Pricing of out of court settlements and costs involved in persuing fare evasion cases

[WesternLancer]

Seems strange (to me) that people get worked up about people not paying now and advocating heavy penalties when it was acceptable to travel for free not such a long time ago.

Maybe that is why people are surprised when they are faced with prosecution for something that was acceptable within their lifetime?

I don't think people would generally have thought it was 'acceptable' but might have felt the railway should have done more to make it easier.

Also in those days more obvious desks / booths near barrier line for 'those with fares to pay' although these would nto have been at small stations so a passenger travelling from one unstaffed place to another at a time when a gaurd could not get round on a pay train would not have encountered such a payment booth.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Also in those days more obvious desks / booths near barrier line for 'those with fares to pay' although these would nto have been at small stations so a passenger travelling from one unstaffed place to another at a time when a gaurd could not get round on a pay train would not have encountered such a payment booth.

On Merseyrail the booking office staff would come out and collect tickets, and fares if you hadn't paid. It's likely the latter were often pocketed as no tickets were issued and payment was generally in exact cash. This only stopped when Penalty Fares were introduced in the late 90s.

 

[jumble]

I’m guessing you don’t know what a straw man argument is?

Even with all the on-costs- NICs, gas, electric, office rent- there’s no way on God’s green earth that a case like this costs £150. If they’ve spent 12 minutes on the entire case I’ll be absolutely astounded. It is all paste-and-print template letters.

£150/0.2 gives an income of £750 an hour. But let’s be very generous and say in total, including the RPI’s time, they’ve spent half an hour on the whole case. You reckon their costs are £300/hour? Really? Really really? Barristers instructed by the CPS don’t get paid that, “senior prosecution caseworkers” certainly don’t.



As I said, I prefer the TfL attitude of using Penalty Fares for mistakes and first offences, and going straight to prosecution for the bigger stuff. It’s fairer for everyone- including the TOCs who play by the rules and use Penalty Fares.

In so much of life we have standard penalties for standard minor offences- parking, speeding, not paying your road tax. On the railway we do too, there’s a whole regulatory framework governing it. But sure, expecting TOCs to use these frameworks is being “easy” on people, and TIL’s tactic of waving a damp finger in the air for a “settlement” is much better. Hmm. We must have different ideas of justice.

Maybe we should do it for everything. If one copper stops you then it’s £100 for a minor speeding offence, but if another one stops you then they can charge you whatever they want?

If only it were so simple
The things that might be also taken into account are
The endless back and forth that some people being contacted will indulge themselves in.
The people who are investigated disappear and are untraceable so that half hour labour expended you mention does not bring in a penny
Who should pay for that?
Corporation Tax on the business profits ( or do you think they should break even?)

 

[Tetchytyke]

The endless back and forth that some people being contacted will indulge themselves in.

Doesn’t happen. The “generous offers” are strictly on the terms of ‘pay up or get stuffed’.

The people who are investigated disappear and are untraceable

Then the RPI and TIL should have done their job properly and got a proper ID.

Who should pay for that?

It’s certainly an interesting logic to say that those caught by revenue protection should pay for the failure of revenue protection in an entirely separate situation.

TIL don’t have any shortage of profit, it should be noted.

 

[Camsus]

I'm sure they have, but that is a cost of business. That investment would still have been made even if, subsequently, it turns out that all their customers are as honest as the day is long and they didn't catch another fare evader all day long.

Most TOC's wouldn't need Fraud Departments, Revenue Protection Inspectors and Prosecutions Departments if all passengers were honest as the day is long. I imagine all of these things cost a hefty amount and, whilst they may be a cost of business, I can see why a TOC would apply a charge for investigation time & resources. There's also the fact that if they didn't apply an additional charge for investigating, they'd effectively be allowing the person to pay back the rail fares only.
I'd question where the deterrent is if someone got to pay an out of court settlement consisting solely of the rail fares that should have been paid in the first place?

 

[farleigh]

Most TOC's wouldn't need Fraud Departments, Revenue Protection Inspectors and Prosecutions Departments if all passengers were honest as the day is long. I imagine all of these things cost a hefty amount and, whilst they may be a cost of business, I can see why a TOC would apply a charge for investigation time & resources. There's also the fact that if they didn't apply an additional charge for investigating, they'd effectively be allowing the person to pay back the rail fares only.
I'd question where the deterrent is if someone got to pay an out of court settlement consisting solely of the rail fares that should have been paid in the first place?

Does the sum total of evaded fares per year exceed the cost of Fraud Departments etc.

i.e. do they produce a net benefit for the rail industry?

 

[Krokodil]

Does the sum total of evaded fares per year exceed the cost of Fraud Departments etc.

By some margin

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Does the sum total of evaded fares per year exceed the cost of Fraud Departments etc.

By some margin

I may be being dim here, but how does the amount recovered by Fraud Departments etc. compare to the cost of them?

Of course, even if Fraud Departments are a cost rather than an income for the railway, there’s still potentially a justification (albeit harder to quantify) in that there’s a deterrent effect on those who would cheat but fear the risk of being caught.

 

[Haywain]

By some margin

What's your evidence for saying this?

 

[Camsus]

What's your evidence for saying this?

Not sure how accurate this figure is, but I noticed a letter from GTR that was posted on another thread a few days ago, which stated fare evasion costs the rail industry £240 million per year

 

[spag23]

Does the sum total of evaded fares per year exceed the cost of Fraud Departments etc.

i.e. do they produce a net benefit for the rail industry?

More to the point, what would happen to fare evasion levels if you got rid of the Fraud Departments etc?

 

[island]

Wonder whether this (= Elaine Ashby) is a real name / actual person at Transport Investigations Ltd?

It certainly wouldn't be the first time such shenanigans had happened - Capita use fake names of people in non-existent roles to sign the threatening letters they send to anyone without a TV Licence.

"Shenanigans" is rather harsh. When sending letters to people who have broken the law, it is not unknown for them to take exception to them. A small but non-trivial cohort of recipients of the letters attempt to track down and harass the signatories, which I'm sure you'll agree is undesirable and easily avoided.

Admittedly 20+ years ago, but back then so did a chain of catalogue retailers I used to work for, and according to a friend who works there, so does one of the big banks

Indeed.

Then the RPI and TIL should have done their job properly and got a proper ID.

People aren't required to carry identification in this country, so it's not always possible to detect fake details.

 

[Tetchytyke]

"Shenanigans" is rather harsh

I’m not so sure it is.

I quite agree that some people will take such correspondence badly, and a sub-set of those people may attempt to track down the author. But if you’re threatening to prosecute someone then you should use your real name. Police officers do.

After all, if it gets to court the real name will become apparent- I’m assuming these people don’t use fake names on court papers.

People aren't required to carry identification in this country, so it's not always possible to detect fake details.

I quite agree, and most verification systems will only really work where someone is on the electrical roll and has financial products and is providing real details. If you provide a fake name it will show as “not verified”, not that you’re telling a lie.

But railway staff do have the power to detain to present someone to a Constable.

 

[island]

I quite agree that some people will take such correspondence badly, and a sub-set of those people may attempt to track down the author. But if you’re threatening to prosecute someone then you should use your real name.

Why? What actual benefit does that deliver?

Police officers do.

They have a lot more power, not to mention self defence training, than someone sitting in an office processing papers.

But railway staff do have the power to detain to present someone to a Constable.

A Victorian era power that most are under strict instructions not to use and that risks them being physically attacked.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'd question where the deterrent is if someone got to pay an out of court settlement consisting solely of the rail fares that should have been paid in the first place?

The legal principle is that such fees should not be a punishment, they should reflect the costs actually incurred. That’s why TIL and the TOCs specifically say in their letters that the costs reflect the cost of investigating the matter.

So whether the settlement figure should have a penalising element is irrelevant- TIL and the TOCs don’t claim that it does.

If you want to charge a penalty, join the Penalty Fares scheme- and use it.

Given Northern, as an example, have a systemwide Penalty Fares scheme, it is alarming that they have issued over 10,000 “administrative offers” in the last year.

Why? What actual benefit does that deliver?

It provides transparency and accountability to the process.

And, as I say, if that person carries out the prosecution then their real name will become apparent in the criminal court papers.

They have a lot more power, not to mention self defence training, than someone sitting in an office processing papers.

Decisions to issue these offers should be made by senior managers, not some office admin on minimum wage.

So if the senior manager is getting the big bucks, why shouldn’t they be putting their name to their decisions?

The other alternative is to not use names at all- the likes of the DWP don’t.

 

[island]

It provides transparency and accountability to the process.

Again, to what benefit? If a decision maker needs to be held “accountable”, the identity of that decision maker can be ascertained by those who need to know it from the case number.

Decisions to issue these offers should be made by senior managers, not some office admin on minimum wage.

There is no evidence to suggest that “office admins on minimum wage” are processing these cases, but if “senior managers” were doing the same work for a higher wage and therefore offering higher settlement amounts to cover the higher cost, would you be happy?

So if the senior manager is getting the big bucks, why shouldn’t they be putting their name to their decisions?

This is an argument from a nonexistent premise.

The other alternative is to not use names at all- the likes of the DWP don’t.

Why is using no name OK and using a generic name not?

 

[Camsus]

I’m not so sure it is.

I quite agree that some people will take such correspondence badly, and a sub-set of those people may attempt to track down the author. But if you’re threatening to prosecute someone then you should use your real name. Police officers do.

Has anyone actually established that any TOC uses fake names in correspondence, or has this just been mooted?

After all, if it gets to court the real name will become apparent- I’m assuming these people don’t use fake names on court papers.


I quite agree, and most verification systems will only really work where someone is on the electrical roll and has financial products and is providing real details. If you provide a fake name it will show as “not verified”, not that you’re telling a lie.

I'd imagine there are ways to confuse things, such as providing an old address where previously registered, or the name and address of a friend. What's a member of railway staff to do if they are unable to verify a name and/or address, as ultimately they can't deal with someone indefinitely?

But railway staff do have the power to detain to present someone to a Constable.

What TOC is this you are referring to? The one I work for doesn't allow staff to touch members of the public unless defending themselves. I'm prerty sure that revenue inspectors actually have to state to people that they are free to leave at anytime.

If a staff member physically detained someone for fare evasion, their job would be on the line. Short of politely requesting that the person stays until the police arrive, there's not much else can be done.

The legal principle is that such fees should not be a punishment, they should reflect the costs actually incurred. That’s why TIL and the TOCs specifically say in their letters that the costs reflect the cost of investigating the matter.

So whether the settlement figure should have a penalising element is irrelevant- TIL and the TOCs don’t claim that it does.

If you want to charge a penalty, join the Penalty Fares scheme- and use it.

I don't know where you got the idea that investigation costs are being inflated by TOC's. Are there any examples of where this is known to have happened?

Given Northern, as an example, have a systemwide Penalty Fares scheme, it is alarming that they have issued over 10,000 “administrative offers” in the last year.


It provides transparency and accountability to the process.

And, as I say, if that person carries out the prosecution then their real name will become apparent in the criminal court papers.


Decisions to issue these offers should be made by senior managers, not some office admin on minimum wage.

Again, how do you know this is the case? You seem to be making a lot of assumptions

So if the senior manager is getting the big bucks, why shouldn’t they be putting their name to their decisions?

The other alternative is to not use names at all- the likes of the DWP don’t.

So no name is fine?

 

[Watershed]

"Shenanigans" is rather harsh. When sending letters to people who have broken the law, it is not unknown for them to take exception to them. A small but non-trivial cohort of recipients of the letters attempt to track down and harass the signatories, which I'm sure you'll agree is undesirable and easily avoided.

It is fundamentally dishonest to use a fake name. You are representing that a person of that name has written the letter, when in fact no such person exists.

Imagine if a TOC found out you'd claimed Delay Repay under a fake name. Do you think they'd write that off as "just one of those things"? I hardly think so.

If organisations are so afraid of giving real names (which as mentioned, will come out of the wash at court if the settlement is refused) then they shouldn't use a name at all. Just refer to a company or department name.

What TOC is this you are referring to? The one I work for doesn't allow staff to touch members of the public unless defending themselves. I'm prerty sure that revenue inspectors actually have to state to people that they are free to leave at anytime.

Every TOC - section 5(2) of RoRA refers.

What the criminal law entitles a member of staff to do and what a company advises its staff to do are two separate matters.

The key point is that you couldn't sue a TOC or member of staff for false imprisonment if they detained you under the above section, even if they did so in breach of their employer's policy.

 

[Camsus]

It is fundamentally dishonest to use a fake name. You are representing that a person of that name has written the letter, when in fact no such person exists.

Imagine if a TOC found out you'd claimed Delay Repay under a fake name. Do you think they'd write that off as "just one of those things"? I hardly think so.

If organisations are so afraid of giving real names (which as mentioned, will come out of the wash at court if the settlement is refused) then they shouldn't use a name at all. Just refer to a company or department name.

Has it been established that fake names are being used, or are we just having a discussion based on if it was the case?

Every TOC - section 5(2) of RoRA refers.

What the criminal law entitles a member of staff to do and what a company advises its staff to do are two separate matters.

The key point is that you couldn't sue a TOC or member of staff for false imprisonment if they detained you under the above section, even if they did so in breach of their employer's policy.

Not getting sued wouldn't be much consolation to someone if they'd been sacked. Why would any staff member try and detain a fare evader if they knew they'd likely face diciplinary action?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Has it been established that fake names are being used, or are we just having a discussion based on if it was the case?

Outside of the railway I've often noticed the name on letters being that of the head of Customer Services or similar, but signed PP (which is what you traditionally put before the signature if signing on behalf of someone, I forget what it stands for, something in Latin I think). I wouldn't be surprised if some do that.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Has it been established that fake names are being used, or are we just having a discussion based on if it was the case?

I previously asked (upthread) if Elaine Ashby was a real name / actual person at Transport Investigations Ltd. No idea if this is actually the case, or not.

 

[Camsus]

Outside of the railway I've often noticed the name on letters being that of the head of Customer Services or similar, but signed PP (which is what you traditionally put before the signature if signing on behalf of someone, I forget what it stands for, something in Latin I think). I wouldn't be surprised if some do that.

It wouldn't surprise me if letters were sent out in a managers name by the staff in that department. So for example, an administrator in a prosecutions department sends out letters in the name of the prosecutions manager.
I've just checked a photo of a letter from GTR that my friend sent me last year after being caught avoiding fares, and it was signed by a 'Fraud Control Officer'

I previously asked (upthread) if Elaine Ashby was a real name / actual person at Transport Investigations Ltd. No idea if this is actually the case, or not.

Here's a screenshot from a consumer action website I found via a quick Google search. Apparently, the author of the post spoke with Elaine Ashby by phone. So unless someone is not only using a fake name on letters, but also pretending to be her on the phone, it would seem she is a real person

 

[Titfield]

Outside of the railway I've often noticed the name on letters being that of the head of Customer Services or similar, but signed PP (which is what you traditionally put before the signature if signing on behalf of someone, I forget what it stands for, something in Latin I think). I wouldn't be surprised if some do that.

PP = per pro

The usual meaning to be "on behalf of".

 

[Mcr Warrior]

PP = per pro

Actually = 'per procurationem' but doubt that would normally ever get all that far past AutoCorrupt.

 

[Tetchytyke]

What TOC is this you are referring to? The one I work for doesn't allow staff to touch members of the public unless defending themselves. I'm prerty sure that revenue inspectors actually have to state to people that they are free to leave at anytime

RoRA confers that power on rail officials. If the TOCs choose not to use it because of the costs of training, etc, that’s a business decision they have made.

I don't know where you got the idea that investigation costs are being inflated by TOC's. Are there any examples of where this is known to have happened?

I’m not sure what you’re arguing. If costs are not inflated then it isn’t a deterrent. If it’s a deterrent then costs are being inflated.

I don’t think TOC staff will be spending £150 of time on each case. £25/hour is a salary of about £45,000. There’s no way TOC staff are spending 4-5 hours on each case and there’s no way that TOC staff are getting paid £100/hour.

Examples where this is known to have happened? Yes, with shop security companies attempting to levy similar fees from shoplifters.

So no name is fine?

It is fundamentally dishonest to use a fake name.

Nothing wrong with using no name.

 

[Dai Corner]

It is fundamentally dishonest to use a fake name.

Would you care to upload an image of your official ID showing your real name is 'Tetchytyke'?

 

[Tetchytyke]

There is no evidence to suggest that “office admins on minimum wage” are processing these cases, but if “senior managers” were doing the same work for a higher wage and therefore offering higher settlement amounts to cover the higher cost, would you be happy?

Your concern appeared to be for people "sitting in offices pushing papers", implying your concern was for lower-ranking and lower-paid members of staff. My position is that the people making these decisions shouldn't be these people, it should be more senior people, and those people should have the courage of their position to put their name to it.

Call me old-fashioned, but I also don't like lying. Using a fake name on official communication is lying.

I have to put my name to the decisions I make in my job.

I have no issue with TOCs charging for the staff time directly spent on processing these matters. However it is obvious that they do not do this, otherwise we would see far more variation in terms of administrative charges being levied. We also wouldn't see the rampant inflation in these charges, which even only a couple of years ago were typically £50-£100 (dependant on TOC) and are now routinely £150+.

Would you care to upload an image of your official ID showing your real name is 'Tetchytyke'?

That will be subject to an administrative fee of £150+VAT.

 

[tspaul26]

But railway staff do have the power to detain to present someone to a Constable.

This isn’t quite correct. There is a limited power to detain under RORA section 5(2) in order to bring a person who refuses or fails to provide his name and address (and subject to sundry other pre-conditions) before the justices or to enable other lawful discharge.

Handing over the subject to a constable under his separate power of arrest would be one method of such discharge and also removes the necessity for use of the section 5(2) power such that continued detention after that point would be unlawful.

A Victorian era power that most are under strict instructions not to use and that risks them being physically attacked.

Indeed. There is a difference between having a power and it’s prudential exercise.

Given Northern, as an example, have a systemwide Penalty Fares scheme, it is alarming that they have issued over 10,000 “administrative offers” in the last year.

I agree, especially since at least some of their extra-statutory correspondence bears the rubric “penalty notice”.

And, as I say, if that person carries out the prosecution then their real name will become apparent in the criminal court papers.

It would be highly unusual for the lower level administrative case handlers to act as the informant.

What TOC is this you are referring to?

All of them.

The one I work for doesn't allow staff to touch members of the public unless defending themselves.

That is a matter of policy only.

I'm prerty sure that revenue inspectors actually have to state to people that they are free to leave at anytime.

This is not correct. The obligation arises under the PACE codes applicable to ‘voluntary’ interview.

I’m not convinced that many RPIs actually comply with the codes properly and saying “you’re free to leave” is rather illusory if within a gateline in any event.

If a staff member physically detained someone for fare evasion, their job would be on the line.

So it should be: there is no such power for TOC staff to detain for this purpose or reason.

Short of politely requesting that the person stays until the police arrive, there's not much else can be done.

Agreed, save where section 5(2) is engaged.

I’m not sure what you’re arguing. If costs are not inflated then it isn’t a deterrent. If it’s a deterrent then costs are being inflated.

I have never seen anything to indicate that the costs amounts have been inflated in any of the cases on this forum.

I don’t think TOC staff will be spending £150 of time on each case. £25/hour is a salary of about £45,000. There’s no way TOC staff are spending 4-5 hours on each case and there’s no way that TOC staff are getting paid £100/hour.

That’s not how legal costs are calculated or measured. It’s not purely based on the hourly wage of the employee.

We also wouldn't see the rampant inflation in these charges, which even only a couple of years ago were typically £50-£100 (dependant on TOC) and are now routinely £150+.

£150 or so is about the right level for cases which dispose at the earliest stage (either just before or immediately following the originating writ) and not obviously inappropriate.

 

[Royston Vasey]

It wouldn't surprise me if letters were sent out in a managers name by the staff in that department. So for example, an administrator in a prosecutions department sends out letters in the name of the prosecutions manager.
I've just checked a photo of a letter from GTR that my friend sent me last year after being caught avoiding fares, and it was signed by a 'Fraud Control Officer'

Here's a screenshot from a consumer action website I found via a quick Google search. Apparently, the author of the post spoke with Elaine Ashby by phone. So unless someone is not only using a fake name on letters, but also pretending to be her on the phone, it would seem she is a real person

That reference is the one I found as well, and it's from 2010. I would be quite surprised if this one person was doing this most thankless of jobs for 15 years now! Imagine how draining that job would be for that period of time!

 

[The exile]

Did anyone ever put more than a single 5p coin in a PERTIS machine?

Very conveniently, 5p was the difference between single and return fare, so if the barrier wasn’t staffed on arrival, I just bought a single back.