Fare Evasion: Poorly Enforced?

[ainsworth74]

Using physical force to remove someone from a train due to a fare dispute is not something a Guard should ever attempt.

If for no other reason than their own safety!

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I see many people have things that would disagree with fare evasion simply being a civil offence. As of now there isn't a need to tell me about what kind of offence it is, for enough people have made a similar point. The whole point of this thread was to simply ask if fare evasion was poorly enforced.

I still stand by my opinion that it is poorly and inconsistently enforced and that if train companies have ways that allow people to avoid paying fares such as routes that bypass barriers and ticket offices, along with not always checking for tickets, then they shouldn't be surprised when people try and avoid paying fares.

 

[bb21]

They are poorly enforced in many cases, and they are not surprised that some people dodge their fares.

The system is partly based on trust, and those people should equally not be surprised when the TOC comes down with an iron fist when they get caught.

About sums it all up really.

 

[Antman]

I guess for the TOCs it comes down to cost vs gain. If a TOC expects a ticket check is going to cost more than the check is going to bring in, then they shouldn't do it.

Personally, I think we should be giving guards more authority and legal clearance. If a guard finds a "Wont pay, never attempted to pay" passenger, then subject to them not being an obviously vulnerable person (Child, disabled, etc) I say let the guard man-handle em off.

Good heavens no, can you imagine guards getting into fights with passengers? As others have said physically removing somebody is a job for the police.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I see many people have things that would disagree with fare evasion simply being a civil offence. As of now there isn't a need to tell me about what kind of offence it is, for enough people have made a similar point. The whole point of this thread was to simply ask if fare evasion was poorly enforced.

I still stand by my opinion that it is poorly and inconsistently enforced and that if train companies have ways that allow people to avoid paying fares such as routes that bypass barriers and ticket offices, along with not always checking for tickets, then they shouldn't be surprised when people try and avoid paying fares.

I don't disagree that it is poorly enforced but realistically what more can be done?

 

[anme]

realistically what more can be done?

Indeed, and are you prepared to pay higher fares to fund more enforcement?

 

[LowLevel]

I do wish the same rubbish wouldn't keep appearing with regards to people thinking they're being clever and sniggering smugly to themselves about 'testing' people by avoiding having their tickets checked.

You need to remember a few important points.

One - on a 4 car class 158 there are around 300 seats. Add in a few standees. Do you actually think I can remember properly who I've seen and who I haven't. The human mind can't easily handle that many faces. Then bear in mind they all change regularly during the journey. Move up to an 11 car Pendolino or similar, it's not going to happen.

Two - much of picking up fare evaders is built on intuition. People scurrying the other way. The guy who got on at the last stop with the very notable hair who is staring out of the window hoping you won't ask him. The person who scurries off to the bog when you enter a carriage. The same guy who gets on every day who stinks of cannabis that you know you just need to mention the words 'police' and 'drugs' to get him to pull his money out under protest. I don't need to check every ticket to note potential fare evaders. I do this all day, most days. I know what I'm doing.

Three - if the person checking your ticket is the guard, their main focus isn't on picking up fare evaders. I'm there to keep everyone safe, mostly be nice, provide help, and if I can in between hit a few chancers in the pocket while discouraging them with my presence. If the TOCs are genuinely after fare evaders they will 'steam' the train with a gang of RPIs who will check everyone and everywhere.

That is of course just on board checks. I could say more but I won't bother.

 

[miami]

Personally, I think we should be giving guards more authority and legal clearance. If a guard finds a "Wont pay, never attempted to pay" passenger, then subject to them not being an obviously vulnerable person (Child, disabled, etc) I say let the guard man-handle em off.

And when someone has a valid ticket but the guard decides that it isn't valid (either due to a lack of training, or due to deliberately ignoring of the conditions of carriage in an attempt to make some commission)?

 

[MedwayValiant]

Never gonna happen. If someone needs to be physically removed, then leave it to the police. Trying to manhandle someone is not wise.

Using physical force to remove someone from a train due to a fare dispute is not something a Guard should ever attempt.

I imagine guard training goes into some detail on what guards should, legally can but ideally shouldn't, and mustn't do when faced with ticketless passengers.

I made a longer train journey last week. I'm going to be deliberately vague about the precise details in case it might get the guard into trouble, which I don't want it to.

We left [a place in the North] headed for London. Full ticket inspection was announced and soon took place, and a passenger was found to have no ticket.

At the time, the guard muttered something along the lines of "You haven't heard the last of it", and then went about his business. But once we had made our last stop before London, he came back and told the miscreant to come with him. He was to sit with the guard into London so that he couldn't disappear into the crowd, and would then be put onto the first available train and taken straight back to [a place in the North].

It seems reasonable to me. If you don't have a ticket, then you're not going anywhere - and if it takes you several hours not to go anywhere, that's entirely your own fault. But are guards actually allowed to do this?

 

[Haitch]

Seems totally illegal that Medway. Would that not be classified as imprisonment? If said miscreant wanted to lodge complaint they would probably apologise and drop any penalty notice immediatley!

Guard should also be asked to explain his actions.

He could by all means shadow the fare dodger but he cannot detain anyone in one part of the train.

 

[najaB]

Seems totally illegal that Medway. Would that not be classified as imprisonment?

If the train had already passed its last scheduled stopping point then the guard wasn't imprisoning them any more than every other passenger on the train. I've not seen anything that indicates the guard did any more than instruct the fare dodger to occupy a specific seat.

 

[Antman]

Seems totally illegal that Medway. Would that not be classified as imprisonment? If said miscreant wanted to lodge complaint they would probably apologise and drop any penalty notice immediatley!

Guard should also be asked to explain his actions.

He could by all means shadow the fare dodger but he cannot detain anyone in one part of the train.

I'm surprised the miscreant passenger complied, most would have told the guard to do one, or words to that effect.

I'm sure it is frustrating for guards to see the same faces getting away with it time and again but it's surely in their own best interests to stick to the rule book?

 

[bb21]

Seems totally illegal that Medway. Would that not be classified as imprisonment? If said miscreant wanted to lodge complaint they would probably apologise and drop any penalty notice immediatley!

Guard should also be asked to explain his actions.

He could by all means shadow the fare dodger but he cannot detain anyone in one part of the train.

BTP assistance.

 

[miami]

Seems totally illegal that Medway. Would that not be classified as imprisonment? If said miscreant wanted to lodge complaint they would probably apologise and drop any penalty notice immediatley!

Guard should also be asked to explain his actions.

He could by all means shadow the fare dodger but he cannot detain anyone in one part of the train.

Presumably the choice was "sit with me or else be done fare evasion".

When Virgin's untrained guards decide I don't have a valid ticket, if they told me to go sit with him then I wouldn't be budging an inch - what They can have my name and address, and ticket if they give me a receipt, but then I have a valid ticket.

 

[MedwayValiant]

I did slightly wonder about the "imprisonment" angle, which is why I didn't want to specify the precise train. In fact, the ticketless guy was being cooperative. I saw him walking with the guard along the London platform, and they were walking away from the exit so I imagine he was being passed to another guard to be carried back North.

If he'd chosen to be less helpful, I suppose the guard would have had to let him disappear into the crowd at the London terminus. The guard could have called the police from the train, but there can be no guarantee that they'd have had anyone available to be on the platform when the train arrived.

And if he'd played it that way, then ticketless guy would at least have got to stay in London - which was precisely what the guard didn't want to happen.

Later thought ... Suppose the guy was already of interest to the police. The guard doesn't know that, but if the passenger decides that going along with the guard is the only way he can avoid an involvement with the police then he's probably going to do it.

 

[Antman]

I did slightly wonder about the "imprisonment" angle, which is why I didn't want to specify the precise train. In fact, the ticketless guy was being cooperative. I saw him walking with the guard along the London platform, and they were walking away from the exit so I imagine he was being passed to another guard to be carried back North.

If he'd chosen to be less helpful, I suppose the guard would have had to let him disappear into the crowd at the London terminus. The guard could have called the police from the train, but there can be no guarantee that they'd have had anyone available to be on the platform when the train arrived.

And if he'd played it that way, then ticketless guy would at least have got to stay in London - which was precisely what the guard didn't want to happen.

Later thought ... Suppose the guy was already of interest to the police. The guard doesn't know that, but if the passenger decides that going along with the guard is the only way he can avoid an involvement with the police then he's probably going to do it.

Or could it be that this person had made a genuine mistake and actually wanted to return north?

 

[miami]

Or could it be that this person had made a genuine mistake and actually wanted to return north?

Quite often happens - last week in the aftermarth of the chaos, shortly after leaving Euston an announcement came on saying "if anyone else is planning on going to Milton Keynes find me immediately, as first stop is Crewe"

 

[Antman]

Quite often happens - last week in the aftermarth of the chaos, shortly after leaving Euston an announcement came on saying "if anyone else is planning on going to Milton Keynes find me immediately, as first stop is Crewe"

Might be better making that announcement before leaving Euston?

 

[miami]

Might be better making that announcement before leaving Euston?

They did, but given the chaos and delays I was surprised when we just upped and left, without any notice.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
No ticket check on today's 07:55 MAN-EUS, which is a relief

 

[bb21]

Why? Did you not have a ticket?

 

[mad_rich]

you've essentially just lost a good amount of money on a ticket to travel on a train you could've theoretically just jumped on board without a ticket and travel for free.

There's your first mistake.

You haven't done anything of the sort! You've paid the correct fare, and taken the journey and you can sail off happily into the sunset. How and whether the TOC wants to ensure other passengers pay the correct fare is none of your (or my) business.

There are plenty of things you can get away with doing if you lie and cheat. If you want to do that, then that's your business. You might get away with it, but hopefully you won't.

I just don't get why 'nobody checked my ticket' should upset people.

 

[bb21]

Because people are jealous that others get away with it, albeit subconsciously for most.

 

[Clip]

Fare Evasion: Poorly Enforced?

No, no its not. You have got mixed up. Those involved in fare evasion are enforced to do whatever they want, whenever.

How TOCs combat those who engage in ticketless travel is something else.

And Ill agree certain TOCs could do better in ticket checks both at station and on train, however as others have said, to what end do you go to to prevent ticketless travel? Barriers wont work, trains can be too busy and short hop lines can mean the guard may not gert round due to carrying out their main duties.

A solution, which I believe has been running for some years now, is to make people aware that they must purchase a ticket before they travel when they can(usual caveats). its that simple.

Though for long distance operators they could also employ a two person strategy of a guard and a ticket inspector on each train who may carry out other duties as and when.

Thats great but would you be prepared to pay for it?

 

[sheff1]

I just don't get why 'nobody checked my ticket' should upset people.

What makes me unhappy is when someone, who clearly does not understand the validity of tickets they are supposedly checking, claims my ticket is not valid when it is. I would far rather not have my ticket checked and thus avoid unnecessary discussion.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Because people are jealous that others get away with it, albeit subconsciously for most.

Forgive me, I'm kind of fussy on this, but I believe the word you're looking for is "envious". Jealousy is being worried somebody will take what you have, envy is wanting what someone else has (credit: Homer Simpson) and as such people subconsciously want to get away with doing what some fare evaders are getting away with, which is travelling for free. Sometimes of course, not all the time.

Again, I'm sorry but I'm a little fussy on my use of English words when I know it's wrong, and I'm also sorry for it being irrelevant to the thread.

 

[bb21]

OK, envy it is. You get my drift.

 

[ainsworth74]

Seeing as we were talking about removing people from trains if they won't buy a ticket I found it interesting that this cropped up in my local newspaper today:

A man has been restrained and escorted off a train following an incident.

A witness to the incident on the 5.45pm train from Middlesbrough to Newcastle yesterday evening said there had been an incident over a ticket, following which a man was asked to leave the train.

The witness said: “The man then got verbally abusive and two transport officers arrived to chat to him.

“Things were calm until it appeared a fellow passenger said something to him.”

According to the witness six officers were finally involved in the incident which lasted more than a minute.

The passenger was finally escorted from the train, still at Middlesbrough Station, at around 5.55pm.

The British Transport Police were unavailable for comment.

Source

There is a video of the part of the incident as well.

I guess this is the advantage of having a BTP office on the station!

 

[al78]

I'm not saying either is right, but fare dodging is more like software piracy. Neither is theft, both are more like a form of fraud.

If you steal a product from a supermarket, they have incurred a financial loss to the wholesale value of the product entirely separately from whether, had you not stolen it, you would have bought it.

If you pirate software or travel by train without paying, they have not incurred a financial loss in that way. They have been deprived of income they would have had if you had paid, but if you wouldn't have travelled had you had to pay there is no actual loss.

As I say it doesn't make either OK. But there is something factual in that argument.

Not really, it is a fallacious argument used as a poor attempt to try and justify the unjustifyable.

Firstly, adding extra weight to the train will increase the fuel consumption of the train and therefore marginally increase the operating costs.

Secondly, the extra wear and tear on the interior of the train will incur extra maintenance costs.

Thirdly, in at least some cases, overcrowding will result in investments to improve capacity, which incurs a financial cost.

Fourth, depriving someone of income is still the same loss as depriving them of property they then have to replace. If they lose £20 of income, the fincancial loss is the same as losing £20 of personal property which needs to be replaced. It is £20 loss whichever way you look at it.

Fifth, I doubt that the alternative to fare dodging is not travelling in a lot of cases. Many journeys tend to be necessary for one reason or another.

The argument is comparable to the idea that burgling wealthy people is fine because they can easily afford to replace the property with no real hardship, or saying that tax evasion is fine because the government will only go and waste it anyway.

 

[Haywain]

Thirdly, in at least some cases, overcrowding will result in investments to improve capacity, which incurs a financial cost.

If only...!

 

[JamesRowden]

Which is not theft. This is a matter of legal fact. Theft cannot occur without taking something with the intent to permanently deprive.

It isn't OK, but it is not theft.

To tackle it one has to understand what it actually is.

Space on the train, and the extra energy/wear required to propel the train are stollen from the TOC. The space cannot be given back since it is in the past.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Space on the train, and the extra energy/wear required to propel the train are stollen from the TOC.

Failing to pay a train fare is not theft. Theft is taking the property of someone with an intention to permanently deprive them of it.

You cannot steal electricity and you cannot steal something as nebulous as space on a train.

This is why abstraction of electricity and failure to pay the fare due are separate offences.

And I'd agree that TOCs not managing revenue protection properly cause problems. It is infuriating when one pays for a train ticket only to find all the ticket barriers are wide open and there are no on-train checks. It's hard not to feel done when the TOC make precisely zero effort to enforce payment. I always feel like a mug when I've paid £13 for my ticket from Euston to Hemel and half the train clearly haven't. It's not a huge jump from there to "bugger this, if they're not enforcing it and nobody else is paying then I'm not paying". It isn't right, but it is understandable.