Penalty Fares?

[lukeobrien02]

My question is can train guards give out penalty fares or report fare evasion?

If not why?

The reason that I ask this is because on a recent journey on southern between Portsmouth Hbr and Victoria a group of 5 teenagers were on the train who boarded at Havant and when the guard carried out the ticket check shortly before Chichester they were unable to produce a ticket. In fact not only did they not produce a ticket but started being rude to the guard it was obvious that they had no intention of buying a ticket. The guard didn't do anything about it and just told them to get off at Chichester.

 

[tony6499]

The first rule is not put yourself in danger or delay the train so that is probably what happened there.

A Southern Conductor can report for fare evasion but not issue a Penalty Fare

 

[Chapeltom]

If they aren't going to buy a ticket, its going to be just as difficult to get any details out of them. Its safer for guards to let it go, especially with a group and hope barriers/RPIs stop them instead.

 

[bb21]

If not why?

If the answer is "no", then it is almost certainly because they have not been trained to do it.

Only authorised collectors are allowed to charge Penalty Fares. Similarly only PACE trained personnel are allowed to caution a passenger and submit an MG11 witness report. Some guards are not trained in either. Guards can submit reports of irregular travel for further investigation however if they suspect that something is wrong, or call for assistance.

That is in addition to the reasons given above which explains why sometimes even trained personnel may not challenge offenders.

 

[yorkie]

.... it was obvious that they had no intention of buying a ticket....

In that case a PF is inappropriate. A PF is a higher than normal fare charged when a passenger makes a mistake in certain circumstances.

Furthermore, if they are unwilling to pay the regular fare, it is unlikely that they would be willing to pay a Penalty Fare.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

In that case a PF is inappropriate. A PF is a higher than normal fare charged when a passenger makes a mistake in certain circumstances.

Furthermore, if they are unwilling to pay the regular fare, it is unlikely that they would be willing to pay a Penalty Fare.

I agree that the issue of a PF is not the appropriate response (in terms of Railway procedure).

But I suspect that a considerable number of fare evaders adopt a policy of a calculated gamble, and, in common with other situations where penalties can be imposed, they expect to travel without payment on many occasions and also expect to pay a penalty on a few occasions.
In fact, I'm sure I've read posts on here from people who have been surprised that they were denied the opportunity to pay a Penalty (and I'm sure some of them had been travelling without a ticket on more than the one occasion on which they were found).

I've heard passengers express surprise that they weren't able to pay a penalty for being found on-board without a ticket.

The temptation to 'take a chance' with a penalty for loosing seems to be part of our culture!

 

[Flamingo]

PF can only be issued by Revenue staff. I've heard that there were objections from the unions about Guards issuing PF's as this will distract them from heir main responsibilities, and as I have posted in previous threads, there appears to be no real desire by management to include this in our duties, given the obvious risks of delays (avoidence of which is the priority of most managers).

 

[Stigy]

Similarly only PACE trained personnel are allowed to caution a passenger and submit an MG11 witness report. Some guards are not trained in either. Guards can submit reports of irregular travel for further investigation however if they suspect that something is wrong, or call for assistance.

You don't have to caution somebody to report (MG11) them for possible prosecution. Obviously a report whereby the individual has been cautioned makes for better evidence in court, it's not essential. Some revenue staff, depending on the TOC, don't caution people. For example on SWT only RPIs and RCOs caution, not RPAs. Without getting in to company politics etc, in my opinion it would be far better in the long run to PACE train all revenue staff, but obviously there's money to consider, and as it stands RPAs are continuing to write concise reports.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But I suspect that a considerable number of fare evaders adopt a policy of a calculated gamble, and, in common with other situations where penalties can be imposed, they expect to travel without payment on many occasions and also expect to pay a penalty on a few occasions.
In fact, I'm sure I've read posts on here from people who have been surprised that they were denied the opportunity to pay a Penalty (and I'm sure some of them had been travelling without a ticket on more than the one occasion on which they were found).

I've heard passengers express surprise that they weren't able to pay a penalty for being found on-board without a ticket.

The temptation to 'take a chance' with a penalty for loosing seems to be part of our culture!

Which is why, ideally (I appreciate it's not always possible with queues etc), revenue staff should take the name and address details before deciding what action to take, thus logging the matter with IRCAS or similar. This eradicates the 'chancers' who weigh up the odds of getting caught, with the cost of the equivalent monthly ticket etc. Of course, a lot of people don't care (usually the less intelligent 'chancer'), but if these people are logged rather than an easy £20 taken every time, it nips it in the bud when it comes to how many they're issued, and staff can report them instead.

 

[bb21]

You don't have to caution somebody to report (MG11) them for possible prosecution.

Apologies. I didn't mean for the "only PACE trained personnel" part to apply to the MG11 part separate from the caution, but rather to the "caution a passenger and submit an MG11 witness report" as one whole entity. I just realised how it might have come across.

 

[Stigy]

Apologies. I didn't mean for the "only PACE trained personnel" part to apply to the MG11 part separate from the caution, but rather to the "caution a passenger and submit an MG11 witness report" as one whole entity. I just realised how it might have come across.

No worries, I did wonder shortly after submitting my post actually, but got sidetracked so didn't edit it...:roll: