Is it better to accept a Penalty Fare rather risk failing the attitude test?

[Feuillesmortes]

Penalty Fares shouldn't be charged for travelling at "peak" time on an "off peak" ticket and the fact that Penalty Fares are being issued under these circumstances demonstrates what a sham Penalty Fares are.

If you know you're in the right, should you stand your ground and explain why the staff member is in the wrong, even if you get threatened with something more than a penalty fare?

Then she threatened “gona take this further now write up a more serious offence”

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would say take the PF. It is easier to appeal, and if you do they are statute barred from prosecuting, so you can just say "so sue me then" if sure you are in the right.

 

[XAM2175]

Yes, the bar on prosecution after paying a Penalty Fare is very much worth it.

 

[Watershed]

Yes, the bar on prosecution after paying a Penalty Fare is very much worth it.

There is no statutory bar on prosecution after paying. There is, however, a bar after appealling.

 

[XAM2175]

There is no statutory bar on prosecution after paying. There is, however, a bar after appealling.

Apologies, that's what I meant to say

 

[John Palmer]

I find it repellent that the outcome of an interaction with a railway official may depend whether I fail his attitude test, because it casts me as the subservient participant in a power relationship in which the other participant may derive some perverse satisfaction from the authority he is able to wield.

So I would be disposed to apply my own attitude test in any such interaction. The instant the official fails it, my response is likely to be along the following lines: “I have nothing further to say to you about this matter now. If you wish to pursue it further, my name and address are as follows:”

This has a twofold purpose:

1. to minimise the exercise of authority from which I suspect the official is obtaining some satisfaction; and
2. to minimise the official's opportunity to invent damaging verbals.
   

It's then up to the official whether a penalty fare is issued, I am reported for prosecution or no further action is taken. If I know I am in the right then the first two hold no terrors for me other than the possibility of a perverse finding being made by any subsequent adjudicator of my case. I have no control either of that risk or of being accosted by an official on a power trip in the first place. From time to time life throws up an unpleasant individual with whom you have to deal. If the opportunity presents itself, I will repay.

 

[Julia1985]

I find it repellent that the outcome of an interaction with a railway official may depend whether I fail his attitude test, because it casts me as the subservient participant in a power relationship in which the other participant may derive some perverse satisfaction from the authority he is able to wield.

So I would be disposed to apply my own attitude test in any such interaction. The instant the official fails it, my response is likely to be along the following lines: “I have nothing further to say to you about this matter now. If you wish to pursue it further, my name and address are as follows:”

This has a twofold purpose:

1. to minimise the exercise of authority from which I suspect the official is obtaining some satisfaction; and
2. to minimise the official's opportunity to invent damaging verbals.
   

It's then up to the official whether a penalty fare is issued, I am reported for prosecution or no further action is taken. If I know I am in the right then the first two hold no terrors for me other than the possibility of a perverse finding being made by any subsequent adjudicator of my case. I have no control either of that risk or of being accosted by an official on a power trip in the first place. From time to time life throws up an unpleasant individual with whom you have to deal. If the opportunity presents itself, I will repay.

Yep, you'd fail it based upon that

 

[DelayRepay]

I think you can challenge a member of staff's assertion that your ticket isn't valid, whilst still being polite and reasonable. I thought the "attitude test" referred to people who were rude or failed to engage.

If I was in the position where I could not reach agreement with a member of staff that my ticket was valid, I would accept a Penalty Fare. I would then have the inconvenience of an appeal, which may not be successful, but overall I think it would be less hassle, and less expensive than dealing with the threat of prosecution. This is not an ideal situation but I am coming from it from the point of view of which is less likely to do me harm.

 

[John Palmer]

Yep, you'd fail it based upon that

If that's representative of the staff attitude I'm likely to encounter then you make my case for me admirably.

 

[Deafdoggie]

If that's representative of the staff attitude I'm likely to encounter then you make my case for me admirably.

Agreed

 

[philthetube]

Accept it then immediately appeal

 

[Hadders]

Personally I would accept the Penalty Fare and appeal it. The danger of not doing so is that a company like Transport Investigations gets involved and while the problem would end up getting sorted out eventually it'd be far more hassle and stress.

 

[nanstallon]

Yep, you'd fail it based upon that

The tail really does wag the dog these days.

 

[185143]

I think you can challenge a member of staff's assertion that your ticket isn't valid, whilst still being polite and reasonable. I thought the "attitude test" referred to people who were rude or failed to engage.

If I was in the position where I could not reach agreement with a member of staff that my ticket was valid, I would accept a Penalty Fare. I would then have the inconvenience of an appeal, which may not be successful, but overall I think it would be less hassle, and less expensive than dealing with the threat of prosecution. This is not an ideal situation but I am coming from it from the point of view of which is less likely to do me harm.

Indeed! I've done it several times, and never once had a Penalty Fare or my details taken.

Keep it civil and respectful and you'll be far less likely to have issues. Rights and wrongs of the concept of "The Attitude Test" firmly to one side for a second, look at it from the perspective of the staff member. You have two people with tickets you're confident, for whatever reason, are invalid. One person says something along the lines of "No, sorry, you're mistaken because of X" and explains why they believe their ticket to be valid. The other immediately gets argumentative, kicks off and makes a scene. Who's "argument" is more likely to be listened to?

That said, it is sometimes best to just comply if you are doing something dodgy. Someone on here told me a tale once of using a loophole ticket (which will remain nameless). Showed it to a conductor, who challenged it. Conductor said something along the lines of "you've got until the next stop to convince me it's valid, or leave the train and we'll say no more of it."

 

[Bletchleyite]

Keep it civil and respectful and you'll be far less likely to have issues. Rights and wrongs of the concept of "The Attitude Test" firmly to one side for a second, look at it from the perspective of the staff member. You have two people with tickets you're confident, for whatever reason, are invalid. One person says something along the lines of "No, sorry, you're mistaken because of X" and explains why they believe their ticket to be valid. The other immediately gets argumentative, kicks off and makes a scene. Who's "argument" is more likely to be listened to?

One of the problems is that an autistic person is likely to be quite "pointed" and potentially panic/have a meltdown, while someone with learning difficulties may come across as quite blunt. Thus the "attitude test" may actually be illegal.

That said, it is sometimes best to just comply if you are doing something dodgy. Someone on here told me a tale once of using a loophole ticket (which will remain nameless). Showed it to a conductor, who challenged it. Conductor said something along the lines of "you've got until the next stop to convince me it's valid, or leave the train and we'll say no more of it."

"Loophole" tickets are valid and should be accepted, though if staff think they're wrong they should be reported for correction. Break of journey restrictions on Avanti tickets north of Preston are one example of a "fix".

 

[John Palmer]

One of the problems is that an autistic person is likely to be quite "pointed" and potentially panic/have a meltdown, while someone with learning difficulties may come across as quite blunt. Thus the "attitude test" may actually be illegal.

I agree.

Problem is, "No, sorry, you're mistaken because of X" immediately establishes that the passenger's view is at odds with that of the staff member, and the opportunity for confrontation has been created. My strategy of making it clear that I'm not going to engage in an altercation in the carriage but am willing to deal with the issue in correspondence can, on the evidence of this thread, amount to a failure of the attitude test, so it's not hard to imagine “No, you're mistaken” being treated as a bugle call for BTP to be summoned. Any debate in the carriage about a ticket's validity can all too easily degenerate into a confrontation, so why run that risk? Adopting my strategy, one party's view is ultimately going to prevail over the other's, be it through correspondence, legal proceedings, or the railway deciding to drop the matter, but the outcome won't have been complicated by a set-to between me and an over-sensitive official on the train.

 

[STINT47]

The question of passing the attitude test depends on what each member of staff considers it to be.

If passing means being polite, calm and having a sensible two way conversation then I would pass. If it means agreeing with everything a staff member says and requests then I'd fail.

As an example if a staff member wanted me to accept that my ticket wasn't valid (such as when I used a rover that they said wasn't valid on that line but I knew that it was) then I wouldn't blindly accept or agree with them. I also wouldn't always do everything they ask such as giving my national insurance number or date of birth.

Ultimately I would always be calm and polite and try to discuss the situation but if the staff member is wrong or being overzealous then I would either take the penalty fare if applicable or provide my name and address then leave. It is ultimately down to them to prove your guilt so there's no point giving more info to staff who are being unreasonable.

 

[greyman42]

If passing means being polite, calm and having a sensible two way conversation then I would pass. If it means agreeing with everything a staff member says and requests then I'd fail.

I agree. For example; I travel regularly between York and Moorgate (via The Underground) using a London terminals ticket which is valid. I have been refused exit at Moorgate on numerous occasions but have always refused to pay any sort of penalty fare and have always been proved correct in the end. If that is failing the attitude test then good on me for doing so. Thankfully this has not happened recently so training could of been improved.

 

[philthetube]

I think the best first response is to ask if you can explain why you think this ticket is ok, if they don't listen then accept it and appeal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree. For example; I travel regularly between York and Moorgate (via The Underground) using a London terminals ticket which is valid. I have been refused exit at Moorgate on numerous occasions but have always refused to pay any sort of penalty fare and have always been proved correct in the end. If that is failing the attitude test then good on me for doing so. Thankfully this has not happened recently so training could of been improved.

TfL are utterly clueless about what's valid on their services. If it doesn't have a Maltese cross or Travelcard written on it, get lost!

As another example, it used to be the case ages ago that First Class Caledonian Sleeper tickets included a Zone 1 single, but the ticket itself didn't include the Maltese cross. I was refused at Euston. Having time I went to Euston booking office who confirmed it was correct and phoned down to the LU supervisor to tell them that they should accept it - which they refused. In the end they sold me a paper Zone 1 single which I then claimed back from CS.

 

[AdamWW]

I think you can challenge a member of staff's assertion that your ticket isn't valid, whilst still being polite and reasonable. I thought the "attitude test" referred to people who were rude or failed to engage.

You can, but that doesn't help with someone who interprets any kind of challenge to their authority, no matter how polite, as unreasonable.

 

[greyman42]

You can, but that doesn't help with someone who interprets any kind of challenge to their authority, no matter how polite, as unreasonable.

Then it would be the staff member who would have the attitude problem.

 

[AdamWW]

Then it would be the staff member who would have the attitude problem.

It would indeed. But they are the ones in control, reasonable or not.

 

[greyman42]

It would indeed. But they are the ones in control, reasonable or not.

I;m not sure what you mean by "in control". If you are in the right then you are in the right.

 

[AdamWW]

I;m not sure what you mean by "in control". If you are in the right then you are in the right.

Which doesn't stop someone issuing a penalty fare because they think they're right.

Even assuming it can all be sorted out later it's still hassle.

 

[Wolfie]

Yep, you'd fail it based upon that

I have to say that while passengers should always be polite any railway staff member expecting to be grovelled to for doing their job should be dismissed forthwith. Zero exceptions.

Alternatively they should be systematically targeted by civil enforcement officers, HMRC, Border Force etc... Seems fair to me ...

 

[Bluejays]

I agree.

Problem is, "No, sorry, you're mistaken because of X" immediately establishes that the passenger's view is at odds with that of the staff member, and the opportunity for confrontation has been created. My strategy of making it clear that I'm not going to engage in an altercation in the carriage but am willing to deal with the issue in correspondence can, on the evidence of this thread, amount to a failure of the attitude test, so it's not hard to imagine “No, you're mistaken” being treated as a bugle call for BTP to be summoned. Any debate in the carriage about a ticket's validity can all too easily degenerate into a confrontation, so why run that risk? Adopting my strategy, one party's view is ultimately going to prevail over the other's, be it through correspondence, legal proceedings, or the railway deciding to drop the matter, but the outcome won't have been complicated by a set-to between me and an over-sensitive official on the train.

I'm sorry , but how ridiculous. Are you seriously trying to suggest that 'sorry you're mistaken ' would lead to the btp being called.
I only ever call the btp after the 2nd instance of a threat of physical violence, most of my colleagues won't even do that. They'll just walk away. When people mention 'the attitude test' on here it's generally in relation to people who are behaving pretty badly. Does make me laugh mind, one minute us railway staff are lazy and workshy, the next minute we are over officious jobsworth zealots.

If there are railway employees that have a desire/need to see passengers grovelling, then I'd expect these employees to be dealt with by management. There's no place whatsoever for that kind of behaviour in any business, but let's not get carried away and pretend that it's widespread

 

[Wolfie]

I'm sorry , but how ridiculous. Are you seriously trying to suggest that 'sorry you're mistaken ' would lead to the btp being called.
I only ever call the btp after the 2nd instance of a threat of physical violence, most of my colleagues won't even do that. They'll just walk away. When people mention 'the attitude test' on here it's generally in relation to people who are behaving pretty badly. Does make me laugh mind, one minute us railway staff are lazy and workshy, the next minute we are over officious jobsworth zealots.

If there are railway employees that have a desire/need to see passengers grovelling, then I'd expect these employees to be dealt with by management. There's no place whatsoever for that kind of behaviour in any business, but let's not get carried away and pretend that it's widespread

Thank you for reassuring me that most rail staff are reasonable and decent.