Penalty Fares: the Right Thing to Do?

[MidnightFlyer]

Are penalty fares really the right way to curb fare evasion or should other measures/methods be undertaken?

 

[Matt Taylor]

Penalty Fares are one of several methods of preventing fare evasion, do you have any specific methods that you think might be more effective?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Penalty Fares are one of several methods of preventing fare evasion, do you have any specific methods that you think might be more effective?

I personally don't... but some question the need for them, and in evading it can be hard to tell the genuine reasons from those who CBA paying. I suppoose staffing/re-staffing stations may be a small alterantive, but there must be other ways.

 

[transportphoto]

Penalty Fares - an abused system to prevent fare evasion, they are not the right thing to do.

Just a little while ago we have had a member ask for help when he has (as far as I can tell) incorrectly been given a PF because of a system fault.

 

[b0b]

No.

Penalty fares are aimed to make up for money lost to "professional" fare evasion by catching out law-abiding citizens when they make a genuine mistake / error or where there is a dispute with the over-complicated ticketing & fares system.

Penalty fares do not stop "professional" fare evasion, since the professional knows that they'll get caught too infrequently that its a financial loser.

 

[323235]

Yeh most professionals will have probably evaded far more than £20 inbetween catches

For example if they did 25 journeys costing £2.50 that's £62.50 they've avoided paying.
So a £20 Penalty Fare still leaves them having not paid £45.

Therefore they're still being let off lightly and I seriously doubt it would deter them.

 

[Wyvern]

East Midlands Trains have made my local station Penalty Fare. Then tell us we can pay on the train if we want to (I have an email to that effect)

Only in very small letters if you read every notice on the station do you find out you pay on the train anyway if you have County Council card. This after spending fruitless minutes trying to get a discounted ticket out of the machine.

Most people will be put off by the threatening notices anyway and go for the bus.

 

[Greenback]

No.

Penalty fares are aimed to make up for money lost to "professional" fare evasion by catching out law-abiding citizens when they make a genuine mistake / error or where there is a dispute with the over-complicated ticketing & fares system.

Penalty fares do not stop "professional" fare evasion, since the professional knows that they'll get caught too infrequently that its a financial loser.

I entirely agree. Frankly, the notion of penalty fares has long since lost any credibility. It may originally have had some benefit, when it was used merely in areas where there are metro type services and short spaced staffed stations.

Now it has been extended to more rural areas such as Cornwall, where some stations are unstaffed or partially staffed for limited hours, I don't see how it can be effectively applied.

Oyster has made the situation even more untenable in London. The complexities of out of station interchanges, and season ticket extension permits or whatever they are called have left most people completely lost.

 

[moonrakerz]

The "alleged" increase in fare dodging is brought about by:

1. The general decline in public morals
2. Reductions in staff by the TOCs who think they will save money that way

I did mention a problem I am pursuing at the moment with a TOC in another thread - not PFs - but I have noticed, during my investigations, that two busy stations: Salisbury and Bath Spa - which claim to be PF stations are blatantly ignoring the rules that are laid down by DfT concerning how a PF syatem is set up !

It would be interesting if someone went to Court over this on the grounds that the TOCs are not acting Lawfully ! Any takers ?

 

[Lampshade]

The "alleged" increase in fare dodging is brought about by:

1. The general decline in public morals
2. Reductions in staff by the TOCs who think they will save money that way

I did mention a problem I am pursuing at the moment with a TOC in another thread - not PFs - but I have noticed, during my investigations, that two busy stations: Salisbury and Bath Spa - which claim to be PF stations are blatantly ignoring the rules that are laid down by DfT concerning how a PF syatem is set up !

It would be interesting if someone went to Court over this on the grounds that the TOCs are not acting Lawfully ! Any takers ?

I think we can add:

3. Greed

to that list as well.

 

[Oswyntail]

I agree with the general thrust of what has been said so far. IMHO, you have to be able to sort out the genuine cheats from those who have not been able to buy a ticket (for whatever reason). So you must start by making it much easier to buy tickets - staffed offices, machines that work and take what the passenger wants to use, online purchase and printing, etickets, tickets to mobiles, carnets, even selling the more frequently used tickets in non-rail retail outlets.[This latter would probably also require making things very much simpler (such as abolishing ALL time restrictions and letting the market in seats sort out peak overcrowding - but that's another thread) but that would be no bad thing.]And selling all types of tickets freely on train - so long as the passenger asks for the ticket before the RPI asks to see it! Almost make it harder notg to buy a ticket! Then, when there is no more excuse for not having a ticket, wham on a real deterrent like a £5,000 fine (not a penalty fare, which implies you are simply paying over the odds) with a criminal record.

 

[Aictos]

If used properly I think the PF system is good as I don't see why fare paying passengers should have to subside the free loaders who have no intention to pay for a ticket and are often the root cause of much anti social behaviour on the railway, note I don't just mean your typical chav but also these in suits who rather pay the PF then ensure they had a valid ticket.

I know not every system is perfect but used properly and fairly, it's a good system.

All railway companies should make it as easy as possible to pay for a ticket ie if I didn't work for FCC and had a Old Street to Hatfield ticket but wished to get a extenstion to Welwyn Garden City, the first RPI or Gateline staff to encounter me should without protest issue me the ticket with no fuss as I can't buy the extenstion at Old Street now that is just one example.

As to Oyster, all booking offices within the Oyster area should be able to issue/top up Oyster cards other then just being restricted to just reading them to see how much credit the card has.

 

[yorkie]

If used properly

Which they arent being!

I think the PF system is good as I don't see why fare paying passengers should have to subside the free loaders who have no intention to pay for a ticket

If someone has no intention of paying for a ticket, how are you going to get them to pay for a penalty fare?

Also, penalty fares should not be used when people have no intention of paying anyway!

All railway companies should make it as easy as possible to pay for a ticket ie if I didn't work for FCC and had a Old Street to Hatfield ticket but wished to get a extenstion to Welwyn Garden City, the first RPI or Gateline staff to encounter me should without protest issue me the ticket with no fuss as I can't buy the extenstion at Old Street now that is just one example.

We know the reality is vastly different from that.

As to Oyster, all booking offices within the Oyster area should be able to issue/top up Oyster cards other then just being restricted to just reading them to see how much credit the card has.

Agreed.

 

[sheff1]

In my view there are 3 groups of people who do not hold a (correct) ticket when travelling by train. The first two groups are fare evaders, the third are not although many seem to think they are.

1) Those who have no intention of paying.

2) Those who will pay the correct fare (some willingly, others after making a bit of a fuss) when challenged, but think it worthwhile 'trying to get away with it', either by buying nothing at the outset or getting a cheaper invalid alternative.

3) Those who want and have tried to buy the correct ticket but have either not been able to at all due to lack of staff, malfunctioning machines, etc or have bought the incorrect ticket due to confusion (understandable) or incorrect information from staff (inexcusable).

Penalty Fares will have no effect on Type 1) as they will not pay the PF either.

For Type 2), as explained above, paying PFs occasionally will, more likely than not, still leave them in pocket - so not really a deterrent.

For Type 3) I do not believe a PF is appropriate - it is just attempting to deal with the failings of an overcomplicated system which is being administered, in some cases, by under trained staff. Its only real effect will be to deter genuine people from rail travel. What is needed for these people is a simple ticketing system and, again as explained above, ease of ticket purchase.

 

[Nick W]

For me the real problem is that fares are artificially too high due to the inadequacies of capitalism: the positive externalises - such as reduced pollution, road damage, noise, mental and physical health detriment all due to modal change and increased trade, improved quality of life, social and labour mobility and education benefit - are not taken into account in the price of the fares.

Once the price of the fares have been corrected, and the railway does all it can to make it simple to access it products - something that it fails to do so - fare evasion will immediately be reduced. I thoroughly concede that without rigourous enforcement, there will still be people who travel without paying who fall somewhere between the two following categories:
1. Those who travel if they can do so for free most of the time, but would not travel if they were forced to pay.
2. Those who would always travel but would only pay if forced to.

I would argue that the benefit to society of those falling closer to the first category travelling will outweigh the loss due to those falling closer to the second category.

Not that this isn't in any way radical - for ages Microsoft did nothing to stop piracy for home users as they knew they'd earn enough from business and OEM revenue. There have been talks in the music industry about giving out music for free and earning money for concerts alone, and of course there was the "fares fair" programme that was so tragically struck down by the Conservative council of Bromley. It's worth noting that while the programme was in operation, deaths on London's roads reduced, and what a great shame it was that Conservatives valued people's lives below tax cuts.

Obviously, due to the lack of political will, such a policy is unlikely to be put in place, but I challenge anyone to give a good, well supported argument as to why this doesn't make sense.

 

[moonrakerz]

Once the price of the fares have been corrected, and the railway does all it can to make it simple to access it products - something that it fails to do so - fare evasion will immediately be reduced.

I really think you are wrong here ! If someone is deliberately dodging a £10 fare do you really think he will cough up for a £5 one ?

Your faith in human nature greatly exceeds mine..............

 

[DaveNewcastle]

In my view there are 3 groups of people who do not hold a (correct) ticket when travelling by train. The first two groups are fare evaders, the third are not although many seem to think they are.

1) Those who have no intention of paying.

2) Those who will pay the correct fare (some willingly, others after making a bit of a fuss) when challenged, but think it worthwhile 'trying to get away with it', either by buying nothing at the outset or getting a cheaper invalid alternative.

3) Those who want and have tried to buy the correct ticket but have either not been able to at all due to lack of staff, malfunctioning machines, etc or have bought the incorrect ticket due to confusion (understandable) or incorrect information from staff (inexcusable).

I like your analytic approach to this question, but I think there are more categories to consider (and then to determine the appropriateness and effect of a PF).

There are pax who have made a genuine error in being on the wrong train(and to a non-specialist in UK railways, is an understandable error), but an error of their own comprehension of the restrictions, services, etc.

There are pax who have made an error and the TOC or other rail operator or station staff have been a contributory factor to the error. (eg, they boarded a late running train which arrived at the station around the time of their booked service but with different stops, or some other silly confusion)

There are pax who really cannot find the ticket, or whose bank card transaction on-train is declined, or all the other lousy routine excuses, but which are actually genuine reasons (and we've had a few on here, albeit exceptional).

I'm sure if we thought about it for long enough, we could come up with other general categories, and then determine how appropriate a PF would be.

 

[Nick W]

I really think you are wrong here ! If someone is deliberately dodging a £10 fare do you really think he will cough up for a £5 one ?

Your faith in human nature greatly exceeds mine..............

That was not my claim. My claim was that reduced fares would mean reduced fare evasion. If there is just one person who would dodge a £10 fare but not a £5 fare, my claim is valid.

If we're talking faith in human nature, based on my religion I believe everyone is born with some idea of right and wrong, however few have a simplistic view that it's always morally wrong to dodge a train fare. People have a sense of what is fair and what is unfair, and will usually happily pay what they consider to be a "fair" fare. It is when they consider the fare to be too high, they will either begrudgingly pay, as I imagine many many people in Britain do or attempt to dodge it.

 

[sheff1]

There are pax who really cannot find the ticket, or whose bank card transaction on-train is declined, or all the other lousy routine excuses, but which are actually genuine reasons (and we've had a few on here, albeit exceptional).

You're right, I hadn't considered that one (and no doubt others).

It's probably the most difficult to answer in 'PF as deterrent' context. They have actually bought a ticket but can't produce it. Being hit with PF might make them more careful in future, but I expect we have all mislaid things at some time without knowing how, when or where.

 

[moonrakerz]

That was not my claim. My claim was that reduced fares would mean reduced fare evasion. If there is just one person who would dodge a £10 fare but not a £5 fare, my claim is valid.

Your claim may be valid on a single case as you state , but the object of preventing "fare dodging" is to recover the income lost from these people. It would lead to financial ruin for the rail operator when the income lost from all his honest passengers is set against the few "dodgers" who might decide to pay after all !

The example you quote above does nothing to help the rail operator - he is still carrying 2 people and his income is still £10.

Your method could be adapted to work really well on the roads - you could stop people breaking the speed limits "at a stroke" - just put all the speed limits up to 150mph.

 

[b0b]

It's probably the most difficult to answer in 'PF as deterrent' context. They have actually bought a ticket but can't produce it. Being hit with PF might make them more careful in future

Being hit with a PF and being made to feel like a criminal for a simple and common mistake might turn them off from rail travel in the future. It seems like an AWFUL way to treat a customer that has paid for their ticket!

 

[Nick W]

Your claim may be valid on a single case as you state , but the object of preventing "fare dodging" is to recover the income lost from these people. It would lead to financial ruin for the rail operator when the income lost from all his honest passengers is set against the few "dodgers" who might decide to pay after all !

The example you quote above does nothing to help the rail operator - he is still carrying 2 people and his income is still £10.

Your method could be adapted to work really well on the roads - you could stop people breaking the speed limits "at a stroke" - just put all the speed limits up to 150mph.

I'm a little confused. What do you mean when you say that the purpose of preventing "fare dodging" to recover lost income? Surely if the dodging is prevented, there is no "lost income". Penalty fares are issued at as high a rate the Government will allow, to maximise revenue, not at a level which offsets the perceived "loss" due to fare dodging.

In fact, there is no such thing as "lost income", except for a slight increase in costs due to the extra weight of carrying a fare-dodger. It is simply that money isn't gained, and this itself is not equal to all the fares of the fare-dodger since this would assume that every fare-dodger would pay if there was no option not to, rather than simply not travel.

The financial situation of the rail operator is irrelevant, firstly since the railway is subsidised so heavily by the taxpayer, and secondly because there is not an correlation between the rail operators income and benefit to society. Instead what we should be looking to maximise is benefit to the those for whom its intended to benefit, the public. The benefits of modal transfer from road to rail are obvious, and it should not require the mind of a genius to realise that outside peak times, the reduction of fares would result in modal transfer, hence benefiting society.

The question of whether or not it benefits society for people who would still avoid paying a train fare, even when fares are set at a rate which maximises the benefit to society, is less crystal clear. However, these people are likely to be lower-earners, who can't afford to travel in the desire quantities. Since those travelling without a ticket are unlikely to want to attempt to cause a scene, it can be expected that their behaviour will not cause other passengers any grief. In addition, I cannot see any detriment to society or the railway from their free-travelling, but it is likely that their journeys are not needless, and will result in their own personal benefit. So the big question is, why deny them the ability to travel?

I'm afraid the analogy you provide with regards to road speed limits doesn't cut it for the following reasons:
1. Encouraging more people to drive at such high speeds is likely to increase the number of road accidents, whereas helping poorer people travel is likely to improve their quality of life.
2. Allowing people to travel at greater speeds on main roads is likely to encourage people to move away from slow public transport, hence increase the level of pollution and cost of road maintenance.

 

[yorkie]

Your method could be adapted to work really well on the roads - you could stop people breaking the speed limits "at a stroke" - just put all the speed limits up to 150mph.

Not really. The equivalent would be, if the roads allowed someone going from A to C to average 50mph, but someone who 'split' the petrol at 'B' would have the benefit of being allowed to go at 70mph, and then the Highways Agency moaning at people doing A to C breaking the speed limit doing 69mph. Of course, that wouldn't be allowed to happen, but using the speed on roads vs price on the railways analogy, that's the equivalent situation! People are unwilling to pay ludicrous prices, some will get around it by the (valid) methods promoted on this forum, while some will cough up and refuse to travel by train again. A few rich people will happily pay, and poor people who lack knowledge may try to 'eff' it. They may not 'eff' it if the fare was priced fairly in the first place.

All this talk of lost revenue should be taken with a pinch of salt until they stop overcharging customers! The TOCs rake in £millions each year unfairly by overcharging, by a variety of methods such as causing passenger confusion, charging more for A to B than A to C, or charging more for A to C than A to B plus B to C or by a greedy TOC setting unfair rules for a route that is almost identical to that priced by a reasonable TOC. They need to get their house in order if they want to claim the moral high ground.