Northern to introduce a Penalty fare scheme

[johntea]

In my more sober state I notice a Promise To Pay doesn’t even state your destination, or ticket type...so what’s the point of going through selecting all that?!

 

[Mathew S]

In my more sober state I notice a Promise To Pay doesn’t even state your destination, or ticket type...so what’s the point of going through selecting all that?!

Because it's proof of where you boarded.

 

[Deerfold]

Because it's proof of where you boarded.

That doesn't explain why you have to select a destination and ticket type.

 

[pemma]

That doesn't explain why you have to select a destination and ticket type.

Indeed. Personally I think there should be three types of 'promise to pay.'

1. I want to pay by cash.
2. I have a ticket for only part of my journey or the machine will not sell the type of ticket I require.
3. I tried to pay by card but the transaction failed

In the latter case the destination selected should be printed on ticket, as well as the last four digits of the card inserted to avoid passengers inserting a card with no funds and then pulling out a different card with funds at the destination. However, at the same time not penalising passengers for the TVM refusing to accept a working card with available funds.

 

[Mathew S]

That doesn't explain why you have to select a destination and ticket type.

I assume that allows the operator to monitor which tickets are being selected, information which would be useful for a variety of reasons not least of which to determine the effectiveness of the P2P system itself.

Re: the process, it doesn't issue a P2P until the final stage of the process, if you select a non-available payment method. Or have I misunderstood the process? (I always pay by card so it's a non-issue for me.) In which case, the 'point' is to avoid the P2P being seen as a pay of avoiding the ticket machine by people who would rather just press a button than use the technology provided for them. (Well, one of the points anyway, I'm sure there are others).

 

[island]

That doesn't explain why you have to select a destination and ticket type.

To reduce the speed with which bored local yokels can print them and deplete the machine’s ticket stock.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

To reduce the speed with which bored local yokels can print them and deplete the machine’s ticket stock.

Indeed.
If the P2P has no details on it other than boarding station, perhaps all users should select Penzance as destination to distort any analysis being undertaken! Enthusiasts should choose Barry Links as that was the least used station last year!
Far better to print the amount due on the P2P so there is even less argument at the destination.

 

[BurtonM]

I still don't get what was wrong with Permit to Travel.

 

[Starmill]

If the P2P has no details on it other than boarding station, perhaps all users should select Penzance as destination to distort any analysis being undertaken!

Doing this will probably result in the upper limit on transaction value being broken. It isn't very high - £200 I think?

 

[Starmill]

That doesn't explain why you have to select a destination and ticket type.

But nothing explains anything. It doesn't really matter what one is or does. A Penalty Fare could not stand just because one of these isn't handed over by a customer. There is no allowance for it in the NRCoT or Penalty Fare rules.

 

[pemma]

But nothing explains anything. It doesn't really matter what one is or does. A Penalty Fare could not stand just because one of these isn't handed over by a customer. There is no allowance for it in the NRCoT or Penalty Fare rules.

Indeed. Like with those 'proof of boarding' slips handed out by RPIs, someone not having one is not proof they didn't board at that station and I think it would only need Northern to try and prosecute a solicitor for fare evasion for them to reconsider the whole scheme.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I still don't get what was wrong with Permit to Travel.

I agree given that the Promise To Pay only states origin station, date and time.
However, you had to pay for a Permit To Travel, which required a machine, however basic, which accepted and recognised coins, whereas a Promise to Pay can be issued on a no-cash machine. That, I suspect is the reason for giving it another name.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Doing this will probably result in the upper limit on transaction value being broken. It isn't very high - £200 I think?

I think I've missed something. Is there an upper limit on all transactions or just cash transactions? I can understand the latter from a security point of view. I can understand the limit on contactless payments being that set by the 'banks', but is there a limit on credit or debit cards?

If there is an upper limit, that ought to be set out somewhere, rather than getting a machine failure after having tried to renew, say, a monthly season ticket.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

But nothing explains anything. It doesn't really matter what one is or does. A Penalty Fare could not stand just because one of these isn't handed over by a customer. There is no allowance for it in the NRCoT or Penalty Fare rules.

It is set out in the Northern Penalty Fares Scheme, which appears to have gone through the necessary consultation and approval procedure. So as long as Northern are operating their PF scheme in accordance with that scheme, it is allowed for.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Indeed. Like with those 'proof of boarding' slips handed out by RPIs, someone not having one is not proof they didn't board at that station and I think it would only need Northern to try and prosecute a solicitor for fare evasion for them to reconsider the whole scheme.

Q Mr RPI, did you sweep the station before commencing your revenue block?
A Yes sir.
Q Mr RPI were there any members of the public on the station?
A No sir.
Q Mr TOC security manager, does the station CCTV show any members of the public on the station 'x' at that time
A No sir.
Q Mr TOC security manager, does the on-board CCTV show Mr Solicitor apparently boarding at station 'x' or alternative station 'y'.
A Station 'y' sir.
Q Mr Solicitor, you claim to have boarded at station x. Mr RPI has clearly stated under oath that there were no members of the public on the station when the revenue block commenced. Are you suggesting that he was mistaken? Further CCTV clearly shows you waiting at station 'y'. What is your explanation for this apparent discrepancy?
A (please insert for me)

 

[pemma]

Q Mr RPI, did you sweep the station before commencing your revenue block?
A Yes sir.
Q Mr RPI were there any members of the public on the station?
A No sir.
Q Mr TOC security manager, does the station CCTV show any members of the public on the station 'x' at that time
A No sir.
Q Mr TOC security manager, does the on-board CCTV show Mr Solicitor apparently boarding at station 'x' or alternative station 'y'.
A Station 'y' sir.
Q Mr Solicitor, you claim to have boarded at station x. Mr RPI has clearly stated under oath that there were no members of the public on the station when the revenue block commenced. Are you suggesting that he was mistaken? Further CCTV clearly shows you waiting at station 'y'. What is your explanation for this apparent discrepancy?
A (please insert for me)

And what about the scenario I was alluding to where the solicitor boards at station x but the TVM won't issue a 'permit to travel' but the RPI at station z catches him apparently having traveled from station x with no 'permit to travel'? I wasn't suggesting a scenario where someone lies about what station they boarded that but with someone who wrongly gets accused of fare evasion when they are an expert in legal matters.

I also like to see your fictional scenario work at many stations. At my local station it would be possible to be walking in the opposite direction to the RPI to an area the RPI has just 'swept' but out of sight of the RPI due to station buildings and shelters.

 

[Bantamzen]

I assume that allows the operator to monitor which tickets are being selected, information which would be useful for a variety of reasons not least of which to determine the effectiveness of the P2P system itself.

Re: the process, it doesn't issue a P2P until the final stage of the process, if you select a non-available payment method. Or have I misunderstood the process? (I always pay by card so it's a non-issue for me.) In which case, the 'point' is to avoid the P2P being seen as a pay of avoiding the ticket machine by people who would rather just press a button than use the technology provided for them. (Well, one of the points anyway, I'm sure there are others).

From what I've seen you do have to go through the normal issuing process to get to the P2P option. As suggested above, this may well have been a change as shortly after the scheme went live there were a couple of stations I saw with P2Ps strewn across the platforms, probably as a result of some people misusing the TVMs for "entertainment". I know I reported the matter at the time and it doesn't seem to have changed so it looks to have been a software change that Northern applied. It does also show that Northern are monitoring the trial (and at the end of the day this is exactly what it is) and doubtless there will be other refinements along the way. It is a good time to make suggestions for changes (such as having the destinations printed as well of originating stations) as they might just be adopted before the scheme is rolled out further.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

And what about the scenario I was alluding to where the solicitor boards at station x but the TVM won't issue a 'permit to travel' but the RPI at station z catches him apparently having traveled from station x with no 'permit to travel'? I wasn't suggesting a scenario where someone lies about what station they boarded that but with someone who wrongly gets accused of fare evasion when they are an expert in legal matters.

I also like to see your fictional scenario work at many stations. At my local station it would be possible to be walking in the opposite direction to the RPI to an area the RPI has just 'swept' but out of sight of the RPI due to station buildings and shelters.

With respect, your scenario does not mention a failure to issue, or inability to issue. Rather it refers to a station where RPI's are handing out slips and your man claims to have travelled from that station and doesn't have one of those slips. I'll assume that the RPI's are competent, trained and carrying out their instructions properly (so debatable in Northernland). No-one will be on that origin station without a slip. At a PF station I would imagine one of the tasks of an RPI, pre block, is to check that the ticket machine is in full working order, including the ability to print a P2P. No point continuing a block if the TVM is a failure, or the office is closed when it should be open, or if the origin is an uncontrollable rabbit warren. If there is a loophole entrance it will be blocked, or if not the case would be dropped at an early stage as soon as your man raised a decent defence.

 

[pemma]

With respect, your scenario does not mention a failure to issue, or inability to issue. Rather it refers to a station where RPI's are handing out slips and your man claims to have travelled from that station and doesn't have one of those slips. I'll assume that the RPI's are competent, trained and carrying out their instructions properly (so debatable in Northernland). No-one will be on that origin station without a slip. At a PF station I would imagine one of the tasks of an RPI, pre block, is to check that the ticket machine is in full working order, including the ability to print a P2P. No point continuing a block if the TVM is a failure, or the office is closed when it should be open, or if the origin is an uncontrollable rabbit warren. If there is a loophole entrance it will be blocked, or if not the case would be dropped at an early stage as soon as your man raised a decent defence.

What was said

It doesn't really matter what one is or does. A Penalty Fare could not stand just because one of these (a P2P) isn't handed over by a customer.

Indeed. Like with those 'proof of boarding' slips handed out by RPIs, someone not having one (a P2P) is not proof they didn't board at that station and I think it would only need Northern to try and prosecute a solicitor for fare evasion for them to reconsider the whole scheme.

The italic bits added in because you jumped to the wrong conclusion.

I take it you haven't used these new Northern TVMs, it's very common for them to appear working, then to suddenly freeze or say they are out-of-service and then for them to be reset themselves 10 minutes later and be working fine again.

You need to remember when RPIs are the only staff at a station passengers can ask them for help or assistance meaning, unless there's a large team of them (which rarely happens at Northern managed stations) they miss things and they wouldn't be able to stand up in court and say are 100% sure they handed a coupon to everyone or that all passengers boarding/alighting had tickets.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

What was said





The italic bits added in because you jumped to the wrong conclusion.

I take it you haven't used these new Northern TVMs, it's very common for them to appear working, then to suddenly freeze or say they are out-of-service and then for them to be reset themselves 10 minutes later and be working fine again.

No, I haven't used one. It is a good feature that they are able to reset themselves, but not if you subsequently cannot prove the failure at your exact time of use. Does the intermittent failure / reset get recorded and reported to the maintainer? I would have thought there is an internal event log generated - computers do it all the time.

If, after initial teething problems, they remain unreliable, or intermittently so, and that knowledge is widespread both inside and outside the railway industry (specifically prosecutions departments and ticketless solicitor passengers), it will be a brave TOC that pursues a case where part of the defence is 'intermittent machine failure, no P2P issued, and you know that to be the case through these tweets to customer services and auto-report by the TVM etc'.

If you have the facility (I don't) take a photo of every failed machine you attempt to use. Regardless, tweet / email / report it via the help point (as you would have to do for a Metrolink TVM failure) on every occasion. Raise it and get it minuted in any rail-user group meeting you are part of. At prosecution ask for their maintenance records for that machine, for customer fault reports and for the details of auto-failure reports. Just like you would ask a highway authority for its records of previous complaints, highway inspections records and maintenance regimes when pursuing a damage claim.

 

[Starmill]

I think I've missed something. Is there an upper limit on all transactions or just cash transactions?

Given that the machines in question do not accept cash, I do not see how an upper limit on a cash transaction is possible?

That, I suspect is the reason for giving it another name.

Giving it another name removes its legal status.

It is set out in the Northern Penalty Fares Scheme, which appears to have gone through the necessary consultation and approval procedure. So as long as Northern are operating their PF scheme in accordance with that scheme, it is allowed for.

There is no way I would accept a Penalty Fare under these circumstances. Provided the customer has offered to pay their fare at the first oppourtunity it is clear that they have not committed an offence. Failing to produce a coupon handed out by station staff or a promise to pay notice is not a breach of NRCoT.

 

[najaB]

Giving it another name removes its legal status.

Does it?

Failing to produce a coupon handed out by station staff or a promise to pay notice is not a breach of NRCoT.

Is it not?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Does it?
Is it not?

I would put it the other way around. How is it a breach? Do the NRCoT require you to accept, keep safe and later show a coupon handed out - or a "Promise to Pay"?

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I would put it the other way around. How is it a breach? Do the NRCoT require you to accept, keep safe and later show a coupon handed out - or a "Promise to Pay"?

Probably better left to the legal experts for fine grain argument. But, does NRCoT allow for Penalty Fares Schemes? Have Northern got an approved Penalty Fares Scheme? Does that scheme introduce and require the Promise to Pay?

 

[yorkie]

Probably better left to the legal experts for fine grain argument. But, does NRCoT allow for Penalty Fares Schemes? Have Northern got an approved Penalty Fares Scheme? Does that scheme introduce and require the Promise to Pay?

A "Promise to Pay" is just a thing Northern have decided to implement; there is no definition of it in the Penalty Fare legislation. Therefore, Northern can make their own rules up, and carry out poor practice such as making the machines to issue them locked away and inaccessible at times the ticket office is closed (such as at Keighley) while simultaneously making all sorts of threats to customers who were unable to obtain one.

 

[IanXC]

I notice that the definition below appears to have been updated since NRCoT days, and that it effectively allows for a Permit to Travel to have £0.00 cost

“Permit to Travel” means a document obtainable from self-service machines at some stations that allows you to travel by train until you have a reasonable opportunity to buy the Ticket you need for your journey, for a period of not more than 2 hours from the time of issue. The price you will have to pay for your Ticket will be reduced by the amount you have paid for the Permit to Travel;

 

[Starmill]

Northern can ask customers to do whatever they want to. But that doesn't mean that people have to do as they ask. In spite of their attempt to launch a Penalty Fare scheme that is unlike all of the other schemes nationally (which are all relatively similar to each other, and different to this one) they can't issue Penalty Fares except in accordance with the relevant legislation, and they can't add to or change the NRCoT unilaterally.

 

[Clip]

I notice that the definition below appears to have been updated since NRCoT days, and that it effectively allows for a Permit to Travel to have £0.00 cost

I think the only reason they charged in a PERTIS was to stop little darlings from pressing the button and emptying them.

As for a promise to pay not being enforceable i wouldn't like to challenge it myself personally but im sure others who use this forum would if theyre adamant that they dont form part of a penalty fare scheme authorised by the DfT.

 

[ainsworth74]

I notice that the definition below appears to have been updated since NRCoT days, and that it effectively allows for a Permit to Travel to have £0.00 cost

It does but it is also worth remembering that the NRCoT specifically say at 6.3(a):

At the station where you start your journey, there is no means of purchasing a Ticket, either because there is no Ticket office open or self-service Ticket machine in working order and, where notices indicate that you are in a Penalty Fares area you purchase a Permit to Travel if there is a working Permit to Travel issuing machine at the station where you start your journey – see section 10 for more information about Penalty Fares

I'm not sure how one can purchase something that is free!

 

[ainsworth74]

if theyre adamant that they dont form part of a penalty fare scheme authorised by the DfT.

It's interesting but having just scanned through the SRA Penalty Fare Rules 2002 (assuming those are still valid?!?) and the Railway (Penalty Fare) Regulations 1994 (very soon to be superseded by the 2018 regs) they don't actually mention Permits to Travel that I could see.