RDG, Press Association, ITV mislead that people charged penalty fares are "fare dodging"

[some bloke]

Emails to Press Association and ITV, 21 August 2019

"Imagine you tell a work colleague you've had a refund, and they had seen the ITV story."

.......................................

[to Press Association]

Hello - please correct this story.

https://www.aol.co.uk/news/2019/08/...ssengers-overcharged-for-not-having-valid-ti/
https://twitter.com/PA/status/1164008820755984384

A penalty fare does not require that, and does not imply, that a person was "fare dodging", or even that they are "ticketless".

https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/187936.aspx
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/366/regulation/9/made

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Matt Berkley

.................

Matt Berkley on Twitter: "@PA Please correct a significant error in the story. It wrongly labels people charged penalty fares as "fare dodgers". More detail including a link to the legislation here: https://t.co/YKxP5mYudF"
--https://twitter.com/mattberkley/status/1164080402199437312


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Matt Berkley <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 08:05
Subject: Error labelling people as "fare dodgers"
To: <[email protected]>


Hello - please correct these two stories, which may have real-life impact on people. Please also correct any relevant broadcasts. The stories wrongly label people with penalty fares as "fare dodgers".

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-08-21...gers-overcharged-for-not-having-valid-ticket/
https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2019...ing-overcharged-for-not-having-valid-tickets/

The explanation is below: please note the legislation.

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Matt Berkley




@itvnews I suggest you correct this. Both the ITV stories are incorrect, and may cause problems for people affected by mislabelling them as "fare dodgers". The Rail Delivery Group is liable to mislead in referring to "fare dodging", and the ITV stories clearly mislead.

Penalty fares can be charged where someone doesn't have a valid ticket. There is no admission or even allegation of "dodging". http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/366/made …

Imagine you tell a work colleague you've had a refund, and they had seen the ITV story. They may well assume you "dodged" when in fact you made an innocent error.

It is not necessary to be "ticketless" either - you might have misunderstood the complex conditions.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190821064149/https:/twitter.com/itvanglia/status/1164050571579527168

 

[30907]

The RDG comment does not say that all those charged PFs are fare dodgers. That is the first line of the press report (which is wrong and thank you for challenging it, and other inaccuracies).

I think RDG are perfectly right to refer to fare dodging in their response, though: correctly issued PFs cover various forms of ticketless travel, which is an obvious form of fare dodging, even if it also covers genuine errors.

I realise there is a general discussion on bad PF practice on another thread - https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/penalty-fares-thousands-of-passengers-overcharged.189482/.

 

[some bloke]

The RDG comment does not say that all those charged PFs are fare dodgers.

Yes, but it's about misleading. The tweet says they are liable to mislead, which I think is indisputable. Suggestions for a short and accurate thread title are welcome!

Someone might also say my thread title implies no-one given a penalty fare dodged. I'm not sure it's possible to specify sets and subsets unambiguously in so few words.

I think RDG are perfectly right to refer to fare dodging in their response

I would agree, if it were in the proper context. Talking about people who "haven't paid to travel" when some may have paid 90% of the correct fare, and then saying "because fare dodging..." may conflate more than two issues.

Perhaps RDG made a longer statement. But the justification given in the direct quote *only* refers to fare dodging.

An RDG spokesman said: “When people haven’t paid to travel, it’s important for train companies to take a firm but fair approach because fare dodging denies the railway around £200 million a year

 

[furlong]

The story actually gets it wrong in a different way! If the wrong amount was charged, the penalty fare was not issued correctly, and the ENTIRE amount must be refunded, not just the difference! (To avoid that, they'd need retrospective changes to the regulations, I think.)

 

[some bloke]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...gers-overcharged-not-having-valid-ticket.html

Aren't they due the whole amount, as it wasn't in accordance with the regulations?

The story actually gets it wrong in a different way! If the wrong amount was charged, the penalty fare was not issued correctly, and the ENTIRE amount must be refunded, not just the difference!

Yes. That may be basically due to the companies' not the journalists', wrong statements.

 

[some bloke]

So, less than £20 per person.

RDG said that about half of the people affected would be issued refunds for the amount they were overcharged...

About 1,500 Southeastern passengers were affected by an average of £8. London Northwestern Railway estimates it overcharged 2,700 people a total of £12,000, or £4.44 per person on average. Great Western Railway said it would be posting cheques to passengers for whom it has details, with the average refund £6 per person, according to PA Media.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2...ravellers-overcharged-for-not-having-a-ticket

 

[AlterEgo]

The RDG comment does not say that all those charged PFs are fare dodgers. That is the first line of the press report (which is wrong and thank you for challenging it, and other inaccuracies).

I think RDG are perfectly right to refer to fare dodging in their response, though: correctly issued PFs cover various forms of ticketless travel, which is an obvious form of fare dodging, even if it also covers genuine errors.

I realise there is a general discussion on bad PF practice on another thread - https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/penalty-fares-thousands-of-passengers-overcharged.189482/.

A genuine error cannot be considered fare dodging. The word “dodging” implies an intentional action, as its meaning is “to evade in a cunning or deceptive way”.

I’m grateful someone has lodged a complaint about this. It’s an important distinction.

 

[furlong]

Penalty fares can be charged where someone doesn't have a valid ticket. There is no admission or even allegation of "dodging".

There is no admission. There is an allegation on the basis that the passenger was instructed to buy their ticket before boarding and had a genuine opportunity to do so but chose not to. Unless the inspector knew for certain that those elements were present - an instruction that the passenger could not reasonably have avoided knowing, and the unfettered ability to purchase - a PF should not have been issued. Any doubt is always resolved in the passenger's favour. At least that seems to be the theory behind the system.

 

[some bloke]

There is an allegation on the basis that the passenger was instructed to buy their ticket before boarding and had a genuine opportunity to do so but chose not to.

Regulation 5(1) allows a penalty fare to be charged if the person fails to produce a valid ticket. I may have missed something, but where does it say the basis is that they chose not to buy?

 

[some bloke]

Yes.

I agreed above with the idea that they must refund the whole amount - I thought this would mean in a strict legal sense. Looking again at the regulations:

The regulations say you're not liable for the penalty fare if you win an appeal.

Strictly speaking, the position as a result of the company deciding to refund may not be so clear-cut.

But even if there isn't any specific provision for that, the argument would seem strong that they should refund in accordance with what should have happened on appeal.

 

[furlong]

Regulation 5(1) allows a penalty fare to be charged if the person fails to produce a valid ticket. I may have missed something, but where does it say the basis is that they chose not to buy?

To understand the background to Penalty Fares, go and read Hansard and the SRA guidelines.

Penalty fares never were intended to be issued to honest passengers.

A penalty fares scheme reverses the normal ‘burden of proof ’ which would apply if a person was prosecuted for not paying their fare.
...
For this reason, we [SRA, 2002] see our main role as making sure that the interests of honest passengers are protected

And from one of the Parliamentary debates for the original bill:

There have been arguments that the penalty fare will make criminals of honest passengers. This is just not so.

The innocent are protected by the Bill, but it is only fair that the dishonest traveller should be caught. However, even when he is caught he is not a criminal

One of the social benefits of this Bill is that it will take most ticketless travel outside the scope of the criminal law and will free the hard-pressed magistrates' courts to deal with other serious business.

If, however, a passenger on a train is not in possession of a ticket, he is not to be treated as a criminal under this Bill. He is simply asked to pay a penalty fare, which is a civil penalty and not a criminal one. If there are good reasons why he has not been able to obtain a ticket before travelling, not even this civil penalty will be due. Only if there is evidence of an intent to avoid payment may the passenger be liable to prosecution.

The objective is that no passenger should have to queue for more than three minutes to purchase a ticket at normal times.

Where there are inordinate delays a deferred fare authority [Permit to Travel] can be purchased to avoid the penalty fare, and from unstaffed stations no penalty fare will be payable provided the passenger proffers his fare to the ticket examiner or guard as soon as possible after joining the train. For example, let us suppose that there was an unusually long queue at a ticket office at a small station where no deferred fare authority machine [PERTIS] was provided. In this case a passenger could certainly challenge any request for a penalty fare. If it were not possible to resolve the issue on the train the passenger would be issued with a penalty fare notice requiring payment within 21 days. He would have ample time to set out his case to the designated railway manager who, if he agreed, after checking with the station concerned, would thereupon withdraw the penalty fare notice.

 

[some bloke]

Thanks - it might be regarded as shocking, or at least disappointing, that the intention wasn't carried out.

But isn't it still true that in order to claim the charge is on the basis of the passenger choosing not to pay, the company would have to use that legal argument rather than claim a basis in the regulations themselves?

Also, it has been known for a company to base the penalty fare on what appears to be a simple failure to produce a valid ticket. How could they have it both ways? I don't see how anyone could argue that there is always an allegation of choice, while accepting a system of imposition and appeal that doesn't need it.

 

[Starmill]

The train companies live in their own little bubble where they think law doesn't apply to them.

 

[WesternLancer]

Other aspect of this is why it is implied that some people might not be easy to refund the money back etc - given the evidence they have to get from you to levy the penalty (address etc) - how is it that they don't have addresses to send the refunds to, or bank details from which fines were paid from (tho I guess some accounts will have been closed int he interim period I guess, and people will have moved house etc - is that what they mean?)

Or have I misunderstood how the penalty system works (I didn't think it was a 'spot fine' that you could pay on the spot without leaving your details etc

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2...ravellers-overcharged-for-not-having-a-ticket

 

[furlong]

If a penalty fare is paid on the spot, then they won't always take the person's details - there is no obligation for them to ask. It's a trade-off for them. The extra time taking details is time that they can't use checking more people's tickets and perhaps finding more people without.

 

[WesternLancer]

If a penalty fare is paid on the spot, then they won't always take the person's details - there is no obligation for them to ask. It's a trade-off for them. The extra time taking details is time that they can't use checking more people's tickets and perhaps finding more people without.

Thanks for explanation. I'd not appreciated that.