Question Regarding Dom on the Spot

[Bletchleyite]

However, At around 8:40 into the program, a young lady is issued with a penalty fare for over traveling on a ticket. She claims the tickets are the same price, which after checking on the London Midland site is correct. Why couldn't she just be issued with a zero fare excess instead of issuing a penalty fare?

I must admit that, while the rules are technically that she is in the wrong and the PF is valid, this is *incredibly* poor customer service, and I completely agree, she should have received a zero-fare excess and possibly a "don't do it again". She clearly knew the fare was the same (and possibly the difficulty in actually obtaining zero-fare excesses - I have asked for them many times and have been told anything from "you have to buy a single" (rather unfair in my mind[1]) to "just travel anyway, it's the same price" but have NEVER been actually issued one) and so was clearly not out to evade anything. And on provincial buses fares are often based on amount, not destination (or if destinations show they are issued to the furthest point for that fare).

FWIW I was there when they filmed the Euston one, and walked behind while filming to get to the temporary bogs...but sadly seem to have missed out on appearing!

[1] Probably cheaper on routes like that to find the first station where the fare differs and excess to that!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Since she was aware that there was no difference in fare, why did it never occur to her to buy a ticket to Selly Oak instead of University?

Might she have been on the return half and not known how to use a TVM to issue a ticket from a remote station for the outward instead?

 

[Bletchleyite]

For all we know, the decision to stay on after University could have been made after joining the train (e.g. decided to meet friends in response to text/phone call) and the customer made the entirely reasonable assumption that the "guard" (normal people don't know the difference between a guard, conductor, train manager or RPI) would be reasonable.

Which is precisely why I have a massive problem with guards continuing on-board penalty-free sales when other staff you may meet randomly will issue PFs or even prosecutions or £80 settlement "fakes" (LM doesn't really do these, they prefer statutory PFs).

It needs to be either fully compulsory ticketing with a means to purchase at ALL stations a given train service will serve, and a robust procedure in case of those means failing (like Metrolink) rather than "just get on anyway", or on board purchase permitted at all times. One or the other. Not the confusing proverbial cake-and-eat-it the railway has now.

(For Metrolink one has to call customer services to get a reference number for a free journey if all TVMs are out of use at the boarding station - an added benefit of that is that the fault gets reported VERY quickly)

 

[Bletchleyite]

But, regardless of price, the ticket was valid to Station 'A' but went to Station B, so ticket was invalid surely ? or are we saying that tickets should just say Station A to wherever £3.40 takes you ?

There is a very strong case for city ticketing to be zonal like TfL paper ticketing is and long has been, so she'd have a return ticket for Network Zones 1 and 2, which indeed encompasses both of those stations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not everybody knows that you're allowed to do that.

In some cases, indeed, you aren't.

 

[najaB]

I must admit that, while the rules are technically that she is in the wrong and the PF is valid, this is *incredibly* poor customer service, and I completely agree, she should have received a zero-fare excess and possibly a "don't do it again".

Perhaps you missed the post saying that this was the third time she'd been PF'd for the same thing?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps you missed the post saying that this was the third time she'd been PF'd for the same thing?

The post said it was her third Penalty Fare, not the third Penalty Fare for the same thing, didn't it?

Some people are quite forgetful, it doesn't mean she is a deliberate fare dodger. I hear for example of loads of people who get parking tickets all the time.

 

[najaB]

The post said it was her third Penalty Fare, not the third Penalty Fare for the same thing, didn't it?

Well, both the previous PF's were for no valid ticket, so basically the same thing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, both the previous PF's were for no valid ticket, so basically the same thing.

No, not basically the same thing at all.

Even the Swiss (home of the PF) manage to distinguish between no ticket at all (i.e. intentionally boarding without one) and a partially valid ticket (e.g. forgotten railcard, run off the end etc).

 

[James Wake]

In my opinion with the lady and Mike in Dom on the Spot, that whilst technically correct was extremely harsh and some people would have probably said he's a jobsworth. All the passenger needs to do in future is buy a ticket to Selly Oak and can stop short at University. He's a manager as well, so I wonder what his bosses would think considering LM aren't out of pocket financially.

 

[185143]

I must admit that, while the rules are technically that she is in the wrong and the PF is valid, this is *incredibly* poor customer service, and I completely agree, she should have received a zero-fare excess and possibly a "don't do it again". She clearly knew the fare was the same (and possibly the difficulty in actually obtaining zero-fare excesses - I have asked for them many times and have been told anything from "you have to buy a single" (rather unfair in my mind[1]) to "just travel anyway, it's the same price" but have NEVER been actually issued one) and so was clearly not out to evade anything. And on provincial buses fares are often based on amount, not destination (or if destinations show they are issued to the furthest point for that fare).

FWIW I was there when they filmed the Euston one, and walked behind while filming to get to the temporary bogs...but sadly seem to have missed out on appearing!

[1] Probably cheaper on routes like that to find the first station where the fare differs and excess to that!

I've only ever tried it once-and was given the excess no trouble at all! This was at Stafford, I had a West Hampstead-Brighton I'd bought at Runcorn, and wanted an excess to Hove.

 

[matt_world2004]

I think there should be an amendment to the railway bylaws requiring intent to be proven in cases where someone has an incorrect ticket and there has been no financial loss to the railway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think there should be an amendment to the railway bylaws requiring intent to be proven in cases where someone has an incorrect ticket and there has been no financial loss to the railway.

I think fare evasion (other than serious fraud/forgery, which could be prosecuted as fraud) should be decriminalised, with a higher PF but more robust appeals process and recourse only to civil Courts.

 

[Mojo]

That was exactly how London tube tickets worked 50 years ago before zones - you'd get a ticket that said "Tottenham Court Road 7d".

It still works like that now as LU tickets are issued as "Station of origin" and will just show the station they are bought at and the price (e.g. £4.90 for any journey in Z1-3), even if the customer has selected a specific station.

I totally agree with other posters that it was extremely mean-spirited and not in the interest of good customer service to issue a PF in such circumstances especially given two other customers shown were also issued a PF for what are clearly RoRA offences (travelling on a child ticket and intentionally not paying at all).

I remember when I lived and worked in Birmingham (including a railway job) that the stations and trains were often filled with quite unpleasant characters blatantly fare dodging, with little enforcement action at all and mostly issue of PFs. I see not much of that appears to have changed and may have got worse given LM's cutbacks to station ticket office opening hours, although extended operational hours of the gateline at New St may help (but I did chuckle in that all shots on the TV programme showed the gateline wide open).

 

[Mag_seven]

So in the end this block yielded 94 penalty fares. Are all these 94 penalty fares really all for "genuine mistakes"?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So in the end this block yielded 94 penalty fares. Are all these 94 penalty fares really all for "genuine mistakes"?

I still don't get this "genuine mistake" thing.

If it is genuinely believed that someone has made a mistake, sell them a ticket (the one they should have bought, not an undiscounted Anytime which is a whacking penalty on longer distance routes) and educate them so they hopefully won't make it again.

If someone has deliberately travelled without paying the correct fare, come down on them like a ton of bricks.

What, exactly, is the PF for?

 

[Mag_seven]

I still don't get this "genuine mistake" thing.

If it is genuinely believed that someone has made a mistake, sell them a ticket (the one they should have bought, not an undiscounted Anytime which is a whacking penalty on longer distance routes) and educate them so they hopefully won't make it again.

If someone has deliberately travelled without paying the correct fare, come down on them like a ton of bricks.

What, exactly, is the PF for?

Indeed. My understanding is that in most cases its for not travelling with a valid ticket, not due to intentional fare dodging but through genuine misunderstandings of what constitutes a "valid ticket". Intentional fare dodging is supposed to be handled through prosecutions etc. However there seems to be an implication that PF's are being used for what appear to be genuine cases of intentional fare dodging as evidenced in the programme.

 

[gray1404]

It is in London Midlands interests to issue a PF rather then taking court action. They get the full £20 in revenue either there and then or in a much shorter space of time. They do not have to take the risk of going to court and not winning and it lowers their costs issuing a PF rather then taking a matter to court. I personally think it is the best way to deal with things. Of course if someone is doing it time after time that is a different matter. This way avoids dragging it out and all the letter writing.

I do think there needs to be more mystery shopping though checking that PFs are only issued when they should be. i.e. RPI should be tested to ensure they do not issue one when it is not right to do so e.g. to disabled people who say they were unable to buy a ticket or if a customer hasn't had enough interchange time when changing trains but having come from an unmanned station etc...

 

[najaB]

What, exactly, is the PF for?

It's for situations where the passenger has done wrong and an official sanction is merited but where the TOC doesn't want to have to trouble the Court.

It's in the same vein as on-the-spot fines for littering.

 

[MikeSprint]

I do think there needs to be more mystery shopping though checking that PFs are only issued when they should be. i.e. RPI should be tested to ensure they do not issue one when it is not right to do so e.g. to disabled people who say they were unable to buy a ticket or if a customer hasn't had enough interchange time when changing trains but having come from an unmanned station etc...[/QUOTE]

I wholeheartedly agree, an independent body should check we are doing our jobs properly, at least they would have the full facts to base an opinion on, much better than "trial by forum".