Penalty Fare Increases

[First class]

Most will know the National Rail Penalty fare is currently £20 or twice the single fare, whatever is the greater...

Penalty Fares can be issued if a passenger:

• travels without a valid ticket
• is unable to produce an appropriate railcard / priv on a discounted ticket
• travels in first class accommodation with a standard ticket
• is aged 16 or over, travelling on a child rate ticket
• travels beyond the destination on their ticket, (sometimes this doesnt apply, some TOCs just issue a £0 excess if the ticket price is the same).

With TfL raising their Penalty Fare to £50, how likely is it the DfT will follow suit?

I think a £50 fine would have much more of an impact- I think people might think twice before boarding a train without a ticket...

This was the DfT on the last increase, £10 to £20:

"It would not be practicable to impose a very large increase. Pre-consultation comments saw calls for the penalty fare to be increased to anything from £50.00 to £100.00. Admittedly a figure of this scale would act as a deterrent. However, apart from the need to ensure that it was of an amount that a typical passenger would have on his or her person at the time, Ministers have also applied a test of reasonableness. The amount should not be so great that passengers would find it unpalatable and it would be difficult to collect."

Perhaps £20>£50 may seem a bit more justified...

 

[Daniel]

They make it seem like it's £50, but if you pay within 28 days its £25...

 

[FusionRail]

Good, let them raise it to over a hundred and let the mindless Tw*ts that do it get beaten by the guards untill they pay.

 

[Mojo]

Would it be more effective to actually prosecute real fare evaders than give them a measly Penalty Fare.

I wouldn't like to see PFs increased in value as the standard of proof is far lower than that of a criminal conviction (which requires intention to avoid paying the fare).

 

[yorkie]

Good, let them raise it to over a hundred and let the mindless Tw*ts that do it get beaten by the guards untill they pay.

"mindless Tw*ts" should be prosecuted, not get penalty fares.

 

[metrocammel]

"mindless Tw*ts" should be prosecuted, not get penalty fares.

Absolutely. Not to mention most of the 'mindless twonks' who are fare evading aren't likely to have £100 on them! (Plus, if abusiveness occurs from the passenger, guards are instructed to let them go, rather than putting themselves at risk for the sake of revenue protection)- unfortunately, if the guard / RPI does get frustrated, and uses his or her own 'power' to restrain abusive passengers, they may face charges against them - at the situation with the Clacton line RPI who lost his job for supposedly 'defending' himself!

 

[glynn80]

Hmm, I wonder how many "mindless tw*ts" would willingly give their name and address to a guard so that they could issue an MG11.

I'd say you would need a police presence before that happened (although I do realise it is a criminal offence not to give your name and address to relevant railway employee). And from what I hear BTP are unlikely to attend on most occasions.

 

[John_158]

The RPIs ahve been out in force up here on Merseyrail over the past few weeks with the PCSOs tagging along for the ride as theve nothing else to do and becuse a few of the RPIs are quite nice looking females.

Youd think if females whant to do the job of an RPI they would be able to look affter them selfs pus there always two other RPIs with them for security reasons so why do PCSOs have to tag along as thogh they are important.

Plus we have a few plain clothes RPIs that like to jump up and catch those fare dodgers.

 

[Mojo]

I think given the powers RPI's have and the equipment available to them it would be more than wise to work in groups with (semi-)police assistance. Also the Police seem to have better ways of obtaining the real names & addresses of offenders.

I've lost count of the number of stories I've heard of false names & addresses being given to RPIs.

 

[First class]

I think Merseyrail's RPI/TIs do a good job actually- and they work alongside Carlisle Security as a byelaw enforcement team.

Ticket Inspectors are always in a group of at least 2, except for some early morning work which sees them operate between Hooton and Ellesmere Port/Chester to sell tickets at unstaffed stations.

The females can look after themselves, the bottom line is, male or female, if somebody pulls a knife out on you, there's not a lot you can do. I think your comment about females not being able to look after themselves is sexist and certainly unfounded.

PCSOs are just another way of providing an additional presence which can often reassure some passengers, and act as a deterrent for offenders.

You are rather annoying john_158- you've had a few posts now in the entire forum which have raised an eyebrow.

This doesnt even make sense:

"why do PCSOs have to tag along as thogh they are important."

If you're saying PCSOs are important, then doesn't that answer why they tag along?

 

[Mojo]

I think in many cases females can be better at defusing a situation than males can. I think I remember reading once about female Parking Attendants getting far less abuse than men working in exactly the same areas.

 

[me123]

I think in many cases females can be better at defusing a situation than males can. I think I remember reading once about female Parking Attendants getting far less abuse than men working in exactly the same areas.

A lot of it will be:

• People are less likely to confront a woman in a violent way.
• Women won't make as many rash decisions as men in general.

One of the issues is that women generally feel more vulnerable, but it's not always true that they are more vulnerable. In fact, a lot of women are able to defend themselves just as well as men are.

 

[class 313]

A lot of it will be:

• People are less likely to confront a woman in a violent way

What's your proof on this?

 

[me123]

Personal experience, although no scientific proof. From my work, male staff tended to get much more abuse than female staff. It could simply be that we got all the bad customers, or because the female staff were better at calming the angry people, but for the most part I'd say people were happier to abuse the male staff.

Of course, the female staff did get the occasional rape threats, but the above statement is a bit of a generalisation, and therefore not true for everyone. For example, not everyone will abuse male CSRs more than female CSRs, and I think it would also depend on the competence of the employee.

 

[Mojo]

I'd agree with that, perhaps it's more of a cultural thing that certain people are less likely to be rude to women than men.

 

[glynn80]

I'd agree with that, perhaps it's more of a cultural thing that certain people are less likely to be rude to women than men.

Perhaps its that women are more lenient than men and therefore have less confrontations to deal with??

 

[mumrar]

Hmm, I wonder how many "mindless tw*ts" would willingly give their name and address to a guard so that they could issue an MG11.

The guard would not be issuing a passenger with an MG11, we can issue unpaid fares notices but an PFI has to do penalty fares and MG11s.

I wouldn't like to see PFs increased in value as the standard of proof is far lower

Have you bought a ticket (you either have or have not), PFI's have to ask if somebody deliberately did not buy a ticket (I was in a hurry doesn't work! The TOC aren't responsible for setting your alarm, showering you, preparing your breakfast and making sure the traffic is clear for you to get to the station). It's pretty simple, but even if you're a suit who jumped on without a purchasing a ticket or a scrote, you know you don't have one when you get on the train, end of, pay up. Plus if the fine increases we may find cases of a lawyer defending celebrity clients against them like with speeding fines. "My client boarded the train as they were desperate to use the lavatory and therefore could not queue because they have a mild bladder infection"

"mindless Tw*ts" should be prosecuted, not get penalty fares

But a prosecutuion has a better chance of sticking if you have a backlist of PFs issued to a persistent offender, because it shows consistent and undeniable intent to defraud.

Seriously, the key word is PENALTY. Many people do not view it as such as five days worth of free commuting is worth risking the £20 as it is still probably a saving if they get caught once!

 

[87015]

Many people do not view it as such as five days worth of free commuting is worth risking the £20 as it is still probably a saving if they get caught once!

Which sums it up. You can have all the big speaking penalties you want but if the chances of seeing a TTI is once in a blue moon they are as good as useless, people will continue to try it on. The only way to really hit 'effing', IMO, is to ensure on-train ticket checks and carried out the vast majority of times so become the norm rather than a rarity. If that means double or triple manning trains through lots-of-stopping areas than so be it, it'd be a far more useful staff member to most passengers than a PF-obsessed TTI.

 

[glynn80]

The guard would not be issuing a passenger with an MG11, we can issue unpaid fares notices but an PFI has to do penalty fares and MG11s.

Sorry yes not guards, RPIs (or PFIs as you call them). I was merely trying to state that would prosecuting be anymore effective than the method we have currently as both rely on correct names and addresses being given.

Seriously, the key word is PENALTY. Many people do not view it as such as five days worth of free commuting is worth risking the £20 as it is still probably a saving if they get caught once!

Hmm..., I doubt many commuters travel ticketless most of the time. Most large commuter areas have barrier checks or TTIs and thus it isn't worth the risk. Although I have heard many stories of "sandwich tickets" being used, I haven't heard much about daily commuters not purchasing tickets at all.

 

[Mojo]

I've heard of Penalty Fares being given for journeys commencing at Unstaffed stations - admittedly these were removed on appeal but how many people would have just paid it?

A case of someone whoboarded at an Unstaffed station with no machines - changes trains at Reading, gets "caught" and gets a Penalty Fare. If he'd gone to pay at Reading, he'd have missed his connection. I fully believe that in such a case a court would look for intention to avoid paying and not find any, yet the penalty fare still stood.

 

[me123]

You also have the issue that a station may be unstaffed temporarily; in Scotrail land they can be away for "essential station maintenance" (usually a fag) and advise passengers to buy on the train. This gets in my way sometimes as a railcard holder, but we don't have penalty fares up here so that doesn't affect most people (in fact, more people would "benefit" as they may not need to pay).

Does that ever happen in England?

 

[Mojo]

Does that ever happen in England?

Know of a few stations round here that are unstaffed due to staff shortage, also the ticket office is temporarily shut often due to the ticket office staff member doing station cleaning, poster installation, etc.

 

[AlexS]

Revenue protection rarely stray up to the darkest depths of the Salop line and even if they do they can only check tickets like any other one since we don't have penalty fares until you're past Wolves.

The exceptions are obviously Mr Granville of Shrewsbury and Rob the Telford RPI.

Granville is a well known arse with experience dating back from steam days and a long history. He is however also pretty fair (if merciless).

Rob is an excellent chap who any regular traveller from the local shacks between Shrewsbury and Wolves on a morning would recognise, very friendly bloke who does his job well and is popular among his customers.

They show two different sides of the job - both do it well but I know who I prefer as a passenger.

London Midland have also started a new trick in the evening peak rostering 2 senior conductors to a train, one to look after the safety side and one to deal with revenue.

 

[yorkie]

You also have the issue that a station may be unstaffed temporarily; in Scotrail land they can be away for "essential station maintenance" (usually a fag) and advise passengers to buy on the train. This gets in my way sometimes as a railcard holder, but we don't have penalty fares up here so that doesn't affect most people...

I don't understand. How does it get in your way? If you are told to buy on board, then that's their problem not yours. The full range including railcard discounts must be made available in such circumstances.

 

[Mojo]

I'd say it gets in the way as often you don't get checked on board and have to end up in a queue (often quite long) at your destination station. It's an issue I've raised at the Working Group for the Severn Beach Line time & time again following complaints from passengers who have travelled 11 mins from (say) Montpelier, and are having to spend that time again queueing at the barriers to buy a ticket, although in this case stations don't have ticket issuing facilities.

 

[me123]

I don't understand. How does it get in your way? If you are told to buy on board, then that's their problem not yours. The full range including railcard discounts must be made available in such circumstances.

Poor communication. I know that the railcard discount should be available, but it's not always. Supposedly they don't communicate this to the on-train staff because there are no penalty fares and therefore 99% of people travelling on these trains are not affected. I imagine/hope that in penalty fare areas, there is better communication to this extent as almost everyone joining the train would be affected!

That said, it's only the occasional conductor that won't issue the ticket; most will accept that the ticket office was closed at time of joining. I have complained to Scotrail and the reply was that better effort will be made to communicate this; I hope in the future that this will not be a problem.

 

[yorkie]

Poor communication. I know that the railcard discount should be available, but it's not always.

Legally it has to be available. It's in the NCoC which forms the contract that they are bound by. Just be assertive and say you are only paying the correct fare!