• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Revenue protection took my details - Unstaffed station

Status
Not open for further replies.

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,979
Location
0036
Northern Penalty Fake notices are four times the price of proper Penalty Fares.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,387
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
I am well aware that there is a vigourous anti-Northern Rail campaign to which some people on here contribute, and I have little more to say about that. But notwithstanding that enthusiastic mission, these two remarks appear to be simply wrong:
First I've heard of any Northern Penalty Fare schemes?

And if they're referring to the £80 oocs Northern like to call Fixed Penalty Notices (like the FPNs you get on the street by police for smoking a blunt) then that is worrying. . . .

Northern Rail do not operate a Penalty Fare scheme, their "penalty fare" scheme is the entirely made-up and unchallengeable "Failure to Pay" scheme, where they'll add a spurious £80 on to fares.

The fact that Passenger Focus don't grasp this is troubling, although not entirely unsurprising. . . . .
My reading of the letter from Passenger Focus does not imply that they believe Northern Rail operates a Penalty Fare scheme - it is mentioned by way of a comparison, evidenced by the wording "which would".

I also can't agree that there is any significance can be attached to the claim of "unchallengable" in respect of the FtP scheme. It gives the passenger an additional option to the default position. The passenger may disregard the FtP notice as if it didn't exist and continue to deal with their apparent ticketless travel by all the usual means. They are under no pressure to accept the offer, and may have the facts of the incident tested in the Magistrates Court in exactly the same was as any other passenger and any other Railway Company in England would do, and Northern Rail are equally content to do so. Their FTP scheme removes no right or opportunity from the passenger, and introduces no risk or additional expense. By declining their offer, no damaging inferrence can be made about the passenger's intentions that could jeapordise justice being done.

To be clear, Northern Rail's 'Failure to Pay' scheme (FTP) 'sits on top' of the existing legislative framework, specifically including the passenger's duty to buy before boarding (where possible) and the absolute principle of 'innocence until proven guilty'.

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!

But good luck with your campaign. If you succeed, then I guess many more passengers will receive a summons to appear in front of their local Magistrates.
 
Last edited:

furlong

Established Member
Joined
28 Mar 2013
Messages
3,475
Location
Reading
The passenger may disregard the FtP notice as if it didn't exist and continue to deal with their apparent ticketless travel by all the usual means.

Although it should not be disregarded lightly: Northern describes it as a "reasonable request" within the letter and claims in the correspondence with the DfT published under FOI that "the failure of the defendant to comply with our reasonable request will dramatically influence the decision of the Magistrates when sentencing".

Are the letters still headed "FIXED PENALTY NOTICE (Railways and Tramways, Regulation of Railways Act 1889)"? The legal opinion that got published said:
Use of the word 'penalty' gives a misleading impression that the regime is a step in the road of the process of prosecuting rather than reflecting the reality which is that it is an offer to allow a passenger to adopt an alternative arrangement that allows him to avoid court proceedings.
but does goes on to claim
I emphasize that it is impossible to envisage that any injustice has occurred as a result of this wording.
 

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,387
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
Although it should not be disregarded lightly: Northern describes it as a "reasonable request" within the letter and claims in the correspondence with the DfT published under FOI that "the failure of the defendant to comply with our reasonable request will dramatically influence the decision of the Magistrates when sentencing".
I'm sorry to say that I can't agree with this.

In the event that a ticketless passenger, having been offered an FtP notice, did choose to contest a Prosecution in Court, then I would expect the Magistrates' decision would not be influenced in any significant way by the issue and subsequent refusal of a FtP offer. It would be influenced by the evidence of the proof of the Guilt of the passenger in the incident on the Summons, and the standard of that proof 'beyond all reasonable doubt', all guided by the procedures for dealing with it as laid out in the Criminal Procedures Act. The FtP offer should have no bearing on it and does not form part of the facts of the matter and to my mind has no bearing on an Offence under RoRA or the Railway Byelaws or the relevant evidence to support or rebut it.
In fact, if the passenger is contesting a Prosecution (i.e. pleading 'not guilty') then it would be necessary for them to refuse the FtP notice to provide consistent evidence.

The refusal to accept the FtP offer may have a bearing on how vigourously and robustly the Company's Prosecutor prepares the evidence to pursue a claim (but equally, it may not). And it may have a bearing on the costs incurred by the parties and, in the event of a contested claim (i.e. a Not Guilty plea) in which the passenger is subsequently found to be Guilty, then it may have a minor influence on the adjustments to the fine imposed.
 
Last edited:

Agent_c

Member
Joined
22 Jan 2015
Messages
934
I can't agree with this.

In the event that a ticketless passenger offered a FtP notice did choose to contest a Prosecution in Court, then I would expect the Magistrates' decision would not be influenced in any significant way by the issue and subsequent refusal of a FtP offer. It would be influenced by the evidence of the proof of the Guilt of the passenger in the incident on the Summons, and the standard of that proof 'beyond all reasonable doubt', all guided by the procedures for dealing with it as laid out in the Criminal Procedures Act. The FtP offer should have no bearing on it and does not form part of the facts of the matter and to my mind has no bearing on an Offence under RoRA or the Railway Byelaws.

The refusal to accept the FtP offer may have a bearing on how vigourously and robustly the Company's Prosecutor prepares the evidence to pursue a claim (but equally, it may not).

Could it arguably be implied to be a "without prejudice" communication?
 

bb21

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
24,151
I'm sure ATOC would be more than happy to have someone else pay for Passenger Focus. Who would you suggest (bearing in mind that members of ATOC are put in place by the government)?

Aren't Passenger Focus mainly funded by the DfT rather than ATOC?

I'm sure ATOC would be more than happy to have someone else pay for Passenger Focus. Who would you suggest (bearing in mind that members of ATOC are put in place by the government)?

Isn't ATOC a trade association? Surely in that case ATOC members are appointed by the TOCs themselves rather than the government? Otherwise what sort of trade association is it?
 

Fare-Cop

Member
Joined
5 Aug 2010
Messages
950
Location
England
I am well aware that there is a vigourous anti-Northern Rail campaign to which some people on here contribute, and I have little more to say about that. But notwithstanding that enthusiastic mission, these two remarks appear to be simply wrong:

My reading of the letter from Passenger Focus does not imply that they believe Northern Rail operates a Penalty Fare scheme - it is mentioned by way of a comparison, evidenced by the wording "which would".

I also can't agree that there is any significance can be attached to the claim of "unchallengable" in respect of the FtP scheme. It gives the passenger an additional option to the default position. The passenger may disregard the FtP notice as if it didn't exist and continue to deal with their apparent ticketless travel by all the usual means. They are under no pressure to accept the offer, and may have the facts of the incident tested in the Magistrates Court in exactly the same was as any other passenger and any other Railway Company in England would do, and Northern Rail are equally content to do so. Their FTP scheme removes no right or opportunity from the passenger, and introduces no risk or additional expense. By declining their offer, no damaging inferrence can be made about the passenger's intentions that could jeapordise justice being done.

To be clear, Northern Rail's 'Failure to Pay' scheme (FTP) 'sits on top' of the existing legislative framework, specifically including the passenger's duty to buy before boarding (where possible) and the absolute principle of 'innocence until proven guilty'.

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!

But good luck with your campaign. If you succeed, then I guess many more passengers will receive a summons to appear in front of their local Magistrates.


I agree with Dave's assessment of the PF response, but did find two comments in the letter quite amusing.

Firstly where PF say "As the scheme has been agreed with the Department for Transport, we would be unable to instruct them to integrate a “return” Failure To Pay."

As a lobbying group PF clearly don't have the authority to instruct the TOCs to do anything.

Secondly, in relation to Pocket Books "We have raised our comments with the train company and will continue to take this up on a broader level, to better this process."

Are PF also approaching all Police Forces, MoJ etc. to remove Pocket Books from our Police Officers across the land??? 'Pie in the sky' I'm afraid.

As Dave points out, the Northern FtP scheme is effectively a 'without prejudice' option of avoiding further action.

The recipient has a choice, either accept a level of culpability and pay, or reject the opportunity and have the evidence of the alleged offence tested.

The Magistrates will only be concerned with what happened at the time of travel when asked to find an offence proven.
 

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
14,866
Aren't Passenger Focus mainly funded by the DfT rather than ATOC?
You appear to be correct, it was Arctic Troll who suggested otherwise.
Isn't ATOC a trade association? Surely in that case ATOC members are appointed by the TOCs themselves rather than the government? Otherwise what sort of trade association is it?
The members of ATOC are the TOCs, and they are awarded franchises by the DfT. They may have some choice, but they are members of ATOC by virtue of being granted franchises by the government.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,979
Location
0036
You appear to be correct, it was Arctic Troll who suggested otherwise.
The members of ATOC are the TOCs, and they are awarded franchises by the DfT. They may have some choice, but they are members of ATOC by virtue of being granted franchises by the government.

That is not universally true.
 

johntea

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2010
Messages
2,585
One positive I should mention is Northern quietly seem to have stopped the particular morning revenue protection exercise which this all escalated from since around the time I sent in a letter to them.

As far as I was concerned it was borderline entrapment, I had a valid reason not to possess a ticket yet the revenue protectors did not have the facility to sell one. I have zero issues with the early evening revenue inspectors checking tickets and also selling them if necessary.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,979
Location
0036
Entrapment has a particular legal definition, and I suspect your experience comes nowhere near it.
 

PermitToTravel

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2011
Messages
3,044
Location
Groningen
There are certain words and phrases that are frequently invoked on internet forums, almost always incorrectly: "entrapment", "data protection", "health and safety", "EU law", "human rights", "legal tender"....
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,979
Location
0036
There are certain words and phrases that are frequently invoked on internet forums, almost always incorrectly: "entrapment", "data protection", "health and safety", "EU law", "human rights", "legal tender"....

I like you. You should stick around :)

You forgot "DDA" though!
 

Fare-Cop

Member
Joined
5 Aug 2010
Messages
950
Location
England
Yes, one of the most common is these people who have some daft ideas about what the Data Protection Act does not say
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
Personally I take more joy laughing at the people who seem to spend their time doing little other than giving out pedantic corrections than those making the mistakes in the first place :D
 

Fare-Cop

Member
Joined
5 Aug 2010
Messages
950
Location
England
Personally I take more joy laughing at the people who seem to spend their time doing little other than giving out pedantic corrections than those making the mistakes in the first place :D

Well I suppose it might sometimes be amusing, but far better to correct the mistake than to let some poor unsuspecting soul make a fool of themselves by acting on the basis of flawed advice don't you think?

Letting the drivel go unchallenged doesn't do the forum any favours either.
 

johntea

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2010
Messages
2,585
Here are the full details of my case, they might give you a starting point (Any reference to MetroCard are irrelevant, these were just to show why I was asking for a Leeds to Hull ticket rather than a Castleford to Hull ticket)

My initial letter
On Thursday 04/10/12 I travelled on the 09:38 TransPenine Express Leeds to Hull service. My starting station for the journey was Castleford, where I boarded the 09:02 Northern Rail Castleford to Leeds service. This was due into Leeds at 09:25 which would allow me the minimum 10 minute connection time at Leeds station, however it got slightly delayed just outside Leeds station and did not actually arrive at Leeds until around 09:34.

I still managed to make the 09:38 TransPenine Express service, however due to the delay to my previous journey I was unable to purchase a ticket at Leeds before boarding, there was no opportunity on the previous train and Castleford is an unstaffed station. (I have a Zones 1-3 West Yorkshire Metro Card which covered my journey from Castleford to Leeds).

When the conductor came round on the Leeds to Hull train I informed them of the situation and asked to purchase a Leeds to Hull Off Peak day return using my Young Persons railcard discount. This was clearly shown to the conductor, as was my Metro Card which covered my previous train journey.

However, the conductor refused to sell me anything other than a full fare £19.20 Off Peak Day Return ticket, rather than the same ticket with the railcard discount (£12.70). They additionally informed me I could not have used the railcard regardless as it was before 10am, however I know this to not be the case as the ticket price exceeds the minimum fare required and I travelled the same 09:38 journey on Wednesday 19/10/12 using a railcard discounted ticket.

Normally I would have had the opportunity to purchase a ticket either on the previous train service or at Leeds station, however this was not possible on this occasion and I feel the conductor should have allowed me to use my railcard discount due to the circumstances outlined above.

Therefore, I am sending this letter to you along with the full fare Off-Peak Day Return ticket I was sold and scans of my Metro Card and railcard in the hope you can provide some form of compensation.

TransPenine Reply
Thank you for contacting me about your recent journey. I understand that you boarded the 0938 train between Leeds and Hull at a manned station and did not purchase a ticket before boarding, and as a result, you were charged the full fare for the journey you made.

As you correctly state your 16-25 Railcard is valid for travel during peak times however a minimum fare applies. That said, please be aware that as a company we rigorously abide by the National Conditions of Carriage and will not sell discounted tickets on the train if you board without a valid ticket. This is advertised at our stations, in our timetables and via onboard announcements and staff are correct in enforcing this policy. Therefore no Railcard discount was applicable on this occasion.

We assume that a passenger is not intending to defraud the company and therefore always offer the option of purchasing a valid ticket to complete their journey. If we did relax the policy we would be sending the wrong signal to those who would deliberately evade buying a ticket. It is an offence under the Railway Bye-Laws to board without a valid ticket when there is means of purchasing a ticket at the station where you board. As a general rule, alleged lack of time to purchase a ticket, for whatever reason, is not acceptable. It may seem harsh but to make a more liberal approach would almost certainly result in abuse of the regulations.

In order to make purchasing a ticket easier, we have invested in Self Service ticket machines and have created both telephone and web based outlets. Details of which can be found in our Guide to Services. If you travel on a train without a valid ticket, you will be liable to pay the full single or return fare for the journey you have made or want to make. No Railcard discounts, off-peak tickets or other special terms will be offered. For this reason no refund or partial refund is due for the tickets you have purchased.

Our Revenue Protection staff and Conductors are trained to the highest level to conduct themselves in a professional manner. We are anxious to avoid a confrontational approach as this often leads to further difficulties and disruption but as part of their ongoing monitoring, each ticket sold onboard and outside of these restrictions has to be logged with the central control, such is the rigidity of the policy.

I hope that I have been able to clarify why the policy is in place and thank you again for contacting us.

Passenger Focus outcome
Thank you for contacting us about your complaint against First TransPennine Express (TPE). I was sorry to read that you had been unable to purchase a ticket and that the then had to pay full fare when making your journey to Hull. I can appreciate how frustrating the situation must have been.

Having reviewed the correspondence I can see that this particular case does test the rules outlined in the National Rail Conditions of Carriage (NRCOC). It is a requirement that all passengers are in possession of a valid ticket before making their journey, and where this is not possible passengers must purchase a ticket at the next available opportunity. Whilst I appreciate that the next service was not for another hour, technically you should have waited at Leeds to purchase a ticket and taken the next service.

However, I argued that waiting another hour for the next service would have been very inconvenient compared to if there were a more regular service, and I requested that TPE reimburse you for the difference in fare. Ultimately, it is the passenger’s responsibility to ensure they have a ticket valid for the whole of their journey, however we would hope that train companies show a degree of flexibility in situations such as these which are not as clear-cut. If this involves boarding a train without a ticket, the train guard should be sought as soon as possible, and TPE’s Passenger Charter states that it is the passenger’s responsibility to pay the fare to the conductor.

Further to my appeal, on this occasion, TPE has arranged for the £6.50 difference in fare to be refunded as a Rail Travel Voucher which you should receive shortly. Rail Travel Vouchers are valid for 12 months and can be used to purchase rail travel within the UK.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,429
Location
Yorkshire
Although you were successful, I don't like Passenger Focus' (now called Transport Focus - at least they admit they don't focus on us!) attitude of "technically you should have waited at Leeds to purchase a ticket and taken the next service" nor their claim that passengers should walk up and down a train trying to locate a Guard.

Typical Passenger Focus!

We need a proper victory this time, where they admit the NRCoC does apply and passengers are not to be mistreated. If one is not forthcoming I think it should be escalated as high as it needs to be.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,524
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
That sounds like exactly the institutional arrogance I was talking about. TPE could have replied with a letter reading more like Passenger Focus's, even if it were still refusing a refund, but they chose a very legalistic form very similar to those posters all over their trains.

At least PF ensured a reasonable outcome in your case.
 
Last edited:

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,304
Location
Isle of Man
I'd be very interested in TPE's response if one chose to "technically wait for the next train" and then stuck in a Delay Repay for a 30-minute delay (which, amusingly, is the cost of the single ticket).

I'm not a betting man, but if I was I'd say TPE would probably reject it.
 
Last edited:

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
14,866
What is unclear is what the guard (or TPE generally) would have sold had a Castleford to Hull ticket been requested, rather than a Leeds to Hull ticket. In the circumstances given above I can see both sides of this, but I think the Metro Card clouds the issue a bit.
 

PermitToTravel

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2011
Messages
3,044
Location
Groningen
The Hull train probably didn't stop within the WY zones, which isn't a great help - a chancer with a card would probably have said the same thing.
 

Marton

Member
Joined
9 Nov 2008
Messages
663
TPE guards have sold me tickets when I have changed at Middlesbrough from an esk valley station where the NT guard didn't have time to reach me.

But they are perhaps used to the unstaffed stations at yarm and after closing thornaby Northallerton and thirsk.
 

anme

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2013
Messages
1,777
The Hull train probably didn't stop within the WY zones, which isn't a great help - a chancer with a card would probably have said the same thing.

True. However, if the guard has no way to tell the difference between someone genuine and a chancer, which seems to be the case, surely they have to give the benefit of the doubt? It's not the passenger's problem that the railways don't have ticket issuing facilities at all stations, and neither I nor the NRCoC are interested in any distinction between TPE and Northern Rail (or whoever is responsible for Castleford station) in this case.
 

furlong

Established Member
Joined
28 Mar 2013
Messages
3,475
Location
Reading
as a company we rigorously abide by the National Conditions of Carriage and will not sell discounted tickets on the train if you board without a valid ticket

(For those puzzled about this, the NRCoC, and indeed the byelaws, are not concerned about where you board any particular train, but rather where you start your journey.)

If Castleford had a working ticket machine (as claimed by NRE) that would not sell tickets from a different station, then the particular case should hinge on whether it was considered "reasonably practicable" to purchase the ticket at Leeds, which is unlikely, given the short connection time.

But how many more people might have been overcharged by this company in similar circumstances?

Ask the ORR to consider opening a criminal investigation? (Is there a policy to misrepresent the contract to the detriment of the passenger? Contravenes the requirements of professional diligence? Misleading action or omission? Aggressive commercial practice?)
 

MichaelAMW

Member
Joined
18 Jun 2010
Messages
1,011
How do they get away with this rubbish?

-- "as a company we rigorously abide by the National Conditions of Carriage" but that is simply obviously not true because:

-- "It is an offence under the Railway Bye-Laws to board without a valid ticket when there is means of purchasing a ticket at the station where you board" is incorrect, since it's "journey", as others have of course already pointed out, and not "station" (or "train").

-- "alleged lack of time to purchase a ticket, for whatever reason, is not acceptable" - except that the C of C and byelaws don't require this.

-- "a more liberal approach would almost certainly result in abuse of the regulations" is irrelevant as that's not the responsibility of the passenger who is acting in accordance with the rules.

And when PF say: "technically you should have waited at Leeds," what on Earth does "technically" actually mean?

I know I'm ranting slightly and repeating what has been said but I guess I just want to convey the idea that this sort of thing is highly exasperating for lots of us ordinary punters.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,429
Location
Yorkshire
How do they get away with this rubbish?
Who is going to stop them? If anyone can convince the DfT or ORR to do anything, I'll be very surprised. The rail industry is not well regulated and no-one seems to care.

If you ask the ORR, they generally say it's down to the DfT to regulate fares matters. The DfT doesn't appear to give a damn about this sort of issue, as they appear to be mostly concerned with keeping subsidies low, and that means they probably don't want to side against TOCs, I suspect this is for fear of reducing the value of franchises.
-- "as a company we rigorously abide by the National Conditions of Carriage" but that is simply obviously not true....
TPE are very good at abiding by the rules when it suits, and not when it doesn't suit. It's not just passengers they treat badly though; they have been known to treat their staff very badly too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top