The first point in the consultation is to introduce a 'stop the clock' mechanism to the 21 days available to discharge the debt if an appeal is lodged. [Section 1.13]
I guess you're thinking of the fifth point [Section 1.67].
To be precise:"
Proposed changeThe DfT could issue guidance on the pursuit of penalty fares payment, stating what language is acceptable in reminder letters from TOCs.
The guidance would ask TOCs to make it clear to passengers when civil or criminal sanctions are being pursued and why.
The DfT expects to work with TOCs to ensure staff are suitably trained on the specified guidance, as well as other matters.
TOCs would remain able to pursue criminal sanctions in cases where this is advised by relevant appeals bodies.
If a TOC was found to ignore issued guidance, the Government could withdraw their right to operate a penalty fares scheme."
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I'm not sure what distinction between the two you find to be significant, but I will point out one difference which is always going to be worth bearing in mind :
In a
Criminal Prosecution, the standard of evidence required to achieve a conviction, after all evidence having been presented by all parties, is "beyond all reasonable doubt" - This is a very high standard of persuasiveness to reach.
In a
Civil Claim, the standard of evidence to secure a Claim, after all evidence having been presented by all parties, is "in the balance of probabilities" - a rather easy standard to achieve, even with flimsy evidence by one part and where there's nothing much available from the other.
Please, and to use the hackneyd phrase, be careful what you wish for.
I, as a passenger, would much prefer my travel to be challenged under the requirement for the higher standard of evidence against me.
If it helps, those on this forum with a passionately held dislike or distrust of the rail industry should be able to view the law as a protection, not as a threat. Many of the "what-if" and obscure or antagonistic encounters reported on here are all subject to one or other of these standard of evidence, and it has only been a handful of cases that I know of that have been treated as 'mere' civil Claims. When fare evaders evade fares, their conviction can only follow from evidence which is persuasive "beyond all reasonable doubt". Those who claim 'corruption', 'greed' and 'incompetence' should reflect on the outcome for themselves if these claims were true AND the required standard of evidence was lowered to the mere "balance of probabilities" in Civil debt collection. The fare-paying passenger has considerable protection from these standards of evidence.