I'm not accused of doing anything, my quest for knowledge and understanding is purely for future reference and to discuss the issues. . . . .
You raise a number of interesting points, some of which follow (albeit remotely) from the Railway Byelaws, the subject of this thread, and many do not. I'll offer a response to some of these, but I'll leave some of the personal opinions without comment.
. . the general public who, it seems to me, have few enshrined rights or safeguards, relying instead on a 'TOC' to behave at all times in a fair and reasonable manner. Such behaviour, on the basis of various threads on this forum, not being entirely evident, specifically in relation to the behaviour of Northern and their non-penalty fare civil remedy scheme. Unfortunately we only see one element of the process on this forum, we do not hear, for example, of the (large?) majority of passengers who are simply allowed to buy a ticket . . . . .
This point is interesting because it begins with an assertion (with which I can't agree) and then considers how that point could be balanced with an alternative approach. What I disagree with is that passengers have 'few enshrined rights or safeguards'. I believe that rail passengers have a great many rights and safeguards; I even suspect that a passenger enjoys a greater degree of protection than in many of their homes, workplaces or during alternative modes of travel.
But what I find perplexing about the 'balanced approach' to the issue is that your choice of 'balance' is a non-ticket-holding passenger being "allowed to buy a ticket". I would have thought that the proportionate and balanced state of affairs is to consider is the chronic degree of fare evasion experienced by some of the UK's rail operators, particularly those with a high proportion of local urban travel (including Norther Rail which you refer to several times). I find it helpful to consider options for dealing with ticketless travel in the context of the known characteristics of fare evasion.
Referencing the tradition of reliance on the honesty, "fairness and reasonableness", I would have to balance your observation with the industry's reliance on the honesty, fairness and reasonableness of their passengers. I would note that it is an honesty, fairness and reasonableness which so regularly deserts rail passengers when they're asked about their journey or about their ticket by an Inspector.
I have concerns with the issuing of 'administrative charges' (the £80 + your fare special deal), the underlying threat being, take the easy option or risk a criminal record.
The 'Failure to Pay' scheme (FTP) introduced by Northern Rail 'sits on top' of the existing legislative framework, specifically including the passenger's duty to buy before boarding (where possible) and the principle of '
innocence until proven guilty' which you had misunderstood previously (see posts above).
There is absolutely
NO threat of a criminal record which doesn't already exist in the absence of the FTP scheme. In fact it is impossible to find anything other than a reduction in the prospects of a criminal record as a consequence of the FTP scheme; this presents a benefit to the passenger, even to the passenger who intends to avoid paying their fare!
I find the methods used by 'debt collectors', and previously by 'car clampers' unacceptable.
You will find 2 or 3 other members of the forum will share your dislike of the FTP scheme, some of whom seem to be on a campaign to poke criticism at Northern Rail whether or not it is appropriate, balanced or proportionate. - I'm sure they'll welcome your analogies!
But I'm unclear as to whether your analogies are directed at the FTP scheme exclusively operated by Northern Rail, or at the tasks of Revenue Inspectors (with or without an FTP scheme available as a strategy with ticketless passengers in addition to the other remedies).
Circumventing the law for speed, convenience and financial benefit it not acceptable.
I take this remark to be a criticism aimed at Northern Rail's FTP scheme. I disagree that any 'law', whether statute, Byelaw, jurisprudence or process is compromised or circumvented. I strongly refute that claim.
The only 'circumvention' that I can imagine is that a routine and determined fare evader might (without the scheme) be detected and prosecuted successfully, but following the FTP scheme's protocol might well escape prosecution - the first time, at least.
As regards Northern, evidencing that the administrative costs actually are £80 each time would be a good starting point.
I doubt that it is far off from a realistic assessment of the cost of the measures introduced in recent years to tackle the inherrent dishonesty discovered by many fare evading passengers. I justify the assertion of dishonesty by reference to the repeated claims by hundreds of passengers that they boarded at a station closer to the destination when intelligence-led revenue protection blocks are applied - sadly the presumption that passengers would be inherently honest if permitted to pay at their destination is part of the challenge faced by the operators of local urban rail services, such as Northern Rail. I have experience myself of astonishingly entrenched abuses of that trust.
It would be interesting to know what is the proportion of cases where, having issued an £80plus deal, the respondent declines to pay it but no subsequent prosecution takes place.
I don't know. You could ask, as could I, but I expect that my question would reman unanswered due to the sensitivity of the data.
A great number of cases do go forward to the Magistrates Courts.
Again based on the threads posted on this forum, I find the behaviour of Northern heading towards unacceptable (morally if not legally), for example 'lurking behind doors', 'at the bottom of ramps', 'round corners' or even following people down the street.
I'll not respond to this, but refer you again to those on here who will take pleasure from reading your opinions, even when taken out of context.
I say, give passengers a clear and proper opportunity to pay their fare rather than trying to catch out as many as possible to generate civil remedies.
So do I !
I also say 'give the railways the correct fare due, rather than try to pay as little as possible as rarely as possible'.
There exists, operative within the UK rail industry and set out in legislation, a Penalty Fares process. Northern, and any others, should not try to circumvent this by inventing a civil equivalent, dressed up to look like a 'fine' or 'penalty fare' but being nothing of the sort - and carefully worded to ensure that it isn't.
Again, I refer your criticism of Northern Rail to those others on here who enjoy that rhetoric.
Personally, I find that two very great advantages to the passenger which Northern's FTP scheme offers, but which the Penalty Fares schemes do not, makes it quite attractive, not that either apply to the fare paying passenger who doesn't suffer some terrible loss of their wallet en route, or terrible failure of memory of where they were travelling from.
. . . . . < opinions, snipped > . . . . . .
. . I also fear that, having arrived at my destination, in seeking out a ticket purchasing opportunity, I may be accused of attempting to travel without having paid i.e. "would you have bought a ticket if I had not been here today?"
That's a perfectly reasonable way to distinguish a person willing to pay and one who is unwilling, isn't it?
. . . . . < opinions of Northern Rail, snipped > . . . . . .
Again, there are a few others on here who will just love these criticisms. There are also a few who tell their tales of determined fare evaders.
Here's my own little anecdotal contribution taken without context: Of the several instances of a passenger suspected of fare evasion whom I have assisted in recent years, I would say that about 90% of them have, on more thorough investigation or enquiry, turned out to have been concealing another dishonesty which only compounds the accusation of fare evasion (e.g. claiming that the occasion when they were detected was a unique event when it was a regular practice etc.), even trying to deceive the person who might be able to help them. Yes, ninety percent! I find that my dissapointment at that degree of deceit is more concerning to me than any of the fears that you've listed.
Now then, . . . . . . . what was that question about the Byelaws?
