Should the railway have recourse to their own laws for ticketless travel?

[Bletchleyite]

Just posted something on this in another thread and think it warrants its own. I wasn't sure if it should go here or Disputes/Prosecutions so feel free to move if it's the wrong place.

If the rail industry implemented the same level of care with respect to ticketing and routeing as they evidently do to safety-related matters, based on their accident history (or lack thereof)... well, things like this thread would hardly have to exist. It almost feels like we're the beta testers of the rail industry's latest changes and inventions.

They are by no means the only organisation that applies that level of "chuck it out and see if it works" to IT related stuff. If anything it's rapidly becoming the norm.

The trouble with the railway is that they actually give people criminal records based on it, rather than them just not, for instance, being able to order their shopping from their supermarket of choice. It's one of the arguments I would tend to use to back up my view that the Byelaws and RoRA should be abolished, with the railway forced to use the civil courts (plus a modified statutory PF scheme with an independent appeals board) for non-payment like everyone else - they are simply not responsible enough to have that right. And not having the easy recourse to prosecution (due to the different legal system; private prosecutions are very difficult to conduct in Scotland to the point that almost none are ever carried out) doesn't exactly cause ScotRail to be a basket case.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Just posted something on this in another thread and think it warrants its own. I wasn't sure if it should go here or Disputes/Prosecutions so feel free to move if it's the wrong place.



They are by no means the only organisation that applies that level of "chuck it out and see if it works" to IT related stuff. If anything it's rapidly becoming the norm.

The trouble with the railway is that they actually give people criminal records based on it, rather than them just not, for instance, being able to order their shopping from their supermarket of choice. It's one of the arguments I would tend to use to back up my view that the Byelaws and RoRA should be abolished, with the railway forced to use the civil courts (plus a modified statutory PF scheme with an independent appeals board) for non-payment like everyone else - they are simply not responsible enough to have that right. And not having the easy recourse to prosecution (due to the different legal system; private prosecutions are very difficult to conduct in Scotland to the point that almost none are ever carried out) doesn't exactly cause ScotRail to be a basket case.

I agree that the way ticketing irregularities are dealt with on the railways is problematic.

There are those who are clearly evading their fare. I wonder whether keeping the ability to prosecute for such cases might still be worth it, but it has to be balanced with the risk that any legislation that is kept for that purpose (e.g. RoRA) is still misused. Perhaps the solution would be for the railways to maintain the right to do private prosecutions, but only where it reaches the threshold of fraud or the equivalent of 'bilking'.

But for people who haven't shown any kind of intent to avoid payment, I agree that there ought to be standardisation as to the appropriate penalty imposed. At the moment, failing to use available ticketing facilities, but without any kind of intent to avoid payment (e.g. if you haven't left enough time to buy a ticket), is something that can be disposed of in far too many different ways, considering it is still the same offence. You might just be able to buy the ticket you want, including a Railcard or Off-Peak discount. You might just be made to pay the undiscounted Anytime fare. You might be given a Penalty Fare. You might be reported for Byelaws prosecution. Or you might be reported for RoRA prosecution, even though you didn't intent to avoid the fare.

I think that a uniform policy with three levels would be best:

1. If you didn't have an opportunity to buy the ticket you wanted at your origin (e.g. your valid payment method isn't accepted, the machine doesn't sell the fare you want to buy - such as a rover, you want a Priv ticket, etc.), you can buy it onboard without any penalty. No details taken, PF, or any of that nonsense. But there should be a concerted effort to increase ticketing facilities, such that all stations at the very least have a card-accepting TVM (LO style so it sells tickets from other stations and rovers), with the easy-to-find facility to dispense Permits to Travel (if you can't use it for whatever reason).
2. If you did have an opportunity to buy the ticket you wanted at your origin, but there is no intent to avoid payment, or you say you boarded at a station which has a PTT machine but you didn't get one, you should, without exception, get a Penalty Fare. £50 min or 2x the appropriate fare (including Railcard/time discount).
3. If you have intent to avoid payment of the fare to such an extent that fraud can be proven (e.g. the recent case of tapping out, having travelled from well outside the contactless zone, or claiming a provably false origin station), fraud is prosecuted. If the evidence doesn't suffice to show fraud, but bullet point 2 is met, a Penalty Fare is issued (even after the fact).

It would be easy to advertise this as a kind of 1, 2, 3 scheme:
Couldn't buy a ticket? No problem.
Chancing it? Penalty Fare.
Fraudulent evasion? Court.

Some further changes which would need to be made: Byelaw 17/18 and RoRA abolished; all tickets to permit break of journey; all tickets can be excessed onboard to the appropriate route or time-based fare (including season tickets, TOC restricted tickets, concessionary passes and so on). And where there is no fare actually evaded, but just a case of forgetting a Railcard, travelling beyond the ticketed destination but to somewhere where the fare is the same, then no action is taken if the facts stack up.

I'm on the fence about whether the railway should be able to request name and address - I think they only ought to be able to do so in the case of an unresolved ticketing matter, i.e. where a Penalty Fare isn't paid in full on the spot, or where fraud is in question.

Unfortunately that's a wishlist bound for fantasy land...

 

[Bletchleyite]

That largely makes sense, though I think I'd do it differently for PFs.

£80, but reduced to £40 if paid promptly, increased to £120 if paid late. Possibly straight to £120 for a second offence in a 12 month rolling period (I believe Metrolink do something like this). Then the relevant walk-up fare (with any applicable discounts) on top. An appeal stops the clock.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

That largely makes sense, though I think I'd do it differently for PFs.

£80, but reduced to £40 if paid promptly, increased to £120 if paid late. Possibly straight to £120 for a second offence in a 12 month rolling period (I believe Metrolink do something like this). Then the relevant walk-up fare (with any applicable discounts) on top. An appeal stops the clock.

Whilst I get the rationale behind the increases/decreases, and it's somewhat similar to the civil penalty notices issued by councils for parking infringements, I think the system has to be simple enough that you can explain it on what is currently the size of a Penalty Fares warning poster (without resorting to lots of small print).

 

[Bletchleyite]

it's somewhat similar to the civil penalty notices issued by councils for parking infringements

That's precisely why it's at that level. Most train fares, other than the kind of long-distance routes where PFs are a poor fit anyway as there's plenty of time for the guard to get through and ensure everyone has coughed up, are of a similar magnitude to parking charges, and as such a penalty scheme of a similar magnitude to me makes sense.

People also already understand how appeals for these work and the clock and the likes. The fact that railway PFs are "pay and appeal" and parking ones are "payment constitutes acceptance of the offence" causes no end of issues with people declining PFs with entirely honourable intentions (well, no less honourable than the original failure to pay) but ending up in Court or with a far larger settlement.

Therefore I think there is a very strong case for PFs to follow exactly the same system as statutory (Council) parking penalties.

 

[Killingworth]

It's never going to be 'fair'.

Early morning commuting time. One station entrance. One TVM. Three trains due in 10 minutes. None for over an hour after that. A user wants to buy a long distance ticket and is unfamiliar with TVM. A debit card is rejected and process restarted. A guy wants to pick up his 25 split tickets!! Another leaves his card in the machine which closes down for 90 seconds to reboot. The patient queue gets longer. Those wanting later trains may get served first. No ticket bought. Get on train without.

How is the guard/conductor to know if the TVM was or wasn't working? How long before train departure should the passenger be there to guarantee buying ticket, 5 minutes, 10, 15, 20? How can they prove that?

It's a minefield to police.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Clearly that station justifies more than one TVM, possibly even as many as three or four.

 

[Killingworth]

Clearly that station justifies more than one TVM, possibly even as many as three or four.

No chance! However, we did get a new one that didn't like strong sunshine so didn't sell many tickets in June. Commuter trains are concentrated between 7.10 and 8.30. We usually get revenue protection people from about 7.00 to 10.00 on Monday, Wednesday and Fridays. It's better then, see below. However use of electronic tickets is increasing.

 

[sheff1]

Dore & Totley would be an an ideal location for a 'NS/Merseyrail' type combined shop/cafe/booking office ... but, again, no chance of that !

Do you know why the revenue people are not there on Tue & Thurs ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Dore & Totley would be an an ideal location for a 'NS/Merseyrail' type combined shop/cafe/booking office

From having used M-to-go shops, I find they are basically a really rubbish shop attached to an unsuitably laid out ticket office with excessive queues because people are also queueing to buy a sandwich. I would far rather a concession of either one of the coffee chains or a local shop like a Spar or Tesco Express plus a row of TVMs. They are probably also quite expensive to staff because a coffee concession or shop would have staff on the minimum wage, whereas skilled[1] ticket office staff cost quite a bit more but waste half their time selling cups of coffee[2].

They are a nice idea in principle but they really don't work very well.

[1] Yes, I know, Merseyrail.
[2] No tea, though.

 

[Killingworth]

Dore & Totley would be an an ideal location for a 'NS/Merseyrail' type combined shop/cafe/booking office ... but, again, no chance of that !

Do you know why the revenue people are not there on Tue & Thurs ?

They often target Dronfield on Tuesdays and Thursdays!

 

[sheff1]

They are a nice idea in principle but they really don't work very well.

Your experience is different to mine, but I have only used them in the evenings not at peak a.m. commuter time. I agree that a shop/cafe with an appropriate number of indoor TVMs might be a good solution.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Your experience is different to mine, but I have only used them in the evenings not at peak a.m. commuter time. I agree that a shop/cafe with an appropriate number of indoor TVMs might be a good solution.

There is one TVM in the one at Liverpool Central, and I note that quite a few people now seem to use that, me included if I happen to be there requiring a ticket.

 

[Tetchytyke]

My day job involves providing advice to people who've received local authority parking tickets and can't pay them. If you don't pay or appeal your PCN you get what is effectively a CCJ enforced through the Traffic Enforcement Centre (part of Northampton County Court, fact fans). If you don't pay that- and, unlike even Magistrates' Court fines, the Council don't have to accept offers of payment by instalment- then the bailiffs come calling, with their astronomical fees.

By the time that's all happened, your parking ticket will cost you £500+ to sort out.

Be careful what you wish for!

 

[Bletchleyite]

My day job involves providing advice to people who've received local authority parking tickets and can't pay them. If you don't pay or appeal your PCN you get what is effectively a CCJ enforced through the Traffic Enforcement Centre (part of Northampton County Court, fact fans). If you don't pay that- and, unlike even Magistrates' Court fines, the Council don't have to accept offers of payment by instalment- then the bailiffs come calling, with their astronomical fees.

By the time that's all happened, your parking ticket will cost you £500+ to sort out.

Be careful what you wish for!

Nasty though that is, it's better in every way than a RoRA prosecution when all you did was inadvertently travel on an out of date Railcard (something I did years ago for approximately 3 weeks before someone, fortunately in a booking office so in a position to renew on the spot, noticed - I'd have found a PF to be fair but a prosecution to be way over the top for an oversight like that - but it has happened).

 

[TurbostarFan]

I agree that the way ticketing irregularities are dealt with on the railways is problematic.

There are those who are clearly evading their fare. I wonder whether keeping the ability to prosecute for such cases might still be worth it, but it has to be balanced with the risk that any legislation that is kept for that purpose (e.g. RoRA) is still misused. Perhaps the solution would be for the railways to maintain the right to do private prosecutions, but only where it reaches the threshold of fraud or the equivalent of 'bilking'.

But for people who haven't shown any kind of intent to avoid payment, I agree that there ought to be standardisation as to the appropriate penalty imposed. At the moment, failing to use available ticketing facilities, but without any kind of intent to avoid payment (e.g. if you haven't left enough time to buy a ticket), is something that can be disposed of in far too many different ways, considering it is still the same offence. You might just be able to buy the ticket you want, including a Railcard or Off-Peak discount. You might just be made to pay the undiscounted Anytime fare. You might be given a Penalty Fare. You might be reported for Byelaws prosecution. Or you might be reported for RoRA prosecution, even though you didn't intent to avoid the fare.

I think that a uniform policy with three levels would be best:

1. If you didn't have an opportunity to buy the ticket you wanted at your origin (e.g. your valid payment method isn't accepted, the machine doesn't sell the fare you want to buy - such as a rover, you want a Priv ticket, etc.), you can buy it onboard without any penalty. No details taken, PF, or any of that nonsense. But there should be a concerted effort to increase ticketing facilities, such that all stations at the very least have a card-accepting TVM (LO style so it sells tickets from other stations and rovers), with the easy-to-find facility to dispense Permits to Travel (if you can't use it for whatever reason).
2. If you did have an opportunity to buy the ticket you wanted at your origin, but there is no intent to avoid payment, or you say you boarded at a station which has a PTT machine but you didn't get one, you should, without exception, get a Penalty Fare. £50 min or 2x the appropriate fare (including Railcard/time discount).
3. If you have intent to avoid payment of the fare to such an extent that fraud can be proven (e.g. the recent case of tapping out, having travelled from well outside the contactless zone, or claiming a provably false origin station), fraud is prosecuted. If the evidence doesn't suffice to show fraud, but bullet point 2 is met, a Penalty Fare is issued (even after the fact).

It would be easy to advertise this as a kind of 1, 2, 3 scheme:
Couldn't buy a ticket? No problem.
Chancing it? Penalty Fare.
Fraudulent evasion? Court.

Some further changes which would need to be made: Byelaw 17/18 and RoRA abolished; all tickets to permit break of journey; all tickets can be excessed onboard to the appropriate route or time-based fare (including season tickets, TOC restricted tickets, concessionary passes and so on). And where there is no fare actually evaded, but just a case of forgetting a Railcard, travelling beyond the ticketed destination but to somewhere where the fare is the same, then no action is taken if the facts stack up.

I'm on the fence about whether the railway should be able to request name and address - I think they only ought to be able to do so in the case of an unresolved ticketing matter, i.e. where a Penalty Fare isn't paid in full on the spot, or where fraud is in question.

Unfortunately that's a wishlist bound for fantasy land...

As for the railway having recourse to its own laws, I would agree with you on that. My view is similar to yours in that I believe that Bylaws 17 and 18 and the RoRA are outdated and on top of that a blunt instrument which needs to be reconsidered. I would personally abolish them if it was my decision.

I believe that the power to require a name and address is essential. Without it actually enforcing the law can be difficult or even impossible for persistent offenders. Even if a criminal prosecution isn't resorted to, civil remedies like an anti-social behaviour or trespass injunction and banning notices become impossible to issue unless you know who you are actually dealing with. This is especially the case in large cities like London, Birmingham or Manchester.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Nasty though that is, it's better in every way than a RoRA prosecution

I don't think it is that clear at all.

There are advantages to it being a civil penalty- it can go into a debt relief order, for instance, whereas criminal fines can't. There's also the whole not having a criminal conviction thing.

But my experience is that the Magistrates' Court are a damn sight easier to deal with than civil PCNs. Local authorities are difficult to negotiate with, though it is possible. You may as well pee into the wind as try and negotiate affordable repayments with TfL or Dart Charge.

Call me cynical, but I can't imagine the charming folks at Transport Investigations (who I mustn't slander) playing nicely. They'll be straight to the heavies at Bristow and Sutor (other bailiffs are available).

 

[TurbostarFan]

I don't think it is that clear at all.

There are advantages to it being a civil penalty- it can go into a debt relief order, for instance, whereas criminal fines can't. There's also the whole not having a criminal conviction thing.

But my experience is that the Magistrates' Court are a damn sight easier to deal with than civil PCNs. Local authorities are difficult to negotiate with, though it is possible. You may as well pee into the wind as try and negotiate affordable repayments with TfL or Dart Charge.

Call me cynical, but I can't imagine the charming folks at Transport Investigations (who I mustn't slander) playing nicely. They'll be straight to the heavies at Bristow and Sutor (other bailiffs are available).

I think they should not make collection of civil debts within the context of penalty fares and UFNs easier for the TOC for that reason. That would be a step in the wrong direction IMO. If they can prosecute, they can sue in a civil court.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

If you did have an opportunity to buy the ticket you wanted at your origin, but there is no intent to avoid payment, or you say you boarded at a station which has a PTT machine but you didn't get one, you should, without exception, get a Penalty Fare. £50 min or 2x the appropriate fare (including Railcard/time discount).

I am not entirely convinced by the logic of this step.

As things stand (and I assume this would continue in this new world) you can't board a train without a valid ticket. And I further assume that all passengers know the rules.

The scenario here is that there is an opportunity to pay. But our passenger doesn't use that opportunity. As above, they know the rule about getting a ticket before you get the train. So it follows that their intent is to not pay at the right time. That, surely, is a deliberate action and so falls into the realm of prosecution.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The scenario here is that there is an opportunity to pay. But our passenger doesn't use that opportunity. As above, they know the rule about getting a ticket before you get the train. So it follows that their intent is to not pay at the right time. That, surely, is a deliberate action and so falls into the realm of prosecution.

No, what he's saying, and I'm inclined to agree, is that prosecution would only be used if there was actual fraud - i.e. seeking not to pay through deception.

There are various levels of that which could be used, from falsifying tickets to hiding in the bog, but walking past a TVM because you don't like using them, say, isn't that.

The Penalty Fare is an ideal mechanism to deal with casual evasion in my view - if you charge twice as much you only have to catch half the people plus a few, if you elevate it a bit more that reduces. And some TOCs already treat it that way - London Midland, for instance, used to just issue PFs for pretty much anything that didn't involve serious fraud e.g. ticket falsification. And having a penalty that exists solely for honest mistakes just stinks as an attitude, to be honest - have something proper to use it for or abolish it and just charge the fare to those you are sure have made an honest mistake.

 

[mallard]

I always get the distinct impression that the railways are still regulated as though it's still the early 19th century when police forces did not exist nationally. There's no reason, in this day and age, for "officers of the railway" to have pseudo-law-enforcement powers.

We don't have that for "officers of the bus company" or "officers of the airline" (sure, airline staff do have limited powers "in the air" where it's not possible to call upon actual law enforcement, but once on the ground any actual processing/prosecution of offenders is the responsibility of police/CPS).

Having the same commercial entity in charge of both selling tickets and enforcing the law around the use of said tickets creates an obvious conflict of interest, especially in PF areas (since issuing a PF costs virtually nothing, so there is nothing at risk if it's successfully appealed, unlike a prosecution where failure means the prosecutor bears at least their own costs). Personally, I'd like to see a system where the TOC never gets more than the owed ticket revenue from a prosecution or PF; any additional penalty would go to the running costs of the (independent) PF administrator or the court/independent prosecutor.

Additionally, there needs to be reasonable defences to railway prosecutions. It's ridiculous and unjust that someone who is a victim of crime (e.g. wallet containing ticket stolen) while travelling could themselves be prosecuted for failing to present a ticket or that a failure of the railway's own infrastructure (e.g. m-ticket app/server failure) can result in a successful prosecution. It's even possible that a passenger can board a train with a perfectly valid ticket, only for the train to change "identity" (due to disruption) mid-journey without notification and render them guilty of a criminal offence!

 

[TurbostarFan]

I always get the distinct impression that the railways are still regulated as though it's still the early 19th century when police forces did not exist nationally. There's no reason, in this day and age, for "officers of the railway" to have pseudo-law-enforcement powers.

We don't have that for "officers of the bus company" or "officers of the airline" (sure, airline staff do have limited powers "in the air" where it's not possible to call upon actual law enforcement, but once on the ground any actual processing/prosecution of offenders is the responsibility of police/CPS).

Having the same commercial entity in charge of both selling tickets and enforcing the law around the use of said tickets creates an obvious conflict of interest, especially in PF areas (since issuing a PF costs virtually nothing, so there is nothing at risk if it's successfully appealed, unlike a prosecution where failure means the prosecutor bears at least their own costs). Personally, I'd like to see a system where the TOC never gets more than the owed ticket revenue from a prosecution or PF; any additional penalty would go to the running costs of the (independent) PF administrator or the court/independent prosecutor.

Additionally, there needs to be reasonable defences to railway prosecutions. It's ridiculous and unjust that someone who is a victim of crime (e.g. wallet containing ticket stolen) while travelling could themselves be prosecuted for failing to present a ticket or that a failure of the railway's own infrastructure (e.g. m-ticket app/server failure) can result in a successful prosecution. It's even possible that a passenger can board a train with a perfectly valid ticket, only for the train to change "identity" (due to disruption) mid-journey without notification and render them guilty of a criminal offence!

Exactly! I personally think that the Police should be able to issue free train tickets in such circumstances and that a train which changes identity should retain both the new and old identity for ticketing purposes.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

No, what he's saying, and I'm inclined to agree, is that prosecution would only be used if there was actual fraud - i.e. seeking not to pay through deception.

There are various levels of that which could be used, from falsifying tickets to hiding in the bog, but walking past a TVM because you don't like using them, say, isn't that.

The Penalty Fare is an ideal mechanism to deal with casual evasion in my view - if you charge twice as much you only have to catch half the people plus a few, if you elevate it a bit more that reduces. And some TOCs already treat it that way - London Midland, for instance, used to just issue PFs for pretty much anything that didn't involve serious fraud e.g. ticket falsification. And having a penalty that exists solely for honest mistakes just stinks as an attitude, to be honest - have something proper to use it for or abolish it and just charge the fare to those you are sure have made an honest mistake.

- Thanks. I rather misunderstood your position.

But I don't think I am just refusing to admit that I am wrong when I say that I'm still not happy. This would seem to make 'pay when challenged' an entirely viable option for travellers: there is nothing (on your definition of fraud) to prevent a traveller routinely walking past a TVM, and paying the penalty fare once a fortnight (or whenever) as being a cheaper option than paying a full fare every day.

On a different point:

Additionally, there needs to be reasonable defences to railway prosecutions. It's ridiculous and unjust that someone who is a victim of crime (e.g. wallet containing ticket stolen) while travelling could themselves be prosecuted for failing to present a ticket or that a failure of the railway's own infrastructure (e.g. m-ticket app/server failure) can result in a successful prosecution. It's even possible that a passenger can board a train with a perfectly valid ticket, only for the train to change "identity" (due to disruption) mid-journey without notification and render them guilty of a criminal offence!

Are there any examples of successful prosecutions on these grounds? My expectation is that most prosecutors would decline to take such a case to court, and that any that did reach court would be thrown out by the magistrate.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

But I don't think I am just refusing to admit that I am wrong when I say that I'm still not happy. This would seem to make 'pay when challenged' an entirely viable option for travellers: there is nothing (on your definition of fraud) to prevent a traveller routinely walking past a TVM, and paying the penalty fare once a fortnight (or whenever) as being a cheaper option than paying a full fare every day.

Ticket inspections would need to be increased, such that all guards become Authorised Collectors and all guards are required to inspect tickets at all times (like the Glasgow suburban services). A limited amount of "pay when challenged" could still happen, but it would become less and less common, especially for shorter journeys, given the likelihood of receiving a Penalty Fare.

 

[TurbostarFan]

- Thanks. I rather misunderstood your position.

But I don't think I am just refusing to admit that I am wrong when I say that I'm still not happy. This would seem to make 'pay when challenged' an entirely viable option for travellers: there is nothing (on your definition of fraud) to prevent a traveller routinely walking past a TVM, and paying the penalty fare once a fortnight (or whenever) as being a cheaper option than paying a full fare every day.

On a different point:


Are there any examples of successful prosecutions on these grounds? My expectation is that most prosecutors would decline to take such a case to court, and that any that did reach court would be thrown out by the magistrate.

I'd imagine that they wouldn't be because the person would be technically guilty of the offence. However I would expect an absolute discharge to be imposed. In such a case the person could appeal to the Crown Court and to the High Court by way of case stated. It would be interesting to see the outcome of such an appeal although I would expect it to be dismissed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But I don't think I am just refusing to admit that I am wrong when I say that I'm still not happy. This would seem to make 'pay when challenged' an entirely viable option for travellers: there is nothing (on your definition of fraud) to prevent a traveller routinely walking past a TVM, and paying the penalty fare once a fortnight (or whenever) as being a cheaper option than paying a full fare every day.

The key to this is setting the PF level and inspection frequency such that there is no loss through people doing this, then stop worrying about it.

 

[mallard]

Are there any examples of successful prosecutions on these grounds? My expectation is that most prosecutors would decline to take such a case to court, and that any that did reach court would be thrown out by the magistrate.

While there probably haven't been (m)any prosecutions on cases like that, there will undoubtedly be people who have paid PFs, bought undiscounted Anytimes or paid settlements in situations like that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

While there probably haven't been (m)any prosecutions on cases like that, there will undoubtedly be people who have paid PFs, bought undiscounted Anytimes or paid settlements in situations like that.

Well, quite. The railway still basically demands money by menace in such situations with the strong leverage of a potential criminal record. Not everyone has the wherewithal to defend such cases through the appeals process.

That's the kind of thing I see as irresponsible use of RoRA and the Byelaws which leads to my view in favour of abolition.