Not really. Honest passengers buy tickets when they can. Dishonest travellers buy tickets when they have to.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
How genuine mistakes can become much more serious
- Thread starter Parham Wood
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I have no problem with importing foreign ideas. I can think of several countries which have vastly, vastly superior rail/mass transit systems than we do. That doesn't mean you can disregard the intricacies of the UK rail system.
Are we assuming that ATOC are responsible for the administration? There would obviously still be an admin burden for the TOC's although possibly no greater than that which exists already for fines/penalties/prosecutions, albeit I imagine some tweaks would be needed, even if only to standardise information. There would obviously be some parting of ways with existing firms to whom TOC's outsource the penalty work. I don't know how those contacts work, do private firms have some kind of incentive to put a decent amount of work into tracking someone down? If so, would ATOC have that same motivation?
Previously it was suggested that pax would be let off their first offence, and then let off their first offence outside their 'home area'. I really don't see how that would work - how would you define 'home area' and how would you prove 'not home area'? Could someone have multiple 'home areas'? Would they be let off their first offence outside their 'home area' even if it was a 'national' offence, if you like? For example a railcard ticket without a railcard, or an advance ticket being used on something other than the booked train? Or would they only be let off on offences that have some 'local' element, such as boarding without a ticket despite facilities existing? Would that be OK if the tvm was only on one platform? Or any station they could claim to be unfamiliar with, even if it was, say, Leeds? I can't see how you could put resources into covering all this stuff while still keeping the penalty low enough.
If you have a central entity to issue penalties in a country with a franchised rail network is their potential for people to feel unfairly treated by RPI's in more, um, enthusiastic areas vs areas with slightly more forgiving (or even far fewer by volume) RPI's? This wouldn't be an issue in a country with a central penalty issuing body plus a nationalised rail network I suppose.
Just some thoughts.
Are we assuming that ATOC are responsible for the administration? There would obviously still be an admin burden for the TOC's although possibly no greater than that which exists already for fines/penalties/prosecutions, albeit I imagine some tweaks would be needed, even if only to standardise information. There would obviously be some parting of ways with existing firms to whom TOC's outsource the penalty work. I don't know how those contacts work, do private firms have some kind of incentive to put a decent amount of work into tracking someone down? If so, would ATOC have that same motivation?
Previously it was suggested that pax would be let off their first offence, and then let off their first offence outside their 'home area'. I really don't see how that would work - how would you define 'home area' and how would you prove 'not home area'? Could someone have multiple 'home areas'? Would they be let off their first offence outside their 'home area' even if it was a 'national' offence, if you like? For example a railcard ticket without a railcard, or an advance ticket being used on something other than the booked train? Or would they only be let off on offences that have some 'local' element, such as boarding without a ticket despite facilities existing? Would that be OK if the tvm was only on one platform? Or any station they could claim to be unfamiliar with, even if it was, say, Leeds? I can't see how you could put resources into covering all this stuff while still keeping the penalty low enough.
If you have a central entity to issue penalties in a country with a franchised rail network is their potential for people to feel unfairly treated by RPI's in more, um, enthusiastic areas vs areas with slightly more forgiving (or even far fewer by volume) RPI's? This wouldn't be an issue in a country with a central penalty issuing body plus a nationalised rail network I suppose.
Just some thoughts.
No, no it doesn't. Once again, members of this forum will be well aware of the 'usual caveats' and as such there is no need to repeatedly write them out every single time this discussion comes around.
the same as not writing out 'A PF is not a fine' everytime to regular users - we know.
Puffing Devil
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Apr 2013
- Messages
- 2,771
Do you write Daily Mail leaders for a living, or is Xenophobia just a hobby?
(Unless, of course, your reference to Johnny Foreigner is such deep irony that I failed to spot it)
Is calling someone Johnny foreigner any worse than me calling a mackem a mackem?
Im not sure why you have got such offence from it
Me neither, seems its just another chance to have a cheap shot at the Daily Mail:roll:
Puffing Devil
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Apr 2013
- Messages
- 2,771
The reference to Johnny Foreigner was the icing on the cake of a very jingoistic post. That's how it appeared to me - you clearly have different views.
Do we?
noun: fine; plural noun: fines
a sum of money exacted as a penalty by a court of law or other authority.
"a parking fine"
synonyms: financial penalty, punishment, forfeit, forfeiture, sanction, punitive action, penalty, fee, charge, penance; damages;
verb
verb: fine; 3rd person present: fines; past tense: fined; past participle: fined; gerund or present participle: fining
1.
punish (someone) for an illegal or illicit act by making them pay a sum of money.
"she was fined £1500 for driving offences"
synonyms: penalize, punish by fining, impose a fine on, exact a penalty from, charge;
noun: penalty; plural noun: penalties
a punishment imposed for breaking a law, rule, or contract.
"the charge carries a maximum penalty of ten years' imprisonment"
synonyms: punishment, sanction, punitive action, retribution, penance;
fine, forfeit, sentence;
Uhm, point?
Sorry missed that bit but fine and penalty are synonymous and have more or less the same dictionary definition. It might not be the intention of a penalty fare to be a fine but given the common usage of the words fine and penalty the meaning isn't clear to the "recipient".
NB I agree with the concept.
Oh dear, not the "you mustn't say a Penalty Fare is not a fine" argument again 
The view of the Train Companies is, as Chiltern say:
I see no harm in empathising with someone in such a position but also explaining the rail industry's slightly different view on the matter, and the fact that actually it can be worse if the Penalty Fare is not paid (or could have been worse if an accusation of dodging was made).
If people are fed up of reading that, then they may prefer to choose not to read the D&P section.
Simply stating "it's not a fine" on it's own is, obviously, not very helpful and if people are being unhelpful in this section of the forum then we do ask people report that to us. It's been a long time since such a report was made, so I don't think there is currently a problem in that regard. If there ever is, report it.
The view of the Train Companies is, as Chiltern say:
We do get many people feeling - often justifiably - unhappy that they have been given what they perceive to be a fine, and what they perceive to be the harshest possible outcome for a ticketing irregularity.
I see no harm in empathising with someone in such a position but also explaining the rail industry's slightly different view on the matter, and the fact that actually it can be worse if the Penalty Fare is not paid (or could have been worse if an accusation of dodging was made).
If people are fed up of reading that, then they may prefer to choose not to read the D&P section.
Simply stating "it's not a fine" on it's own is, obviously, not very helpful and if people are being unhelpful in this section of the forum then we do ask people report that to us. It's been a long time since such a report was made, so I don't think there is currently a problem in that regard. If there ever is, report it.
cjmillsnun
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 3,254
As far as data protection laws go, it's absolutely fine. As long as it satisfies the data protection principles.
The only one that I can see could be argued as not falling within the principles is
kept for no longer than is absolutely necessary.
As long as the data controller is ATOC or similar then it shouldn't be a problem - my main concern was the sharing of data between TOCs.
cjmillsnun
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 3,254
Forget the dictionary definition. The LEGAL definition is important.
A penalty fare means you have not been convicted of an offence. The same with a discretionary settlement.
A fine (with the exception of a parking or bus lane offence) is imposed by a court on conviction.
Sorry, the dictionary definition is what matters when someone is being told their error is costing them significantly more than they might have thought. That is what will drive their emotional response, not the finer points of legal procedure.
cjmillsnun
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 3,254
Well then they should read the posters that clearly state what might happen and buy the correct ticket before travelling
They should, I agree. But those who pontificate about the finer points of definitions should consider how the messages will be understood by those hearing them.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
I disagree.
A penalty and a fine are often seen as synonyms. That isn't the strict legal definition, but that is how people will generally see it. Look how many people end up in this forum saying they got a "fine" off the man on the train.
If it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck...
I do seriously wonder whether a change in terminology would be helpful here. Heathrow Express don't charge a Penalty Fare, they have a standard fare and give you a 25% discount on that if you buy before boarding. The complexity of the ticketing system elsewhere makes it harder to be quite so simple on the wider network, but I do wonder if an "on board surcharge", or even a "ticket office discount", wouldn't help change opinions a little.
There's something about "penalty fare" that sounds like you're being told off by the Headmaster for being a naughty little schoolboy, and that surely causes more aggro than it solves.
I agree that, in the moment, they feel the same, but there's no escaping the reality that, in the long term, the results are quite different.
Also, I agree with your suggestion to change the terminology, but I don't know how much that will change the emotional response.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
I don't think it'd be a magic bullet, but the issue with Penalty Fare is that you're getting the naughty schoolboy wrist-slapping on top of the financial hit.
There are pros and cons. I can see some people walking past ticket offices if they have the money or they're on expenses, "I'll just pay the surcharge", but on the other hand most people respond better to carrots than sticks. If you get a discount for buying before boarding, that has a different feel to it, and that's the way Heathrow Express market it.
I'm sure that fairly recently, outside of penalty fare areas, you used to be able to buy a full-fare ticket on board even if there were facilities beforehand. People still complain though, because they've been conditioned to think that £180 one way is not a "standard fare" for a 180 mile journey from London to Manchester.
The NRCoC still makes it clear that is an option, the TOC doesn't have to proceed with a prosecution if they believe it was an honest mistake. That's what Unpaid Fare Notices are all about.
Oh dear, not the "you mustn't say a Penalty Fare is not a fine" argument again
The view of the Train Companies is, as Chiltern say:
We do get many people feeling - often justifiably - unhappy that they have been given what they perceive to be a fine, and what they perceive to be the harshest possible outcome for a ticketing irregularity.
I see no harm in empathising with someone in such a position but also explaining the rail industry's slightly different view on the matter, and the fact that actually it can be worse if the Penalty Fare is not paid (or could have been worse if an accusation of dodging was made).
If people are fed up of reading that, then they may prefer to choose not to read the D&P section.
Simply stating "it's not a fine" on it's own is, obviously, not very helpful and if people are being unhelpful in this section of the forum then we do ask people report that to us. It's been a long time since such a report was made, so I don't think there is currently a problem in that regard. If there ever is, report it.
I was making the point with reference to regular posters not to the new ones coming here to look for assistance who of course need to be informed as such.
However the flexibility of being able to legally board a train and be able to guarantee to pay the standard fare, rather than miss the train queuing at a ticket office for 10 minutes.
May be that the coc never said that, however it was always advertised like that on long distance trains.
That's the issue - if you make it a guaranteed right then the 'pay when challenged' brigade will be out in force.
cjmillsnun
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 3,254
And we come back to Corbyn vs Saunders.
The labour leader and the democratic president wannabe
? Oh how fun it could be in 2020. I believe that case was about someone passing a note saying "I'll pay if you ask me", rather than seeking out the guard. If you're on a 2 hour journey and the guard doesn't do a ticket check, I have very little sympathy with the TOC. I've attempted the buy-on-board twice on long distances in recent times, in both cases I found the guard before boarding. The Virgin time he said "Oh no, I'll have to charge you full fare". I said fine, I'd been away from home for 2 weeks and thanks to a tedious overrunning meeting I got to the station about 2 minutes before the train was leaving, no way I was waiting an extra hour and missing seeing the kids before bed.
The other time I was at Paddington, again only a couple of minutes to go having arrived off the HEX and seeing the queues for the ticket machines, so I asked if I could buy on board. He said no, which I find a rather sad state of affair. Ended up having lunch in the on-platform pub and waiting 2 hours.
Some of us are quite happy to sometimes pay more for the convienience of buying on board and thus saving hours, it's a shame it's not an option.
What was he supposed to sell you - an Advance?
It's not always an option, but often it is. I've seen people buy on board (and done so myself) on long distance services.
I suspect he thought I'd be after an off-peak ticket.
Not something you can rely on though, more akin to an airline, where you have to turn up 10 minutes early to buy or change a ticket
If you're boarding without a ticket you break the byelaws, which I believe is a criminal offence, not a good thing to do.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ah, the long-standing question of what the 'appropriate' ticket should be. I agree that an off-peak ticket is the correct one to sell if it valid on that service. And that's exactly what I've been sold.
Yes, it is a breach of the byelaws and so isn't advisable. However, here's a secret: it's quicker and easier for a guard to sell a ticket than to report you for potential prosecution. So in all likelihood, if you have the right attitude, they'll do just that.
- Status