Hypothetical: details taken but the RPI said everything would be fine

[Fawkes Cat]

Our text today is taken from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...told-me-it-was-just-a-written-warning.224364/

(A ticketing error was made and the person stopped)
I profusely apologised and the worker told me there was a penalty fare of around £40. I asked if I could (resolve the matter there and then) and he said unfortunately not but took me to see his colleague.

I talked to his colleague and she said there would be no penalty fine and she would have to take down a few details and just issue me with a 'written' warning. She did this in a little notebook away from everyone else. I was happy with the outcome since it was a mistake and I 'got out' of a fine.

Until today, when I was issued with a letter claiming I had evaded a fare with a £100 fine. To make it clear, the possibility that there would be further investigation or action on this mistake was never explained to me and I am quite shocked

I've simplified the facts a little so that we can concentrate on a particular point which we've seen a number of times recently: passenger is pulled over for an irregularity, and when taking details they are told (or at least leave the station with the impresssion) that all that happens is that they will get a telling off by post. They then receive a letter kicking off the out of court settlement / prosecution process.

To make sure we give the best advice, a couple of questions:

1) Is it acceptable for the RPI to reassure the passenger that nothing will happen as a result of giving the details when that is not the case?
2) If this inaccurate advice has been given, does that change the passenger's position in responding to the railway/TIL?

For what it's worth, my personal position is (1) 'No' but (2) also 'no'. But I don't feel comfortable with the idea that the railway can essentially lie to a passenger and then seek to pursue them to an out of court settlement or a fine.

 

[baz962]

I guess that it depends on the context of the actual encounter. Would the passenger that posts on a forum like this , actually tell us the whole story. Maybe some customers come across as threatening or physically imposing and the staff member wants to avoid a situation.

 

[najaB]

To make sure we give the best advice, a couple of questions:

1) Is it acceptable for the RPI to reassure the passenger that nothing will happen as a result of giving the details when that is not the case?
2) If this inaccurate advice has been given, does that change the passenger's position in responding to the railway/TIL?

I suspect that RPIs say something comforting like "It's unlikely anything will come of it" but the passenger hears what they want to hear.

 

[island]

I suspect that RPIs say something comforting like "It's unlikely anything will come of it" but the passenger hears what they want to hear.

This, basically.

Other wording includes "it isn't anything serious" or "don't worry, it happens all the time".

 

[Skymonster]

… and maybe sometimes staff just lie to avoid confrontation and pass the buck to someone else.

Case in point, a couple of weeks ago I was on a train and when ticket checked, it became apparent the guy sat opposite side of the aisle from me had an out of date railcard - travelling from an un-barriered station to another un-barriered station with a TOC readers of this forum will know can be fairly heavy-handed about such irregularities.

The guard-come-ticket checker told the guy that had the railcard been only a few days out of date, they would have just charged the difference there and then. But because the railcard was a couple of months out of date, they had no choice to report the batter and would need to take details. Following a bit of to-and-fro the details were provided by the passenger. Asked what’ would happen next, the staff member said “when they get the report they will just write and ask you to pay the additional fare.”

I think most of us know that a somewhat different outcome is somewhat more likely.

 

[John Luxton]

I guess that it depends on the context of the actual encounter. Would the passenger that posts on a forum like this , actually tell us the whole story. Maybe some customers come across as threatening or physically imposing and the staff member wants to avoid a situation.

It might also be that the person is not aggressive but distressed.

Back in 1993 I found myself involved in my first (and hopefully only) RTC after 11 years of driving.

I was taking children from the school where I worked on a day out to view the Battle of Atlantic commemorative gathering of warships at Birkenhead Docks.

Traffic conditions there was heavy traffic around the docks and I made an error of judgement and passed over the give way line following someone flashing their lights for me to emerge. In doing so the school bus demolished the front end of a Corsa.

I was in a dreadful state of shock, the bus was relatively undamaged and still driveable but I presume the Corsa could have been write off.

The motorbike bobby who turned up to sort things our was very professional but could clearly see I was in quite a state.

I distinctly recall him telling me everything would be fine and at worse after reporting the incident it would be three points on my licence and a fine and I wasn't going to be hanged and there was no need to worry.

In the end I ended up with the 3 points and said farewell to £400!

Interestingly enough in the 30 years following my prang the junction has been re-modelled twice and is now a roundabout which suggests as much as my driving being a bit wanting on the day so was the design of the junction.

But basically the PC just wanted me to pull myself together and put things into perspective over what had happened. I dare same happens with RPIs.

 

[RPI]

The inspector should be handing out a card with details of "what happens next", this is i believe an RDG requirement. Our cards double up as receipts for withdrawing tickets and we're told in no uncertain terms that one of these must be issued if any details are taken* as it contains a link to

a) privacy policy and
b) Revenue protection policy.

The card is clearly titled "Reported for prosecution" then states "What happens next?"

*not in the case of a UFN or PF as the relevant notice has details of this.

 

[Titfield]

I suspect that RPIs say something comforting like "It's unlikely anything will come of it" but the passenger hears what they want to hear.

This, basically.

Other wording includes "it isn't anything serious" or "don't worry, it happens all the time".

Which is precisely why "what happens next" cards should be handed out so the passenger doesnt have to rely upon their recollection of what was said.

 

[RPI]

Which is precisely why "what happens next" cards should be handed out so the passenger doesnt have to rely upon their recollection of what was said.

Which is what I said above

 

[robbeech]

The inspector should be handing out a card with details of "what happens next", this is i believe an RDG requirement.

I fail to believe (Infact I’m happy to suggest it’s utter tripe) that these are handed out with any form of regularity. I’ve personally never seen one handed out, I wasn’t handed one when I was (incorrectly) reported for prosecution when the guard had insufficient knowledge, I’ve never seen or heard about anyone being handed one in threads on here. All this strikes me as one of countless perfect examples that the railway is unregulated and will do as it wishes with no penalty.

 

[RPI]

I fail to believe (Infact I’m happy to suggest it’s utter tripe) that these are handed out with any form of regularity. I’ve personally never seen one handed out, I wasn’t handed one when I was (incorrectly) reported for prosecution when the guard had insufficient knowledge, I’ve never seen or heard about anyone being handed one in threads on here. All this strikes me as one of countless perfect examples that the railway is unregulated and will do as it wishes with no penalty.

I can assure you that everyone in my team hands them out!

 

[WesternLancer]

I can assure you that everyone in my team hands them out!

Do you think that culture will vary TOC by TOC? (you may not wish to state which TOC you work in of course).

 

[Deafdoggie]

I can assure you that everyone in my team hands them out!

Is it just RPIs who can report fur prosecution? If a guard did a report, would they have one of these cards?

 

[Watershed]

Is it just RPIs who can report fur prosecution? If a guard did a report, would they have one of these cards?

I'd wager that revenue guards can report for prosecution at every TOCs.

In fact, in some way, it may be more likely than if you were encountering an RPI - because it'll often be their only alternative if they aren't happy disposing of an irregularity by selling a ticket. Most guards are not trained or authorised to issue Penalty Fares.

 

[221129]

I'd wager that revenue guards can report for prosecution at every TOCs.

Very few (if any) TOCs allow this. Some TOCs allow Guards to issue a Travel Irregularity Report but that's not the same thing.

 

[Watershed]

Very few (if any) TOCs allow this. Some TOCs allow Guards to issue a Travel Irregularity Report but that's not the same thing.

That's what I was alluding to; TIRs frequently result in prosecutions or out of Court settlements (achieved by threatening prosecution).

 

[Haywain]

That's what I was alluding to; TIRs frequently result in prosecutions or out of Court settlements (achieved by threatening prosecution).

Do they? What evidence do you have for this claim?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do they? What evidence do you have for this claim?

There are plenty of old threads on here where a TIR rather than an MG11 led to things being passed (typically) to Transport Investigation Ltd and a settlement pushed.

 

[najaB]

Do they? What evidence do you have for this claim?

This very sub-forum.

 

[RPI]

GWR guards can issue UFN's or complete a TIR, if completing a TIR then a receipt and Zero-fare should be issued.

TIR's often get upgraded to an MG11, its a bit of a faff but possible and is done.

 

[Haywain]

There are plenty of old threads on here where a TIR rather than an MG11 led to things being passed (typically) to Transport Investigation Ltd and a settlement pushed.

This very sub-forum.

Fair enough. I can't recall seeing any but I'll take your word for it.

 

[Sm5]

deleted

 

[najaB]

At a minimum, the passenger should be offered the chance to immediately resolve the issue by paying the correct fare

Three words: pay when challenged.

 

[robbeech]

Three words: pay when challenged.

Indeed. This passenger behaviour is bad enough as it is without encouraging more of this.

However the railway are the biggest hypocrites going when it comes to this. They’ll reject a valid delay repay claim and only pay when challenged, sometimes kicking and screaming.

 

[RPI]

imo.. as a general nobody… reading these threads with interest for several weeks…

I think train companies are abusing the law for profitable purposes.
It almost reads to me there is a business within a business operating here in the penalty fares revenue generation.
That either the law should change or the process should.

lets look at a different angle..

You enter a car park.
Displayed is the t&cs.
You dont pay and display.
You get a ticket, with a fine, and a deadline, with a dispute process

Your options:
(1) pay up, (2) dispute or (3) ignore.
The outcomes:
(1) closes the matter, (2) Dispute has a process, (3) Ignore has a bad outcome.

its a similar story for not paying your utility/credit card bills etc.

whats missing, reading these threads is the immediate jump to (2) and threats of pending prosecution.
That this is disproportionate to reasonable behaviour, and counter to the messaging by RPIs, which is suggesting reasonable behaviour to the dispute.

imo That approach is misleading at minimum, fraudulent in its own right at worst. its coaxing victims into the execution, and ignoring alternatives.

The other aspect, that by engaging with RPIs honestly, and customers providing details, they are by their own actions demonstrating acting honestly at the time of capture, even if they were wrong prior. This does not seem to be taken into account, reading these many disputes.

imo…

Most people are generally innocent, and should be given the option to rectify a mistake, with an admin fee as a deterrent applied, maybe even a multiplier on repeat offenders. It should even be automated, rather than manual at the first line where possible.

a. At a minimum, the passenger should be offered the chance to immediately resolve the issue by paying the correct fare. (1) above.
b. Failure to do should, should be acknowledged by the passenger (lets say be signature or videoed action (ie walking away etc) that they are going towards (2) and (3).

I also think (1) above should be either immediate or within 24 hours, as with things like the Congestion charge etc., even parking tickets give you 14 days.

I suspect the immediate jump to (2) is the mini- industry this has created and supports and wouldnt be aggressively adopted if it weren't profitable.

Even London Underground has option (1) automated if you dont tap in/out correctly, with a mechanism to dispute it (2), and it would seem to be lucrative for them I dont doubt.

It reminds me of those wheel clamping companies a decade or so back, that clamped up and held people hostage to extreme fees or legal action. That behaviour was legislated and resulted in the more reasonable approach today.

it would concern me greatly in the future, if there is industry collusion by ticketing retailers working with tocs.. if that were the case, in my mind that would introduce a conflict of interest, because working together it incentivises a regime that encourages the entrapping of the customer at point of sale as it increases the ROI of revenue protection software provided by the those companies to tocs... thats no different behaviour than recruiting drugs mules and shopping them to protect other smuggling channels whilst allowing authorities to claim victories.

I hope revenue inspectors are not bonused on incidents raised, if they are it might be morally better to bonus on incidents raised, and immediately resolved, afterall its supposed to be Revenue Protection, not Revenue Investigation.

One thing I dont see anywhere in any of these threads is reference to the original process that was reinfocred by the legal process..

Rail Penalty Fare value reform

www.gov.uk

if tocs are moving their rules, the law should adjust its position to.

Final question (i dont know the answer ), but if you buy a ticket, who gets the money ? If you get into dispute resolution who gets that money ?

just my thoughts as a random oik reading this.

Quite a lot to pick through, I've picked out in bold one particular point... this is exactly what the Train companies are doing, they charge an admin fee rather than drag the person through court, it ultimately benefits both sides.

The suggestion that most are innocent is rather naive I'm afraid, if they were innocent then they wouldn't be in the situation, yes there are some members of Revenue staff who are better than others, yes there are some bad ones, the same is also true that some passengers do sometimes inadvertently fall foul of the system by a technicality but there are a hell of a lot of chancers out there, some wear suits, some wear tracksuits and so on.

As for the industry within an industry, I'm not quite sure thats true, dont forget, nearly all revenue from nearly all TOC'S goes straight to the government now, the DfT are showing a very keen interest to Revenue protection on the railways but as individual train operators there isn't really a huge incentive to actually collect revenue other than the morality of dealing with people who try to avoid their fare.

I've been an RPI for a long time and people quite often say things like "you must get loads of grief" etc etc but thats not true, the vast majority of people I encounter on a daily basis show me a valid ticket and I scan/stamp it and walk on, or they ask me a question about connections/catering/where to catch their bus/taxi numbers etc.
A fair majority of people that I have to engage with about the validity of their ticket are also fine, generally there's an acceptance that something isn't right and the passenger will accept what action is taken, again a lot of people who I issue a Penalty Fare to will actually thank me, when this happens I feel that I've done my job to the best of my ability, I will always try and help people avoid future interactions by advising them of season tickets/railcards/mobile ticketing apps etc because its important that they aren't put off travelling by train in the future.

As for bonus etc, absolutely not, at the TOC I work for we merely get left to go where we think the problem areas may be, as long as we're put and about being visible and working thats all that matters.

Then there's the small percentage that there's just no helping, they're either habitual fare evaders and will never change or some who just can't accept that they've been caught out, these generally are the ones who end up kicking off.

Its interesting to think that the number of people who post on here their troubled experiences is probably two a week at most, yet I alone probably deal with five passengers per day if it were averaged out and thats just me, I'm pretty lenient too!