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

[Brissle Girl]

Moderator note: Split from

17 Year old with a child's ticket: Ridiculous fine?

My son travelled on a transport for wales train between Runcorn East and Warrington Bank Quay and on leaving the station was challenged for his ticket which he showed (it was a child ticket) there was and army of Avanti west coast staff at the exit. He had his detail took and carried on to work...

www.railforums.co.uk

Thanks for your replies here is the letter attached, surely I don't have to pay there costs? For one letter £150

Investigating fare evasion, both on the network and in the back office will cost a lot of money. Surely those caught should bear those costs, rather than passengers who pay the correct fare?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Investigating fare evasion, both on the network and in the back office will cost a lot of money.

No it doesn’t.

If Ms E Ashby at Transport Investigations has spent more than five minutes on this case I will eat my hat- for starters, if she had spent more than two minutes on it, she’d have got the fare correct.

I’m equally sure Ms E Ashby isn’t paid £1500 an hour.

They charge it because they can. It is for the OP to decide if they’d prefer to be rinsed by Ms E Ashby at Transport Investigations or have it go to the Magistrates Court. But I think the OP is entirely correct to be outraged by the business practices of Transport Investigations.

 

[6Gman]

No it doesn’t.

If Ms E Ashby at Transport Investigations has spent more than five minutes on this case I will eat my hat- for starters, if she had spent more than two minutes on it, she’d have got the fare correct.

I’m equally sure Ms E Ashby isn’t paid £1500 an hour.

They charge it because they can. It is for the OP to decide if they’d prefer to be rinsed by Ms E Ashby at Transport Investigations or have it go to the Magistrates Court. But I think the OP is entirely correct to be outraged by the business practices of Transport Investigations.

I agree with Brissie Girl

To assume that the sole cost of investigating an issue is the proportion of salary directly attributable to the employee sending out the letter is a gross oversimplification.

I suspect none of us can know the exact average cost (and "average" can have several meanings) but if it was a huge moneyspinner why wouldn't the TOCs keep it in house?

 

[WesternLancer]

No it doesn’t.

If Ms E Ashby at Transport Investigations has spent more than five minutes on this case I will eat my hat- for starters, if she had spent more than two minutes on it, she’d have got the fare correct.

I’m equally sure Ms E Ashby isn’t paid £1500 an hour.

They charge it because they can. It is for the OP to decide if they’d prefer to be rinsed by Ms E Ashby at Transport Investigations or have it go to the Magistrates Court. But I think the OP is entirely correct to be outraged by the business practices of Transport Investigations.

I see your point, but who paid / or should pay the wages (+on costs, pension contribs etc etc) of all the Avanti staff employed to do the revenue protection block that identified the person with the wrong ticket on the day? These are all costs associated with fare evasion surely. It's not just the costs run up by TIL in pursuing this offender in my view.

 

[Watershed]

I agree with Brissie Girl

To assume that the sole cost of investigating an issue is the proportion of salary directly attributable to the employee sending out the letter is a gross oversimplification.

I suspect none of us can know the exact average cost (and "average" can have several meanings)

That is of course true, but equally it doesn't take an expert to work out that £150 will be far in excess of the reasonably apportioned costs of dealing with any one case - especially a simple one.

One must of course also make some allowance for other direct costs of employment (employer's NI, pension contributions, holidays, sick pay etc.) as well as the general costs of operating (e.g. office rental, business rates) but

Doing some "back of a fag packet" calculations, Transport Investigations Limited looks to have made around £290k in profits last year based on the year-on-year increase in the Profit & Loss Account shown in their latest company accounts. They may have paid out dividends too - the accounts don't say.

Equally we don't know exactly how many "customers" they dealt with, but given they only work with a limited subset of TOCs and a typical TOC such as EMR deals with around 2,000 prosecutions a year I'd be surprised if they dealt with more than 10,000 a year.

That would suggest a very healthy profit indeed of at least £30 per "customer", and quite possibly more than that.

but if it was a huge moneyspinner why wouldn't the TOCs keep it in house?

The same question could be asked about almost any other aspect of TOC operations that's sometimes contracted out and other times done in-house - such as train maintenance, advertising and staffing stations (notably ticket barriers).

At the end of the day TOCs will make a decision based on a range of factors; no doubt TIL's aggressive tactics will mean they can boast of good statistics and thus make a strong case for getting a contract to act on behalf of TOCs in revenue protection matters.

I see your point, but who paid / or should pay the wages (+on costs, pension contribs etc etc) of all the Avanti staff employed to do the revenue protection block that identified the person with the wrong ticket on the day? These are all costs associated with fare evasion surely. It's not just the costs run up by TIL in pursuing this offender in my view.

It's reasonable for those caught to pay an apportionment of the costs of the staff that deal with their case.

What isn't reasonable, in my view, is to charge them more merely for having revenue protection staff in the first place - and certainly not charging them more because Avanti decide to deal with their irregularity by means of a prosecution, rather than the more sensible approach of selling a new Anytime Single, or issuing a Penalty Fare or Unpaid Fares Notice.

Issuing a PF would of course require them to implement a PF scheme - but GWR, EMR and TPE are all long-distance operators with such a scheme so it wouldn't exactly be a novel concept.

 

[Gloster]

One thought. Has anyone factored in that they probably send out a lot of letters that produce no financial gain: false details, moved on, can’t be bothered or traced? Whether it is reasonable that those who do deal with the matter end up contributing to the costs created by those who don’t is another matter.

 

[Tetchytyke]

who paid / or should pay the wages (+on costs, pension contribs etc etc) of all the Avanti staff employed to do the revenue protection block that identified the person with the wrong ticket on the day? These are all costs associated with fare evasion surely

Those revenue protection staff are there irrespective of how many or few fare evaders they catch at a particular station. Catch nobody all day and they’re still there, still checking tickets, still doing their job.

We saw similar about ten years ago when shops tried to recover the cost of in-store security from shoplifters. They used the civil recovery system, not the threat of a criminal prosecution. But the courts generally found that it is not reasonable to apportion the full cost of their employment on to those they apprehend, because to a large extent they would be there anyway.

In simple terms, if an RPI costing (with on-costs) £50/hour checks 100 people in an hour and only one is a fare evader, shouldn’t the fare evader only be responsible for 1% of the cost of the RPI for that hour?

It's reasonable for those caught to pay an apportionment of the costs of the staff that deal with their case.

In theory I completely agree. But it should be the costs of the staff- and nothing else.

However as you say, Transport Investigations are a very profitable business. And, as I noted before, clearly the staff aren’t taking much time on each case otherwise basic mistakes wouldn’t keep being made. It isn’t the first time E Ashby’s name has appeared here with some ’interesting’ mathematics. If her involvement stretches much beyond pressing print on a template letter, I’d be astounded.

I work in the regulatory industry in a medium-senior role earning roughly £25 an hour. Even with on-costs, nobody can seriously tell me that the standard £150 fee reflects work carried out- at my wages it equates to three to four solid hours work!

As I said in the thread, they charge it for no other reason than they can.

if it was a huge moneyspinner why wouldn't the TOCs keep it in house?

Most TOCs do keep it in house.

As to why the others don’t, same reason why they outsource anything- it’s simpler. I’m sure they get a proportion of any revenue TIL recover, but with none of the overheads.

Has anyone factored in that they probably send out a lot of letters that produce no financial gain: false details, moved on, can’t be bothered or traced?

They probably do. But that’s just too bad. As you say, it isn’t fair to apportion the costs of those who don’t reply on to those who do.

 

[Iggy12a]

TIL have their fingers in a number of pies, such as providing agency staff to TOCs, London Underground and also for conducting surveys, so you cannot even deduce on the back of a fag packet, how much profit they make per case investigated by that particular area of the business.

 

[RT4038]

Those revenue protection staff are there irrespective of how many or few fare evaders they catch at a particular station. Catch nobody all day and they’re still there, still checking tickets, still doing their job.

We saw similar about ten years ago when shops tried to recover the cost of in-store security from shoplifters. They used the civil recovery system, not the threat of a criminal prosecution. But the courts generally found that it is not reasonable to apportion the full cost of their employment on to those they apprehend, because to a large extent they would be there anyway.

In simple terms, if an RPI costing (with on-costs) £50/hour checks 100 people in an hour and only one is a fare evader, shouldn’t the fare evader only be responsible for 1% of the cost of the RPI for that hour?


In theory I completely agree. But it should be the costs of the staff- and nothing else.

However as you say, Transport Investigations are a very profitable business. And, as I noted before, clearly the staff aren’t taking much time on each case otherwise basic mistakes wouldn’t keep being made. It isn’t the first time E Ashby’s name has appeared here with some ’interesting’ mathematics. If her involvement stretches much beyond pressing print on a template letter, I’d be astounded.

I work in the regulatory industry in a medium-senior role earning roughly £25 an hour. Even with on-costs, nobody can seriously tell me that the standard £150 fee reflects work carried out- at my wages it equates to three to four solid hours work!

As I said in the thread, they charge it for no other reason than they can.


Most TOCs do keep it in house.

As to why the others don’t, same reason why they outsource anything- it’s simpler. I’m sure they get a proportion of any revenue TIL recover, but with none of the overheads.


They probably do. But that’s just too bad. As you say, it isn’t fair to apportion the costs of those who don’t reply on to those who do.

I really don't understand why you would seek to reduce the 'penalty' for fare evasion? It costs the railway huge sums (in both lost revenue and employment of revenue protection and recovery/prosecution) and this ultimately falls on all rail travellers/taxpayers.

No wonder there is so much shoplifting if courts take that 'liberal' view that in-store security is a cost to be paid for by everyone, whether they steal or not.

 

[Brissle Girl]

I really don't understand why you would seek to reduce the 'penalty' for fare evasion? It costs the railway huge sums (in both lost revenue and employment of revenue protection and recovery/prosecution) and this ultimately falls on all rail travellers/taxpayers.

No wonder there is so much shoplifting if courts take that 'liberal' view that in-store security is a cost to be paid for by everyone, whether they steal or not.

Agree totally. Any complaint that the amount is not fair is a bit rich coming from someone who has been discovered travelling without a valid ticket, particularly for those (as in the case that triggered the thread) where there was deliberate fare evasion.

There is undoubtedly a deterrent element to the level chosen too, and I support that approach. If someone caught thinks they are only going to pay for the cost of a new ticket plus £15 for the cost of a letter then the risk/reward of evasion would swing in the favour of evasion, as the penalty of being caught would be relatively minor.

And it’s an offer. It needn’t be accepted, and the recipient can choose the alternative of a day in court if they so wish.

 

[WesternLancer]

I really don't understand why you would seek to reduce the 'penalty' for fare evasion? It costs the railway huge sums (in both lost revenue and employment of revenue protection and recovery/prosecution) and this ultimately falls on all rail travellers/taxpayers.

No wonder there is so much shoplifting if courts take that 'liberal' view that in-store security is a cost to be paid for by everyone, whether they steal or not.

I tend to agree - there needs to be an element of the punitive about out of court settlements or otherwise there is surely little to no incentive for the railway to engage in them - they would just, I assume, send more cases to court (which is worse for the person with an incorrect ticket by mistake) or certainly means little to no hope for a deliberate, but perhaps naive to the consequences evader getting one - of which many come here for help and get such settlements, as well as less income to the railway.

 

[Watershed]

I really don't understand why you would seek to reduce the 'penalty' for fare evasion?

Out of Court settlements are not supposed to be a penalty, although the made-up "admin" fees often make them more expensive than a Penalty Fare.

It costs the railway huge sums (in both lost revenue and employment of revenue protection and recovery/prosecution) and this ultimately falls on all rail travellers/taxpayers.

That's just how it works. But you can't expect one person who is caught to pay for the fares avoided by everyone else. Neither could you expect them to pay for the cost of installing ticket barriers, for example. As @Tetchytyke correctly says, these things would all be in place and happening regardless of how many people are caught.

No wonder there is so much shoplifting if courts take that 'liberal' view that in-store security is a cost to be paid for by everyone, whether they steal or not.

I seriously doubt that anyone will be put off shoplifting based on the exact level of their potential civil liability

At the end of the day, prices in shops do reflect an expected level of 'shrinkage'. You're never going to catch every shoplifter and you can't make the few shoplifters caught pay for the entire cost of everyone's shoplifting (or preventative measures). That's if they even have the money to pay for what they've taken!

Agree totally. Any complaint that the amount is not fair is a bit rich coming from someone who has been discovered travelling without a valid ticket, particularly for those (as in the case that triggered the thread) where there was deliberate fare evasion.

Surely you must agree there has to be a limit, though? What if the out of Court offer included £500 in "admin fees"?

There is undoubtedly a deterrent element to the level chosen too

No doubt, but shysters such as TIL continue to maintain the amounts requested represent "costs". That is fundamentally dishonest in my view.

and I support that approach. If someone caught thinks they are only going to pay for the cost of a new ticket plus £15 for the cost of a letter then the risk/reward of evasion would swing in the favour of evasion, as the penalty of being caught would be relatively minor.

Penalty Fares are a much better alternative. They provide a proper and independent means of appeal (at least in theory); the amount is foreseeable and there are warnings prior to travel.

Surely the deterrence effect of a large yellow poster at every entrance to a station (as would be the case if TOCs complied with the Regulation's obligations...) would be much greater than any penalty imposed after the fact, the amount of which could not possibly have been predicted.

And it’s an offer. It needn’t be accepted, and the recipient can choose the alternative of a day in court if they so wish.

You say that as if this were a bargain made between equals. It's obviously not; imagine if you called 999 and were told it's £150 if you want an ambulance. You could choose to drive to hospital instead, but who is likely to accept that alternative in such a situation?

I tend to agree - there needs to be an element of the punitive about out of court settlements or otherwise there is surely little to no incentive for the railway to engage in them - they would just, I assume, send more cases to court (which is worse for the person with an incorrect ticket by mistake) or certainly means little to no hope for a deliberate, but perhaps naive to the consequences evader getting one - of which many come here for help and get such settlements, as well as less income to the railway.

The problem, in my view, is rather more that there is little incentive in the railway handling irregularities by means of a Penalty Fare. That seems to me to be the most appropriate course of action for 95% of cases, with only the most exceptional cases of fraud or long-standing fare evasion warranting prosecution.

 

[Tallguy]

You are all missing the point. If you don’t travel without a valid ticket then you won’t end up paying TIL’s or whoever’s investigation costs etc. They can charge what they like ( and we have seen the admin fee rising recently) as they know people will do almost anything to avoid going to court and the subsequent criminal record if successfully prosecuted.

expect Admin fees of £250 or more on the way.

it really is that simple.

 

[Tetchytyke]

There is undoubtedly a deterrent element to the level chosen too, and I support that approach

Perhaps there is, perhaps there isn't. Punitive approach or price gouging from a position of strength. You say tomato, I say tomato.

Of course the underlying legal principle is that these types of things should not be punitive, they should be there to place the aggrieved party back into the position it would have been in had the event not taken place. Which is why TIL persist in the fiction that it is an administrative penalty which accurately reflects their costs incurred in that case. Which, unless you genuinely believe E Ashby is paid £1500 an hour, is clearly nonsense.

In the Penalty Fare system- where this would have ended up had Avanti done Penalty Fares- the punitive element (inclusive of administration costs) is £50. I do not understand how anyone can justify TIL attempting to charge three times this amount of money.

And it’s an offer. It needn’t be accepted

A viewpoint which, whilst strictly accurate, does not even come close to accurately representing the power dynamics involved. "Pay our rip-off fees or we'll prosecute you" is not the starting point for an offer. Particularly where, even if you plead not guilty, have your day in court, and win, you will be more than £150 out of pocket. If you win in a Magistrates Court you don't normally get your lost earnings back.

The problem, in my view, is rather more that there is little incentive in the railway handling irregularities by means of a Penalty Fare. That seems to me to be the most appropriate course of action for 95% of cases, with only the most exceptional cases of fraud or long-standing fare evasion warranting prosecution.

Indeed. The punitive element (inclusive of administration costs) of a Penalty Fare is £50, and it is fair to say there is more administration required in the issuing of a Penalty Fare.

In this example, E Ashby, with her £1500/hour wages(!), couldn't even type the correct fare into her template letter. With a Penalty Fare that would render the entire notice invalid. But because it's not a Penalty Fare, the choice is cough up/get prosecuted.

I would ban the ability for the railway industry to prosecute people. They cannot do it fairly whilst having a financial incentive in the outcome. The railways resolve unpaid fares by Penalty Fare or they get the police involved. Look at the scandal at the Post Office, which all stemmed from the fact that the Post Office has a financial stake in the prosecution and behaved accordingly- including by not disclosing anything to the defendant that prejudiced the Post Office case. The railways are just as bad, as we see with Northern and Merseyrail routinely and deliberately misrepresenting s.5(1) RoRA and pursuing prosecutions under this act even where someone has provided their name and address to an officer of the railway.

they can charge what they like

That is precisely the point I was making. Thank you!

It's a shame so many people on here think that attitude is acceptable.

If you don’t travel without a valid ticket then you won’t end up paying TIL’s or whoever’s investigation costs etc.

If you don't travel without a valid ticket on an operator who doesn't offer Penalty Fares then you won't end up paying TIL unless you're one of the significant minority of people who *did* have a valid ticket but the railway inspector disagreed, and you also understand that it'll cost you more than £150 even if you have your day in court and win.

No wonder there is so much shoplifting if courts take that 'liberal' view that in-store security is a cost to be paid for by everyone, whether they steal or not.

If an RPI doesn't catch a single fare evader all day, they are still there getting paid and doing their job.

It costs the railway huge sums (in both lost revenue and employment of revenue protection and recovery/prosecution) and this ultimately falls on all rail travellers/taxpayers.

No it doesn't. Even if everyone was completely honest and fare evasion was entirely eliminated you'd still have all/the vast majority of the revenue protection staff in post, because if you don't have them then you're running an honesty box system.

 

[RT4038]

Out of Court settlements are not supposed to be a penalty, although the made-up "admin" fees often make them more expensive than a Penalty Fare.

So what? I am still unsure why you would want to reduce the 'penalty'(however it is dressed up) for fare evasion?

That's just how it works. But you can't expect one person who is caught to pay for the fares avoided by everyone else. Neither could you expect them to pay for the cost of installing ticket barriers, for example. As @Tetchytyke correctly says, these things would all be in place and happening regardless of how many people are caught.

I would expect a contribution towards the particular costs of catching those engaging in fare evasion (RPIs / back office / administration etc). Ticket gates, having ticket equipment at all (rather than an honesty box) is getting a bit far from that.

I seriously doubt that anyone will be put off shoplifting based on the exact level of their potential civil liability

At the end of the day, prices in shops do reflect an expected level of 'shrinkage'. You're never going to catch every shoplifter and you can't make the few shoplifters caught pay for the entire cost of everyone's shoplifting (or preventative measures). That's if they even have the money to pay for what they've taken!


Surely you must agree there has to be a limit, though? What if the out of Court offer included £500 in "admin fees"?

Not sure anyone has suggested they have to pay the entire cost (even if that could be accurately calculated), but I don't see why it should be a burden on the rest of the public either. Somewhere there is a compromise. Whilst there will be an 'expected level of shrinkage', society demands that this should be minimised and offenders penalised.

Yes there should be a limit - Not sure what it should be, but £500 in admin fees doesn't seem that unreasonable per offence???

No doubt, but shysters such as TIL continue to maintain the amounts requested represent "costs". That is fundamentally dishonest in my view.

I don't think it is dishonest - someone has got to pay for RPIs / back office / admin etc. Again, I don't get this desire to make fare evasion less costly to offenders?

Penalty Fares are a much better alternative. They provide a proper and independent means of appeal (at least in theory); the amount is foreseeable and there are warnings prior to travel.

Surely the deterrence effect of a large yellow poster at every entrance to a station (as would be the case if TOCs complied with the Regulation's obligations...) would be much greater than any penalty imposed after the fact, the amount of which could not possibly have been predicted.

Again I do not see why anything should be made easier on fare evaders ('the amount is foreseeable' implies that evaders could make an easier financial tradeoff between buying a ticket and the likelihood of getting caught).

I would think that a greater certainty of getting caught, plus a sizeable penalty, will have a far greater deterrence effect to posters telling people what they should know already (not that the posters shouldn't be there as well)

If you win in a Magistrates Court you don't normally get your lost earnings back.

Perhaps it is this sort of thing that needs reviewing?

If an RPI doesn't catch a single fare evader all day, they are still there getting paid and doing their job.


No it doesn't. Even if everyone was completely honest and fare evasion was entirely eliminated you'd still have all/the vast majority of the revenue protection staff in post, because if you don't have them then you're running an honesty box system.

If everyone was honest, then you could have an honesty box system. But they are not, so in principle those who aren't should be paying for the enforcement system. In practice, a majority would be dishonest if they thought they could get away with little or no punishment. So the majority pay for the 'run of the mill' deterrence and the evaders pay for the extra costs on top (which should be a proportion of RPIs/back office + admin).

 

[Bertie the bus]

In simple terms, if an RPI costing (with on-costs) £50/hour checks 100 people in an hour and only one is a fare evader, shouldn’t the fare evader only be responsible for 1% of the cost of the RPI for that hour?

Of course they shouldn't. In what way have the other 99 passengers benefitted from having their ticket checked? Why should they contribute towards the cost? If it wasn't for that 1 person there wouldn't be a need to employ this £50 per hour person in the first place.

 

[RT4038]

Of course they shouldn't. In what way have the other 99 passengers benefitted from having their ticket checked? Why should they contribute towards the cost? If it wasn't for that 1 person there wouldn't be a need to employ this £50 per hour person in the first place.

I think that is a little unreasonable. Would the 99 passengers all have had the correct tickets if the ticket checker wasn't employed? Probably not. So there has to be an acceptance of a certain level of deterrence cost spread over everyone. However, there is an amount of extra provided to catch and process the evaders, so it is not unreasonable to expect their costs to be paid by the evaders caught (that is not just the writing of the letters).

 

[Bertie the bus]

Out of Court settlements are not supposed to be a penalty, although the made-up "admin" fees often make them more expensive than a Penalty Fare.

That looks very much like your opinion rather than the fact you are trying to portray it as. Reporting for prosecution is a step up from a Penalty Fare so why would a PF include a penalty element but a potential prosecution not?

I think that is a little unreasonable. Would the 99 passengers all have had the correct tickets if the ticket checker wasn't employed? Probably not. So there has to be an acceptance of a certain level of deterrence cost spread over everyone. However, there is an amount of extra provided to catch and process the evaders, so it is not unreasonable to expect their costs to be paid by the evaders caught (that is not just the writing of the letters).

Some might not have purchased a correct ticket if they didn't expect a ticket check but some people most definitely would have. As there is no way to determine the % who would have regardless but there is a very easy way to determine the % of those who don't then it is perfectly reasonable for those who don't purchase a ticket to pay for it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

In what way have the other 99 passengers benefitted from having their ticket checked? Why should they contribute towards the cost?

The passengers haven't benefitted financially (although the presence of staff is always positive), but the TOC has- it has verified that the passengers are, indeed, in possession of an valid ticket.

If it wasn't for that 1 person there wouldn't be a need to employ this £50 per hour person in the first place.

And how do you know that one person exists if you don't have any revenue protection staff?

If everyone was honest, then you could have an honesty box system.

Could you? If there's no deterrent, would people be honest?

And even if you could have an honesty box system, would you?

As you rightly point out, even if RPIs don't catch any fare evaders, they are there to deter people. In short, they would be there anyway.

That looks very much like your opinion rather than the fact you are trying to portray it as. Reporting for prosecution is a step up from a Penalty Fare so why would a PF include a penalty element but a potential prosecution not?

It sometimes is a step up, and sometimes it isn't- in this case, Avanti don't offer Penalty Fares, so it's either a UFN or prosecution.

In general terms, the legal position is that charges and fees should not be punitive- they should reflect the actual cost of what happened in the specific case. This has been reinforced in the civil courts in relation to shoplifters- shop security guards would be there anyway and so their full cost can't be recovered from shoplifters (although the amount of their time spent on the specific case can be).

The only reason why these fees still exist in the railway industry is because, despite the glaring conflict of interest, the TOCs hold the power of prosecution. Look how well that went at the Post Office.

Again I do not see why anything should be made easier on fare evaders ('the amount is foreseeable' implies that evaders could make an easier financial tradeoff between buying a ticket and the likelihood of getting caught).

Nobody is claiming that it should be easier to evade fares. Much as it's a useful straw man argument for you to make, nobody is actually making it.

FWIW I think TfL have the right attitude- penalty fares through a clearly defined procedure to those people who make a mistake. And, to the more hardened evaders, they go straight to prosecution. If you've made a mistake you pay the clearly defined penalty and, if your conduct is worse, they'll see you in Court.

In most cases, though, TIL's extortion letters are sent to people who should have been dealt with by way of Penalty Fare. Avanti don't do Penalty Fares, offer none of the protections of the Penalty Fare system, yet they can extort a significantly larger fee from passengers as a result. As much as anything, it isn't fair on the TOCs which do play by the rules.

 

[TheJester]

Nobody is claiming that it should be easier to evade fares. Much as it's a useful straw man argument for you to make, nobody is actually making it.

Whilst your strawman is based on your estimates of TIL’s costs…..

 

[RT4038]

Nobody is claiming that it should be easier to evade fares. Much as it's a useful straw man argument for you to make, nobody is actually making it.

Easier to evade fares, or easier on fare evaders [as I said] ? Think you are getting things mixed up.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Whilst your strawman is based on your estimates of TIL’s costs

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.

Easier to evade fares, or easier on fare evaders [as I said] ? Think you are getting things mixed up.

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?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Something quite interesting of late loosely related to this is the Post Office scandal - apparently the issues surrounding private prosecutions in general are now coming to the fore, so might we see some movement on this?

(My view remains that simple fare evasion should be decriminalised and handled via Penalty Fares alone, with the Fraud Act being used with Police and CPS involvement for serious fraud and falsification).

 

[bingleybong]

I'm amazed just how many people are basically trying to avoid saying that they believe fare evasion is ok and should have no real consiquence if you get caught. The costs being asked seem very low to me and it is most certainly reasonable to charge for the total cost of the investigation incuding the overheads. As someone currently spending 1000s to get to work I want the freeloaders punished.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm amazed just how many people are basically trying to avoid saying that they believe fare evasion is ok and should have no real consiquence if you get caught. The costs being asked seem very low to me and it is most certainly reasonable to charge for the total cost of the investigation incuding the overheads. As someone currently spending 1000s to get to work I want the freeloaders punished.

I'm more than happy for serious fare evaders to be prosecuted for fraud and fined. And this should go via the Police, CPS and Courts, not the effective bribery of a settlement.

However, these settlements are being used for far more than that, including genuine errors like expired Railcards. I am not OK with that.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm amazed just how many people are basically trying to avoid saying that they believe fare evasion is ok and should have no real consiquence if you get caught.

Who is saying that?

Low level minor evasion gets dealt with by Penalty Fares. £50+the unpaid fare is not of “no real consequence”. If you think a £50 penalty is neither here nor there then I wish I earned what you did!

And if everyone is agreed that the current £50 is too low, the solution is to change the PF regulations, not to just ignore them.

High-level or repeated evasion gets prosecuted properly by the professionals.

What we cut out are the bottom-feeders at TIL.

Something quite interesting of late loosely related to this is the Post Office scandal - apparently the issues surrounding private prosecutions in general are now coming to the fore, so might we see some movement on this?

I certainly hope so- there is a huge conflict of interest where the aggrieved party gets to manage the prosecution. As we saw with the Post Office, commercial pressures affected their decision making and they didn’t disclose things properly.

We see the same things in railway prosecutions too- the railways won’t disclose when, say, PF signage is non-compliant. The railways will wilfully and deliberately misrepresent what RoRA says. The best way of ensuring justice is delivered is to prevent the organisations from prosecuting their own cases.

And this should go via the Police, CPS and Courts, not the effective bribery of a settlement.

Quite. As we saw with the Surrey doughnutter, if you have the money the current system means you don’t face any consequences for your actions. That guy should have been prosecuted for fraud but wasn’t because it suited SouthEastern to accept a cheque instead.

Just as ripping people off for genuine errors like expired railcards is not ok, that’s really not ok either.

 

[bingleybong]

If you think a £50 penalty is neither here nor there then I wish I earned what you did!

So evade £100s of fares, get caught once and pay £50. Even £150 seems pretty low to me.

 

[Jim the Jim]

Deterrents against fare evasion are clearly desirable. Not sending people to court for minor or technical breaches of ticketing law is also probably desirable. Out-of-court settlements offer a solution to both of these, but come with the additional problems of being unregulated and, occasionally, used when no crime could be proved anyway. They start to resemble vigilantism or some sort of racket: the kind of behaviour that is not generally accepted in our society.

A solution, surely, is an expansion of the penalty fares scheme, avoiding the courts whilst allowing the financial punishment to be democratically determined and providing a more straightforward ease of redress for the wrongly accused than the stress of a trial.

 

[WesternLancer]

So evade £100s of fares, get caught once and pay £50. Even £150 seems pretty low to me.

It is clear to me that even ppl who come on the forum occasionaly think a £50 penalty fare is a price worth risking from the way they present their cases - this means to me they chance it far more often and are prepared to pay the PF as a risk of getting away with it on other occasions.

The PF system would have to then mean once you got 2 or 3 of them it was straight to court for the next infringement - however minor or genuine error that was.

 

[bingleybong]

The PF system would have to then mean once you got 2 or 3 of them it was straight to court for the next infringement - however minor or genuine error that was.

Yes that would work as would charging a PF for each of the occasions retrospective checks identified.