How do TfL inspectors decide if they should seek prosecution or a penalty fare?

[rockythunder]

Hello, I have been watching Fare Dodgers At War with the Law on Channel 5 and seen that sometimes a person without a ticket/oyster card has their details taken for prosecution and other times a penalty fare was issued. There doesn't seem to be any consistency in the approach taken by the inspectors and I was wondering how they decide on the spot what course of action to take. Many thanks.

 

[adamskiodp]

I have no idea but probably depends on if they pass the ‘Attitude Test’

 

[VauxhallandI]

I have no idea but probably depends on if they pass the ‘Attitude Test’

The inspectors or the travellers?

 

[221129]

The inspectors or the travellers?

Passengers. If they start giving attitude it's generally a sure fire way to be reported for prosecution then if they cooperate.

 

[Mojo]

It is largely down to the discretion of the Revenue Inspector which line that they take.

TfL RPIs only work on London buses, and on there it is usually the case that a Penalty fare is issued in the first instance, and if, upon checking, they have already have a Penalty fare issued on a previous occasion, details taken for prosecution.

London Underground Revenue Control Inspectors will usually take details for prosecution only where they believe there is some sort of intent (ie. the person deliberately intended to make a journey without paying the full fare).

The exception being for both TfL and LU, that misuse of high value passes such as staff passes and freedom passes, as well as counterfeit tickets, details would usually always be taken for prosecution.

 

[Sweetjesus]

It is largely down to the discretion of the Revenue Inspector which line that they take.

TfL RPIs only work on London buses, and on there it is usually the case that a Penalty fare is issued in the first instance, and if, upon checking, they have already have a Penalty fare issued on a previous occasion, details taken for prosecution.

London Underground Revenue Control Inspectors will usually take details for prosecution only where they believe there is some sort of intent (ie. the person deliberately intended to make a journey without paying the full fare).

The exception being for both TfL and LU, that misuse of high value passes such as staff passes and freedom passes, as well as counterfeit tickets, details would usually always be taken for prosecution.

Can I clarify that the same discretion is also given to non-TfL inspectors in other TOCs? If so, how does a TOC prevent bias in their decision whether to give people a Penalty Fare or go straight to prosecution?

 

[Haywain]

Can I clarify that the same discretion is also given to non-TfL inspectors in other TOCs? If so, how does a TOC prevent bias in their decision whether to give people a Penalty Fare or go straight to prosecution?

Whether given or not discretion is exercised regularly by revenue staff across the country.

 

[LMS 4F]

No different to Civil Police. It all depends on the officer what action they take and in minor matters then the attitude of the offender is often the deciding factor. If caught for a simple offence, driving or not, my advice would be to agree and say little in reply. Most of those locked up for such matters have brought it upon themselves and of course some regulars never seem to learn.

 

[najaB]

Whether given or not discretion is exercised regularly by revenue staff across the country.

Indeed. I've twice been given the benefit of the doubt when I couldn't show my ticket (had the reservation in one case, but couldn't find the ticket), and also have been allowed to travel when technically I should not (either off route or slightly outside the ticket restrictions). And I particularly remember an incident when the person sitting across the aisle from me couldn't find her ticket - the guard could very easily have charged for a new ticket or reported her, but instead several times told her to keep looking in her bag (even after she had decided that she'd lost it) and sure enough, after about three or four minutes she found it.

 

[jumble]

Can I clarify that the same discretion is also given to non-TfL inspectors in other TOCs? If so, how does a TOC prevent bias in their decision whether to give people a Penalty Fare or go straight to prosecution?

The TOC cannot prevent bias if their policies are not rigidly defined.
The TOC could monitor the outcomes and ask the RPI to justify their actions especially if complaints are received
I think RPIs very quickly learn how to determine who is genuine and who is a habitual offender.
It is possibly sometimes seen as a waste of time giving a PF to or reporting for prosecution someone who is foreign and claims to be permanently leaving the country or to someone who is seriously mentally ill or someone whose details cannot be verified.

 

[Haywain]

how does a TOC prevent bias in their decision whether to give people a Penalty Fare or go straight to prosecution?

How do you define bias? Is that a different thing to discretion?

 

[cuccir]

The TOC cannot prevent bias if their policies are not rigidly defined.

A policy which allows discretion but does not provide staff a basis on which to use that discretion, or suitable training to exercise that discretion, would be very open to both bias and accustations of systemic bias. Indeed, given that our society does contain multiple systemic biases, frankly I can guarantee you that a discretion-based system without sufficient guidance or training is biased: it's sort of unavoidable, given that RPI are (mainly) humans. I wouldn't like to guess which ways those biases go, but they'd be there.

What we don't have, for various good reasons, is full details of internal policy or training. Maybe the majoirty do include sufficient guidance or training to help avoid baises. However, I'd be surprsied if among every single TOC that it is adequate, particularly (though neither entirely nor exclusivley) where agency staff are used.

 

[Haywain]

A policy which allows discretion but does not provide staff a basis on which to use that discretion, or suitable training to exercise that discretion, would be very open to both bias and accustations of systemic bias. Indeed, given that our society does contain multiple systemic biases, frankly I can guarantee you that a discretion-based system without sufficient guidance or training is biased: it's sort of unavoidable, given that RPI are (mainly) humans. I wouldn't like to guess which ways those biases go, but they'd be there.

What we don't have, for various good reasons, is full details of internal policy or training. Maybe the majoirty do include sufficient guidance or training to help avoid baises. However, I'd be surprsied if among every single TOC that it is adequate, particularly (though neither entirely nor exclusivley) where agency staff are used.

Essentially, you're saying the only way to avoid accusations of bias is not to allow discretion. Because when it comes down to it 'sufficient guidance' means it ceases to be discretion.

 

[6Gman]

How do you define bias? Is that a different thing to discretion?

Bias is when it goes against me; discretion is when it goes in my favour.

 

[Haywain]

Bias is when it goes against me; discretion is when it goes in my favour.

Is the correct answer!! I've been accused of failing to exercise discretion on occasions in the past, usually when the discretion hasn't gone in the accusers favour.

 

[cuccir]

Essentially, you're saying the only way to avoid accusations of bias is not to allow discretion. Because when it comes down to it 'sufficient guidance' means it ceases to be discretion.

....ish. It's possible to imagine discretion within boundaries. On one side of a zone you report from prosecution. On the other side you don't. In the middle, you have discretion: but you have some guidance as to how to apply this discretion, and you have to report when you did and when you didn't.

 

[SteveM70]

Essentially, you're saying the only way to avoid accusations of bias is not to allow discretion. Because when it comes down to it 'sufficient guidance' means it ceases to be discretion.

Can there ever be “sufficient guidance”, or will there always be some set of circumstances that present themselves that don’t neatly fit a scenario used in training?

And even with all the guidance in the world, the application of that guidance isn’t going to be consistent. One man’s “genuine error, no or minimal cost to the railway” Is another’s “deliberate deception”.

I’ve seen it in real life often enough. Back in the bad old days of 2018 when timekeeping on Northern was awful, I’ve been on trains due at stations just before 930 but running half an hour late almost exactly in the path of a later service. Passengers get on with off peak tickets and hey presto, one conductor lets them travel and another charges them because technically its a peak time train

 

[Mr Micawber]

For my TOC, A Penalty Fare could be charged if the passenger, having undertaken a rail journey without a valid ticket for that trip, had sufficient money to pay there and then at least the single fare for their journey.

A report for possible prosecution for fare evasion under the Regulation of the Railways Act, popularly known as an MG11, could be the course of action if the person had travelled with insufficient funds to purchase the correct ticket for their rail journey.

 

[Sweetjesus]

Essentially, you're saying the only way to avoid accusations of bias is not to allow discretion. Because when it comes down to it 'sufficient guidance' means it ceases to be discretion.

....ish. It's possible to imagine discretion within boundaries. On one side of a zone you report from prosecution. On the other side you don't. In the middle, you have discretion: but you have some guidance as to how to apply this discretion, and you have to report when you did and when you didn't.

Discretion with a guidance is still discretion as it is still a guidance that an inspector can decide not to adhere for whatever their reason is. It can reduce the bias but not completely.

The issue is humans have their views & beliefs and they can make bad decisions whether by accident or on purpose - the impact on an affected group can be severe in a long term if these decisions are repeated enough times in a large enough population - which in this case, is true. You cannot realistically expect that a group of thousands inspectors to be completely fair in their decisions in every single scenario - they're not robots after all. This situation is not particularly unique - e.g. the police with stop & search controversy.

I acknowledge that a discretion is often used to let someone off the hook rather than a discretion being used to make a harsher than usual decision, however is it really fair if the one uses their discretion to gives a 80 years old well-dressed woman who has an invalid ticket a penalty fare and then turn around, and report a shabbily clothed youth for prosecution - assuming in this particular scenario that reporting someone for prosecution is the usual decision. This can get complicated very quickly if skin colour, social status, etc etc is factored in.

With the recent events, I do believe this area is something TOCs should investigate as this issue could potentially become an explosive matter if it is discovered that a bias in regards inspectors decision whether to give a penalty fare or go for prosecution does exist.