Incident I witnessesed yesterday evening

[Antman]

At Maidstone East at approx 19.00 revenue staff were checking tickets of passengers alighting a train from London. One female (who seemed to speak little English) had travelled from Kemsing (where there are no facilities to buy a ticket) without a ticket and was told she would have to pay a £20 penalty fare because she should have found the guard on the train and bought a ticket. A passer by (who claimed to be a 'railway employee') intervened saying that was not the case and called the revenue staff "robbing *******s" and advised the lady to call the police.

I don't what the final outcome was but does anybody know what the rule is in this situation? It seems quite unreasonable to me to expect a passenger to have to walk through a train trying to find the guard and I can't help suspecting that the revenue staff saw this lady as an easy target.

 

[GadgetMan]

I don't what the final outcome was but does anybody know what the rule is in this situation?

You genuinely need that answering after the hundreds of threads that discuss this on a regular basis?

 

[syorksdeano]

Given the advice from the 'railway employee' I'm off to look at previous posts to get a username

 

[455driver]

Given the advice from the 'railway employee' I'm off to look at previous posts to get a username

It wasn't me!

 

[grumblingalong]

Given the advice from the 'railway employee' I'm off to look at previous posts to get a username

Not me, language not colourful enough

 

[gray1404]

This does need to be invistigated by the TOC.

 

[ian959]

This does need to be invistigated by the TOC.

Not really - what is needed are improvements in the NRCOC that clearly set out what steps a passenger is expected to take when boarding at an unstaffed station.

All the TOC need to do in this case, if it is true, is send a reminder to all gate staff and RPIs that a passenger DOES NOT or DOES (as the case may be) have to search out the guard on the train to buy a ticket.

 

[yorkie]

Not really

Yes, really!

what is needed are improvements in the NRCOC that clearly set out what steps a passenger is expected to take when boarding at an unstaffed station.

All the TOC need to do in this case, if it is true, is send a reminder to all gate staff and RPIs that a passenger DOES NOT or DOES (as the case may be) have to search out the guard on the train to buy a ticket.

They most certainly do not. Imagine that on one of the 3x4 car units on a fast Peterborough driver only operated service out of King's Cross in the evening peak (!!!)

I've personally witnessed revenue staff try to incorrectly charge passengers only to be thwarted by off-duty knowledgeable railway staff who knew that the revenue staff were not acting correctly. I wonder how many incorrect charges go undetected...

 

[gray1404]

Not really - what is needed are improvements in the NRCOC that clearly set out what steps a passenger is expected to take when boarding at an unstaffed station.

All the TOC need to do in this case, if it is true, is send a reminder to all gate staff and RPIs that a passenger DOES NOT or DOES (as the case may be) have to search out the guard on the train to buy a ticket.

When a passenger boards at an unmanned station then the guard concerned should come though the train to see if they need a ticket, failing that the customer should buy one at their interchange station (if there is time), on their next train from the guard if possible - again if a ticket check is done - or at their destination station. A passenger DOES NOT need to search out the guard when they board in such circumstances.

If a customer boarding at an unmanned station without a ticket machine is being issued with a PF then is goes against the PF rules and the staff concerned are not acting in line with their training, so YES (a big fat YES) this does need to be looked into by the TOC!

 

[najaB]

If a customer boarding at an unmanned station without a ticket machine is being issued with a PF then is goes against the PF rules and the staff concerned are not acting in line with their training, so YES (a big fat YES) this does need to be looked into by the TOC!

And potentially the DfT as it is a violation of the Penalty Fare rules. Repeated violations can result in the scheme being suspended.

 

[talldave]

At the risk of going slightly off topic, a guard on HS1 recently announced that we'd be liable to a "Penalty Fare Fine" if our tickets/railcards were not all available/in order.

 

[gray1404]

And potentially the DfT as it is a violation of the Penalty Fare rules. Repeated violations can result in the scheme being suspended.

I agree! There are responsibilities on the part of any TOC that they MUST ahere to without any exception if they want to operate a PF scheme.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

At the risk of going slightly off topic, a guard on HS1 recently announced that we'd be liable to a "Penalty Fare Fine" if our tickets/railcards were not all available/in order.

I guess in throey he is correct that a Penalty fare could be issued if a customer could not produce their railcard or indeed their ticket. However, a PF is not a fine. Would the guard even be an Authorised Collector on South Eastern to issue such a PF? Furthermore, I do not believe making threats like that to customers is a good way to build a good relationship between the railway and the customer. I was on a SWT recently from Bournemouth and the guard said over the PA "we've got the RPI and the BTP on board who will be coming though checking tickets." What happened in the end is that there were no such persons on board and he, the guard, simply came though and did a very casual ticket check, which consisted of you flashing your ticket at him. He doing the actual ticket check he was really friendly, not really checking the tickets and happy to see tickets to customers without them.

 

[tony6499]

Unless of course she only claimed to have boarded at Kemsing because she forgot where she actually boarded, apologies to OP if he was travelling with her and witnessed her getting on there

 

[Mr Micawber]

I agree! There are responsibilities on the part of any TOC that they MUST ahere to without any exception if they want to operate a PF scheme.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I guess in throey he is correct that a Penalty fare could be issued if a customer could not produce their railcard or indeed their ticket. However, a PF is not a fine. Would the guard even be an Authorised Collector on South Eastern to issue such a PF? Furthermore, I do not believe making threats like that to customers is a good way to build a good relationship between the railway and the customer. I was on a SWT recently from Bournemouth and the guard said over the PA "we've got the RPI and the BTP on board who will be coming though checking tickets." What happened in the end is that there were no such persons on board and he, the guard, simply came though and did a very casual ticket check, which consisted of you flashing your ticket at him. He doing the actual ticket check he was really friendly, not really checking the tickets and happy to see tickets to customers without them.

Yes, The On Board Managers on HS1 have a Penalty Fare license

 

[Antman]

Unless of course she only claimed to have boarded at Kemsing because she forgot where she actually boarded, apologies to OP if he was travelling with her and witnessed her getting on there

No I didn't see where she got on but if she was going to lie she might as well have claimed to have got on at the previous station Barming

 

[Jonfun]

The lady in question, assuming there are no ticket - or Permit to Travel - selling facilities at the station where she joined the train shouldn't be charged a penalty fare, yet that doesn't give justification for the person, railway staff or not, giving abuse to the Revenue Inspector(s). And to suggest calling the police over such a silly matter is just ridiculous and wastes their time that they could be dealing with things which are actually a crime.

 

[yorkie]

No, abuse shouldn't be dished out, but some people - when they see a ridiculous injustice - will get angry and act accordingly, so it is not entirely surprising.

I'd rather someone stuck up for what was right, despite not using the best choice of language, than let an injustice happen, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Antman]

The lady in question, assuming there are no ticket - or Permit to Travel - selling facilities at the station where she joined the train shouldn't be charged a penalty fare, yet that doesn't give justification for the person, railway staff or not, giving abuse to the Revenue Inspector(s). And to suggest calling the police over such a silly matter is just ridiculous and wastes their time that they could be dealing with things which are actually a crime.

The person called them "robbing b******s" which isn't exactly a compliment but not excessively abusive.

You say yourself that she shouldn't have been issued a penalty fare so who do you call in that situation if not the police?

 

[greatkingrat]

There appears to be a Permit to Travel machine at Kemsing. If it is still there and in working order then the RPIs were correct to issue a penalty fare.

 

[Antman]

There appears to be a Permit to Travel machine at Kemsing. If it is still there and in working order then the RPIs were correct to issue a penalty fare.

I have never noticed one when I have passed through there but even if there is they only accept coins not notes or cards. What if the passenger doesn't have any coinage?

 

[bb21]

I have never noticed one when I have passed through there but even if there is they only accept coins not notes or cards. What if the passenger doesn't have any coinage?

Did she have any coins?

 

[furlong]

What if the passenger doesn't have any coinage?

Then they should not be surprised if they are required to pay a Penalty Fare should they decide to travel.

 

[Antman]

Did she have any coins?

I don't know whether she had coinage or not but there seemed to be no mention of any permit to travel machine, the whole argument seemed to be about whether she should have walked up and down the train looking for the guard
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Then they should not be surprised if they are required to pay a Penalty Fare should they decide to travel.

Why? Surely the train operator would have failed to provide adequate facilities?

 

[yorkie]

Cards are accepted payment methods, for details see payment methods.

Also see Southeastern penaltly fare scheme section 8.5

8.5 Authorised collectors will be given the discretion not to charge a penalty fare and either charge the full single fare in line with National Rail Conditions of Carriage, or charge any relevant discounted fare as appropriate under the circumstances. The instructions will set out clear guidelines for using this discretion, which will be used:

• towards passengers with mobility problems and passengers who are frail, elderly or heavily pregnant, who may not be able to get to the ticket office easily at the station where they got on the train, or stand in a queue
• towards passengers who are not aware of the scheme because they are blind or partially sighted, are a foreign visitor who lives abroad, do not speak English very well, or have learning difficulties
• towards passengers who are travelling from stations where the only available ticket facilities is a ‘permit to travel’ machine
• towards passengers travelling from stations where the only available ticket facilities are ticket machines and who claim that the machines were accepting coins only, or the exact fare only and the passenger did not have the necessary coins unless the authorised collector can confirm that the machines are in fact working normally
• towards passengers who are travelling from a station where the authorised collector has been advised of long ticket office queues, or where fewer than normal ticket office windows are open
• towards passengers who are elderly or pregnant travelling in first class accommodation with standard class tickets because no standard class seats are available and permission has been given by the on board staff
• towards all passengers when the train service is severely disrupted

However you look at it, the revenue inspector was incorrect, and the off duty member of rail staff was entirely correct and did the right thing (other than choice of language, but frustration at times is understandable).

 

[furlong]

Why?

That is the law.

Surely the train operator would have failed to provide adequate facilities

The minimum requirement is for a working machine that accepts coins (5p to £1) and issues a deferred fare authority in return (or at least one self-service ticket machine).

However, the SRA in its 2002 Policy did state that it expected Authorised Collectors to exercise discretion towards:

• passengers who are travelling from stations where the only ticket facilities available are ticket machines or a ‘permit to travel’ machine, and who have enough money (or a credit or debit card) to buy a ticket but not in the form needed to use the ticket or ‘permit to travel’ machine;
  
• passengers who are travelling from stations where the only ticket facilities available are ticket machines and who claim that the machines were accepting coins only, or the exact fare only, and the passenger did not have the necessary coins (unless the authorised collector can confirm that the machines were in fact working normally);

 

[CheesyChips]

I'd rather someone stuck up for what was right, despite not using the best choice of language, than let an injustice happen, wouldn't you agree?

Absolutely, if everybody kept being good boys and girls we wouldn't have a lot of the human rights we have today. George Orwell comes to mind. (Apologies for the philosophy!)

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Then they should not be surprised if they are required to pay a Penalty Fare should they decide to travel.

Disagree

If the TOC cannot provide adequate ticketing facilities then the lady should not be charged a PF.

The RPI should have shown discretion and charged the lady the appropriate single fare

 

[Antman]

Disagree

If the TOC cannot provide adequate ticketing facilities then the lady should not be charged a PF.

The RPI should have shown discretion and charged the lady the appropriate single fare

Absolutely, surely TOC's should be required to provide either a ticket office or a machine that accepts cash (notes and coins) and card payments or they have no grounds for complaint about people not buying a ticket before travel.

 

[ian959]

When a passenger boards at an unmanned station then the guard concerned should come though the train to see if they need a ticket, failing that the customer should buy one at their interchange station (if there is time), on their next train from the guard if possible - again if a ticket check is done - or at their destination station. A passenger DOES NOT need to search out the guard when they board in such circumstances.

If a customer boarding at an unmanned station without a ticket machine is being issued with a PF then is goes against the PF rules and the staff concerned are not acting in line with their training, so YES (a big fat YES) this does need to be looked into by the TOC!

Read what I said - but to make it clear to those who have comprehension issues, to remove any doubt the NRCOC needs to be updated to STATE CLEARLY what the passenger is expected to do - that is either INCLUDE or EXCLUDE the need to seek out the guard. That then removes ANY doubt and that makes it CLEAR to RPIs what is expected of a passenger boarding at an unmanned station.

 

[gray1404]

Read what I said - but to make it clear to those who have comprehension issues, to remove any doubt the NRCOC needs to be updated to STATE CLEARLY what the passenger is expected to do - that is either INCLUDE or EXCLUDE the need to seek out the guard. That then removes ANY doubt and that makes it CLEAR to RPIs what is expected of a passenger boarding at an unmanned station.

I disgree that the NRCoC needs updating in this regard. There is a danger that if it was updated then additional duties could be unreasonably placed on the passenger and this would be unfair. It would be all too easy to include a statement placing the onus on the customer to walk through a train to find the guard. This would be unfair. As the current NRCoC do not state that such an action is required then it means that any claims by an RPI that the customer should have done this is already unfounded and without any basis. It is already clear in the current documentation that the customer does not have a duty to do this.