbitonflyer]

That it doesn't work for one of the Railcards isn't a reason not to do it for all the others, certainly those you can't become ineligible for (Family, Senior, Network, Two Together).

Yes you can - children might have grown up, might have split up with other half (of 2-together). Lots of reasons you might not want to renew.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes you can - children might have grown up, might have split up with other half (of 2-together). Lots of reasons you might not want to renew.

There are lots of reasons you might choose not to renew, including that the Railcard is no longer useful, but none that would render you ineligible to hold those Railcards, unlike say a 16-25. Thus, people can cancel their DD as and when they see fit when the Railcard no longer suits them.