Should not having a railcard to which you're entitled be treated less seriously?

[some bloke]

If someone has committed a ticketing offence, a company might reasonably suspect them of having done it on other occasions, and/or that they will do it again, perhaps many times. The company might take this into account when threatening or undertaking prosecution. And if the passenger underpaid on many occasions, it's usually reasonable for the company or companies to say the person owes the difference for all the tickets. They may charge for another full-price ticket rather than the difference.

But if the underpayments/crimes result purely from not having a valid railcard which you were entitled to, it might be said that you've only underpaid by, say, £30 for the whole year, and not a £300 difference in fares; and that on individual occasions, charging over £30 for a full-price ticket, or over £30 for the difference, is inappropriate if the difference is less.

A complication could be that through not buying the railcard, a person might gain an additional benefit: they don't have to risk paying for the railcard during periods when their use of the card would be so low that paying occasional full fares is better value. So they may have saved more than £30, but not massively more.

Another complication might be if non-payment costs the rail industry more than the £30 for various other reasons.

Of course there is a range of circumstances, from a person forgetting to renew the day before to someone who deliberately buys railcard-discounted tickets when they don't have the railcard they're entitled to, on a large number of occasions.

How do companies - and courts - treat these cases, and how should they?

 

[Titfield]

If the passenger with the discount ticket (but no railcard) isnt challenged they have underpaid the fare and have a financial advantage.

If the passenger with the discount ticket (but no railcard) is challenged and only has to buy a railcard then they are in the same position as a passenger who has correctly purchased a railcard ie there is no financial penalty or sanction for failure to abide by the rules and regulations.

A meaningful sanction has to be applied by discourage and deter fare evasion.

 

[baz962]

And if you have a Railcard and left it at home , I believe you have a chance to present this at a later date.

 

[Vespa]

And if you have a Railcard and left it at home , I believe you have a chance to present this at a later date.

You do, it's in the T&Cs that you can be let off once per year under forgotten railcard and you can apply for a refund for full fare you had to pay for.

 

[AlterEgo]

People are only entitled to the railcard once they’ve paid for one. If they don’t do that they aren’t entitled to it.

 

[some bloke]

A meaningful sanction has to be applied by discourage and deter fare evasion.

Yes, but the question is what debts and/or sanctions should be, for example, in cases of a 28-year-old using a 26-30 railcard discount without having bought a card, compared to a 40-year-old doing the same, across a range of scenarios.

For example, perhaps there could be a cap on amounts held to be owed, to reflect that the most the company is going to get over a year from the person obeying the rules is £30 rather than potentially a far larger amount.

It may be that the situation is roughly catered for by companies' approach, where for example people who are eligible are less likely to be prosecuted than those who aren't eligible, particularly if they seem to have forgotten to renew.

 

[185]

Perhaps age-related railcards should go altogether. Move the child age to end of 17, 18 is adult, 14-17 requires (free) proof of age card.

There could be one 'UK Discount Railcard' for everyone... 1/3 off, after 0930 Mon-Fri. £40-50 per year. Dump all the network, dales, royston vasey railcards.

For forces, veterans, seniors, cat owner railcard and the rest etc £30 per year

Disabled railcard - Free.

As for the penalties for travelling without a railcard, perhaps two things.
One, RDG specify an exact text to describe railcard discounts eg "YP/SC/HM/16 Railcard Holder" must be both on the ticket and point of sale.
Two, a clearly stated maximum penalty of say £200 for failure to show a railcard - and a requirement that retailers (TL etc) must emphasise this at every point of sale. "I accept"

 

[Haywain]

Yes, but the question is what debts and/or sanctions should be, for example, in cases of a 28-year-old using a 26-30 railcard discount without having bought a card, compared to a 40-year-old doing the same, across a range of scenarios.

Both would be obtaining a discount to which they are not entitled, therefore there should be no difference in the sanctions. The only difference is that one had the option of obtaining the discount legitimately but chose not to.

 

[some bloke]

Both would be obtaining a discount to which they are not entitled, therefore there should be no difference in the sanctions. The only difference is that one had the option of obtaining the discount legitimately but chose not to.

One may have underpaid thousands in a year, the other can only underpay £30 (subject to the complication above about low use of the card).

In some cases the wrong purchase of the discounted ticket isn't the result of choice but oversight.

 

[Haywain]

the other can only underpay £30 (subject to the complication above about low use of the card).

If the discount is only available after purchasing the railcard, that is simply not true.

 

[some bloke]

If the discount is only available after purchasing the railcard, that is simply not true.

Yes, I understand what you mean. Technically they may have underpaid thousands because they weren't entitled. It's still true that them buying the card only saves the railway, other things being equal, £30 a year.

Again, the questions are how these cases are, and how they should be, treated across a range of scenarios, which include plausible-sounding claims that someone has forgotten to renew.

 

[WesternLancer]

Perhaps age-related railcards should go altogether. Move the child age to end of 17, 18 is adult, 14-17 requires (free) proof of age card.

There could be one 'UK Discount Railcard' for everyone... 1/3 off, after 0930 Mon-Fri. £40-50 per year. Dump all the network, dales, royston vasey railcards.

For forces, veterans, seniors, cat owner railcard and the rest etc £30 per year

Disabled railcard - Free.

As for the penalties for travelling without a railcard, perhaps two things.
One, RDG specify an exact text to describe railcard discounts eg "YP/SC/HM/16 Railcard Holder" must be both on the ticket and point of sale.
Two, a clearly stated maximum penalty of say £200 for failure to show a railcard - and a requirement that retailers (TL etc) must emphasise this at every point of sale. "I accept"

Ridiculous idea

this would
a) encourage people to travel by train as it would make the system simpler to understand.
b) destroy the part of the business model based on confusing people and then charging them penalties.
d) put dog owners at a disadvantage.

 

[some bloke]

Is there a grace period after any of the railcards expire, during which penalties/new ticket charges/threats of legal action are waived or reduced for people still eligible? Maybe there should be.

 

[Haywain]

It's still true that them buying the card only saves the railway, other things being equal, £30 a year.

I don't see how the railway is saving £30. It's the person who didn't buy the railcard who saved £30, and in the process deprived the railway of much more.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Apr 2022 ==

Is there a grace period after any of the railcards expire, during which penalties/new ticket charges/threats of legal action are waived or reduced for people still eligible? Maybe there should be.

Why do you want to see people who choose not to pay for their entitement to a discount get treated more favourably than those who don't have an entitlement?

 

[Titfield]

Yes, I understand what you mean. Technically they may have underpaid thousands because they weren't entitled. It's still true that them buying the card only saves the railway, other things being equal, £30 a year.

Again, the questions are how these cases are, and how they should be, treated across a range of scenarios, which include plausible-sounding claims that someone has forgotten to renew.

This question comes up time and time again in these forums without anyone producing a satisfactory answer.

There is no method of determining with certainty between the "honest once off mistake" and the "deliberate fare evasion".

Do not forget "Con men" make their living precisely by appearing to be honest and plausible when they are not. The reports of "romance fraud" and the "nigerian fraud" certainly demonstrate the ability of some people to represent themselves in a way they are not.

 

[some bloke]

I don't see how the railway is saving £30. It's the person who didn't buy the railcard who saved £30, and in the process deprived the railway of much more.

The railway gets £30 extra the next year. How much it was deprived of depends how you look at it.

The company can say "you deprived us of the difference for all the tickets" and in a sense that's true. On that basis they might say "you owe us x thousand for these replacement full-fare single tickets".

But in the 28-year-old's case they are doing it with a view to getting £30 more the next year through the card purchase, and in the 40-year-old's case, perhaps thousands.

Similarly, in respect of deterrence, in this kind of example the railway gets an extra £30 for each person deterred, not potentially thousands as with the 40-year-olds.

Why do you want to see people who choose not to pay for their entitement to a discount get treated more favourably than those who don't have an entitlement?

The suggestion about the grace period follows what I was saying above about people forgetting to renew.

 

[RPI]

The railway gets £30 extra the next year. How much it was deprived of depends how you look at it.

The company can say "you deprived us of the difference for all the tickets" and in a sense that's true. On that basis they might say "you owe us x thousand for these replacement full-fare single tickets".

But in the 28-year-old's case they are doing it with a view to getting £30 more the next year through the card purchase, and in the 40-year-old's case, perhaps thousands.

Similarly, in respect of deterrence, in this kind of example the railway gets an extra £30 for each person deterred, not potentially thousands as with the 40-year-olds.


The suggestion about the grace period follows what I was saying above about people forgetting to renew.

Even supposing your theory is right, you would then need to work out what fares were taken before 10:00 and would have fallen foul of the the minimum fare.

Based on your theory if I get caught speeding then I should be allowed to take an advanced driving course, become a qualified blue light driver and have it back dated for all the times I've driven in excess of the speed limit.

 

[pelli]

Someone who has looked up a future £150 journey online and is eligible for a railcard might decide to pre-purchase the railcard-discounted ticket for £100 (to get a seat reservation and print out the E-ticket, say) with the intention of buying the railcard on the day from the station for £30 (as maybe there's not enough time to order the railcard online, and they don't want to use a digital railcard), which is perfectly legitimate. If their bus to the station is delayed and they decide to board the train without having had time to buy their railcard, have they then dodged a fare of £50 or a railcard purchase of £30?

 

[some bloke]

Even supposing your theory is right, you would then need to work out what fares were taken before 10:00 and would have fallen foul of the the minimum fare.

Based on your theory if I get caught speeding then I should be allowed to take an advanced driving course, become a qualified blue light driver and have it back dated for all the times I've driven in excess of the speed limit.

I'm asking questions about how these cases are treated, and how they should be treated.

 

[RPI]

I'm asking questions about how these cases are treated, and how they should be treated.

And I'm putting those questions into context

 

[Vespa]

Someone who has looked up a future £150 journey online and is eligible for a railcard might decide to pre-purchase the railcard-discounted ticket for £100 (to get a seat reservation and print out the E-ticket, say) with the intention of buying the railcard on the day from the station for £30 (as maybe there's not enough time to order the railcard online, and they don't want to use a digital railcard), which is perfectly legitimate. If their bus to the station is delayed and they decide to board the train without having had time to buy their railcard, have they then dodged a fare of £50 or a railcard purchase of £30?

Ideally you should order a railcard and have it in your hand before booking anything, deliberately travelling without a railcard and using a discounted ticket is difficult to defend, you really can't talk your way out of it.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes, but the question is what debts and/or sanctions should be, for example, in cases of a 28-year-old using a 26-30 railcard discount without having bought a card, compared to a 40-year-old doing the same, across a range of scenarios.

I don’t really see how both aren’t criminal offences. The point is, neither have a railcard, neither are entitled to the discount, because of that simple fact.

For example, perhaps there could be a cap on amounts held to be owed, to reflect that the most the company is going to get over a year from the person obeying the rules is £30 rather than potentially a far larger amount.

I don’t follow this logic at all I’m afraid.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

A complication could be

Another complication might be

Of course there is a range of circumstance

I can't help but feel that complexity isn't a good thing in criminal law.

As a first cut, there's a lot to be said for the idea that the law should be simple to understand so that it's easy for everyone to understand whether they're breaking the law or not - for example, that a traveller on the railway should have a valid ticket when travelling. If there are extenuating circumstances (the OP seems to be proposing entitlement to a Railcard that would have legitimised the ticket held) then these can be taken into consideration at sentencing.

 

[bramling]

If someone has committed a ticketing offence, a company might reasonably suspect them of having done it on other occasions, and/or that they will do it again, perhaps many times. The company might take this into account when threatening or undertaking prosecution. And if the passenger underpaid on many occasions, it's usually reasonable for the company or companies to say the person owes the difference for all the tickets. They may charge for another full-price ticket rather than the difference.

But if the underpayments/crimes result purely from not having a valid railcard which you were entitled to, it might be said that you've only underpaid by, say, £30 for the whole year, and not a £300 difference in fares; and that on individual occasions, charging over £30 for a full-price ticket, or over £30 for the difference, is inappropriate if the difference is less.

A complication could be that through not buying the railcard, a person might gain an additional benefit: they don't have to risk paying for the railcard during periods when their use of the card would be so low that paying occasional full fares is better value. So they may have saved more than £30, but not massively more.

Another complication might be if non-payment costs the rail industry more than the £30 for various other reasons.

Of course there is a range of circumstances, from a person forgetting to renew the day before to someone who deliberately buys railcard-discounted tickets when they don't have the railcard they're entitled to, on a large number of occasions.

How do companies - and courts - treat these cases, and how should they?

In principle, yes, if someone already holds a railcard but forgets it on the day then I’d agree this should be treated with leniency.

However, a difficulty with this is the administration involved is potentially fairly complex, as you’d need to be very sure that the person does indeed hold a railcard, and that the person claiming is who they say they are. It isn’t really for other farepayers to subsidise the admin required for someone who at the end of the day has made an error. So one could only advocate it if the admin can be made to be cost-neutral.

But in terms of not holding a railcard in the first place, I’m not convinced of the benefit — why would anyone buy a railcard if it only becomes an issue if/when challenged? Especially with revenue still being patchy in some areas - for example on GTR I still have yet to experience an on-train check since March 2020.

 

[Adam Williams]

Why do you want to see people who choose not to pay for their entitement to a discount get treated more favourably than those who don't have an entitlement?

Some of this does land upon the customer, but you've got to admit the retail experience for Railcards (at least the one offered by RDG, anyway) is poor, surely?

They could easily offer an auto-renewal option via direct debit, or a card-based continuous payment authority up to the end of the railcard's eligibility but last I checked they choose not to. There's also an abundance of posts on the forums about how the renewal button in the app makes it far too easy to purchase an entirely new railcard instead, as well as posts from passengers who've been sent cards with the wrong validity after a renewal attempt.

There's much more the industry could do here, both in terms of how online retailers allow railcards to be applied (it could become an accreditation requirement to solicit an expiry date at booking time or for the customer to prove they actually own the railcard - like they're often asked to do when purchasing at a ticket office) and how railcards are retailed.

Given how the system works, I have a reasonable degree of sympathy for a passenger who accidentally travels a few days after the expiry of their railcard vs someone who was never entitled to the discount in the first place.

 

[Haywain]

Some of this does land upon the customer, but you've got to admit the retail experience for Railcards (at least the one offered by RDG, anyway) is poor, surely?

They could easily offer an auto-renewal option via direct debit, or a card-based continuous payment authority up to the end of the railcard's eligibility but last I checked they choose not to. There's also an abundance of posts on the forums about how the renewal button in the app makes it far too easy to purchase an entirely new railcard instead, as well as posts from passengers who've been sent cards with the wrong validity after a renewal attempt.

There's much more the industry could do here, both in terms of how online retailers allow railcards to be applied (it could become an accreditation requirement to solicit an expiry date at booking time or for the customer to prove they actually own the railcard - like they're often asked to do when purchasing at a ticket office) and how railcards are retailed.

Given how the system works, I have a reasonable degree of sympathy for a passenger who accidentally travels a few days after the expiry of their railcard vs someone who was never entitled to the discount in the first place.

Whether or not it’s ideal doesn’t alter the fact that even with a grace period there would have to be a cut off at some point, and there are undoubtedly people who would take advantage of a grace period.

 

[[.n]]

Taking your logic (if I understood the question), everyone is entitled to a Network card - so that means in the Network card area (which is fairly sizeable!) - that anyone who fares dodges can't get away with a large percentage of their "fares that should have been paid" by dint of the fact they could have paid £30 and reduced the amount owed by 34%?

Given how the system works, I have a reasonable degree of sympathy for a passenger who accidentally travels a few days after the expiry of their railcard vs someone who was never entitled to the discount in the first place.

This I think is a grey area - and having been nearly caught out by this myself in the past - I do agree there could be perhaps a different scenario / grace period applied - BUT it would need to consistent and fair.

Something along the lines of the current forgot your existing valid railcard exemption as starting point might work

 

[Titfield]

This I think is a grey area - and having been nearly caught out by this myself in the past - I do agree there could be perhaps a different scenario / grace period applied - BUT it would need to consistent and fair.

Not a grey area - the card has expired.

Perhaps and I stress perhaps one solution would be IF the card is expired by 7 days or less for the Ticket Inspector to charge £30. Issue a receipt which can then be used as proof of payment for the appropriate railcard within a further 7 days. NB The expiry date of the rail card would be 1 year from the date that the £30 receipt was issued. Obviously there are accounting / admin issues with this solution.

 

[Flying Snail]

I'd put the topic of this thread down to the modern scourge of endless pathetic excuses why nobody should be held accountable for their actions.

 

[Fokx]

Would this not be like being caught stealing from a supermarket and then trying to declare that you should have a lesser punishment as you had the money to pay for it in your bank account?